This is the latest version of my list of biographies - what I have read and what I plan to read. Once again, You might notice the lack of women and people of color on here. I am working on it, though in some cases there just aren't great books out there.
Read
George Washington: I read His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph Ellis. It was fine, though I get the sense that Washington: A Life by Ron Chernow is more comprehensive.
John Adams: John Adams by David McCullough is an amazing book. Period.
Andrew Jackson: I read American Lion by John Meacham. It focuses on Jackson's presidency, so it isn't a full biography. I regret choosing this book though. It spent more time on gossip than important policy and refused to engage in much criticism of the Indian removal policy or any analysis of the national bank decision. How this book won the Pulitzer is beyond me. I should have read Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times by H.W. Brands.
Abraham Lincoln: Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin is everyone's favorite biography. But after reading the biography of William Seward, I feel I need a different perspective as well.
William Seward: I recently finished Seward: Lincoln's Indispensible Man by Walter Stahr. This was a father / son book club book and it was pretty good. The prose was sparse but not boring and it moved at a pretty good pace.
Ulyses S. Grant: I read H.W. Brands's new Grant biography The Man Who Saved the Union: Ulysses Grant in War and Peace. It was overall a fine book. It felt like American Experience in book form.
James Garfield: I don't think I can count Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Medicine and the Murder of a President by Candice Mallard as a biography. Then again, Garfield's presidency was so short, it's hard to see a reason for something much longer. Anyway, it was a good introduction and maybe someday I'll read Garfield by Allan Peskin or James A. Garfield (The American Presidents #20) by Ira Rutkow.
Woodrow Wilson: I read Woodrow Wilson: A Biography by John Milton Cooper, Jr. It was a decent biography - not too exciting but it served its purpose and seemed to be the best option available.
Franklin D. Roosevelt: I read Traitor to His Class* by H.W. Brands. It was a good biography. I didn't read No Ordinary Time by Doris Kearns Goodwin even though it is well-regarded because it was more about the home front during the war than an actual biography. There is also FDR by Jean Edward Smith for those who don't want to read Brands.
Harry Truman: I read Truman by David McCullough. It is a really good read and seems pretty fair. I have heard friends say that after they read this book, Truman was their new favorite president. I certainly don't feel that way. But I do respect him, which I didn't think was going to be the case going into it.
Malcolm X: I have read both The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told to Alex Haley and Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention by Manning Marable. I think everyone should read both. The Autobiography gives Malcolm's view (with some editing by Alex Haley) whereas Manning Marable's biography should be considered more objective and also adds a lot of historical context and analysis.
To Read
Thomas Jefferson: I don't know which book I will read about Thomas Jefferson, though to be honest, he is very low on my list of priorities. The two biographies I know about are Thomas Jefferson by RB Bernstein and American Sphinx by Joseph Ellis. Also, The Hemingses of Monticello by Annette Gordon-Reed (professor at New York Law School) won the Pulitzer Prize. I haven't read it, but have it on my list (and higher up than either of his biographies).
Alexander Hamilton: I definitely want to read Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow. It is very well regarded.
Benjamin Franklin: I think Benjamin Franklin: An American Life by Walter Isaacson is the better book because I have seen it more often. I like H.W. Brands, so I am sure his book (The First American) is fine.
Frederick Douglass: His autobiographies seem to be the best things to read on him. However, there are three. I cannot tell which one is the best, so I am going to read the latest of the three: The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass.
Grover Cleveland: He is not the most exciting president, but his two non-consecutive presidencies span 12 years, so he seems like a good person to read about to learn more about 1884-1897. There are no well-reviewed biographies, but Grover Cleveland by Henry Graff - part of the American Presidents Series seems to be as good as it gets.
William Jennings Bryan: In my quest to learn more about the time after Reconstruction but before World War I, I plan to read A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan, by Michael Kazin. Bryan was thrice the Democratic nominee for president.
Teddy Roosevelt: I generally avoid multi-volume biographies - time is too limited. So I won't read Edmund Morris's three volume set (The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, Theodore Rex, and Colonel Roosevelt) even though it seems to the best available. I have seen rumors that Doris Kearns Goodwin's next book will be about Teddy Roosevelt, so I will probably go with that one. But if it doesn't come out in time, I can always fall back on the prolific H.W. Brands and his single volume biography titled T.R. The Last Romantic.
Eleanor Roosevelt: It seems that Blanche Wiesen Cook's series is the best available. It currently stands at two volumes and goes through the first years of FDR's presidency and could easily run two more volumes. I wish there was something shorter.
Dwight D. Eisenhower: I plan to read Eisenhower in War and Peace by Jean Edward Smith by the end of the year. There is also apparently Eisenhower: Soldier and President by Stephen Ambrose, a one volume condensation or the full two volume work, though I had trouble finding that book.
John F. Kennedy: It seems that An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963 by Robert Dallek is the best out there. However, the 1960s and 1970s presidents won't get on my list until 2014 at the earliest.
Lyndon Johnson: Robert Caro's trilogy is the most comprehensive and contemporary. Caro is a great writer and is able to find all the good stories. However, the sheer size of it means I won't get to it for some time - if ever. Instead, I'll probably read Doris Kearns Goodwin's single volume. There is also Robert Dallek's two volume set though I can't imagine reading his two volume set when I could just bite the bullet and read Caro's three volume.
Richard Nixon: I recently learned about Nixonland: America's Second Civil War and the Divisive Legacy of Richard Nixon 1965-1972 by Rick Perlstein. I think that is the best book to learn about Nixon.
Ronald Reagan: Someday I will read President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime by Lou Cannon.
Monday, May 27, 2013
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Iran and Containment
There seems to be general agreement - among the right and the center-left - that we cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Iran is too dangerous and has said things that might imply that they would attack Israel. Therefore, if Iran gets too close to having a weapon, we'll have to attack. This all suggests that the general policy is that anyone that threatens a neighbor cannot have nuclear weapons.
The problem is that this isn't our policy across the board. In fact, in North Korea, we have let that country have a nuclear weapon. That isn't to say we haven't tried to prevent it. But we haven't made a blanket statement that we will attack if they get too close to having a weapon. That isn't our policy because it is clear if we attacked North Korea, they would attack South Korea.
In other words, there is a country that has made statements that are far more clear about a desire to attack their neighbor and yet has acquired a nuclear weapon. We have chosen containment in that example because attacking is too risky.
I wish the debate over Iran was more honest about what our general policy is. We have chosen containment in another situation and we could do the same with Iran. Especially since Iran's threats are much fewer and more opaque.
That doesn't mean we should choose containment in all examples. Just that the debate should be clear that we can and we have when the situation warranted it. We might decide that the risk of attacking Iran isn't that great - threats to block the Straight of Hormuz are weak, threats to destabilize Iraq are weak, that their military is weak. But it should be a clear decision based on risks of each choice, instead of starting from a place where containment is unthinkable.
This also makes me think about the choice to invade Iraq. I was talking with a conservative years after the invasion - after it had gone bad - and asked if they still supported it. I also made the point that Saddam Hussein wasn't the biggest supporter of terrorism (if he was a supporter at all, which I think he was not) nor was he the worst dictator in how he treated his own people. If you were looking to attack a sponsor of terrorism, you might have looked to Iran, Syria, or better yet Saudi Arabia. If you were looking to topple a terrible dictator, you might have looked in the Sudan, Egypt, or better yet Saudi Arabia.
My conservative friend's response was that Iraq was low hanging fruit. That Saddam was a bad dictator and was somewhat dangerous but was easy to topple. He might not have been the worst, but he might have been the easiest. I think it is clear now that the fruit was harder to reach than originally thought. But worse, that wasn't what the Bush administration said. They said Saddam was dangerous - the most dangerous person. He wasn't. If it was low handing fruit, they should have made that argument - and seen whether the American people would support a major invasion to take out someone that isn't as dangerous as some other leaders.
My point with this whole diversion is that too often the arguments made are not objectively true. And that is clear by looking at other examples. But they make these arguments because if they leave room for an alternative, they might find they aren't allowed to take the course they want.
The problem is that this isn't our policy across the board. In fact, in North Korea, we have let that country have a nuclear weapon. That isn't to say we haven't tried to prevent it. But we haven't made a blanket statement that we will attack if they get too close to having a weapon. That isn't our policy because it is clear if we attacked North Korea, they would attack South Korea.
In other words, there is a country that has made statements that are far more clear about a desire to attack their neighbor and yet has acquired a nuclear weapon. We have chosen containment in that example because attacking is too risky.
I wish the debate over Iran was more honest about what our general policy is. We have chosen containment in another situation and we could do the same with Iran. Especially since Iran's threats are much fewer and more opaque.
That doesn't mean we should choose containment in all examples. Just that the debate should be clear that we can and we have when the situation warranted it. We might decide that the risk of attacking Iran isn't that great - threats to block the Straight of Hormuz are weak, threats to destabilize Iraq are weak, that their military is weak. But it should be a clear decision based on risks of each choice, instead of starting from a place where containment is unthinkable.
This also makes me think about the choice to invade Iraq. I was talking with a conservative years after the invasion - after it had gone bad - and asked if they still supported it. I also made the point that Saddam Hussein wasn't the biggest supporter of terrorism (if he was a supporter at all, which I think he was not) nor was he the worst dictator in how he treated his own people. If you were looking to attack a sponsor of terrorism, you might have looked to Iran, Syria, or better yet Saudi Arabia. If you were looking to topple a terrible dictator, you might have looked in the Sudan, Egypt, or better yet Saudi Arabia.
My conservative friend's response was that Iraq was low hanging fruit. That Saddam was a bad dictator and was somewhat dangerous but was easy to topple. He might not have been the worst, but he might have been the easiest. I think it is clear now that the fruit was harder to reach than originally thought. But worse, that wasn't what the Bush administration said. They said Saddam was dangerous - the most dangerous person. He wasn't. If it was low handing fruit, they should have made that argument - and seen whether the American people would support a major invasion to take out someone that isn't as dangerous as some other leaders.
My point with this whole diversion is that too often the arguments made are not objectively true. And that is clear by looking at other examples. But they make these arguments because if they leave room for an alternative, they might find they aren't allowed to take the course they want.
Friday, April 26, 2013
The W. Bush Library
With the opening of the George W. Bush presidential library at Southern Methodist University (why not Harvard or Yale - where he actually attended?), there is more rethinking of his legacy. Ezra Klein and Jonathan Chait have different takes. And I will add my own.
To me, there are three questions to think about as we reflect on George W. Bush: One, was he smart (this is perhaps the least interesting). Two, was he a good president? And three should our opinion of him be changing with time?
Klein and Chait come to very different conclusions about whether George W. Bush was smart. I tend to side with Chait on this one - President Bush is not very smart. He certainly isn't smarter than Ezra Klein and I don't think he is smarter than me. I will believe that he is smarter than he comes across in public, but that is a low bar.
Having said that, I don't think he was so dumb that he was incompetent. The decisions he made were proposed to him or supported by people that are very smart. Which is why I think this question is ultimately not that interesting. His intelligence level isn't what caused bad policy. As Ezra Klein says, being smart doesn't mean you are wise. What is clear from the policies is that even the people in Bush's administration that I would consider smart were not wise.
The second question is whether Bush was a good president. The answer is still no. He invaded Iraq believing there were weapons of mass destruction, when if he'd given Hans Blix more time (months) he would have found there were no weapons. And by invading Iraq, he took his focus off of Afghanistan, which we are still trying to get out of. On top of that, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are considered democracies by Freedom House (see this great Wonkblog post on Bush Admin).
Even before the financial crash, which he helped along with increased financial deregulation, growth during his presidency was mediocre. And he grew the deficit by enacting tax cuts and spending increases (the wars but also Medicare Part D) without paying for them. No Child Left Behind increased federal spending on education (though it remains underfunded) and changed the dialogue on education policy, but at best it is imperfect.
So if he was a bad president, do we need to reconsider him now that we have over four years of distance? I unfortunately think the answer is yes. At the time, I couldn't imagine a worse president. Then the country met the Republican Party of 2010 and 2012. This party is much more conservative than President Bush, and some are far less intelligent (see Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and Herman Cain - Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are probably on par with Bush's dogmatism and lack of curiosity).
As I have said before, Compassionate Conservatism (the disingenuous title though it was) has given way to 47% and pledges to cut Medicaid and other safety net programs. And while I disagree with Bush increasing the deficit during good times, the GOP's obsession with balanced budgets even in a recession is crazy and dangerous. And while Bush was willing to support the bail out and fiscal stimulus, current Republicans don't even support monetary stimulus.
John Stewart said that George H.W. Bush looks better in retrospect because he is being compared to his son George W. Bush. He then jokes maybe George W. will look better if one of his children become president and invades the moon. But we don't have to wait that long. We've seen an even worse GOP; it is among us. So yes, we should reconsider George W. Bush and realize that as bad as he was, it can still be worse.
To me, there are three questions to think about as we reflect on George W. Bush: One, was he smart (this is perhaps the least interesting). Two, was he a good president? And three should our opinion of him be changing with time?
Klein and Chait come to very different conclusions about whether George W. Bush was smart. I tend to side with Chait on this one - President Bush is not very smart. He certainly isn't smarter than Ezra Klein and I don't think he is smarter than me. I will believe that he is smarter than he comes across in public, but that is a low bar.
Having said that, I don't think he was so dumb that he was incompetent. The decisions he made were proposed to him or supported by people that are very smart. Which is why I think this question is ultimately not that interesting. His intelligence level isn't what caused bad policy. As Ezra Klein says, being smart doesn't mean you are wise. What is clear from the policies is that even the people in Bush's administration that I would consider smart were not wise.
The second question is whether Bush was a good president. The answer is still no. He invaded Iraq believing there were weapons of mass destruction, when if he'd given Hans Blix more time (months) he would have found there were no weapons. And by invading Iraq, he took his focus off of Afghanistan, which we are still trying to get out of. On top of that, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are considered democracies by Freedom House (see this great Wonkblog post on Bush Admin).
Even before the financial crash, which he helped along with increased financial deregulation, growth during his presidency was mediocre. And he grew the deficit by enacting tax cuts and spending increases (the wars but also Medicare Part D) without paying for them. No Child Left Behind increased federal spending on education (though it remains underfunded) and changed the dialogue on education policy, but at best it is imperfect.
So if he was a bad president, do we need to reconsider him now that we have over four years of distance? I unfortunately think the answer is yes. At the time, I couldn't imagine a worse president. Then the country met the Republican Party of 2010 and 2012. This party is much more conservative than President Bush, and some are far less intelligent (see Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and Herman Cain - Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are probably on par with Bush's dogmatism and lack of curiosity).
As I have said before, Compassionate Conservatism (the disingenuous title though it was) has given way to 47% and pledges to cut Medicaid and other safety net programs. And while I disagree with Bush increasing the deficit during good times, the GOP's obsession with balanced budgets even in a recession is crazy and dangerous. And while Bush was willing to support the bail out and fiscal stimulus, current Republicans don't even support monetary stimulus.
John Stewart said that George H.W. Bush looks better in retrospect because he is being compared to his son George W. Bush. He then jokes maybe George W. will look better if one of his children become president and invades the moon. But we don't have to wait that long. We've seen an even worse GOP; it is among us. So yes, we should reconsider George W. Bush and realize that as bad as he was, it can still be worse.
Sunday, April 07, 2013
Bitcoin: My Simple Thoughts
Bitcoin is back in the news, and with each time in the news, it gets more notoriety. For the most part, this post is going to assume you know a little about it. If you want more info, you can start with this post at Wonkblog. But more or less, Bitcoin is a digital and anonymous currency with a predictable supply. In this post, I am going to analyze its short term situation and long term prospects, because I think they are very different issues.
Short Term. I am pretty convinced, along with almost everyone else, that Bitcoin is suffering from a bubble right now. It's value has been skyrocketing. This would be great if Bitcoin were an investment vehicle. But it is intended to be a currency. As long as its value increases like this, it can't function as a currency because most people are hoarding it knowing that its value is increasing faster than the cost of goods.
If it isn't a bubble and the value keeps rising, it won't be much use as a currency. If the bubble pops, that doesn't doom the currency though. If there is still value in using it as a currency, it's value may not completely go to zero with the bursting of the bubble. In other words, the bubble might pop, the investors will flee, and those that want the currency as a currency will remain. This is probably what the Bitcoin supporters really want.
Long Term. So let's say that happens - the bubble bursts and the value of the Bitcoin comes back to something more reasonable. The question then is whether it is a useful currency. The answer depends on what it would be used for.
Bitcoin has a number of unique features: the supply is predictable; it is cost-free (or friction-less); it is anonymous. Let's look at each one.
First, let's look at its cost free nature. I do think this is important, to some degree and might help it or a successor catch on. Most other ways of using money online costs money. There are banking fees and credit card fees and other transaction fees. There are no fees with Bitcoin. I think a lot of users like this.
Second - Bitcoin is anonymous. This appeals to the crypto-anarchists of the interweb, as well as anyone else looking to break the law for a price. I don't doubt that this is attractive. It is a way to buy drugs, for example. But it is the anarchism aspect that I don't understand. There are rules for society in the real world, and so there should be on the internet. So here, my problem is the philosophy, though I understand that my disagreements won't stop this from being an attractive part of the currency.
Last is the predictable supply. This aspect goes along with the gold-bug leanings (ie people that want the dollar and other currencies on the gold standard) of some on the internet. Generally, I agree with all of modern economics that the gold standard is bad policy for any country's currency. To have the most stable economy, a nation needs a national bank to regulate and change the money supply. And just look at our history - the economy was far more stable and with fewer and less severe recessions since coming off the gold standard. Even Milton Friedman agreed; in fact his thesis was that the Great Depression should be blamed on poor management of the money supply and not a lack of stimulus spending.
Having said that, if Bitcoin is not a national currency, I don't know what harm having a predictable supply will cause - at least to the economy generally. There might be more ups and downs with the value of the currency. There might be times when it is not an effective currency because of hoarding. But as long as that only affects those who choose to use it and not any national economy - ie as long as it isn't widely used enough to crash an economy - I don't really care.
That also means though that the success or failure of Bitcoin doesn't really say much about the success of currencies with limited supplies that are not controlled by a national bank. Or rather, I can see Bitcoin succeeding without it being a positive lesson for the gold standard. But I can also see it failing because of its limited supply. It can also fail for other reasons. If it fails, we'll just have to analyze why.
There is one final issue, which is related to the supply issue, and that is trust. Some people don't trust national banks or private banks. Instead, they trust this software, which is open source. I am not one of those people. I trust our national bank and I trust our private banks (mostly). We have deposit insurance, and I know that our national bank's mission is to ensure a stable economy. I also don't trust the software, mostly because like most people I don't fully understand it. But there are some who are the opposite, who understand the software but don't trust (and maybe don't understand) our banks. In which case, Bitcoin is great for them. But I think they are wrong. So long as both options are available, everyone is happy.
Short Term. I am pretty convinced, along with almost everyone else, that Bitcoin is suffering from a bubble right now. It's value has been skyrocketing. This would be great if Bitcoin were an investment vehicle. But it is intended to be a currency. As long as its value increases like this, it can't function as a currency because most people are hoarding it knowing that its value is increasing faster than the cost of goods.
If it isn't a bubble and the value keeps rising, it won't be much use as a currency. If the bubble pops, that doesn't doom the currency though. If there is still value in using it as a currency, it's value may not completely go to zero with the bursting of the bubble. In other words, the bubble might pop, the investors will flee, and those that want the currency as a currency will remain. This is probably what the Bitcoin supporters really want.
Long Term. So let's say that happens - the bubble bursts and the value of the Bitcoin comes back to something more reasonable. The question then is whether it is a useful currency. The answer depends on what it would be used for.
Bitcoin has a number of unique features: the supply is predictable; it is cost-free (or friction-less); it is anonymous. Let's look at each one.
First, let's look at its cost free nature. I do think this is important, to some degree and might help it or a successor catch on. Most other ways of using money online costs money. There are banking fees and credit card fees and other transaction fees. There are no fees with Bitcoin. I think a lot of users like this.
Second - Bitcoin is anonymous. This appeals to the crypto-anarchists of the interweb, as well as anyone else looking to break the law for a price. I don't doubt that this is attractive. It is a way to buy drugs, for example. But it is the anarchism aspect that I don't understand. There are rules for society in the real world, and so there should be on the internet. So here, my problem is the philosophy, though I understand that my disagreements won't stop this from being an attractive part of the currency.
Last is the predictable supply. This aspect goes along with the gold-bug leanings (ie people that want the dollar and other currencies on the gold standard) of some on the internet. Generally, I agree with all of modern economics that the gold standard is bad policy for any country's currency. To have the most stable economy, a nation needs a national bank to regulate and change the money supply. And just look at our history - the economy was far more stable and with fewer and less severe recessions since coming off the gold standard. Even Milton Friedman agreed; in fact his thesis was that the Great Depression should be blamed on poor management of the money supply and not a lack of stimulus spending.
Having said that, if Bitcoin is not a national currency, I don't know what harm having a predictable supply will cause - at least to the economy generally. There might be more ups and downs with the value of the currency. There might be times when it is not an effective currency because of hoarding. But as long as that only affects those who choose to use it and not any national economy - ie as long as it isn't widely used enough to crash an economy - I don't really care.
That also means though that the success or failure of Bitcoin doesn't really say much about the success of currencies with limited supplies that are not controlled by a national bank. Or rather, I can see Bitcoin succeeding without it being a positive lesson for the gold standard. But I can also see it failing because of its limited supply. It can also fail for other reasons. If it fails, we'll just have to analyze why.
There is one final issue, which is related to the supply issue, and that is trust. Some people don't trust national banks or private banks. Instead, they trust this software, which is open source. I am not one of those people. I trust our national bank and I trust our private banks (mostly). We have deposit insurance, and I know that our national bank's mission is to ensure a stable economy. I also don't trust the software, mostly because like most people I don't fully understand it. But there are some who are the opposite, who understand the software but don't trust (and maybe don't understand) our banks. In which case, Bitcoin is great for them. But I think they are wrong. So long as both options are available, everyone is happy.
Saturday, April 06, 2013
Support All Families
Ross Douthat tweeted this week that liberals are unlikely to support two-parent families once they (we) win the battle on marriage equality. My response was, why should we only support two-parent families - why not support all families?
For a while, I passively agreed with that sentiment. Children are more successful in two-parent settings, so we should naturally support that setting. I didn't go as far as others, who thought we should intervene a little more to encourage a woman to marry the father of her child. But otherwise, I couldn't disagree with supporting all marriage.
But it was that tweet that got me thinking. Yes, I know the literature shows that children in two-parent families have better outcomes. But doesn't that actually mean that we should do a better job of supporting single-parent families?
Those that hold the biblical and judgmental view that single-parent families are immoral will of course want policy to push people into two-parent situations. And they does this without understanding or respecting that the otherwise single parent might have good reasons to stay away from a marriage.
But if you take away the judgment, if you accept that many different family arrangements are acceptable, then the obvious answer is to support single-family parents more. Anyone who is a parent in a dual parent household knows how hard it is to be a parent even in the two-parent situation. And those of us that are in two-parent situations can imagine - to some degree - how hard it would be if we were doing this alone. And knowing how hard it is, we should then know that we need to help those that are single-parents.
I think my main disagreement with Douthat and others that share his view is on whether there is one right way to live a life. Or that there is an easy way to lead the right life. Their view is that two-parent families are the right way, and it isn't hard to find a partner and stay together. I think that life is complicated, people make decisions, often the right decisions, and so doing end up in different situations.
And there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with two same-sex individuals being in love and wanting to spend their lives together - with children or without. There is nothing wrong with a single-parent wanting to raise a family. And there is nothing wrong with a two-parent household not wanting to get married but still staying together. There are lots of different and perfectly acceptable ways to live a life.
So I don't think we need to "support marriage". I think we need to support people so that everyone can have a rich and fulfilling life. And so that all children can have a minimum level of support and opportunities to be successful.
For a while, I passively agreed with that sentiment. Children are more successful in two-parent settings, so we should naturally support that setting. I didn't go as far as others, who thought we should intervene a little more to encourage a woman to marry the father of her child. But otherwise, I couldn't disagree with supporting all marriage.
But it was that tweet that got me thinking. Yes, I know the literature shows that children in two-parent families have better outcomes. But doesn't that actually mean that we should do a better job of supporting single-parent families?
Those that hold the biblical and judgmental view that single-parent families are immoral will of course want policy to push people into two-parent situations. And they does this without understanding or respecting that the otherwise single parent might have good reasons to stay away from a marriage.
But if you take away the judgment, if you accept that many different family arrangements are acceptable, then the obvious answer is to support single-family parents more. Anyone who is a parent in a dual parent household knows how hard it is to be a parent even in the two-parent situation. And those of us that are in two-parent situations can imagine - to some degree - how hard it would be if we were doing this alone. And knowing how hard it is, we should then know that we need to help those that are single-parents.
I think my main disagreement with Douthat and others that share his view is on whether there is one right way to live a life. Or that there is an easy way to lead the right life. Their view is that two-parent families are the right way, and it isn't hard to find a partner and stay together. I think that life is complicated, people make decisions, often the right decisions, and so doing end up in different situations.
And there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with two same-sex individuals being in love and wanting to spend their lives together - with children or without. There is nothing wrong with a single-parent wanting to raise a family. And there is nothing wrong with a two-parent household not wanting to get married but still staying together. There are lots of different and perfectly acceptable ways to live a life.
So I don't think we need to "support marriage". I think we need to support people so that everyone can have a rich and fulfilling life. And so that all children can have a minimum level of support and opportunities to be successful.
Saturday, March 09, 2013
On Partisanship and Drones
This week, Rand Paul staged a talking filibuster over the nomination of John Brennan to be the head of the CIA. There are two things I want to say about this episode.
First, I went from being impressed with Rand Paul to being disappointed with him. I am glad he used the filibuster to bring attention to an important issue. I was let down however when he ended it and declared victory after the Obama administration said they cannot kill Americans on American soil with a drone.
Rand Paul went after the most extreme aspect of what seems to be a clearly illegal policy. The Obama administration claims it can kill anyone, including American citizens, with a drone, away from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, with no due process outside of Obama making the decision, and using criteria that strain at least or more likely violate the authorizing legislation.
That the Obama administration, through AG Eric Holder (of whom I have no respect for anymore), at first claimed that authority on American soil and then backed away from that, does not address the fact they still claim the power everywhere else in the world. This is something libertarians and progressives who care about civil liberties should be appalled by. So while Paul's fillibuster brought some attention, it did not go far enough and is not much of a victory.
Second, the filibuster showed the power of partisanship, whereby people make decisions based not on policy but what team they are on. In this case, the one exception here in my mind is Rand Paul. I believe he would have done the same thing had this been a Republican president. I hope I am not wrong.
But throughout the filibuster, there were 13 Republicans and only 1 Democrat supporting Paul's filibuster on an issue of civil liberties. Had this been a Republican president, there would have been 40 Democrats and 1 Republican. In other words, I think both parties were following partisanship. I think many of the Republicans that joined Paul would not have confronted a Republican president (unless there are in fact 12 libertarian senators). And I know all those silent Democrats would not have been silent.
The New York Review of Books had an article about the War of 1812 declaring that it was not fought over British interning American sailors but was instead America's first partisan war, whereby supporters of Madison supported the war only because they were in Madison's party. (Just so you know this isn't the only alternative interpretation, James Loewen, author of Lies My Teacher Told Me, argues the war was really over subjugating the native American population.)
Let me be clear, I am not writing this to oppose political parties. The parties are supposed to be organizations of like-minded individuals with similar goals for government and society. The problem arises when people support the party even when it is promoting policies that contradict the ideas of the party. When this happens, people are supporting policies that are not in line with their ideals (which is always bad) for the sole purpose of protecting the party or its leaders.
First, I went from being impressed with Rand Paul to being disappointed with him. I am glad he used the filibuster to bring attention to an important issue. I was let down however when he ended it and declared victory after the Obama administration said they cannot kill Americans on American soil with a drone.
Rand Paul went after the most extreme aspect of what seems to be a clearly illegal policy. The Obama administration claims it can kill anyone, including American citizens, with a drone, away from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, with no due process outside of Obama making the decision, and using criteria that strain at least or more likely violate the authorizing legislation.
That the Obama administration, through AG Eric Holder (of whom I have no respect for anymore), at first claimed that authority on American soil and then backed away from that, does not address the fact they still claim the power everywhere else in the world. This is something libertarians and progressives who care about civil liberties should be appalled by. So while Paul's fillibuster brought some attention, it did not go far enough and is not much of a victory.
Second, the filibuster showed the power of partisanship, whereby people make decisions based not on policy but what team they are on. In this case, the one exception here in my mind is Rand Paul. I believe he would have done the same thing had this been a Republican president. I hope I am not wrong.
But throughout the filibuster, there were 13 Republicans and only 1 Democrat supporting Paul's filibuster on an issue of civil liberties. Had this been a Republican president, there would have been 40 Democrats and 1 Republican. In other words, I think both parties were following partisanship. I think many of the Republicans that joined Paul would not have confronted a Republican president (unless there are in fact 12 libertarian senators). And I know all those silent Democrats would not have been silent.
The New York Review of Books had an article about the War of 1812 declaring that it was not fought over British interning American sailors but was instead America's first partisan war, whereby supporters of Madison supported the war only because they were in Madison's party. (Just so you know this isn't the only alternative interpretation, James Loewen, author of Lies My Teacher Told Me, argues the war was really over subjugating the native American population.)
Let me be clear, I am not writing this to oppose political parties. The parties are supposed to be organizations of like-minded individuals with similar goals for government and society. The problem arises when people support the party even when it is promoting policies that contradict the ideas of the party. When this happens, people are supporting policies that are not in line with their ideals (which is always bad) for the sole purpose of protecting the party or its leaders.
Wednesday, March 06, 2013
On Drones
I know I haven’t posted in a while, but I feel the overwhelming need to write about drones. This latest article in the Huffington Post, where Holder apparently says the US has the authority to kill an American citizen in the US with a drone, has put me over the top. To summarize, Obama’s policies on drones represent some of the same abuses and lack of values as the Bush administration. And in some ways, the policies and actions are actually worse.
First, let me explain how they are similar. The worst policies of the Bush administration used absurd logic in legal memos to approve things that obviously contradict the spirit and intent of the laws. The torture memo is the prime example. To define, in absurd legal logic, that all treatment short of organ failure is not torture defies common sense and legal reasoning. The way the law works, the legal argument was plausible enough for Bush’s lawyers to write it and endorse it. But everyone could see how absurd it was.
Barack Obama is doing the same thing with drones. To say that he has the authority to kill an American citizen, away from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, when the people are not part of Al Qaeda and are not planning immediate attacks, contradicts common sense and the Constitution.
The 5th Amendment says the government cannot deprive someone of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Obama says that what he is doing - without any involvement of the judicial or legislative branches - is due process. Someone on Twitter interpreted the statement thusly: Due process is the process that we do.
Further, President Obama says he has this authority when individuals are planning imminent attacks on the US, but imminent attack is re-defined to mean not at all imminent and in fact not necessarily planning an actual specific attack.
You can argue that individuals that are at war with the US can be killed by the US without due process. However, the president is using this authority to kill individuals that are not on a battlefield, and in fact they are claiming this power exists on American soil, where I don’t think a war is happening.
What Obama is doing is using the same absurd legal logic to give himself the authority to do something that violates laws and our own values. Due process is a fundemental value of our constitutional system and the drone policies trample that.
But what makes Obama’s policy worse is that it exists for him and no one else. President Bush and especially Vice President Cheney believed, wrongly in my opinion, that the executive branch was excessively weakened following the Nixon presidency; they believed in a strong “unitary” executive. So the powers they were fighting for were not for them only, but for their successors as well.
President Obama on the other hand enjoys having a free hand executing individuals without due process, including American civilians away from battlefields. But he wants it to exist for him only. In the run-up to the election, in the fear that Romney might win, the administration prepared to release rules governing this supposed power to kill individuals. Once the election was over, that rush has slowed down to a crawl. So in his mind, it is right that he has this power, because he will use it responsibly. But we cannot trust Romeny to use it this well.
But this mentality, even more so, violates American values. We are a nation of laws, not of individuals. The laws that enable or restrict government need to apply to everyone. If it is a good idea for Obama to have the power, then it must be a good idea for Romney to as well.
Conversely, if it is not a good idea for Romney, than it isn’t a good idea for Obama to have the power. By walking away from the idea of a country of laws, not people, we walk away from a system of objective policies and restraining everyone even though some might not abuse a power where others would.
There is also a political problem with Obama's policies. As a Democrat implementing these policies, Obama is preventing any ability to reign in or stop these powers in the future. If this were a Republican claiming the ability to kill Americans on American soil, the left would be in a frothing rage. There are many on the left that are opposing this (and are frothing mad) - Glen Greenwald as well as the ACLU come to mind - but not as many as would be were it a Republican president claiming the same powers. And now, when a Republican becomes president and tries to use these same powers, the left as a whole, even with those that have opposed it, will lack any moral authority to oppose and stop it.
I am deeply disappointed in Presdient Obama. He says we can maintain our values while maintaining our security. We can, but his administration is not a model for that, no matter how many times he repeats that phrase. He had the ability to be that leader, to show that we could protect our values. But he chose to do the opposite - without unfortunately giving up the talking point.
First, let me explain how they are similar. The worst policies of the Bush administration used absurd logic in legal memos to approve things that obviously contradict the spirit and intent of the laws. The torture memo is the prime example. To define, in absurd legal logic, that all treatment short of organ failure is not torture defies common sense and legal reasoning. The way the law works, the legal argument was plausible enough for Bush’s lawyers to write it and endorse it. But everyone could see how absurd it was.
Barack Obama is doing the same thing with drones. To say that he has the authority to kill an American citizen, away from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, when the people are not part of Al Qaeda and are not planning immediate attacks, contradicts common sense and the Constitution.
The 5th Amendment says the government cannot deprive someone of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Obama says that what he is doing - without any involvement of the judicial or legislative branches - is due process. Someone on Twitter interpreted the statement thusly: Due process is the process that we do.
Further, President Obama says he has this authority when individuals are planning imminent attacks on the US, but imminent attack is re-defined to mean not at all imminent and in fact not necessarily planning an actual specific attack.
You can argue that individuals that are at war with the US can be killed by the US without due process. However, the president is using this authority to kill individuals that are not on a battlefield, and in fact they are claiming this power exists on American soil, where I don’t think a war is happening.
What Obama is doing is using the same absurd legal logic to give himself the authority to do something that violates laws and our own values. Due process is a fundemental value of our constitutional system and the drone policies trample that.
But what makes Obama’s policy worse is that it exists for him and no one else. President Bush and especially Vice President Cheney believed, wrongly in my opinion, that the executive branch was excessively weakened following the Nixon presidency; they believed in a strong “unitary” executive. So the powers they were fighting for were not for them only, but for their successors as well.
President Obama on the other hand enjoys having a free hand executing individuals without due process, including American civilians away from battlefields. But he wants it to exist for him only. In the run-up to the election, in the fear that Romney might win, the administration prepared to release rules governing this supposed power to kill individuals. Once the election was over, that rush has slowed down to a crawl. So in his mind, it is right that he has this power, because he will use it responsibly. But we cannot trust Romeny to use it this well.
But this mentality, even more so, violates American values. We are a nation of laws, not of individuals. The laws that enable or restrict government need to apply to everyone. If it is a good idea for Obama to have the power, then it must be a good idea for Romney to as well.
Conversely, if it is not a good idea for Romney, than it isn’t a good idea for Obama to have the power. By walking away from the idea of a country of laws, not people, we walk away from a system of objective policies and restraining everyone even though some might not abuse a power where others would.
There is also a political problem with Obama's policies. As a Democrat implementing these policies, Obama is preventing any ability to reign in or stop these powers in the future. If this were a Republican claiming the ability to kill Americans on American soil, the left would be in a frothing rage. There are many on the left that are opposing this (and are frothing mad) - Glen Greenwald as well as the ACLU come to mind - but not as many as would be were it a Republican president claiming the same powers. And now, when a Republican becomes president and tries to use these same powers, the left as a whole, even with those that have opposed it, will lack any moral authority to oppose and stop it.
I am deeply disappointed in Presdient Obama. He says we can maintain our values while maintaining our security. We can, but his administration is not a model for that, no matter how many times he repeats that phrase. He had the ability to be that leader, to show that we could protect our values. But he chose to do the opposite - without unfortunately giving up the talking point.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Big Mac and Donny Baseball
So Mark McGwire has been hired to be the hitting coach for the Los Angeles Dodgers, working with manager Don Mattingly. There are a couple minor things that make this cool that I want to talk about before the bigger issue of Mark McGwire's career.
First, I like that my childhood baseball hero is now working with my brother's childhood baseball hero. There is something fun about being an adult and seeing our childhood heroes also in new stages in life. And it is fun that these two former competitors - both first basemen in the American League during the late 1980s and early 1990s, now working together. And they both had such different hitting styles: Mattingly hit for average and McGwire hit for power.
Now both of these great hitters will be working together, maybe helping different players with different styles. As my brother said, if this team doesn't hit, it won't be the fault of the coaches. He also said though that what remains to be seen is whether they can coach the other side of the infield. That is funny and true.
But for McGwire, I am very happy that he is quietly focusing on this task, doing what he knows, maybe trying slowly to rebuild his reputation. It was always said that he knew the fundementals of hitting. (Note: I am not trying to argue that his knowledge of the fundamentals was more important in his hitting than the steroids. I imagine the two things worked well together.)
Everyone makes mistakes. I was - and still am - disappointed to learn that McGwire had used steroids. He has to live with that decision the rest of his life and I do believe that it pains him. Even small mistakes, much less really big ones - can haunt you all of your life. But we can also work to make up for our mistakes - to show that one mistake, or even one long series of mistakes, doesn't define us. He is doing that now, and I respect that.
Of course, he has a lot more work to do. And I hope someday he'll talk much more openly about it. But for now, this makes me happy.
First, I like that my childhood baseball hero is now working with my brother's childhood baseball hero. There is something fun about being an adult and seeing our childhood heroes also in new stages in life. And it is fun that these two former competitors - both first basemen in the American League during the late 1980s and early 1990s, now working together. And they both had such different hitting styles: Mattingly hit for average and McGwire hit for power.
Now both of these great hitters will be working together, maybe helping different players with different styles. As my brother said, if this team doesn't hit, it won't be the fault of the coaches. He also said though that what remains to be seen is whether they can coach the other side of the infield. That is funny and true.
But for McGwire, I am very happy that he is quietly focusing on this task, doing what he knows, maybe trying slowly to rebuild his reputation. It was always said that he knew the fundementals of hitting. (Note: I am not trying to argue that his knowledge of the fundamentals was more important in his hitting than the steroids. I imagine the two things worked well together.)
Everyone makes mistakes. I was - and still am - disappointed to learn that McGwire had used steroids. He has to live with that decision the rest of his life and I do believe that it pains him. Even small mistakes, much less really big ones - can haunt you all of your life. But we can also work to make up for our mistakes - to show that one mistake, or even one long series of mistakes, doesn't define us. He is doing that now, and I respect that.
Of course, he has a lot more work to do. And I hope someday he'll talk much more openly about it. But for now, this makes me happy.
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
What an Election!
Okay, the election results are pretty amazing. I am relived that President Obama was reelected (which should cement the Affordable Care Act among other good things). But I am excited about the other developments.
The following Democrats won their US Senate races: Jon Tester won in Montana; Heidi Heitkamp won in North Dakota. Tammy Baldwin will be the first openly gay or lesbian member of the US Senate and just as importantly another progressive Democrat; Tim Kaine won in Virginia - beating George Allen hopefully for the last time; Christopher Murphy beat Linda McMahon hopefully for the last time; and Elizabeth Warren won in Massachusetts.
I will admit that I am really happy about Warren - I think she will be great, loud, proud liberal voice. And I am really happy about Jon Tester. A good friend of mine works for him and says he is great - moderate but strong and principled. By the way - yesterday I wondered whether I would accept a trade of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans for moderates. Instead, we got liberal Democrats and moderate Democrats. Pretty great.
And maybe best of all, two states - Maine and Maryland passed marriage equality referendums and in Washington is still being tallied but supporters are in the lead. Amazing. Now nine states support same sex marriage rights: New York, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, plus the District of Columbia, and now Maryland and Maine. Washington state would make it 11.
The Republicans retained control of the House, so it wasn't all good news. Although in my hometown news, Democrat Sean Patrick Maloney defeated Republican Nan Hayworth.
In New York State news, the state senate might actually revert to the Democrats, which means the state would have a Democratic governor, assembly and senate. Which means progressive legislation would be much easier to pass.
So all in all, a pretty great night.
Update:
I forgot to mention that Joe Walsh lost, Alan West is losing but hasn't conceded, and Michelle Bachmann almost lost in a pretty conservative district.
The following Democrats won their US Senate races: Jon Tester won in Montana; Heidi Heitkamp won in North Dakota. Tammy Baldwin will be the first openly gay or lesbian member of the US Senate and just as importantly another progressive Democrat; Tim Kaine won in Virginia - beating George Allen hopefully for the last time; Christopher Murphy beat Linda McMahon hopefully for the last time; and Elizabeth Warren won in Massachusetts.
I will admit that I am really happy about Warren - I think she will be great, loud, proud liberal voice. And I am really happy about Jon Tester. A good friend of mine works for him and says he is great - moderate but strong and principled. By the way - yesterday I wondered whether I would accept a trade of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans for moderates. Instead, we got liberal Democrats and moderate Democrats. Pretty great.
And maybe best of all, two states - Maine and Maryland passed marriage equality referendums and in Washington is still being tallied but supporters are in the lead. Amazing. Now nine states support same sex marriage rights: New York, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, plus the District of Columbia, and now Maryland and Maine. Washington state would make it 11.
The Republicans retained control of the House, so it wasn't all good news. Although in my hometown news, Democrat Sean Patrick Maloney defeated Republican Nan Hayworth.
In New York State news, the state senate might actually revert to the Democrats, which means the state would have a Democratic governor, assembly and senate. Which means progressive legislation would be much easier to pass.
So all in all, a pretty great night.
Update:
I forgot to mention that Joe Walsh lost, Alan West is losing but hasn't conceded, and Michelle Bachmann almost lost in a pretty conservative district.
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
Nate Silver Backlash
Around the time of the hurricane, there was apparently a big discussion about Nate Silver. First there was a Politico blog post about whether if Nate Silver is wrong will he lose all his popularity. There was also comments by Joe Scarborough saying Nate Silver doesn't know what he is talking about.
The responses from Silver supporters were great. Ezra Klein said that reporters don't like Silver because he makes them feel innumerate. Then they criticize him and prove him right. David Roberts and Matt O'Brien had similarly good tweets.
And I want to add my two cents in defense of Silver. In doing so, I need to say that I find the people who attack him to show a lack of understanding of high school probability and intro statistics.
A commenter on twitter said they don't understand what a probability means to a one-off event. That is high school probability. Here is an example: flipping a coin twice and getting two heads has a 25% probability. That doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. It just means it is unlikely to happen.
Here is another example: if the weather forecast says there is a 75% chance of rain, I would recommend you bring an umbrella. It might not rain. That doesn't necessarily mean the forecast was wrong.
For a while, Nate Silver's blog had the probability of Obama winning as around 75% (now it is 90%). The same thing goes - according to Silver's model, Obama is likely to win.
The poltico story and others seemed to accuse Silver of being overly certain and yet hedging at the same time. Again, they are misunderstanding probability. Silver's model is not a prediction, it shows probability. And probabilities show the likelihood and the uncertainty of events. (After re-reading the Politico piece, it is amazing how stupid it is. Dylan Byers clearly doesn't understand probability at all.)
Romney winning doesn't necessarily mean that Silver was wrong. Silver's model says that based on the data he is using, he thinks there is a high chance Obama wins. But there is a small chance Romney wins. That small chance reflects how the data is unable to predict anything perfectly - that to a certain degree events are somewhat unpredictable.
But we should ask, and Silver will do this, what it does mean if Romney wins. Since Silver relies so heavily on polling, it could mean that the polling was wrong. Or it could mean that he was wrong to adjust the polling like he does. In other words, it could mean that his model was right or it could mean his model was wrong.
What makes Silver so popular is not his model so much but how he explains statistics. He explains to everyone what his assumptions are, and how he got to them. You can disagree with some of those assumptions and argue that his model should be different.
But that isn't what these critics are doing. They are saying he is wrong but from complete ignorance of what he is actually doing.
David Brooks has joined this chorus - and as much as I like Brooks on some issues, anything involving math and Brooks says it is witchcraft. He doesn't understand economics and so says it cannot predict anything. And he doesn't understand statistics and probability and so says it can't predict human behavior. With regard to statistics, history shows how much presidential election outcomes depend on fundamentals like the economy as well as how often outcomes are in line with long term polling averages.
All of this backlash is from media types that are threatened by Silver. Scarbarough, Brooks, and others have credibility not by evidence but by gut feelings and high level contacts. Their predictions are often wrong, but they don't lose credibility. That is because they are providing entertainment, not real news.
Silver's method asks us to calm down around so-called big events. The news media blows everything up to be game-changers. And they also say races are nail biters. Both provide entertainment and therefore viewers. Silver however says that the evidence shows these events rarely change polling and that the race isn't as close as the news wants to pretend. So he threatens their model. I don't read any polls or any poll coverage save for Nate Silver. If others did that, the news would have less viewers (and the world would have more informed people).
I'll finish by responding to the original question posed by the Politico story. If Romney wins, will I stop reading Nate Silver. The answer is no, because unlike political pundits who won't look at their predictions critically and ask why they were wrong, Silver will look at what happened and explain it. And that is why I read him, because he is smart and great at explaining what is really going on.
The responses from Silver supporters were great. Ezra Klein said that reporters don't like Silver because he makes them feel innumerate. Then they criticize him and prove him right. David Roberts and Matt O'Brien had similarly good tweets.
And I want to add my two cents in defense of Silver. In doing so, I need to say that I find the people who attack him to show a lack of understanding of high school probability and intro statistics.
A commenter on twitter said they don't understand what a probability means to a one-off event. That is high school probability. Here is an example: flipping a coin twice and getting two heads has a 25% probability. That doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. It just means it is unlikely to happen.
Here is another example: if the weather forecast says there is a 75% chance of rain, I would recommend you bring an umbrella. It might not rain. That doesn't necessarily mean the forecast was wrong.
For a while, Nate Silver's blog had the probability of Obama winning as around 75% (now it is 90%). The same thing goes - according to Silver's model, Obama is likely to win.
The poltico story and others seemed to accuse Silver of being overly certain and yet hedging at the same time. Again, they are misunderstanding probability. Silver's model is not a prediction, it shows probability. And probabilities show the likelihood and the uncertainty of events. (After re-reading the Politico piece, it is amazing how stupid it is. Dylan Byers clearly doesn't understand probability at all.)
Romney winning doesn't necessarily mean that Silver was wrong. Silver's model says that based on the data he is using, he thinks there is a high chance Obama wins. But there is a small chance Romney wins. That small chance reflects how the data is unable to predict anything perfectly - that to a certain degree events are somewhat unpredictable.
But we should ask, and Silver will do this, what it does mean if Romney wins. Since Silver relies so heavily on polling, it could mean that the polling was wrong. Or it could mean that he was wrong to adjust the polling like he does. In other words, it could mean that his model was right or it could mean his model was wrong.
What makes Silver so popular is not his model so much but how he explains statistics. He explains to everyone what his assumptions are, and how he got to them. You can disagree with some of those assumptions and argue that his model should be different.
But that isn't what these critics are doing. They are saying he is wrong but from complete ignorance of what he is actually doing.
David Brooks has joined this chorus - and as much as I like Brooks on some issues, anything involving math and Brooks says it is witchcraft. He doesn't understand economics and so says it cannot predict anything. And he doesn't understand statistics and probability and so says it can't predict human behavior. With regard to statistics, history shows how much presidential election outcomes depend on fundamentals like the economy as well as how often outcomes are in line with long term polling averages.
All of this backlash is from media types that are threatened by Silver. Scarbarough, Brooks, and others have credibility not by evidence but by gut feelings and high level contacts. Their predictions are often wrong, but they don't lose credibility. That is because they are providing entertainment, not real news.
Silver's method asks us to calm down around so-called big events. The news media blows everything up to be game-changers. And they also say races are nail biters. Both provide entertainment and therefore viewers. Silver however says that the evidence shows these events rarely change polling and that the race isn't as close as the news wants to pretend. So he threatens their model. I don't read any polls or any poll coverage save for Nate Silver. If others did that, the news would have less viewers (and the world would have more informed people).
I'll finish by responding to the original question posed by the Politico story. If Romney wins, will I stop reading Nate Silver. The answer is no, because unlike political pundits who won't look at their predictions critically and ask why they were wrong, Silver will look at what happened and explain it. And that is why I read him, because he is smart and great at explaining what is really going on.
All Election Prospects
So according to Nate Silver, not only should we expect Obama to win a second term (apparently the first time we've had three 2-term presidencies in a row since Jefferson, Madison, Monroe), but the Senate is expected to be controlled by the Democrats.
In fact, Silver probabilities suggest that Elizabeth Warren will win in Massachusetts, Linda McMahon will lose in Connecticut, and Tim Kaine will win in Virginia. These are all good things. Unfortunately, Nate Silver's model shows that Jon Tester is likely to lose in Montana and Heidi Heitkamp is expected to lose in North Dakota. That is really too bad. I've heard great things about both candidates.
Where the Democrats are winning and where they are losing shows more extreme candidates beating more moderate ones. Take Massachusetts. I actually kind of like Scott Brown. We need moderates. In a perfect world, he would be the Republican Senator from one of the really red states.
I realize though that I am being a bit hypocritical. I say we need moderates, like Jon Tester, but then I support Warren over Brown. I haven't fully resolved this. In Massachusetts, I think we need a liberal Democrat more than we need a moderate Republican. But if we were to have more moderates overall, we'd need to trade some liberal democrats for moderate Republicans (ie trade Warren for Tester) and vice versa. I don't know whether I would take that trade.
But instead of that hypothetical, we have a real world where moderates are losing and more extreme candidates are winning. That suggests we'll have more partisanship and gridlock ahead. The former isn't necessarily a bad thing. The later is.
As for the House, there was one model that suggested that Democrats can retake the majority. But other models that show a Republican-controlled House are more convincing. So I think that is the situation we'll be facing. We should expect a GOP House, a Democratic Senate, and President Obama with a second term.
In fact, Silver probabilities suggest that Elizabeth Warren will win in Massachusetts, Linda McMahon will lose in Connecticut, and Tim Kaine will win in Virginia. These are all good things. Unfortunately, Nate Silver's model shows that Jon Tester is likely to lose in Montana and Heidi Heitkamp is expected to lose in North Dakota. That is really too bad. I've heard great things about both candidates.
Where the Democrats are winning and where they are losing shows more extreme candidates beating more moderate ones. Take Massachusetts. I actually kind of like Scott Brown. We need moderates. In a perfect world, he would be the Republican Senator from one of the really red states.
I realize though that I am being a bit hypocritical. I say we need moderates, like Jon Tester, but then I support Warren over Brown. I haven't fully resolved this. In Massachusetts, I think we need a liberal Democrat more than we need a moderate Republican. But if we were to have more moderates overall, we'd need to trade some liberal democrats for moderate Republicans (ie trade Warren for Tester) and vice versa. I don't know whether I would take that trade.
But instead of that hypothetical, we have a real world where moderates are losing and more extreme candidates are winning. That suggests we'll have more partisanship and gridlock ahead. The former isn't necessarily a bad thing. The later is.
As for the House, there was one model that suggested that Democrats can retake the majority. But other models that show a Republican-controlled House are more convincing. So I think that is the situation we'll be facing. We should expect a GOP House, a Democratic Senate, and President Obama with a second term.
Election Day 2012
So today is election day. I had planned to write a post about how to watch the coverage and which states to pay attention to. But really, it is all about Ohio. Granted, if Obama loses Pennsylvania, that is a really bad sign. Same goes for if Romney loses Florida. But absent those scenarios, just pay attention to Ohio. And right now, Nate Silver's blog says Ohio and therefore the election are likely to go to Obama with 90.0% probability.
Instead though, I am going to reflect on this year versus four years ago. Four years ago, I was a relatively early Obama supporter. I started off favoring Bill Richardson but went to Obama once I realized he wasn't viable. And I became a really strong Obama supporter - so much so that I donated and volunteered for Obama.
Mitt Romney was right though, the best feeling I had about Obama was the day after the election. This post is kind of embarassing in retrospect (and I guess it is no surprise that I am now reading a lot of history again). When I am trying to be fair, I think that Obama has done a good enough job. He passed major health care reform, a big stimulus, prevented the recession from continuing, took major stands in favor of same sex couples, and passed a banking reform bill.
But he has also been disappointing on foreign policy, specifically on drone strikes (more in a future post), and he was weak on the economy and caved on budget issues. He has let Republicans set the agenda by focusing on a medium term issue - the budget - instead of the immediate issue of job. And then let them attack him for not doing enough on jobs.
In light of all of this, I did not donate nor did I volunteer this time. Maybe part of my lack of volunteering is due to my young son. But much more so, it is because I am not as inspired. Sure, we need to avoid a Romney presidency. But that isn't enough to get me out volunteering.
So here's hoping for an Obama win tonight. But I won't be filled with as much hope. Just much less dread.
Instead though, I am going to reflect on this year versus four years ago. Four years ago, I was a relatively early Obama supporter. I started off favoring Bill Richardson but went to Obama once I realized he wasn't viable. And I became a really strong Obama supporter - so much so that I donated and volunteered for Obama.
Mitt Romney was right though, the best feeling I had about Obama was the day after the election. This post is kind of embarassing in retrospect (and I guess it is no surprise that I am now reading a lot of history again). When I am trying to be fair, I think that Obama has done a good enough job. He passed major health care reform, a big stimulus, prevented the recession from continuing, took major stands in favor of same sex couples, and passed a banking reform bill.
But he has also been disappointing on foreign policy, specifically on drone strikes (more in a future post), and he was weak on the economy and caved on budget issues. He has let Republicans set the agenda by focusing on a medium term issue - the budget - instead of the immediate issue of job. And then let them attack him for not doing enough on jobs.
In light of all of this, I did not donate nor did I volunteer this time. Maybe part of my lack of volunteering is due to my young son. But much more so, it is because I am not as inspired. Sure, we need to avoid a Romney presidency. But that isn't enough to get me out volunteering.
So here's hoping for an Obama win tonight. But I won't be filled with as much hope. Just much less dread.
Star Wars Point Counterpoint
There was a post on Slate about the Star Wars and Disney deal that I want to respond to, since it disagrees with my post of a few days ago. The writer basically says that the Star Wars movies are for kids, that both the original and the prequels were made that way and suffer from the same faults that only adults see. And Disney is good at making movies for kids so the next movies will be good, too.
I completely disagree. The original movies were compelling and easy to understand. It was revolution against an empire. Any student of the American Revolution - or any other revolution - would get it. It was powerful and cruel despots against fledgling upstarts with heart. It was good humans against bad humans.
The prequels were the opposite. There were arcane trade wars that I don't understand (and neither does the author of the Slate piece) and clone wars that make less sense when being shown in the prequels than when mentioned in the originals. And it was humans against machines. Darth Maul was powerful and scary - if there were more like him, the movies might have been better. But the 4 light-saber robot was boring and unmoving - I felt nothing during the battle and nothing when he died - because he was a robot.
The author of the Slate piece is right that there are similarities - there is some bad acting (maybe Mark Hammil and definitely Hayden Christiansen, though the later I blame on the directing) and bad dialogue writing. And both have annoying characters (C3PO and Jar Jar). But the stories are much different. Only the originals have powerful and understandable themes. And only they stand up to adult scrutiny.
I completely disagree. The original movies were compelling and easy to understand. It was revolution against an empire. Any student of the American Revolution - or any other revolution - would get it. It was powerful and cruel despots against fledgling upstarts with heart. It was good humans against bad humans.
The prequels were the opposite. There were arcane trade wars that I don't understand (and neither does the author of the Slate piece) and clone wars that make less sense when being shown in the prequels than when mentioned in the originals. And it was humans against machines. Darth Maul was powerful and scary - if there were more like him, the movies might have been better. But the 4 light-saber robot was boring and unmoving - I felt nothing during the battle and nothing when he died - because he was a robot.
The author of the Slate piece is right that there are similarities - there is some bad acting (maybe Mark Hammil and definitely Hayden Christiansen, though the later I blame on the directing) and bad dialogue writing. And both have annoying characters (C3PO and Jar Jar). But the stories are much different. Only the originals have powerful and understandable themes. And only they stand up to adult scrutiny.
Sunday, November 04, 2012
Tuesday's Forecast: Phew - Obama a Favorite
All is right with the world of politics again. After the post-debate scare when Romney made up a lot of ground, Obama is back to being a solid favorite in Nate Silver's forecast. I admit, I was worried for a while there. (Not that I am overconfident now, it is still close enough for Romney to win, but much less likely.)
Having said that, I am really disappointed that one debate can move the polls so much, especially when relatively few people watched it, and even more so because the polls moved based on voters understanding of who won not what anyone said. That is depressing.
To be clear, that is the cynical interpretation of why Romney gained ground - that people changed their minds based not on what someone said, but how they said it - or actually how the press said they said it. But there are better and more plausible reasons why the polls shifted.
The polls movement many have been reversion to the mean - in other words the polls might have been moving back in line with the fundamentals. This makes sense if you think Romney was underperforming - maybe by scaring voters away with is 47 percent comments, and flawed convention including a crazy Clint Eastwood speech. So the debate might have shown some voters that would want to vote for Romney that he isn't that crazy or that incompetent.
Now that Obama is looking good again, I will say that there was a time when I was actually kind of curious about how Romney would be as a president. Mitt Romney is running a campaign that promises a lot with no specifics and avoids anything controversial: tax cuts, increased military spending, and general (but huge) cuts to discretionary spending.
But once he governs, he would have to figure out those details. For example, what discretionary spending would he gut to make his budget numbers add up? I think cuts of the magnitude he is proposing would be deeply unpopular. But if he doesn't do it, the GOP would be furious with him. It all just comes back to whether he would be extreme or moderate. Would he fight his party or be subservient to it? I think the later - and articles like this confirm my fear.
But the point is that someone who has so much avoided making any decisions and making anyone angry would have to finally do so. And I wonder how he wound handle that. Though I am not so curious that I want to see him win just to see what he would do.
Having said that, I am really disappointed that one debate can move the polls so much, especially when relatively few people watched it, and even more so because the polls moved based on voters understanding of who won not what anyone said. That is depressing.
To be clear, that is the cynical interpretation of why Romney gained ground - that people changed their minds based not on what someone said, but how they said it - or actually how the press said they said it. But there are better and more plausible reasons why the polls shifted.
The polls movement many have been reversion to the mean - in other words the polls might have been moving back in line with the fundamentals. This makes sense if you think Romney was underperforming - maybe by scaring voters away with is 47 percent comments, and flawed convention including a crazy Clint Eastwood speech. So the debate might have shown some voters that would want to vote for Romney that he isn't that crazy or that incompetent.
Now that Obama is looking good again, I will say that there was a time when I was actually kind of curious about how Romney would be as a president. Mitt Romney is running a campaign that promises a lot with no specifics and avoids anything controversial: tax cuts, increased military spending, and general (but huge) cuts to discretionary spending.
But once he governs, he would have to figure out those details. For example, what discretionary spending would he gut to make his budget numbers add up? I think cuts of the magnitude he is proposing would be deeply unpopular. But if he doesn't do it, the GOP would be furious with him. It all just comes back to whether he would be extreme or moderate. Would he fight his party or be subservient to it? I think the later - and articles like this confirm my fear.
But the point is that someone who has so much avoided making any decisions and making anyone angry would have to finally do so. And I wonder how he wound handle that. Though I am not so curious that I want to see him win just to see what he would do.
Star Wars Won the Super Bowl
In news that got lost in the Hurricane Sandy coverage, Disney bought Lucasfilm from George Lucas, including ILM and Skywalker Sound. And with it came news that Disney plans to bring new Star Wars movies to the screen.
I think this will be a good thing - at least for the movies. I loved the original movies (ie episodes IV, V, and VI) but didn't really like the prequels (episodes I, II, and III - Phantom Menace, etc). I think there was so much promise for the prequels but they just didn't deliver. And I think the main problem was George Lucas. He spent the intervening decades between the originals and the prequals as a business man and not as a writer / director.
Even at top form, I am not convinced Lucas was a great director. I have seen on interviews that he wasn't a very good director of actors. He often relied on good actors to coach themselves (Harrison Ford, Alec Guinness, Liam Neeson, Ewen McGregor as compared to Hayden Christensen and Samuel L. Jackson - the later of which was just a bad casting decision). In fact, the two best movies, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, were not directed by Lucas.
But I am convinced he was a good writer. Although his dialogue was sometimes pretty flat the stories were engaging and powerful. Remember, he wrote note just Star Wars but the stories for the Indiana Jones movies.
But writing and directing are both crafts that need to be practiced if you want to remain good at them. Believing that you can walk away from them, then come back without any problems is extreme hubris. Lucas decided to write and direct the prequels, and so they suffered. The prequels had not only bad acting but the story didn't hold up.
Disney can be really good at telling stories and I think will be able to create much better movies. At their best, Disney movies like Finding Nemo and Wall-i and Lion King and Monsters, Inc have really great stories.
However, Disney also has a history of creating really bad movies as well. As Seth MacFarlane (the Family Guy) said on Twitter:
I think this will be a good thing - at least for the movies. I loved the original movies (ie episodes IV, V, and VI) but didn't really like the prequels (episodes I, II, and III - Phantom Menace, etc). I think there was so much promise for the prequels but they just didn't deliver. And I think the main problem was George Lucas. He spent the intervening decades between the originals and the prequals as a business man and not as a writer / director.
Even at top form, I am not convinced Lucas was a great director. I have seen on interviews that he wasn't a very good director of actors. He often relied on good actors to coach themselves (Harrison Ford, Alec Guinness, Liam Neeson, Ewen McGregor as compared to Hayden Christensen and Samuel L. Jackson - the later of which was just a bad casting decision). In fact, the two best movies, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, were not directed by Lucas.
But I am convinced he was a good writer. Although his dialogue was sometimes pretty flat the stories were engaging and powerful. Remember, he wrote note just Star Wars but the stories for the Indiana Jones movies.
But writing and directing are both crafts that need to be practiced if you want to remain good at them. Believing that you can walk away from them, then come back without any problems is extreme hubris. Lucas decided to write and direct the prequels, and so they suffered. The prequels had not only bad acting but the story didn't hold up.
Disney can be really good at telling stories and I think will be able to create much better movies. At their best, Disney movies like Finding Nemo and Wall-i and Lion King and Monsters, Inc have really great stories.
However, Disney also has a history of creating really bad movies as well. As Seth MacFarlane (the Family Guy) said on Twitter:
Looking forward to seeing what exciting new Star Wars adventures will be cooked up by the dream factory that brought us Mars Needs Moms!I think it depends on how seriously Disney treats the movies, and I think they will treat the Star Wars movies well.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Book Report - Best Biographies: UPDATED
This is my attempt to put together a list of the best biographies on important people (as it turns out, mostly American Presidents). I haven't read all of the books on here. The one's I haven't read are included based on reputation. (The books I have read are noted with an asterisk.
I expect this to be a work in progress, so I will update it as I get comments and as things change. So you know, my idea of a definitive book is contemporary, well written, and if possible not insanely long. In many cases, I will go with authors that have a good reputation.
You'll also find that most of the people listed here have biographies on PBS's American Experience where you can get a good idea of their life in just a few hours.
You might notice the lack of women and people of color on here. This can partly be explained by the diminished role women and African-Americans were allowed to play for much of our history. Even considering that, I still don't feel good about it. The best I can say is that we'll eagerly await the definitive treatments of Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Indira Ghandi and Golda Meir - and Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. Dubois, Booker T. Washington, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Stokely Carmichael,Malcom X (see below), Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas among others.
George Washington
*His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph Ellis
Washington: A Life by Ron Chernow
I don't know which of these is better. I read the Ellis biography and found it to be pretty good. I get the feeling though that Chernow's is more comprehensive.
John Adams
*John Adams by David McCullough
This is an amazing book.
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson by RB Bernstein
American Sphinx by Joseph Ellis
Again, not sure which is the better book. Both are contemporary. Ellis is pretty popular and has written a lot on this time period. Also, The Hemingses of Monticello by Annette Gordon-Reed (professor at New York Law School) won the Pulitzer Prize. I haven't read it, but have it on my list.
Alexander Hamilton
Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow
This book is very well regarded. I really want to read this, but it keeps falling behind other priorities.
Benjamin Franklin
Benjamin Franklin: An American Life by Walter Isaacson
The First American by H.W. Brands
I don't know which is better, although I think I have seen Isaacson's book more often.
Andrew Jackson
American Lion* by John Meacham
Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times by H.W. Brands
I read Meacham's book because it was shorter. I regret that decision. The book spent more time on gossip than important policy and refused to engage in much criticism of the Indian Removal Policy or any analysis of the national bank decision. How this book won the Pulitzer is beyond me.
Abraham Lincoln
Team of Rivals* by Doris Kearns Goodwin
Great book. Can't wait for the movie.
Ulyses S. Grant
Jean Edward Smith's Grant seems well regarded and contemporary.
John Waugh's U.S. Grant seems to provide a good analysis of Grant's changed reputation.
And now the very prolific H.W. Brands has a Grant biography: The Man Who Saved the Union: Ulysses Grant in War and Peace. I don't know which I will read. I really like Brands' writing, but I might want to mix it up and give Smith a try.
Teddy Roosevelt
Edmund Morris has a three volume set (The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, Theodore Rex, and Colonel Roosevelt) that seems to the best available. The prolific H.W. Brands has a single volume biography titled T.R. The Last Romantic.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
No Ordinary Time by Doris Kearns Goodwin
Traitor to His Class* by H.W. Brands
FDR by Jean Edward Smith
I am reading Traitor by Brands. It is really good and includes a good amount on Eleanor's life as well. And since I am liking it so much, I will probably read the Teddy Roosevelt and maybe the Jackson biographies by Brands.
Eleanor Roosevelt
It seems that Blanche Wiesen Cook's series is the best available. It currently stands at two volumes and goes through the first years of FDR's presidency and could easily run two more volumes. I wish there was something shorter.
Harry Truman
Truman by David McCullough
McCullough's biography is by far the most highly regarded and probably helped change opinions on his presidency.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Eisenhower: Soldier and President by Stephen Ambrose
The one volume condensation or the full two volume work by Ambrose seems to be the best out there. There is also one by Jean Edward Smith - Eisenhower in War and Peace.
John F. Kennedy
An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963 by Robert Dallek
Malcolm X
Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention* by Manning Marable
The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told to Alex Haley*
I have read both books and I think everyone should read both. The Autobiography gives Malcolm's view (with some editing by Alex Haley) whereas Manning Marable's biography should be considered more objective and also adds a lot of historical context and analysis.
Lyndon Johnson
Robert Caro's trilogy is the most comprehensive and contemporary. Caro is a great writer and is able to find all the good stories. However, the sheer size of it probably scares most people away. Other options include Robert Dallek's two volume set and Doris Kearns Goodwin's single volume.
Richard Nixon - Barack Obama
For the modern presidents (Nixon - Obama) it is probably too early for really good biographies. There are American Experience series for Nixon, Carter, Reagan and George HW Bush. Woodward wrote two books on Clinton covering his first couple years in office and his reelection. There is also a book called Dead Center on Clinton's presidency, but it is more of a study of leadership (I read it in an undergrad political science class). Woodward also wrote three or four books on Bush's presidency as well as one so far on Obama (focusing on his administration's foreign policy debates).
* books I have read
I expect this to be a work in progress, so I will update it as I get comments and as things change. So you know, my idea of a definitive book is contemporary, well written, and if possible not insanely long. In many cases, I will go with authors that have a good reputation.
You'll also find that most of the people listed here have biographies on PBS's American Experience where you can get a good idea of their life in just a few hours.
You might notice the lack of women and people of color on here. This can partly be explained by the diminished role women and African-Americans were allowed to play for much of our history. Even considering that, I still don't feel good about it. The best I can say is that we'll eagerly await the definitive treatments of Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Indira Ghandi and Golda Meir - and Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. Dubois, Booker T. Washington, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Stokely Carmichael,
George Washington
*His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph Ellis
Washington: A Life by Ron Chernow
I don't know which of these is better. I read the Ellis biography and found it to be pretty good. I get the feeling though that Chernow's is more comprehensive.
John Adams
*John Adams by David McCullough
This is an amazing book.
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson by RB Bernstein
American Sphinx by Joseph Ellis
Again, not sure which is the better book. Both are contemporary. Ellis is pretty popular and has written a lot on this time period. Also, The Hemingses of Monticello by Annette Gordon-Reed (professor at New York Law School) won the Pulitzer Prize. I haven't read it, but have it on my list.
Alexander Hamilton
Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow
This book is very well regarded. I really want to read this, but it keeps falling behind other priorities.
Benjamin Franklin
Benjamin Franklin: An American Life by Walter Isaacson
The First American by H.W. Brands
I don't know which is better, although I think I have seen Isaacson's book more often.
Andrew Jackson
American Lion* by John Meacham
Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times by H.W. Brands
I read Meacham's book because it was shorter. I regret that decision. The book spent more time on gossip than important policy and refused to engage in much criticism of the Indian Removal Policy or any analysis of the national bank decision. How this book won the Pulitzer is beyond me.
Abraham Lincoln
Team of Rivals* by Doris Kearns Goodwin
Great book. Can't wait for the movie.
Ulyses S. Grant
Jean Edward Smith's Grant seems well regarded and contemporary.
John Waugh's U.S. Grant seems to provide a good analysis of Grant's changed reputation.
And now the very prolific H.W. Brands has a Grant biography: The Man Who Saved the Union: Ulysses Grant in War and Peace. I don't know which I will read. I really like Brands' writing, but I might want to mix it up and give Smith a try.
Teddy Roosevelt
Edmund Morris has a three volume set (The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, Theodore Rex, and Colonel Roosevelt) that seems to the best available. The prolific H.W. Brands has a single volume biography titled T.R. The Last Romantic.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
No Ordinary Time by Doris Kearns Goodwin
Traitor to His Class* by H.W. Brands
FDR by Jean Edward Smith
I am reading Traitor by Brands. It is really good and includes a good amount on Eleanor's life as well. And since I am liking it so much, I will probably read the Teddy Roosevelt and maybe the Jackson biographies by Brands.
Eleanor Roosevelt
It seems that Blanche Wiesen Cook's series is the best available. It currently stands at two volumes and goes through the first years of FDR's presidency and could easily run two more volumes. I wish there was something shorter.
Harry Truman
Truman by David McCullough
McCullough's biography is by far the most highly regarded and probably helped change opinions on his presidency.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Eisenhower: Soldier and President by Stephen Ambrose
The one volume condensation or the full two volume work by Ambrose seems to be the best out there. There is also one by Jean Edward Smith - Eisenhower in War and Peace.
John F. Kennedy
An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963 by Robert Dallek
Malcolm X
Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention* by Manning Marable
The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told to Alex Haley*
I have read both books and I think everyone should read both. The Autobiography gives Malcolm's view (with some editing by Alex Haley) whereas Manning Marable's biography should be considered more objective and also adds a lot of historical context and analysis.
Lyndon Johnson
Robert Caro's trilogy is the most comprehensive and contemporary. Caro is a great writer and is able to find all the good stories. However, the sheer size of it probably scares most people away. Other options include Robert Dallek's two volume set and Doris Kearns Goodwin's single volume.
Richard Nixon - Barack Obama
For the modern presidents (Nixon - Obama) it is probably too early for really good biographies. There are American Experience series for Nixon, Carter, Reagan and George HW Bush. Woodward wrote two books on Clinton covering his first couple years in office and his reelection. There is also a book called Dead Center on Clinton's presidency, but it is more of a study of leadership (I read it in an undergrad political science class). Woodward also wrote three or four books on Bush's presidency as well as one so far on Obama (focusing on his administration's foreign policy debates).
* books I have read
Friday, September 28, 2012
The 47 Percent
We are all very familiar with Romney's taped comments about how 47 percent of the country didn't pay income taxes and are therefore dependent on the system and don't take responsibility for their lives and think they are entitled to benefits. There has been a lot of discussion about this, some of it very good and smart. I want to add my thoughts here.
The first thing I should mention is how dishonest this comment is. A lot of others have pointed this out, but it bears repeating. First of all, that number is abnormally high due to the recession. It is usually 40% that don't pay income taxes. But of that 47 percent, 60 percent are working and paying taxes for social security and Medicare. Another 22 percent are retirees. About 8 percent are not paying any federal taxes because they are unemployed, students, or on disability.
So the 47 percent are not all unemployed people on welfare. Most are working or retired. But let's pretend that Romney had the right number - let's say he made the same comments about that 8 percent that are not paying any taxes and are not working. Or even better, let's say he had a number that included only those unemployed and ignored the students and people on disability. Romney's claim was that this small number of people can never be convinced to take responsibility for their lives.
If there is one thing that seems to be consistent for Romney over the years, it is disdain for the welfare. He claims he ran against Kennedy because he wanted to tell the world that Kennedy's policies created a permanent underclass - that by helping people with food stamps and cash assistance, we were actually hurting them.
There are so many things wrong with the statement and that outlook. Ezra Klein has a great post on how the poor actually are taking responsibility but are in fact drowning in responsibility. I completely agree with that post and couldn't have written it better. But I don't expect someone with Romney's history to know what Klein points out. But I do expect him to know how he lived his life.
Mitt Romney did not live his life, nor treat his children, in a way that suggests responsibility and success only comes through hardship and self-reliance. We know that Mitt Romney used his inheritance from his Dad to support himself through school. And good for him. He used free money to better himself and become self sufficient - free money that was way more than what people on welfare get.
Also, Mitt Romney isn't forcing his kids to become poor to teach them how to make it on their own. Instead, he has set up a family trust that has $100 million in it, and he made sure to avoid taxes as best he could. As David Brooks says in his great take down, middle - and upper I would add - class parents don't deny their kids to teach responsibility, they shower them with everything they can. The best schools, the best programs. They give them a comfortable life so that they are most likely to achieve success.
The point here is that there is a huge disconnect between how Romney found success and then how he treats his children, and how he thinks poor people should be treated to find success. He believes his kids will find success if they are showered with supports and provided with lots of money, and his Dad felt the same way. But he believes that the poor will only find success if they are starved of supports and money.
I don't think this disconnect is racism. I think it is forced on him by his conservative worldview. In order to believe that you care about people's success but also to believe that government is too generous, you need to believe that people need less support in order to succeed. And you believe this despite your own experience and behavior. In fact, this is the greatest trick conservatives play on the world: that the best way to help someone is to not help them at all. Then you can perceive yourself as generous and kind, but also feel like you should keep more of your money.
Unfortunately, it is wrong. The best way to help someone is to help them. Just like the best way to help your family is to help them. And you do that by providing them with lots of money.
The first thing I should mention is how dishonest this comment is. A lot of others have pointed this out, but it bears repeating. First of all, that number is abnormally high due to the recession. It is usually 40% that don't pay income taxes. But of that 47 percent, 60 percent are working and paying taxes for social security and Medicare. Another 22 percent are retirees. About 8 percent are not paying any federal taxes because they are unemployed, students, or on disability.
So the 47 percent are not all unemployed people on welfare. Most are working or retired. But let's pretend that Romney had the right number - let's say he made the same comments about that 8 percent that are not paying any taxes and are not working. Or even better, let's say he had a number that included only those unemployed and ignored the students and people on disability. Romney's claim was that this small number of people can never be convinced to take responsibility for their lives.
If there is one thing that seems to be consistent for Romney over the years, it is disdain for the welfare. He claims he ran against Kennedy because he wanted to tell the world that Kennedy's policies created a permanent underclass - that by helping people with food stamps and cash assistance, we were actually hurting them.
There are so many things wrong with the statement and that outlook. Ezra Klein has a great post on how the poor actually are taking responsibility but are in fact drowning in responsibility. I completely agree with that post and couldn't have written it better. But I don't expect someone with Romney's history to know what Klein points out. But I do expect him to know how he lived his life.
Mitt Romney did not live his life, nor treat his children, in a way that suggests responsibility and success only comes through hardship and self-reliance. We know that Mitt Romney used his inheritance from his Dad to support himself through school. And good for him. He used free money to better himself and become self sufficient - free money that was way more than what people on welfare get.
Also, Mitt Romney isn't forcing his kids to become poor to teach them how to make it on their own. Instead, he has set up a family trust that has $100 million in it, and he made sure to avoid taxes as best he could. As David Brooks says in his great take down, middle - and upper I would add - class parents don't deny their kids to teach responsibility, they shower them with everything they can. The best schools, the best programs. They give them a comfortable life so that they are most likely to achieve success.
The point here is that there is a huge disconnect between how Romney found success and then how he treats his children, and how he thinks poor people should be treated to find success. He believes his kids will find success if they are showered with supports and provided with lots of money, and his Dad felt the same way. But he believes that the poor will only find success if they are starved of supports and money.
I don't think this disconnect is racism. I think it is forced on him by his conservative worldview. In order to believe that you care about people's success but also to believe that government is too generous, you need to believe that people need less support in order to succeed. And you believe this despite your own experience and behavior. In fact, this is the greatest trick conservatives play on the world: that the best way to help someone is to not help them at all. Then you can perceive yourself as generous and kind, but also feel like you should keep more of your money.
Unfortunately, it is wrong. The best way to help someone is to help them. Just like the best way to help your family is to help them. And you do that by providing them with lots of money.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
QE3 (ie QEuntilitworks)
I have been meaning to write a quick post about this but haven't gotten the chance. I am really happy with the Federal Reserves decision to undertake QE3 - or what I am calling QEuntilitworks because of its open-ended asset purchases, which will continue until there is more progress in the economy. I am very glad the fed finally acted, and I am glad they are using some of their signaling power - basically saying they are willing to let inflation increase above what had previously been a 2% ceiling until things pick-up.
I want to say one more thing about this economic situation we are facing. In the more recent past, the debate among economists - between Friemdman's and Keynes's followers - was whether the best way to fight a recession was to use monetary (ie Federal Reserve) or fiscal (ie stimulus ie government spending) policy. And it seemed for a while that the monetarists were winning the argument (though even Republican presidents like George W. Bush implemented fiscal stimulus).
But during this crisis, Republicans have decided to go back in time and declare that we should do neither monetary nor fiscal policy - that we should let the recession play out. This puts them decades behind and much farther to the right of Milton Friedman.
But putting that aside, the debate over monetary versus fiscal policy has gotten really interesting during this recession. Although we have seen the bottom, we have also seen a slow recovery.
In other recessions, you might see Democrats push for fiscal stimulus while Republican push for monetary stimulus. And if Democrats can't get fiscal stimulus passed, at least monetary stimulus would be enacted by the Fed and the recovery would get going.
However, in this case (after Obama's large but not large enough stimulus failed to start a big recovery), the federal reserve felt it had run out of tools because they couldn't lower interest rates any further (the traditional tool to get growth going again). So Ben Bernake called on Congress to use fiscal stimulus - though in his vague I'm saying it, but not really, way.
So the Federal Reserve was stuck. They had two options. One: wait for Congress to agree to fiscal stimulus. Two: try riskier fed tools like more and more quantitative easing. They waited as long as they could and are now trying the risky option.
I do wish Bernake had been much more obvious in what he was calling for. The Federal Reserve is meant to be above politics so that it can act to help the economy even when politicians will not. But when they run out of tools, they should use their position as non-partisan actors and speak up clearly. He should have said, "The Federal Reserve is out of good, non-risky options. Therefore, we think Congress should pass and the president should sign a fiscal stimulus of X magnitude."
The fact is that we need the federal reserve to be above politics to help the overall economy. But there may be other times in the future when they are low on tools but where Congress has plenty of tools. In that case, they should make very clear and specific recommendations.
But since I don't see that happening here, I will say that I am at least glad that the Fed is willing to try the risky tools since Congress (ie Republicans) don't want to use their tools.
I want to say one more thing about this economic situation we are facing. In the more recent past, the debate among economists - between Friemdman's and Keynes's followers - was whether the best way to fight a recession was to use monetary (ie Federal Reserve) or fiscal (ie stimulus ie government spending) policy. And it seemed for a while that the monetarists were winning the argument (though even Republican presidents like George W. Bush implemented fiscal stimulus).
But during this crisis, Republicans have decided to go back in time and declare that we should do neither monetary nor fiscal policy - that we should let the recession play out. This puts them decades behind and much farther to the right of Milton Friedman.
But putting that aside, the debate over monetary versus fiscal policy has gotten really interesting during this recession. Although we have seen the bottom, we have also seen a slow recovery.
In other recessions, you might see Democrats push for fiscal stimulus while Republican push for monetary stimulus. And if Democrats can't get fiscal stimulus passed, at least monetary stimulus would be enacted by the Fed and the recovery would get going.
However, in this case (after Obama's large but not large enough stimulus failed to start a big recovery), the federal reserve felt it had run out of tools because they couldn't lower interest rates any further (the traditional tool to get growth going again). So Ben Bernake called on Congress to use fiscal stimulus - though in his vague I'm saying it, but not really, way.
So the Federal Reserve was stuck. They had two options. One: wait for Congress to agree to fiscal stimulus. Two: try riskier fed tools like more and more quantitative easing. They waited as long as they could and are now trying the risky option.
I do wish Bernake had been much more obvious in what he was calling for. The Federal Reserve is meant to be above politics so that it can act to help the economy even when politicians will not. But when they run out of tools, they should use their position as non-partisan actors and speak up clearly. He should have said, "The Federal Reserve is out of good, non-risky options. Therefore, we think Congress should pass and the president should sign a fiscal stimulus of X magnitude."
The fact is that we need the federal reserve to be above politics to help the overall economy. But there may be other times in the future when they are low on tools but where Congress has plenty of tools. In that case, they should make very clear and specific recommendations.
But since I don't see that happening here, I will say that I am at least glad that the Fed is willing to try the risky tools since Congress (ie Republicans) don't want to use their tools.
What to Expect if Obama Wins a Second Term
I'll keep this brief. Basically, I think there are three things we'll definitely see if Obama is reelected. First, he'll implement the Affordable Care Act, which will show the public what all the really good provisions are and keep it from being repealed. Second, he'll definitely work on a longer-term budget deal, which will probably give away too much. And I don't think he'll do much in the short term to help the economy. Instead he'll let the Federal Reserve do as much as it is willing and hope that is enough to cause the sputtering growth to pick up steam. And third, I think he'll really focus on immigration reform. I don't think Republicans can afford to spend too many more elections taking the far right position on this issue. And so I think Obama will push on this.
I don't think we'll see any efforts around global warming (ie cap and trade) unless the Democrats do the unthinkable and take back the House.
I don't think we'll see any efforts around global warming (ie cap and trade) unless the Democrats do the unthinkable and take back the House.
GOP VP Selections
I want to comment on the past two GOP vice presidential candidates. I realized after hearing Romney's convention speech that in both cases, the GOP presidential candidates chose a VP that undermined their argument against President Obama.
In 2008, one of John McCain's main attacks against Obama was that he wasn’t experienced enough. However, he then went on to choose Sarah Palin as his VP candidate - someone who was objectively as inexperienced and far less ready to be president.
Now Mitt Romney says, in his convention speech and many other places, that Obama failed because he has never been in the private sector. But he selected a VP candidate with even less private experience.
In both cases, it suggests that the GOP candidates didn't really believe one of their main attacks. If overall experience was key, you would want the next in line to also be experienced. If private sector experience is important, again you would chose the potential next-in-line to be someone with private sector experience.
In 2008, one of John McCain's main attacks against Obama was that he wasn’t experienced enough. However, he then went on to choose Sarah Palin as his VP candidate - someone who was objectively as inexperienced and far less ready to be president.
Now Mitt Romney says, in his convention speech and many other places, that Obama failed because he has never been in the private sector. But he selected a VP candidate with even less private experience.
In both cases, it suggests that the GOP candidates didn't really believe one of their main attacks. If overall experience was key, you would want the next in line to also be experienced. If private sector experience is important, again you would chose the potential next-in-line to be someone with private sector experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)