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.
Saturday, March 09, 2013
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.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Polling - I Only Read Nate
Because of Nate Silver, I never read news articles about the latest polls. Instead, I check his blog (at least twice a day) for the overall projection and read his posts about the different polls and what they mean.
And Nate Silver’s blog at the NY Times is telling us President Obama has a really good chance (77.5%) of being re-elected. If this is accurate, then it looks like I was wrong. I thought he wouldn’t be re-elected because he hasn’t done enough or even tried hard enough on the economy. I wasn’t prepared for how bad Romney’s campaign would be (see birth certificate joke, consulate attack comments, Clint Eastwood, 47%, etc). And I hadn’t realized how strong the incumbent position is - which is probably the biggest reason Obama is so strong*.
And if Obama wins, I will be very relieved. Though I don’t think the Republicans can do much long-term damage, Romney has a radical agenda and will make it a really rough 4 years for the low income and unemployed and will really affect America's ability to compete and grow businesses (ie cuts to education, infrastructure, research, etc).
*By the way, I've been meaning to comment on this. The political science blogs I have been reading (really just Monkey Cage and 538) talk about the fundamentals, including incumbency and the economy. But really the incumbency factor is very strong.
I find it a little sad though because it says that voters aren't really evaluating the candidates very much and more often making quick and simple decisions. It's not as much about politics and policy. Instead, if the economy is getting better, might as well leave the incumbent in for another 4 years. This will likely give us Obama again, which is good, but this factor also gave us Bush again in 2004. It is hard to say though whether overall it is better. Is the country better with four more years of Bush and eight years of Obama than it would have been with 4 years of Kerry and 8 years of a Republican (or 8 years of Kerry)?
And Nate Silver’s blog at the NY Times is telling us President Obama has a really good chance (77.5%) of being re-elected. If this is accurate, then it looks like I was wrong. I thought he wouldn’t be re-elected because he hasn’t done enough or even tried hard enough on the economy. I wasn’t prepared for how bad Romney’s campaign would be (see birth certificate joke, consulate attack comments, Clint Eastwood, 47%, etc). And I hadn’t realized how strong the incumbent position is - which is probably the biggest reason Obama is so strong*.
And if Obama wins, I will be very relieved. Though I don’t think the Republicans can do much long-term damage, Romney has a radical agenda and will make it a really rough 4 years for the low income and unemployed and will really affect America's ability to compete and grow businesses (ie cuts to education, infrastructure, research, etc).
*By the way, I've been meaning to comment on this. The political science blogs I have been reading (really just Monkey Cage and 538) talk about the fundamentals, including incumbency and the economy. But really the incumbency factor is very strong.
I find it a little sad though because it says that voters aren't really evaluating the candidates very much and more often making quick and simple decisions. It's not as much about politics and policy. Instead, if the economy is getting better, might as well leave the incumbent in for another 4 years. This will likely give us Obama again, which is good, but this factor also gave us Bush again in 2004. It is hard to say though whether overall it is better. Is the country better with four more years of Bush and eight years of Obama than it would have been with 4 years of Kerry and 8 years of a Republican (or 8 years of Kerry)?
Tackling the Debt
I tried this new budget debt tool - it gives you options for cutting the federal deficit over a ten year period. It is pretty user-friendly, though there are a few options that I don't fully understand (even with the explanations).
First time through I ended up with a big surplus (almost $2 trillion). My choices were pretty liberal - almost $2.5 in revenue increases for every $1 in expense cuts. I think I let the Bush tax cuts expire and then added more tax brackets at the high end. Speaking of the Bush tax cuts, this debt tool makes it clear how expensive those (unfunded) tax cuts really are. Which again reminds me of the amazing hypocrisy of the GOP's focus on the deficits and debt since they passed the tax cuts.
I didn’t raise the Medicare or SS age. And I wasn't harsh on military spending at all. It almost felt too easy. Then again, the tax increases would never fly. Unfortunately.
When I ran through it a second time, the big decisions became clearer. One of course is the taxes. The Bush tax cuts cost $4.5 trillion. Preserving just the middle income costs $3.7 trillion. And the tax reform I selected generates $1.3 trillion.
The other is the overall government spending levels. If you let government grow with the economy as I prefer, which is a growth of 5.1%, it costs you an extra $2.4 trillion. If you let it expand with inflation, which is just under 2%, it only costs $0.8 trillion.
The bottom line is that balancing the budget over the next 10 years mostly involves just a few big decisions - how much do we want to raise in taxes, and how much do we want to spend on discretionary programs.
In 2008, candidate Barack Obama said that he would take a scalpel to the budget, not a sledge hammer. It was a great talking point, except that it was vapid and ridiculous. Obama was trying to say he could balance the budget with a lot of small cuts in programs that aren't working. Knowledge of the budget and this tool show that isn't possible.
In the end, you kind of need both the scalpel and the sledge hammer. Or rather, you need a blue print and set guidelines. Then you can use whatever metaphorical tool you want. Obama's talking point was a cute way of avoiding discussing his guidelines.
At risk of overwhelming this post, I do want so say that I think the discussions of budgets are more detailed this year than in 2008. Sure Romney and Ryan are light on details, and Obama is forced into more clarity due to his position as the incumbent president, but there is more substance overall. With Romney's plan, you can see what would have to happen to achieve his goals. Compare that to Obama's scalpel and McCain's call to balance the budget by eliminating Congressional discretionary spending (ie pork) which isn't even a drop in the bucket.
First time through I ended up with a big surplus (almost $2 trillion). My choices were pretty liberal - almost $2.5 in revenue increases for every $1 in expense cuts. I think I let the Bush tax cuts expire and then added more tax brackets at the high end. Speaking of the Bush tax cuts, this debt tool makes it clear how expensive those (unfunded) tax cuts really are. Which again reminds me of the amazing hypocrisy of the GOP's focus on the deficits and debt since they passed the tax cuts.
I didn’t raise the Medicare or SS age. And I wasn't harsh on military spending at all. It almost felt too easy. Then again, the tax increases would never fly. Unfortunately.
When I ran through it a second time, the big decisions became clearer. One of course is the taxes. The Bush tax cuts cost $4.5 trillion. Preserving just the middle income costs $3.7 trillion. And the tax reform I selected generates $1.3 trillion.
The other is the overall government spending levels. If you let government grow with the economy as I prefer, which is a growth of 5.1%, it costs you an extra $2.4 trillion. If you let it expand with inflation, which is just under 2%, it only costs $0.8 trillion.
The bottom line is that balancing the budget over the next 10 years mostly involves just a few big decisions - how much do we want to raise in taxes, and how much do we want to spend on discretionary programs.
In 2008, candidate Barack Obama said that he would take a scalpel to the budget, not a sledge hammer. It was a great talking point, except that it was vapid and ridiculous. Obama was trying to say he could balance the budget with a lot of small cuts in programs that aren't working. Knowledge of the budget and this tool show that isn't possible.
In the end, you kind of need both the scalpel and the sledge hammer. Or rather, you need a blue print and set guidelines. Then you can use whatever metaphorical tool you want. Obama's talking point was a cute way of avoiding discussing his guidelines.
At risk of overwhelming this post, I do want so say that I think the discussions of budgets are more detailed this year than in 2008. Sure Romney and Ryan are light on details, and Obama is forced into more clarity due to his position as the incumbent president, but there is more substance overall. With Romney's plan, you can see what would have to happen to achieve his goals. Compare that to Obama's scalpel and McCain's call to balance the budget by eliminating Congressional discretionary spending (ie pork) which isn't even a drop in the bucket.
Thursday, September 06, 2012
Romney's Convention Speech
I didn't watch Mitt Romney's convention speech (nor will I watch President Obama's speech), but I did read the coverage of it and one line stuck out. He said:
But just like other Romney criticisms of Obama, Romney isn't the solution. If we were disappointed by the lack of "Hope and Change", Romeny won't deliver that instead. If we want someone young, energetic and forward-looking, that isn't Mitt Romney. If we want someone who can be bipartisan and move us away from the bitter partisan debates of the baby-boomers, that isn't Mitt Romney (at least not the current version of Mitt Romney)*. All the things we wanted in Obama are definitely nowhere in Mitt Romney.
This is similar to Mitt Romney's criticisms over Obama's handling of the economy. He is right that Obama hasn't done enough to fix the economy. Granted, Romney's party has stood in the way much of the time, but I agree that Obama could have done more or at least tried harder. But either way, Romney isn't the solution. What this economy needs (fiscal and monetary stimulus) Romney isn't promising.
The question is whether voters will understand this. Will they only realize their disappointment and punish Obama? Or will they realize that Romney cannot deliver what we want. Will they realize that our best bet for "Hope and Change" is to re-elect President Obama and see if he can deliver on his promise in the second term. We might be disappointed again, but at least there is a chance. And with Mitt Romney, there is no chance.
*At this point, I doubt whether we want that. And I very much doubt that it is possible. It seems like the country is very divided along partisan lines.
You know there’s something wrong with the kind of job he’s done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him.That's not untrue. A lot of us are disappointed by President Obama. He hasn't lived up to our expectations, which he created during his campaign. His promise of bipartisanship turned into rolling over in the face of a radical Republican party. His moderation meant working on the budget deficit - not a real concern right now - instead of dealing with unemployment. I can go on, and have in previous posts.
But just like other Romney criticisms of Obama, Romney isn't the solution. If we were disappointed by the lack of "Hope and Change", Romeny won't deliver that instead. If we want someone young, energetic and forward-looking, that isn't Mitt Romney. If we want someone who can be bipartisan and move us away from the bitter partisan debates of the baby-boomers, that isn't Mitt Romney (at least not the current version of Mitt Romney)*. All the things we wanted in Obama are definitely nowhere in Mitt Romney.
This is similar to Mitt Romney's criticisms over Obama's handling of the economy. He is right that Obama hasn't done enough to fix the economy. Granted, Romney's party has stood in the way much of the time, but I agree that Obama could have done more or at least tried harder. But either way, Romney isn't the solution. What this economy needs (fiscal and monetary stimulus) Romney isn't promising.
The question is whether voters will understand this. Will they only realize their disappointment and punish Obama? Or will they realize that Romney cannot deliver what we want. Will they realize that our best bet for "Hope and Change" is to re-elect President Obama and see if he can deliver on his promise in the second term. We might be disappointed again, but at least there is a chance. And with Mitt Romney, there is no chance.
*At this point, I doubt whether we want that. And I very much doubt that it is possible. It seems like the country is very divided along partisan lines.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Election Update: August
There was a time when I thought Obama wouldn't be re-elected. I assumed the economy was so bad that he could only win if he could explain that Republicans blocked his great plans. And he can't really say that.
But we are at the point now where polls are much better at telling us what might happen than suppositions based on generalities. I check Nate Silver's blog every day, and so I am now pretty confident that Obama can and will win (his model says Obama is a 68.7% favorite).
There are only two things that worry me. One is still the economy. If it goes south, I think Obama loses. Two, I am a little worried about the debates. There is a chance that Romney shines and Obama doesn't, and in a close race, that might matter. I think Obama is a better debater and when he makes gaffes, they are less bad than Romney's (ie $10,000), but the worrier in me thinks it could be a problem.
But putting those two things aside, I feel pretty good about the presidency. And the Senate (thanks to Akin).
But we are at the point now where polls are much better at telling us what might happen than suppositions based on generalities. I check Nate Silver's blog every day, and so I am now pretty confident that Obama can and will win (his model says Obama is a 68.7% favorite).
There are only two things that worry me. One is still the economy. If it goes south, I think Obama loses. Two, I am a little worried about the debates. There is a chance that Romney shines and Obama doesn't, and in a close race, that might matter. I think Obama is a better debater and when he makes gaffes, they are less bad than Romney's (ie $10,000), but the worrier in me thinks it could be a problem.
But putting those two things aside, I feel pretty good about the presidency. And the Senate (thanks to Akin).
Bush: More Rethinking
I wrote a post about how I was rethinking Bush in light of the major right turn of the GOP. With Bush not even part of the Republican convention, I have more thoughts / questions.
My question is why the GOP is distancing themselves from him? Yes, he was and remains unpopular. Yet the things he is unpopular for are things the GOP still stands for. Bush is unpopular because of the recession and the Iraq War. But Mitt Romney's economic policies are more of the same from Bush and show he hasn't learned anything from the Great Recessions. And his foreign policy - specifically its belligerence towards Iran - shows he didn't learn any lessons from the Iraq War.
My best guess is that the GOP is distancing themselves from Bush because people might see the connection between the GOP platform and Bush (and might even realize the GOP is even more extreme than Bush was). But this is a party that seems to laugh in the face of unpopularity. I would have expected them to highlight Bush and try to say he was right about all of those things. That would be the honest thing to do. And the decent thing to do as well.
Instead, they are humiliating someone for having the audacity to implement policies the party still supports.
My question is why the GOP is distancing themselves from him? Yes, he was and remains unpopular. Yet the things he is unpopular for are things the GOP still stands for. Bush is unpopular because of the recession and the Iraq War. But Mitt Romney's economic policies are more of the same from Bush and show he hasn't learned anything from the Great Recessions. And his foreign policy - specifically its belligerence towards Iran - shows he didn't learn any lessons from the Iraq War.
My best guess is that the GOP is distancing themselves from Bush because people might see the connection between the GOP platform and Bush (and might even realize the GOP is even more extreme than Bush was). But this is a party that seems to laugh in the face of unpopularity. I would have expected them to highlight Bush and try to say he was right about all of those things. That would be the honest thing to do. And the decent thing to do as well.
Instead, they are humiliating someone for having the audacity to implement policies the party still supports.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)