Digusting Limbaugh

I try not to comment on all of the stupid and offensive things that Rush Limbaugh says. I tend to think that people as extreme as him should be mostly ignored instead of giving them publicity - which is what they want - every time they say something absurd.

And I was going to do the same thing after his most recent remarks, though I was conflicted. But seeing his horrible and lying apology, I can no longer ignore it. Here is a part of his apology:

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

That is a huge and disgusting lie. He did mean to personally attack Ms. Fluke. He called her a slut. He called her a prostitute. He said he is surprised she can walk considering how much sex she has. He said these things over the course of three days. These were all personal attacks and they were intended as such.

If Limbaugh was to offer a real and honest apology, he would have said something like this:

I am an offensive blowhard. I spent the past week making inappropriate comments about Ms. Fluke. They were personal and dishonest attacks and they were far out of line. I deeply regret making these attacks. In the future I will do my best to avoid making such personal and offensive comments.

I wish that this incident would end his horrible career. However, if Imus - someone less regularly offensive - still has a radio show, there is no hope. Instead, we can look forward to more of the same from Limbaugh.

Is Iran 2012 the New Iraq 2003?

There is a lot of talk about Iran, its nuclear program, and whether Iran and / or the US will attack. I agree with Glenn Greenwald that the talk is one-sided and reminiscent of the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. And that is a shame. I do think the costs of such an attack are getting some good attention though. That isn't the same as airing whether Iran really is getting a weapon or why they might want one.

Before I go into my views, I will say the President's interview with Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic was helpful in understanding his position better, though I don't necessarily agree with all of it. One of the takeaways that I hadn't been thinking about enough was the danger of an arms race in the Middle East if Iran gets a weapon.

Before reading the article, I had been comparing Iran to North Korea. Since we are using sanctions, but otherwise using containment with North Korea, my position has been we can also use sanctions and containment for Iran. In comparing Iran and North Korea, North Korea seems like the more dangerous country to have a nuclear weapon. North Korea is still at war with South Korea, with only a cease-fire armistice having stopped hostilities. Iran is supporting groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. However, I think the hostilities are an order less than is the case with North and South Korea.

The question is whether there is a regional difference with North Korea and Iran. There isn't an arms race in Asia over North Korea it seems, with South Korea and Japan content with our protection. However, we need to ask whether we could convince the other countries in the region not to seek nuclear weapons even if Iran has one, like we must have done with South Korea and Japan.

The main antagonist with Iran is Israel. However, I think it is assumed that Israel already has a nuclear weapon. So who else are we talking about, since President Obama doesn't mention any names? Probably Saudi Arabia for one. Though I am convinced that we could prevent them from going nuclear since our protection is well-assured.

Who else? I haven't seen a list so I can only guess. Maybe Egypt who might now be harder to manage. Iraq has a close relationship now with Iran, so I don't think they would be scared into getting a weapon. Maybe Lebanon, though I don't know how much they fear Iran. Of course in some of these scenarios, there is more chance of terrorists or other rogue groups getting a weapon.

I guess where I am coming down, while I lack more complete information, is that I am still unconvinced that containment won't work, though I am a little less sure. I do understand the president's long fight against proliferation and I see how this fits into that, especially around rogue groups in the Middle East.

There is also the very important question of whether military strikes would have the desired effect. I think it would cause the regime to be even more determined to get weapons (more than they currently are where attacks are only a threat) and would set them back at most a few years. In addition, it could have big economic effects, not least being much higher gas prices and a stalled economy. It seems Obama gets all of this.

Having said all that, the question of whether Iran is actually seeking a weapon is still open. They are seeking nuclear capabilities, but not yet weapons, which I think gets lost. And that distinction is critical.

I also wonder if talks of attacks encourage or discourage their developing weapon capability. It seems to me that the threat of an attack, the talk of regime change, and the possibility of a full war, would encourage weapon development. Unfortunately, we don't have the liberal president we thought we were getting - or at least wish we had. He refuses to turn down the temperature.

One last point: it really feels like Israel is driving the process instead of us. I find it completely strange that people (McCain, Romney, et al) are saying there should be no daylight between us and Israel. To me, that sounds like our position is that we do whatever Israel wants us to do.

I have never thought that American policy was to be dictated by a foreign government. I assumed that we would do what is in our interest or what we thought was right, and in the end we didn't care so much if close allies disagreed. Saying there can be no daylight means whatever Israel says, we cannot disagree with (otherwise there will be daylight). You can say that it means we need to agree, but it leaves no room for what happens if we can't agree except to say that we will need to defer to Israel.

Whatever we decide, it has to be done based on what is good for us and what we think is right. President Obama seems to get this. The GOP definitely does not.

Update on 2012 Election

I just want to give my latest thoughts on the upcoming presidential elections. First, I want to say that I actually think President Obama will get a second term. There are two reasons I have changed my mind.

First, the economy seems to be on the mend. And if you'll remember, one of the main reasons I thought he would lose was because the economy wasn't doing well and there was nothing he could say he wanted to do but was prevented. With the economy improving, that goes away and he can instead take credit for it.

But second, the potential GOP challengers are a mess. It looks like Romney will probably get the nomination, though this is no sure thing. Santorum is doing surprisingly well and Gingrich is holding on. If Romney wins, he will do so not by articulating a better vision, but by making his opponents look even worse.

It is clear that Romney is using quite a bit of negative advertising when his opponents start to do well. I'm not saying I oppose this - I don't love it - but my point is more that it shows the weakness of a candidate that has to rely on negative advertising so much.

Romney is also spending quite a bit of money and not raising quite so much. At this time during the elections in 2008, Obama and Hillary were beating each other up, but they were also raising a ton of money and building strong ground operations for the general. None of the GOP candidates are doing this. All, including Romney, are spending on advertising and not on organization.

But I also want to note the possibility that Romney does not win the nomination. If it is Santorum or Gingrich, the party will be sending far right candidates to the general election (though you can call the current version of Romney far right as well). Santorum holds some really crazy positions, not the least of which that a man and a woman should not have sex unless married and trying to conceive. And therefore contraception is wrong. Gingrich is now far right, but also just a lose cannon.

I don't think either of them could win a general election - though it is scary to consider it and to know that it is possible if unlikely.

There is the potential, though also unlikely, for a new GOP candidate to come in through the convention. Whoever that would be would start with a huge disadvantage in money and organizing. Although I will say, I might prefer someone like Jeb Bush if it would lead to a good debate about issues.

Lastly, I just want to express real frustration over GOP attempts, including by Romney (who never ceases to amaze me in his ability to say things that are not true and that I don't think he believes), to paint Obama as a far left liberal. But I am even more frustrated over Obama letting them do that.

The GOP has been attacking Obama's foreign policy, though it is not markedly different from Bush and Cheney (I wish it was). Romney said Obama wants to talk about the poor instead of the middle class even though he doesn't seem to (I wish he did). His attempts to balance the budget are center-right. And his State of the Union seemed to talk only about tax cuts.

I wish we had a president that was liberal and defended liberal values. But at the least, he should really defend his moderation and attack Republicans for lying.

Education and Capitalism

I think there is a tension between libertarianism, which assumes markets work perfectly, and some strains of capitalism that assume government intervention is necessary to help increase productivity and economic growth.

Basically, I think there are plenty of avowed capitalists that believe that there are market failures - places where government needs to get involved to help the market function. A good example of this is infrastructure. It is hard to argue that our railroads, highways and energy system didn't help feed rapid growth.

But to me the best example of a government expenditure that contributed to economic growth is public education. In fact, some academics (I can't find the studies) say that our public education is the best explanation for our amazing growth over time as compared to other countries with similar natural resource wealth.

I wonder if you can see where I am going. Right now, we have a pretty good education system. I think there is room from improvement generally, but in a lot of places we are doing a good job of educating our children.

But in some places - mostly places of high poverty - we are doing a terrible job. And I fundamentally believe we need to spend more money to see real gains. Now, most of the time we talk about the need to improve these education outcomes as a fairness issue. I agree that it is that. But I think it is also an economic growth issue.

When I think about the number of youth that are denied a decent education, I think about the waste of valuable resources. So many of those youth could develop major improvements that lead to real productivity increases and a better quality of life for everyone. It could be the next Apple or maybe just the next Canon (or anything - look around you). But we won't ever see those improvements unless we give them a real education.

I compare this to the time when women were not being educated. In that situation, you had a whole class of people that were not being allowed, simply because of their gender, to contribute to society through education and self-determination.

The same thing is happening to some of our youth. Simply because of where they are born, they are deprived of a good education and are not able to contribute to society.

I truly believe that if we significantly increased education spending in those areas, we would see a meaningful return on that investment as that many more people would be available to create the next big thing and all the rest would create lots of small things - all of which will make the economy grow and our lives better.

And more importantly, their lives will be much better as well.

Economic Recovery?

So we got some good news on the economy Friday - we added 243,000 new jobs in January. It seems from reading most economists that unless something big happens (Euro crash, really bad fed policy / government policy), this could be the start of a decent recovery. This assumes not that job growth is consistent at this level (because if it was, it would take 7 years for us to get back to pre-recession employment) but that job growth is now accelerating.

So let's assume that the recovery has started. What does this say about our economic policy arguments? Liberals - or New Keynesians - thought that much more needed to be done to move the recovery along. We called for things like large fiscal stimulus or more aggressive and open monetary policy (more aggressive than QE1 and QE2, which themselves were somewhat aggressive).

Conservatives called for nothing. They thought stimulus would / did slow the recovery and that monetary policy would lead to runaway inflation. During my more cynical moments, I thought the Republican politicians were doing this to prolong the recession and ensure Obama would face reelection with bad jobs numbers. But during my more trusting moments, I thought the conservative economists at the least did not believe in fiscal stimulus and did not agree with the fed's dual mandate. They were unconcerned with unemployment and only concerned with inflation.

Anyway, if the recession is ending, what might we have learned? I think we can mostly agree that the bank bailouts and the first stimulus prevented a deeper recession. But recovery did not depend on further stimulus or more aggressive monetary policy. At best we could say that fiscal stimulus might have sped up the recovery. Or that austerity prolonged the recession some. But the lack of further stimulus and the actual government austerity did not prevent a recovery.
 Also, we didn't need to increase inflation in order to get the recovery going. Although again, maybe even more aggressive fed policy could have sped up the recovery some. 

Granted, New Keynesianism doesn't say that recovery won't happen without these things. But for months we have been calling for these things with the specter of a lost decade if we don't. And if the recovery moves along, than we won't have had a lost decade. 

On the other hand, the somewhat aggressive federal reserve policies did not lead to inflation. At all. And the current policies, enacted over objections of conservative members, have likely helped the recovery.

If this is all the case, what should we do in a similar future crisis? It seems we could wait it out, and in time we could recover. Although I will say there is no guarantee. Japan had a real lost decade and I don't know enough to understand the differences between them and us.

But considering all of this, I still might favor more aggressive action. Aggressive action did not hinder the recession and might have sped it up. And in the case of Japan or a situation similar to theirs, it could avoid a lost decade whereas limited action would not. 

Again, this is all resting on the assumption that the recovery has in fact started and continues to ramp up and that we will be satisfied with the pace of it. We might find out that it doesn't accelerate as quickly, in which case, maybe I am being a little too hesitant towards the more aggressive policies I have called for.

Liberal Thoughts on Ron Paul

There has been some talk on the left defending / supporting Ron Paul - or at least defending the prospect of supporting Ron Paul and the trade-off a liberal would face in voting for Ron Paul over Obama. I want to weigh in on this.

Let's start with the supposed trade-off. The argument goes that Ron Paul is more liberal than Obama on foreign policy (drones, indefinate detention, war powers) and domestic civil liberties (drug war) but more conservative on issues like government domestic spending, the economy, rights protecting minorities and women, etc. Therefore, there is a trade-off between these sets of issues.

Even if I agreed, there is a flaw in the argument and it is a matter of scale. On domestic policy, Paul's positions would each be disasters for liberal positions. His economic policies would drastically prolong recessions and high unemployment. His spending policies would eliminate the social safety net and important government protections. He would remove necessary prohibitions against segregation and discrimination. His positions are a far extreme from liberals and terrible policies.

On foreign policy, although Obama is implementing more conservative policies, I don't think they are as horrible as Paul's domestic positions. Obama is not calling for bombing Iran. His drone strikes violate liberal's sense of justice but are less provocative than I would expect under a traditional Republican candidate. For the war on drugs, Obama lacks leadership and guts, but I don't think he is on the wrong side of the issue; he may not call for ending it, but he isn't calling for tougher penalties.

Basically, on these issues where he disagrees with liberals, Obama is still much closer to liberals than Paul is on the issues where he disagrees. And that by itself should rule out any thoughts of supporting Paul over Obama.

When I started this post, I accepted for the argument that there is this trade-off - that Paul is better on issues like foreign policy. But even that basic assumption is wrong. The liberal Paul supporters exaggerate how much Paul's foreign policy is actually in line with liberals. Sure, Paul supports liberals on some of the hot-button issues of the day - drones and detention. But if you look at the big picture, Ron Paul's foreign policy is deeply different from liberal general policy preferences.

Ron Paul's anti-militaristic foreign policy comes from a place of deep isolationism (and nationalism). This means that a Ron Paul administration would not want to intervene in situations like Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq (for the Kurds - ie no fly zone), Sudan, Congo, Libya, Syria, etc. Granted, Obama (and previous administrations) haven't intervened in all of those places. But Paul would oppose all of them. I don't think turning our backs on horrible atrocities is in line with liberal foreign policy. 

One last thing. The article I referenced above does go on to compare the different positions each has and which ones a president has more power to affect. The author thinks Ron Paul would be less able to implement his devastating cuts on government programs and end civil rights legislation but would be able to do the positive things like end unlawful killings and indefinite detentions.

I don't agree at all. Paul's veto power (and obvious lack of fear over a government shutdown) would allow for drastic cuts to government - short of a Congressional veto override. And his control over fed appointments may prevent bank bailouts (although I don't know if liberals oppose the bank bailouts but instead also wanted homeowner bailouts) but it will also allow him to make the fed far more conservative - maybe even completely ineffective to further the goal of moving to the gold standard.

The bottom line is that Paul would have a decent chance, as president, of implementing much of his platform - or at least moving the country very far in that direction. And I don't think moving towards isolationism in foreign policy, and a virtually non-existent government domestically is in any way in line with liberal ideology.

Iowa Prediction

Just a fun prediction for today's Iowa caucus. I predict that Rick Santorum will win the caucus (25%), with Mitt Romney a close second (24%) and Ron Paul not too far behind in third (21%). Gingrich will finish around 12% in fourth and Perry and Bachaman will be in single digits.

I used real numbers, but what I see happening is Santorum and Romney overperforming the polls - picking up some extra votes - Ron Paul getting about what we expect (thanks to Santorum's surge and some bad press) and the rest losing support as voters either move to Romney or Santorum.

I say this because I have been convinced by what Nate Silver has said about conservative candidates overperforming the polls in Iowa. And Santorum seems in a good position to do that (and not enough time to bring him down with negative adds). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Santorum is closer to 30% and maybe Romney loses a bit (closer to 20%).

Book Report: Gail Collins - When Everything Changed

This is Gail Collins' second book on the history of feminism. I didn't read the first one because at the moment I am much more interested in the post-suffrage movement - the movement for fair pay and equal roles in the workforce.

The book relies heavily on anecdotes, though it has statistics where they exist and are relevant. This approach makes the book move fast, but makes it a little less trustworthy as a book explaining a vast movement. It still works, but at times it does make me wonder if the one story we are being told is representative.

What is great about the book is how it shows people trying to create new systems and new customs. Over the course of the book, women are trying to figure out where they fit in society. They know they don't like the current set-up, but no one knows exactly what the set-up should be. So throughout the movement, everyone is debating and trying alternate systems to see which is ideal.

The starting point is what they know they don't like. They know that they shouldn't be denied jobs or paid less than men just because they are women. And they know they shouldn't have to stay in the home and raise the family if they don't want to. But how should the system really be? It wasn't clear at the time, and I think we take that for granted.

For example, if some women found being a house wife constraining, should we encourage all women away from that? Or if women are sometimes chosen just on their sexuality / attractiveness and not for their skills, should all women avoid showing sexuality? If family life is unfulfilling, does that mean women shouldn't be in families? Are men and families unnecessary? Are communes or multiple couples raising one child together better?

I would argue that we have mostly concluded that women should have the opportunity to work in all jobs and to receive pay equal to what men earn (which we still haven't fully achieved). And that women shouldn't have to stay at home but should be free to a professional career. However, women should also not feel ashamed to stay at home - and nor should men. I would argue that we basically know where we want to be, but we still have some work to do. As I said, women still don't make as much as men, and women are still underrepresented in many jobs - sometimes due to discrimination.

Where I think we have failed to make progress is for low income women. They still face significant barriers because they cannot afford to stay home if they want to but child care funding is insufficient, where it exists.What is heartbreaking, and was surprising to me, was how close we came to having national childcare support. A bill was passed but Richard Nixon vetoed it. We haven't seen or heard that issue again. Truly sad.

Wrong Clinton Lessons

I firmly believe that knowing history is important because there are lessons to be learned. But I am also starting to believe that spending too much time looking to history can be a mistake. It can make you take your eyes off the present and all of the nuances that exist. I feel very strongly about this when it comes to Obama's presidency and the lessons his administration tried to learn from Clinton's presidency.

First, Obama looked to Clinton's failure on healthcare and overlearned the lessons there. Since Clinton handed Congress a finished document and expected them to pass as is - and that failed - Obama decided to let Congress create healthcare. This lead to a one year process that made the final product very unpopular.

Second, and far worse, Obama decided after the 2010 midterm losses to emulate Clinton's move the middle following the 1994 Republican revolution. Unfortunately, this didn't lead to moderate compromises and popularity for Obama. It has lead to an ugly and worthless budget compromise and nothing else. And low approval ratings for President Obama.
 I believe that if Obama hadn't been so fixated on the Clinton model, he might have taken the process more slowly. Instead of declaring from the beginning that he was moving to the right, he could have said that the elections change who his partners are but don't change who he is. He could have said that he will see what Republicans bring to him and will go with an open mind. He would compromise on anything that will help the American people.

He went way too far, and he did it because he wanted to get re-elected. He saw how Clinton did it, and blindly followed his example. That was a mistake.

Republican Surges

I had a few posts in draft on each of the recent GOP candidates that were surging. Instead, I'll just give more concise thoughts here in one post.

Rick Perry: I was worried about him for a while. But his poor debate performances seem to have sunk his campaign (though I felt some sympathy - I think the "oops" moment was less about a lack of intelligence and more about stage pressure). And now he is flailing and looking worse. His crazy anti-DADT commercial, among other things have shown his desperation.

Newt Gingrich: First, let me say that while I do think he is pretty smart and creative, he is erratic. I would prefer a more calm, careful, and thoughtful president (also a more modest one). On domestic policy, I am a little torn. He is less anti-government than the Tea Party-type candidates like Perry, Cain and Bachmann. However, his understanding of why people are poor is stupid and scary. On foreign policy, he is downright terrifying. He believes in the culture clash nonsense (the West versus Islam) and seems way too eager to bomb Iran. His call for Bolton to be his Secretary of State is horrifying - Bolton being probably the worst member of the Bush team.

Ron Paul: I agree with Andrew Sullivan that Paul seems like a decent person - at least in the political sense. He is not prone to changing his views just to get elected (unlike Romney and Gingrich, for example) and less likely to sell out to become a lobbyist (unlike Gingrich). And I like his opposition to the war on drugs, though we come at it from very different angles. I like that he isn't a hawk on foreign policy, but I hate his isolationism. And I really hate his view about the optimal size of government (I'll have another post libertarianism someday soon).

His two most troubling positions though are around economics and race. On economics, he is to the right of Milton Friedman - and not for political reasons (like Boehner and company) but for ideological reasons. Whereas under a Republican president I am sure the GOP would support more monetary expansion, Paul still would not. In fact, he wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve and go back to the gold standard. Pure craziness and very dangerous for the economy.

On race issues, a lot has been written about the racist articles in the newsletter that went out under this name. Maybe he didn't know about it and didn't agree with it, but whoever was editing thought it would be something Paul would support. And that is troubling. More troubling though is his view that civil rights legislation should have not been used against private businesses. This shows either a gross indifference to racism or an extreme naivete around how effectively the free market would get rid of segregation on its own. Or both.

Rick Santorum: I don't understand why he is a candidate. I certainly don't understand why he is having his moment. Actually, on a certain level I get it. In this anyone-but-Romney campaign, I guess everyone has their moment. And Santorum seems to be working hard in Iowa. And for the evangelicals, he might be the best bet at the moment. But to my mind, he is about one thing, and one thing only: opposing LGBT rights.

And with the economy and the size of government being the biggest issues right now, why elect someone who merely wants to restart the culture wars. Especially since views are moving steadily away from his position. Not to mention, this is someone who was voted out of office six years ago. I find his whole campaign baffling. He is getting some momentum now in Iowa, but I really hope it falls flat. At least I can console myself that his chances outside of Iowa are very slim (since he has spent so much time in Iowa).

Bottom Line: Everyone's surge has faltered. Santorum though might be surging at the right moment - in other words, me might be able to win Iowa before crashing. Nate Silver has Romney with a 62 percent chance of winning Iowa, though recognizing how unpredictable the caucus can be. I have a feeling Santorum will win. But from there on, it will be smooth sailing for Romney. And thank goodness for that.

A Vote for Huntsman

At a family event recently, I suggested that if the presidential general election were between John Huntsman and Barack Obama, I might vote for Huntsman. To be honest, I am sure I would still vote for Obama. But here is the reason I would even consider voting for Huntsman.

First, let me say that I don't think Hunstman would be a better president nor is he closer to my ideology than Obama. I would consider Huntsman though because President Obama has done such a terrible job on the economy.

I'll explain why I think so, but let me first say that since he has done such a bad job, it is only right that I show my displeasure. If he hasn't been successful, I shouldn't return him to office. Unfortunately, as I have said before, the alternatives will do a worse job. So I am stuck supporting Obama - probably.

Here is why I blame him for the economy. First, he passed a stimulus that was too small even considering what we knew about the economy in 2009 (we now know the decrease in GDP was far worse). And when he passed the stimulus, he said that it would be enough and that we won't need more.

All of this was done for purely political reasons. He calculated that Congress wouldn't give him more stimulus so he pretended it would be enough. But now that it is clear the stimulus wasn't enough, he can't ask for more - except as he did on a small scale that even at that size won't get passed.

Second, he took his eye off the ball. He spent a year working on healthcare reform and a year on balancing the budget, all while unemployment was at 9 percent. I can forgive him for healthcare; he felt that the moment was right and if it didn't happen, it might be another two decades before we get another chance. But his time on fiscal matters was a huge mistake and he didn't start talking about jobs again until this past fall.

Presidents often face a major crisis, one they weren't prepared for and it can consume their presidency and ruin their well-laid plans. When that happens, presidents should put everything else aside and fix that problem. President Obama did not do that. He and everyone else referred to it as the worst recession since the Great Depression. And yet he thought a half-measure stimulus would do the trick and that he could work on other things.

Finally, Obama has been ineffective on monetary policy as well. This is where the Republicans are the most vulnerable and Obama has been the most silent. If we assume that Obama cannot get further stimulus through, he could at least make the case that without stimulus we need aggressive monetary expansion. And he could say that even far-right economists like Milton Friedman would support that.

Instead, he lets Republicans like Perry, Boehner, Cantor, et al say that monetary expansion in a recession is now bad policy without paying a political price. This party opposes everything - mostly because they want the president to lose - and they don't pay a political price. Only recently over the small but popular payroll tax cut have Republicans paid a price. But they should be branded as extremists or obstructionists for their opposition to monetary expansion.

The bottom line is that President Obama has many options to try to improve the economy and when / if those options don't work, make Republicans look crazy. I wish there was an alternative, someone who would be stronger. But there isn't. I probably won't vote for Huntsman. But I kind of want to.

Support Just Because

I previously wrote about situations where the opposition party opposes a policy just because theya re in the opposition but don't have any alternatives. There are also situations where the president's party will support something that is against their ideology but want to give the president a victory. I will point to two examples:

-Medicare Part D: Republicans voted for this under President Bush. This is good policy, but goes against the limited government ideology of Republicans. If Obama had proposed this, it would have been called socialism and received not one Republican vote.

-Drone Strikes (especially against Americans): Democrats are staying mostly quite while Obama does something that clearly violates civil liberties. These are bomb strikes away from the field of battle (unless increasing the field of battle to the point of meaninglessness). If this is okay, how is Guantanamo Bay illegal? If a Republican were doing this, there is no way Democrats would be silent.

In both cases, victories for the President (and therefore the party) are more important than sticking to ideology. Medicare Part D was popular, even though it wasn’t paid for. And drone strikes make Obama and Democrats look tough on foreign policy.

The same is true in reverse. What is important is not whether Healthcare reform was good policy (which Cato, Romney, and Gingrich all thought it was), but whether Healthcare will give Obama a victory.

I should give Republicans some credit though. While their opposition on things like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan have been stupid and just done to oppose Obama for the sake of it, they haven’t opposed the drone strikes. They are happy to let Obama take some credit here, maybe only because they can say they were right all along. 

Great Modern Presidents? No.

On some professional-ish blog somewhere, the author took a poll of the best (and worst) president since FDR. So I figured I would give my two cents here. Basically, I don't think there have been any great presidents since FDR. You won't be surprised to know that I won't consider any Republicans great, since by and large they want less services and smaller government. And of the Democrats, I don't think any were very good. But let's go through the list.

Truman: To be sure, my knowledge is a little limited here. I watched the American Experience documentary but I haven't read the McCullough book. And it seems most Truman-lovers have read the McCullough book. So maybe there is something I am missing. And maybe the American Experience movie was biased or gave a bad impression.

But I just don't see a lot to be excited about. Among his first acts was to drop two atomic bombs on Japanese cities. He could have first shown their power by dropping on a military target or somewhere underpopulated. Instead, he chose to massacre (or allowed his military leaders to choose to massacre) tens of thousands of people. 

Further, his prosecution of the Korean War lead to thousands more American deaths than necessary. Now, maybe he received bad advice from MacArthur and the CIA. But it still seems obvious that China would in fact intervene if the UN proceeded north of the 38th parallel. And they did and we almost lost the war because of it.

On the domestic front, he was anti-union at almost every turn. And although his Marshall Plan is seen as a major success, it came at the cost of starting the Red Scare. And in so doing, Truman started an effort to ruin the lives of people just because they held an economic belief in communism. So much for freedom of speech and thought.

Dwight Eisenhower: He might be the best of the bunch. In his 8 years, there isn't anything too exciting. The interstate highway system, though supportive of cars over public transportation, was probably smart for its time and in a country as big as America. He also enforced school desegregation and implemented integration of the military. His foreign policy isn't great (especially with the CIA if you believe Legacy of Ashes) but it wasn't terrible. Overall, a competent and not too conservative president. In fact, maybe it was better to have a pause on the New Deal programs than further expansion (which might have led to a knee-jerk reversal).

John F. Kennedy: He only had three years (1961-1963) but there isn't much good to say. His foreign policies were a disaster: Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis (not as bad as it could have been, but JFK and RFK come off looking like amateurs), Vietnam, etc. Peace Corps however is a positive. What else is there?

Lyndon Johnson: I like the ideas of Great Society, though it didn't seem to have a lasting impact. Maybe the policies weren't well thought out. But more likely, Vietnam pulled needed resources away. And nothing was worse for America since World War II - maybe in our history - than Vietnam. Over 50,000 Americans died and a million or more Vietnamese. The bombing campaigns were brutal and disgusting. Just truly appalling.

Richard Nixon: Maybe the worst of the bunch. He had no respect for the rule of law and blatantly abused his office (Watergate; Daniel Ellsburg). He continued the Vietnam War despite a campaign promise to end it "with dignity". His detente with China is laudable. But his anti-communist policies in Chile et al were despicable.

Gerald Ford: I don't actually know what to say about Ford. All I really know about his presidency is that he pardoned Nixon. I don't have strong feelings about that decision, but I certainly don't love it.

Jimmy Carter: Egypt / Israel peace deal was a success and thanks to his hard work. However, his work on the Iranian hostage crisis was ineffective. And he didn't give Americans confidence during the energy crisis. Overall, not a great presidency.

I will say though that his work since being president has been truly a marvel. His efforts on curable and preventable diseases in developing countries has been amazing. I think he has been a good, though controversial voice on Israel / Palestine; I don't know if I agree with all he has said, but I think he is raising some strong points. I don't know if Bill Clinton acknowledges this, but I bet he is using Carter as an example for post-president activity.

Ronald Reagan: On domestic programs, he was heartless. His rhetoric about welfare moms driving Cadillacs set us back decades in the fight to improve the lives of low income families. He gutted so many social programs and justified it by talking about government waste. His line that government is the problem has lead to the current conservative climate that actually believes such nonsense without qualification.

On foreign policy, he wasn't much better. Many give him credit for ending the Cold War - by spending so much on military that the Soviet Union could not keep up, but tried, and eventually collapsed. Maybe he could have accomplished the same thing by spending as much on social programs. It is also possible that the Soviet Union was on its way with or without our military deficit-spending (in other words, Gorbachev ended the Cold War, not Reagan). His decisions to trade arms for hostages in Iran, despite saying he wasn't, was despicable. And he continued policies to fight any and all "leftist groups" even by supporting worse right-wing groups.

So overall, I would say Regan was a disaster.

George H.W. Bush: He made the right decision in the Gulf War (not to go on to Baghdad). Some say his calm (and inactivity) during the fall of the Soviet Union was just what was needed. He raised taxes when we needed it. And some argue that he put us on the road to economic recovery but didn't see the electoral benefits. Not a bad presidency. But nothing great to be proud of.

Bill Clinton: He passed welfare reform, so blaming the poor could now be a bipartisan issue. He continued America's trend of not getting involved to stop genocides - this time in Rwanda. His serious personal problems led to an impeachment. On the bright side there was Bosnia, where we did finally get involved in a genocide (better late than never). And we had a very strong economy and budget surpluses - though how much of that was due to Clinton is unclear. There isn't a lot to love, and a few things to hate. 

Like Carter, his post-president life has been much better. His work on AIDS and energy seems to be paying great dividends.

George W. Bush: He turned budget surpluses into budget deficits (but has avoided blame). Much of this is due to his unfunded tax cuts. He pushed us into an unnecessary war in Iraq. He opened Guantanamo Bay as well as worse "black site" international prisons. He pushed for illegal NSA surveillance of Americans. He took his eyes off of the War in Afghanistan, which is why we are still fighting it. He condoned torture, including in the form of waterboarding. (As bad as this is, the current crop of Republican contenders don't have Bush's moderate streak, meaning its hard to imagine a Medicare Part D or No Child Left Behind, the first of which was unfunded and the second I don't love but could have been much worse.)

Barack Obama: He let Congress pass pretty good health care legislation (which he didn't defend and is now unpopular). He was successful at passing an updated nuclear treaty with Russia. He also let Congress pass decent, though not strong enough, financial reform. However, we have a terrible economy, in part because he took his eyes off of it and focused instead on long term budget deficits. He has expanded drone strikes, including killing of Americans without due process. And he hasn't closed Guantanamo Bay. 

Conclusion: It is difficult to be completely objective. I go easy on Republican presidents that were competent but made little major changes. However, I am obviously very tough on Democratic presidents - holding them to the liberal ideal.

In fact, if I were to be as objective as possible, I might see that Carter and Obama, and George H.W. Bush and Eisenhower, were all relatively effective and did not make the world much worse. Truman (Atomic Bomb, Communism, Korea), Johnson and Nixon (Vietnam), Reagan (domestic policy, oppressive right-wing governments), Clinton (welfare reform, Rwanda), and George W. Bush (torture, deficits, Iraq) all did things that either were terrible domestic policy or needlessly killed tens of thousands of people in foreign countries.

So none of these presidents did enough to be considered great. If I had to pick a best, I might go with Eisenhower. If I had to pick the worst, it would be Nixon - though he has some people right on his heels: Johnson and Reagan. 

Putting aside objectivity, I will say that despite my lukewarm feelings on all presidents, I am willing to let my infant son wear shirts with Democratic presidents - even ones I don't think were terribly effective. But there is no way I would put him in a onesie with a Republican on it. Well, maybe Eisenhower. Maybe.

Also, I will continue this thread looking further back. I have plans to read more about FDR, Jackson, and Wilson. I imagine I will also eventually get to Teddy Roosevelt and Jefferson at some point after that. So far, the only presidents I would consider great are Lincoln and Washington (though I need to remind myself about Washington). Somehow, I think I am too critical to think highly of anyone else. We'll see though.

Update: I didn't mention civil rights under LBJ. Including that only changes my opinion slightly. I give way more credit to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., SNCC, SCLC, and all the other groups that really made it happen by bringing attention to the issue. But I do concede that LBJ did his best to get the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act passed, where a different president might not have tried or might not have been successful. But Vietnam is such a huge disaster that it looms over everything else.

Hitchens Considered

The passing of Christopher Hitchens this week has created countless articles about his life, his work, and his impact. A lot of it is flattering. Some are critical and harsh - though as these articles point out, Hitchens believed you should write honestly about someone even once they have died. So if that person was terrible, you should still feel free to write that.

My feelings on him are more mixed. On his positions, I think he was too harsh towards Mother Theresa. And while I am glad he is so vocal about Kissinger, I can't quite reconcile that with his full-throated support of the Iraq War and the War on Terrorism generally. Though his piece on water-boarding was smart (and yet he didn't seem to attack those who push that policy - the same people that pushed the war).

But I loved his thoughts on atheism and why religion is bad for society. I don't agree with it, but his thoughts and arguments were so well constructed.

In fact, I think the way most felt about Hitchens was that because he is a strong debater / arguer, you want him on your side. But if he isn't on your side, you hate him. He was pugnacious and intense, but definitely logical and pretty well-read.

What I really appreciated about him was how seriously he took debating and writing. I think we need much more of that - not what we see on TV, but more like what you would get in a Hitchens debate. Debates should be very smart and informed but also tough and combative. We should be able - in fact we should love - to debate with the other side. I'm not saying anyone will come away changing their mind, but creating a culture where debates happen - where ideas are tested - is necessary.

I'll let you in on a dream I have. I dream of creating a popular debate forum - one that is part Hitchens and part John Stewart (his good interviews with conservative guests on the Daily Show), where really smart people can take a really long time debating relevant issues. I saw glimpses of that when Hitchens would square off with someone. And I want to see much more of it. 

Oppose Just Because

After watching a Republican president deal with a difficult and unpopular situation and now a Democrat deal with a different but difficult and unpopular situation, I am convinced that in these cases, the opposition party often just makes sure to disagree with the leader without any good solutions.

The first situation I am talking about is Iraq before the surge. At that time, the Iraq War was going very badly - it was unpopular and Bush was being criticized for the very poor management of the war. Democrats at that time played on the president's unpopularity by attacking the war. But the only solution they offered was to leave, even though leaving meant allowing the country to devolve completely into civil war. Fortunately, Bush pushed through the surge - and even more fortunately the Sunni awakening happened at the same time - and Iraq came back from the brink.

The second situation is the current economic malaise and Obama's handling of it. There is unemployment near 9% and interest rates that cannot get any lower to create growth. Republicans will not support fiscal stimulus and even oppose further easy money policies (calling it treason). They use the economy to beat up on the president but offer no real solutions. Their one big talking point is decreasing regulations, which is not at all serious (though admittedly would do less harm than Democratic proposals to pull out of Iraq).

The major difference is that Bush was able to push through the surge in spite of Democratic objections. So he saved Iraq despite Democrat's opposition. Obama is unable to do anything similar for the economy.

What is important is that in both cases, the best solution is / was more of what the president has / had been trying. For Bush it was more troops. For Obama it is more stimulus (and easy money). But the opposition party cannot admit that what the president was doing was right but not enough, especially when that is unpopular. So the best they can do for themselves is to oppose everything, let the situation deteriorate, and reap the political rewards. Sad.

On the Economy and No Lost Decade

So I've been thinking about the long term prospects for the economy - but through a political lens. As I see our economic woes (as they exist right now we have a stagnant economy - if the Eurozone collapses, we'll have a whole other set of problems), we need much more action to really get a recovery going. We need either (or both) a big stimulus or more aggressive monetary efforts including allowing changing inflation expectations until unemployment decreases.

But given our political situation, neither of those options seems likely. President Obama is not going to get much if any stimulus. And the fed is stuck doing things that would have seemed wildly aggressive five years ago but are now far too feeble with little indication that it will get bold (truth be told, the fed is still acting like it has one mandate - inflation - when it in fact has two - inflation and employment).

Worse still, with a dragging economy, Obama is unlikely in my book to be reelected (nor do I think he particularly deserves it - he decided, or at least acquiesced, to focus on balancing the budget while unemployment was still above 9 percent). And with a conservative president, we are even less likely to get any stimulus. Maybe we could get a tax cut, though with Republicans pretending to be fiscally responsible, we might not even get that. We haven't so far, as Republicans are happy to let the economy suffer if it means better electoral prospects and denying Obama any victories.

So this should mean that the economy will be stuck for the next five years (ie lost decade). What has got me thinking however is the possibility that the economy does start to really recover sometime in 2013 or 2014 even absent any intervention by then-President Romney or the federal reserve. If that happens, what does that say about liberal prognostications on the economy?

It would at least allow Republicans to say that the best medicine was to do nothing. But is that what it really means? Or does it mean that the economy will / would have eventually recover(ed) and that Republican obstructions slowed the recovery? I would assume the later, but it is difficult to prove. And it certainly decreases the urgency of liberal action. In other words, if the recovery will happen in five years without help, is it worth it / necessary to do something in year two - especially if some effects (construction programs) might take a year or two to show an effect?

Clearly I don't have any answers right now - especially since the question is hypothetical and based on Obama losing and Romney doing nothing (short of rolling back some regulations). But it is something I want to be prepared to think about.

Gingrich v. Romney

Dear Conservative, 

I see that in the latest, and probably last, iteration of the your anyone-but-Romney fickleness, Newt Gingrich has surged in the polls. In the past, I have avoided writing on the newest surge because I assumed the person would crash. There are a lot of reasons why Gingrich might (money, staff, erratic behavior, skeletons), but the right is desperate, and he might actually stick around.

Since I think I am pretty good at thinking like a conservative, I am going to talk through with you the decision you might face: Romney versus Gingrich.

First, I want to acknowledge that you face a difficult task. Between the two, there is only one similarity I can think of: Both candidates have a history of supporting positions that are now unsupportable - namely carbon cap and trade and health care individual mandate.

Other than that, the candidates are pretty different. Romney is perceived as a moderate that has flipped to win the primary - which makes him untrustworthy. However, he is also seen as competent and probably a good manager; his business successes and time as governor support that perception. And though he seems slippery, maybe robotic, he doesn't have any baggage around family issues that Gingrich has.

Gingrich has conservative credentials. So his flipping is perceived as erratic - or better, excused because others in the party have flipped (ie Heritage Foundation). He is seen as an ideas man, though maybe too wildly seeking new ideas and not grounded enough to manage an administration well. And though he is smart, some of his ideas and theories are not well thought-out. Also, his history with his wives shows a major lack of compassion, loyalty and moral decency - and his timing with the impeachment reeks of hypocrisy (though you probably don't care about that - better to go after a liberal like Clinton hypocritically than to be consistent and therefore not impeach a Democratic president). 

Finally, and perhaps the worst unless he can continue to disingenuously sweet talk his way out of it, is his lobbying. I don't think people will continue to buy that Gingrich was only providing history lessons for millions of dollars. And, if you are getting paid to support an idea, even if you would like the idea anyway, it is still lobbying.

In looking at the two options, I think you, dear conservative, have a difficult choice. A robotic but competent former governor whose core positions and values seem open for change with the winds or an erratic but full of ideas former legislator and lobbyist who lacks compassion and loyalty. I would probably go with the one more likely to be a good manager. But then again, maybe having loyalty to conservative principles is more important. And despite his erraticness sometimes, Gingrich is better on that front.

My Predicament

In November of 2012, I will face a difficult decision. I will need to vote for a candidate for president. Here is where the predicament is. Ideologically, I will be more closely aligned with the Democrat - Barack Obama. However, I don't think President Obama has been very effective, especially on the policy that is and has been most urgent: the economy and jobs.

In fact, I think our president hasn't even been good at articulating what needs to happen to improve the economy. He passed a stimulus that he knew at the time was too small but pretended it was big enough. And then he changed the conversation to budget deficits (going along with Republicans) way too soon when job growth was non-existent. And now he is pushing for a jobs plan that is decent, but has no chance of passing.

Having said all that, his Republican challenger, whoever that may be (but hopefully Romney), will have much worse ideas. The GOP candidate will probably talk about decreasing regulation and cutting taxes for the rich - two solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.

So what am I to do? Clearly, I will vote Democrat and so vote for Obama. His policies are at least better than his opponents will be. Unfortunately though this means returning someone to a job he probably doesn't deserve. But when your choice for a job is between only two candidates, you have to choose the better of the two - the perfect doesn't exist.

Having said all that, my decision still isn't complete. In 2008, I volunteered a good amount of my time for candidate Obama's campaign. I know many other people did this as well. I have decided now that I won't do that this time around. I volunteered because I believed in Obama. I believed in his message - of moving past the baby boomers' arguments and divisiveness; of accomplishing real change.

I realize now that I was naive to do that. And while, part of the fault lies with me, part of the fault also lies with him. You see, debates are necessary. Sometimes being disagreeable is necessary. But more than that, change comes through leadership and strength. And I haven't seen that in our president. He seems to lead from behind.

So I won't volunteer. And I know many others feel the same way. Which might doom President Obama's campaign. That is too bad. But if you campaign on change, you need to achieve it. Or at least look like you are really fighting for it.

Volker Rule Brief Analysis

I completely agree with this WSJ Op-Ed on the Volker Rule. 

Reasonable people have seen enough to say that Washington is incapable of drawing bright lines and applying clear rules fairly across all securities markets. The result is all but certain to be a final rule that different people will interpret different ways, leading to loopholes for traders and arbitrary enforcement.

Under this Beltway rendering of Volcker, trading will continue but with a much higher bureaucratic cost and with the illusion of safety that only regulation can create. Until the government is willing to create a durable financial system that allows failure, the best policy response is to make the rules so simple that even Washington can enforce them. That means higher, even very high, bank capital standards and margin requirements on risky trades between banks. Those aren't panaceas, but they offer more hope for taxpayers than the bureaucratic and bank-lobbyist jump ball that is now the Volcker Rule.

I am frustrated with what I am learning about the financial reform legislation (Dodd-Frank). In the interest of compromise (or should I say giving special interests what they want), Volker was watered down and punted to the admin. What we have is weak, confusing, and worst of all has the illusion of safety.

While some blame goes to Republicans and moderate Democrats for blocking a strong Volker Rule, I think the lions share of the blame goes to Democrats in Congress. They were unable to create an easy bright line rule. As if trying to conform to stereotypes, they created excessively long and confusing legislation. But also legislation that punts to the admin and forces them to create longer and more confusing rules.

This isn't good policy. And it doesn't make Democrats look good.

Too Big to Fail

Moderate GOP candidate Jon Huntsman had brief attention recently for suggesting Dodd-Frank did not end Too Big to Fail and for proposing some solutions. After reading Matthew Yglesias, I have to agree that Huntsman doesn't propose anything serious to deal with this problem.

I don't completely disagree with Huntsman's analysis that Dodd-Frank financial reform bill did not end Too Big to Fail. While it provides for a way to wind down big banks if they face trouble, the government might still feel the need to provide a bail out instead (or in addition?).

Huntsman seems to call for a repeal of Dodd-Frank, then that a provision similar or the same as Dodd-Frank's wind-down be enacted. He also calls for a tax on these large institutions (which I think Republicans opposed). None of this seems new or too strong.

If we want to end Too Big to Fail, we need to actually break up big banks. Otherwise, I think we are doing all we can.