The Washington Post surveyed residents of Detroit about how they feel about the future of Motown. There's general agreement that the place is in ruins now, but most have not given up completely. Which is good, because I'm from there, and I still have family there (Hi Mom!).
I'm of the opinion that there is a silver lining to the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler: it clarifies the status of manufacturing in Detroit and places like it. I've been hearing about the decline of American car manufacturing for years. GM has been losing market share for years. Chrysler already flirted with bankruptcy once.
I've also been seeing the Big Three perpetuate delusions about their status, and make strategic decisions that, in retrospect, were just not right. GM and Ford both bought European car companies, and are both now getting rid of them.
Beyond the specifics of what failed - like Saturn - what failed generally was strategic, theoretical thinking that had no connection to the basic raison d'etre of the car business. There is one way to make money in the car business: make good cars that people want to buy. It's like the movie business. There is one way to make money in the movie business: make good movies that people want to watch. What GM, Ford, and Chrysler failed to do was consistently execute on the details.
But now we know that those experiments failed. We have clarity courtesy of President Obama.
Conservatives complain that politicians should not interfere with business decisions. Except that a key part of the problem at GM and Chrysler was politics, specifically, the internal kind. Imagine office politics wherever you work. Now multiply that by 1,000. Or 10,000. That's what office politics are like at the Big Three. Many people have known for years that GM was making too many different models of cars. But each division had its advocates, and even the chairman of GM did not have the power to lay down the law and cut divisions.
The office politics at GM and Chrysler were literally so bad that it took the intervention of the most powerful man in the world, the president of the United States, to cut the Gordian knot.
So now we have clarity about the future of American car manufacturing. It's not dead. I have faith that the Big Three can build good cars. I have faith that they now understand that their experiments have failed. There are lots of people in Detroit who know a lot about designing and selling good cars. Those people will still have good jobs. And there will still be people wielding rivet guns and paint sprayers. Just not as many of them.
What's ironic for me is that there are some people who saw this coming years ago, and one of them is a guy named Bill Clinton. An essential part of Clinton's message was this: The jobs that created a blue collar middle class in the 1950's are going, many of them are gone, and they will not be coming back. So we have to deal with it. This is why he focused on health care reform early in his first term - because he knew that the model of employer-based health care was changing, and not for the better. It's also why he focused on job training and empowering people to go to community colleges for retraining.
It's not clear what is going to replace manufacturing as a source of jobs. But transitions like this one have always been problematic. There have always been winners and losers as industries and companies change.
We don't know where we will go from here. But we know we can't stay where we are.
Showing posts with label Washington Post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Washington Post. Show all posts
Monday, January 4, 2010
Monday, November 16, 2009
Liberal Arts Colleges and Teaching Leadership
The Washington Post has a blog called "On Leadership" (I guess it's a blog, it feels like one). Today there is a guest column about "Why colleges should teach leadership." The author is a recent (2005) graduate of Harvard. While there, he established a leadership institute, to address what he saw as a gap in the education at Harvard.
He nails the problem:
My experience was completely different. I was the "treasurer" of the Amnesty International chapter on campus. I was effectively president, but you couldn't call yourself president of a student political organization. There wasn't any official prohibition - the College does, after all, have a president - but it just wasn't done. There was an unwritten and unspoken rule that you did not impose a hierarchy on a student political group, because it was supposed to operate by consensus, according to the Quaker tradition (Swarthmore was founded by the Society of Friends, and still hews to some of the traditions of the Quakers, but is officially non-sectarian). It was basically taboo to call proclaim yourself a figure of authority. This was but one example of political correctness.
I was co-president of the campus science fiction club, the Swarthmore Warders of Imaginative Literature. My co-president and I called ourselves "The Presidents Who Go 'Ping!'" after the hopsital scene in Monty Python's the Meaning of Life
. But it was, as should be obvious, not a terribly serious organization, so no one minded if we called ourselves president. Besides, one of our predecessors had referred to himself as "Lord God Emperor" or something like that. We were modest in comparison.
The lack of title was the least of my problems learning leadership at Swarthmore. There is one key to teaching leadership that was missing at Swarthmore. Someone has to actually do it. At a college, there has to be someone who makes a commitment to teaching students how to lead. Ideally, each student organization should have a faculty advisor, a mentor who provides guidance by virtue of setting an example, answering questions, and empowering students to make decisions.
I did not have a faculty advisor when I was treasurer of Swarthmore. It never occurred to me to try to find one. I don't know of any student organization that had a faculty advisor, although it's possible that I missed something. The faculty at Swarthmore, were, to their great credit, committed to teaching undergraduates. Many of them were also committed to teaching students about issues of social justice and social criticism - I minored in Sociology specifically so that I could study Critical Theory. They were great at talking the talk.
But they had no idea how to walk the walk. Some of them were personally active in politics. But a professor providing guidance to students on how to be a leader of a political organization just was not part of the social fabric of the college. The College had other means of encouraging students to be politically active - one of the most prestigious scholarships was the Lang scholarship, provided by Eugene Lang, chairman of the board of managers. It required the recipient to take on an off-campus social change project. The college also provided grants to some students who engaged in social change projects - I got $400 to support my internship when I went to Washington to intern for the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. That was great. The College also provided Amnesty International with some money out of the student activities budget, which was good. But I also had an internship with Amnesty's Mid-Atlantic regional office in Washington, and didn't get any financial support for that.
Over the course of a couple of years running Amnesty International on campus, and two internships in Washington fighting the death penalty, I had a grand total of two conversations with faculty/staff about my political activities: once, when someone told me that they were sending me a check for $400 for the grant, and once about a parking ticket (I drove a college van to an Amnesty event).
I never had a single conversation with any Swarthmore faculty about my personal political activism. Never got any guidance about how to make decisions as a leader. Never got any advice about what to do when someone in the organization is doing something wrong.
I had lots of conversations, and wrote many papers, about what is wrong with capitalism. This, of course, was a time when my real-world economic experience consisted of summer jobs as a dishwasher. But no conversations about what I personally could actually do to make a difference.
I went to Washington for my internships because I was so sick of theory that I just had to find some way of getting some hands-on practical experience. I arranged my own internships, again with no help whatsoever from anyone at the college. I had two great mentors in Washington: a guy named Jim O'Dea at Amnesty, and a woman named Leigh Dingerson at the NCADP. They both gave me good projects to work on. They were both excellent managers, with real passion for their causes. I am, all these years later, still grateful to both of them. But both of those experiences were completely removed from my college education.
Do I sound a bitter? Maybe just a little. This is one reason that I do not donate money as an alumni to Swarthmore (there are several reasons for that). After I left, the College started paying more attention to this issue: they created a position for someone to provide this guidance. I applied for that job, but didn't get it (the person who was hired was a friend, and an excellent choice). I understand that the College has spent money on building facilities to support student activism. That's all well and good, but too late for me.
I was thrilled to read this column in the WaPo, because the need is urgent.
What Swarthmore also did not teach me, and what I desperately needed, was how to make decisions. That is an essential duty of leadership - it's what leaders do. The problem wasn't just the lack of mentors, but my particular curriculum. I majored in philosophy, and minored in English and Sociology & Anthropology (S&A is one department at Swat). Philosophers make decisions about theory, but they do not make decisions that affect other people. There weren't a lot of role models for leadership among contemporary women poets or in Joyce's Ulysses. Sociologists may argue about what leadership is, but there aren't many opportunities to practice it in the classroom.
The problem with lack of mentors was particular to Swarthmore in the late 1980's, but there is a general porblem teaching leadership on American campuses. One thing leaders have to do is evaluate risk. But professors with tenure are insulated from risk. Leaders take risks in the hopes of reaping rewards. Any good leader is going to have their share of failures, just by virtue of being human. But any good leader is also going to be someone who learns from their failures.
Professors, however, being insulated from failure by tenure, do not have the same opportunity to learn from risks taken that do not work out. So professors, at least those with tenure, will probably be poor teachers of leadership. Tenure grants them permission to create impregnable, and very intellectually sophisticated, defense mechanisms justifying why their ideas don't match reality. My favorite joke about economists is that an economist is someone who sees something working in practice, and wonders if it will work in theory.
I would love to see more efforts at teaching leadership on American college campuses. What any effort to do so, however, must take into account one thing: there are already many high-profile people at colleges who teach students how to lead, how to make difficult decisions, and how to motivate others to achieve a common goal. These people take risks, and are held accountable when they fail.
These people are called "coaches."
He nails the problem:
Education is a college's reason for being, and leadership needs to be a part of the classroom experience. For that to happen successfully, the definition of the classroom must evolve. It should not simply be a place where students hear lectures, but rather an interactive environment that extends beyond the confines of the room itself. Experiential learning emphasizes discussions, projects and team work rather than problem-set solving or textbook-reading.I completely agree. I went to Swarthmore, a classic liberal arts college, with a strong liberal/progressive tradition. Every administrator, every faculty member, every board member, will tell you that the College teaches leadership, and believes very strongly in doing so.
My experience was completely different. I was the "treasurer" of the Amnesty International chapter on campus. I was effectively president, but you couldn't call yourself president of a student political organization. There wasn't any official prohibition - the College does, after all, have a president - but it just wasn't done. There was an unwritten and unspoken rule that you did not impose a hierarchy on a student political group, because it was supposed to operate by consensus, according to the Quaker tradition (Swarthmore was founded by the Society of Friends, and still hews to some of the traditions of the Quakers, but is officially non-sectarian). It was basically taboo to call proclaim yourself a figure of authority. This was but one example of political correctness.
I was co-president of the campus science fiction club, the Swarthmore Warders of Imaginative Literature. My co-president and I called ourselves "The Presidents Who Go 'Ping!'" after the hopsital scene in Monty Python's the Meaning of Life
. But it was, as should be obvious, not a terribly serious organization, so no one minded if we called ourselves president. Besides, one of our predecessors had referred to himself as "Lord God Emperor" or something like that. We were modest in comparison.The lack of title was the least of my problems learning leadership at Swarthmore. There is one key to teaching leadership that was missing at Swarthmore. Someone has to actually do it. At a college, there has to be someone who makes a commitment to teaching students how to lead. Ideally, each student organization should have a faculty advisor, a mentor who provides guidance by virtue of setting an example, answering questions, and empowering students to make decisions.
I did not have a faculty advisor when I was treasurer of Swarthmore. It never occurred to me to try to find one. I don't know of any student organization that had a faculty advisor, although it's possible that I missed something. The faculty at Swarthmore, were, to their great credit, committed to teaching undergraduates. Many of them were also committed to teaching students about issues of social justice and social criticism - I minored in Sociology specifically so that I could study Critical Theory. They were great at talking the talk.
But they had no idea how to walk the walk. Some of them were personally active in politics. But a professor providing guidance to students on how to be a leader of a political organization just was not part of the social fabric of the college. The College had other means of encouraging students to be politically active - one of the most prestigious scholarships was the Lang scholarship, provided by Eugene Lang, chairman of the board of managers. It required the recipient to take on an off-campus social change project. The college also provided grants to some students who engaged in social change projects - I got $400 to support my internship when I went to Washington to intern for the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. That was great. The College also provided Amnesty International with some money out of the student activities budget, which was good. But I also had an internship with Amnesty's Mid-Atlantic regional office in Washington, and didn't get any financial support for that.
Over the course of a couple of years running Amnesty International on campus, and two internships in Washington fighting the death penalty, I had a grand total of two conversations with faculty/staff about my political activities: once, when someone told me that they were sending me a check for $400 for the grant, and once about a parking ticket (I drove a college van to an Amnesty event).
I never had a single conversation with any Swarthmore faculty about my personal political activism. Never got any guidance about how to make decisions as a leader. Never got any advice about what to do when someone in the organization is doing something wrong.
I had lots of conversations, and wrote many papers, about what is wrong with capitalism. This, of course, was a time when my real-world economic experience consisted of summer jobs as a dishwasher. But no conversations about what I personally could actually do to make a difference.
I went to Washington for my internships because I was so sick of theory that I just had to find some way of getting some hands-on practical experience. I arranged my own internships, again with no help whatsoever from anyone at the college. I had two great mentors in Washington: a guy named Jim O'Dea at Amnesty, and a woman named Leigh Dingerson at the NCADP. They both gave me good projects to work on. They were both excellent managers, with real passion for their causes. I am, all these years later, still grateful to both of them. But both of those experiences were completely removed from my college education.
Do I sound a bitter? Maybe just a little. This is one reason that I do not donate money as an alumni to Swarthmore (there are several reasons for that). After I left, the College started paying more attention to this issue: they created a position for someone to provide this guidance. I applied for that job, but didn't get it (the person who was hired was a friend, and an excellent choice). I understand that the College has spent money on building facilities to support student activism. That's all well and good, but too late for me.
I was thrilled to read this column in the WaPo, because the need is urgent.
Just like cars from Detroit, our existing educational models works, but significant advances have taken place in the field, and these models haven't always kept up.Liberal arts advocates argue that the purpose of a liberal arts education is to teach students "how to think." That's great. For me, however, it was not necessary. I had a fantastic high school education (in suburban Detroit) that taught me how to think. Swarthmore did not teach me how to think - I already knew that. I got some good practice on how to argue, but Swarthmore did not teach me how to think.
What Swarthmore also did not teach me, and what I desperately needed, was how to make decisions. That is an essential duty of leadership - it's what leaders do. The problem wasn't just the lack of mentors, but my particular curriculum. I majored in philosophy, and minored in English and Sociology & Anthropology (S&A is one department at Swat). Philosophers make decisions about theory, but they do not make decisions that affect other people. There weren't a lot of role models for leadership among contemporary women poets or in Joyce's Ulysses. Sociologists may argue about what leadership is, but there aren't many opportunities to practice it in the classroom.
The problem with lack of mentors was particular to Swarthmore in the late 1980's, but there is a general porblem teaching leadership on American campuses. One thing leaders have to do is evaluate risk. But professors with tenure are insulated from risk. Leaders take risks in the hopes of reaping rewards. Any good leader is going to have their share of failures, just by virtue of being human. But any good leader is also going to be someone who learns from their failures.
Professors, however, being insulated from failure by tenure, do not have the same opportunity to learn from risks taken that do not work out. So professors, at least those with tenure, will probably be poor teachers of leadership. Tenure grants them permission to create impregnable, and very intellectually sophisticated, defense mechanisms justifying why their ideas don't match reality. My favorite joke about economists is that an economist is someone who sees something working in practice, and wonders if it will work in theory.
I would love to see more efforts at teaching leadership on American college campuses. What any effort to do so, however, must take into account one thing: there are already many high-profile people at colleges who teach students how to lead, how to make difficult decisions, and how to motivate others to achieve a common goal. These people take risks, and are held accountable when they fail.
These people are called "coaches."
Friday, June 19, 2009
The WaPo fires Froomkin
The Washington Post fired Dan Froomkin, one of my favorite writers on washingtonpost.com. Wow, what a bad move. Glenn Greenwald has a great takedown on the sheer stupidity. That just boggles my mind. I loved reading his posts.
The first problem with this is that the Post apparently expects us to believe that this is because Froomkin wasn't generating good numbers in terms of traffic. I don't buy that for a second. Why? I have no idea what Froomkin's numbers were. But I don't buy it because I have long believed that I should be skeptical of claims from those in power. I believe this particularly because of the experience of two Washington Post reporters. Apparently Fred Hiatt, WaPo editor, didn't learn the lessons of Woodstein as well as some of the rest of us.
Another reason I am skeptical is that this looks like a blatantly political move. Again, why? Because Froomkin was a highly opinionated political writer. To justify firing someone like him, there has to be clear and substantial evidence of either egregious journalistic misconduct, personal problems, or clear evidence of his failure to generate business. I haven't seen anything of the kind. There has not been any allegation of any kind of misconduct, personal or professional, and if he wasn't bringing in the numbers, let's see those numbers. But back to the political: this looks political because he was a political player. When you fire someone who is a key player in the nation's politics, it is going to look political. That's how the game works. If you don't want it to look political, you damn well better have your cover story airtight.
The final reason I think this is stupid because Froomkin can, and probably will, move to another media property. He has a wide and loyal constituency, and this firing instantly gives him a certain degree of credibility. To say nothing of lots of publicity. If anything, it makes him more valuable. The smart thing would be for the NY Times to snap him up. If he's successful at The Times, that will expose the WaPo's cover story as nonsense. He could easily set up his own blog. He could easily go on a speaking tour. He could work for The Atlantic, or TPM. Josh Marshall would love to have him on board. If he drives traffic to any of those sites, the problem will clearly be with the WaPo, not him.
I've been reading the WaPo for well over 20 years. I have very fond memories of reading it when I lived in DC. I have particularly fond memories of the contests in the Style section. I used to read David Broder and actually learn something about politics. I've been clinging to my faith in it despite the criticism of the Washington press corps from bloggers. I used to visit washingtonpost.com at least once a day, if not more. I've been frustrated by the site, because I think it just pales in comparison to nytimes.com. But now I have one less reason to visit it. Actually, two. I have two fewer reasons to visit washingtonpost.com. The first reason is that one of my favorite writers is no longer there. The second reason is that I no longer trust it as well as I once did.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Happy Mother's Day!
Happy Mother's Day to all the Moms out there. Just in case you haven't done anything for your mother on this special day, you can go to mothersday.com, which I just found because I typed "mothersday.com" into my browser, and voila! guess what popped up. I'm the kind of person who can do this, because my Mom encouraged me to be curious. I remember many trips to the library as a kid. I don't have kids, but one of my brothers has three, and my sister has two, with one on the way, so I have a much better idea of what it takes to raise kids than I did when I actually was one. So I am much more appreciative of what it takes to take kids to the library on a regular basis. Thanks Mom!
The WaPo has a post today with a slightly unusual take on Mother's Day: Lenore Skenazy slams what she calls the "parenting-industrial complex." Marketers are out of control, according to Ms. Skenazy, pitching parents with products to solve problems that they don't even know they have. This, of course, is exactly what lots of companies do in all kinds of areas of life, but it's particularly pernicious for new parents, because they are particularly nervous. New parents in particular have little if any experience raising kids, so they are vulnerable to all kinds of marketing-induced anxieties. Enough! Skenazy quotes the godfather of parenting advice, Dr. Spock:
But the best reason to trust yourself when raising your child is that this is the best possible lesson to impart to your child. If you pay too much attention to marketing, you're setting the ultimate bad example.
When all else fails, your own mother is probably a much better - and cheaper - source of wisdom. Mine certainly is.
The WaPo has a post today with a slightly unusual take on Mother's Day: Lenore Skenazy slams what she calls the "parenting-industrial complex." Marketers are out of control, according to Ms. Skenazy, pitching parents with products to solve problems that they don't even know they have. This, of course, is exactly what lots of companies do in all kinds of areas of life, but it's particularly pernicious for new parents, because they are particularly nervous. New parents in particular have little if any experience raising kids, so they are vulnerable to all kinds of marketing-induced anxieties. Enough! Skenazy quotes the godfather of parenting advice, Dr. Spock:
"Trust yourself. You know more than you think you do."Your baby is a little person. You are a big person. You are both people. How would you want to be treated if you were a little person? Sometimes you do what you would want someone to do to you. Sometimes you do the exact opposite.
But the best reason to trust yourself when raising your child is that this is the best possible lesson to impart to your child. If you pay too much attention to marketing, you're setting the ultimate bad example.
When all else fails, your own mother is probably a much better - and cheaper - source of wisdom. Mine certainly is.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Obama at the G-10 summit
The G-20 summit seems to have gone well. President Obama made an excellent impression, including with reporters. Apparently they gave him a standing ovation. Reporters? A standing ovation for a politician? First time for everything, I guess. Why were they so impressed?
One important thing that is already fading from view is that there was supposed to be some tension at this summit around the issue of how to handle the economic crisis. The Europeans, particularly the French and Germans, want tighter regulations; the Americans and British want more stimulus. Looks like there was a little bit of both. The NY Times editorial board wasn't thrilled, but neither did they condemn the results. There were no diplomatic dustups, everyone got along fine, Obama proved his popularity has some grounding, a trillion dollars and change was committed to the IMF. Let me repeat: there were no diplomatic dustups, and everyone got along fine. For a one-day summit, that's pretty good. Maybe the crisis was not resolved to perfect satisfaction. But progress was made. It's a start.
“He actually answered the questions he was asked,” says one startled Asian reporter.The FT has the best coverage I've seen so far. I didn't find much about this on the normal blogs, like TPM or even Andrew Sullivan. Dan Froomkin at the WaPo has a nice rundown, with the headline "World Community Organizer."
One important thing that is already fading from view is that there was supposed to be some tension at this summit around the issue of how to handle the economic crisis. The Europeans, particularly the French and Germans, want tighter regulations; the Americans and British want more stimulus. Looks like there was a little bit of both. The NY Times editorial board wasn't thrilled, but neither did they condemn the results. There were no diplomatic dustups, everyone got along fine, Obama proved his popularity has some grounding, a trillion dollars and change was committed to the IMF. Let me repeat: there were no diplomatic dustups, and everyone got along fine. For a one-day summit, that's pretty good. Maybe the crisis was not resolved to perfect satisfaction. But progress was made. It's a start.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
This would be another great time not to panic
I've been thinking about that Rudyard Kipling poem, "If," particularly this line:
Except, of course, in Barack Obama. Or in Michelle Obama. Malia and Sasha are probably reasonably calm, too, but that's to be expected from kids who have incredibly cool parents.
In the WaPo opinion section, slings and arrows are coming from the left and right. William Greider, national correspondent for The Nation, and Baby Boomer liberal relic, is worried about something called the "corporate state," which sounds ominous, and would probably have me trembling in fear if I couldn't dismiss it as a meaningless cliche reminiscient of the worthless blather I read when I was studying the Frankfurt School. What the hell is a "corporate state?" A government controlled by corporations? The relations between government and corporations in this society is incredibly complex and constantly changing. Using the phrase "corporate state" dismisses that complexity as unworthy of discussion, and replaces it with a trivial demogogic appellation. Here's a great example of Greider's stale tactics:
From the right, Kathleen Parker, one of the nicer conservatives in the punditocracy, writes a pieces titled "The Foundering Father," and spouts just as much random nonsense as Greider, this time accusing Obama of not being in charge. She quotes his response to the AIG mess, "The buck stops with me," and then dismisses it as a cliche. That's an interesting rhetorical device: provide evidence that your political opponent is doing exactly what he should be doing, and then use an almost-clever line to diminish the significance of his achievement.
I think Obama is still doing a fantastic job. I also think a little perspective is in order. I'm going to repeat the oft-repeated line that Obama has been in office just a few weeks, but I am going to add a caveat.
Obama inherited a number of problems. He is tackling many of them. He has started cleaning up some spectacular messes. He and his staff have made some mistakes cleaning them up. But that is to be expected, and Obama warned repeatedly that mistakes would be made.
Obama's big problem right now is not a lack of focus, it's not the random mistakes, it's not the criticism from the right or left. Obama's problem is that he has spent a fair amount of political capital, he's attempting the impossible on several fronts, and, as of right now, Sunday morning, March 22, 2009, he has almost nothing to show for it. But that's just a function of time.
The analogy that I would like to propose is this: imagine a married couple, who have just gotten married. They've just bought a house together. They moved to a new state so that one of them could get a better job, and the other one is unemployed. The honeymoon was a couple of months ago. They're moving in together, merging households, changing addresses, adjusting to lots of new realities. They have a big fight. About something each thinks is important, but really isn't. In the middle of the fight, neither wants to compromise, each may be wondering, "why did I marry this person?" Things look ugly.
But then one of them agrees with something the other one said, and apologizes, and then the other apologizes for something else, and they start to mellow. They get over it. They go out to dinner and a movie. Etc., etc.
That's where our political situation is right now. We're in the middle of the fight. We've got lots of boxes to unpack, and the TV isn't set up, so we can't watch movies, there are plumbing problems we didn't know about, the neighbors aren't as friendly as we had hoped, we miss our old friends, haven't seen family in a while, etc. We know this marriage and this move and the new job were worth it, but we don't see a payoff yet.
We are spending trillions of dollars on things that we don't understand. Will we be able to solve the credit crunch, the recession, etc.? Eventually. Are we doing this the right way? I have no idea. We've pumped $170 billion into AIG, and there are no visible signs that we have gotten anything in return. All those "shovel-ready" programs funded by the stimulus package? Has anyone seen a bridge repaired, a pothole filled? Probably not. Are we going to be wasting billions? Yes. If 1% of the stimulus package vaporizes into thin air, that's about $8 billion down the drain. And that would be a best-case scenario.
But at some point, the fight is over. The boxes are unpacked, the cable TV is working, the new dishwasher is installed. At some point the potholes will start to be filled, the bridges repaired. Troops will start coming home. We'll be making nice with the Iranians and the Syrians and the Cubans. There won't be as many people arrested for using medical marijuana in California and other states that allow it.
And I will be thankful that Barack and Michelle (and Malia and Sasha) and all the people who work for them chose this time as a great time not to panic.
"If you can keep your head when all about youWhat a time to apply an overused line. This is about the clearest example of that idea at work that I have ever seen. Everywhere I look I see and hear panic, frustration, confusion, anger. I also see hope and some optimism. But lots of angst.
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;"
Except, of course, in Barack Obama. Or in Michelle Obama. Malia and Sasha are probably reasonably calm, too, but that's to be expected from kids who have incredibly cool parents.
In the WaPo opinion section, slings and arrows are coming from the left and right. William Greider, national correspondent for The Nation, and Baby Boomer liberal relic, is worried about something called the "corporate state," which sounds ominous, and would probably have me trembling in fear if I couldn't dismiss it as a meaningless cliche reminiscient of the worthless blather I read when I was studying the Frankfurt School. What the hell is a "corporate state?" A government controlled by corporations? The relations between government and corporations in this society is incredibly complex and constantly changing. Using the phrase "corporate state" dismisses that complexity as unworthy of discussion, and replaces it with a trivial demogogic appellation. Here's a great example of Greider's stale tactics:
The president is now trapped between these two realms -- the governing elites who decide things and the people who are governed. Which side is he on? If he does not choose wisely, the anger could devour his presidency.Or it might not. The anger at AIG and their close friends on Wall Street might stay directed at corporate idiots and criminals. Maybe, just maybe, the President of the United States, an incredibly gifted progressive leader, might be able to focus that anger and achieve some kind of real reform. He might decide that he is on the side of the people who elected him. Which would mean that the anger would not devour his presidency.
From the right, Kathleen Parker, one of the nicer conservatives in the punditocracy, writes a pieces titled "The Foundering Father," and spouts just as much random nonsense as Greider, this time accusing Obama of not being in charge. She quotes his response to the AIG mess, "The buck stops with me," and then dismisses it as a cliche. That's an interesting rhetorical device: provide evidence that your political opponent is doing exactly what he should be doing, and then use an almost-clever line to diminish the significance of his achievement.
I think Obama is still doing a fantastic job. I also think a little perspective is in order. I'm going to repeat the oft-repeated line that Obama has been in office just a few weeks, but I am going to add a caveat.
Obama inherited a number of problems. He is tackling many of them. He has started cleaning up some spectacular messes. He and his staff have made some mistakes cleaning them up. But that is to be expected, and Obama warned repeatedly that mistakes would be made.
Obama's big problem right now is not a lack of focus, it's not the random mistakes, it's not the criticism from the right or left. Obama's problem is that he has spent a fair amount of political capital, he's attempting the impossible on several fronts, and, as of right now, Sunday morning, March 22, 2009, he has almost nothing to show for it. But that's just a function of time.
The analogy that I would like to propose is this: imagine a married couple, who have just gotten married. They've just bought a house together. They moved to a new state so that one of them could get a better job, and the other one is unemployed. The honeymoon was a couple of months ago. They're moving in together, merging households, changing addresses, adjusting to lots of new realities. They have a big fight. About something each thinks is important, but really isn't. In the middle of the fight, neither wants to compromise, each may be wondering, "why did I marry this person?" Things look ugly.
But then one of them agrees with something the other one said, and apologizes, and then the other apologizes for something else, and they start to mellow. They get over it. They go out to dinner and a movie. Etc., etc.
That's where our political situation is right now. We're in the middle of the fight. We've got lots of boxes to unpack, and the TV isn't set up, so we can't watch movies, there are plumbing problems we didn't know about, the neighbors aren't as friendly as we had hoped, we miss our old friends, haven't seen family in a while, etc. We know this marriage and this move and the new job were worth it, but we don't see a payoff yet.
We are spending trillions of dollars on things that we don't understand. Will we be able to solve the credit crunch, the recession, etc.? Eventually. Are we doing this the right way? I have no idea. We've pumped $170 billion into AIG, and there are no visible signs that we have gotten anything in return. All those "shovel-ready" programs funded by the stimulus package? Has anyone seen a bridge repaired, a pothole filled? Probably not. Are we going to be wasting billions? Yes. If 1% of the stimulus package vaporizes into thin air, that's about $8 billion down the drain. And that would be a best-case scenario.
But at some point, the fight is over. The boxes are unpacked, the cable TV is working, the new dishwasher is installed. At some point the potholes will start to be filled, the bridges repaired. Troops will start coming home. We'll be making nice with the Iranians and the Syrians and the Cubans. There won't be as many people arrested for using medical marijuana in California and other states that allow it.
And I will be thankful that Barack and Michelle (and Malia and Sasha) and all the people who work for them chose this time as a great time not to panic.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Brancy: Brad Pitt meets Nancy Pelosi
Brad Pitt traveled to Capitol Hill today, and met with Nancy Pelosi. They held a joint press conference, with Pelosi just gushing. Dana Milbank, WaPo columnist, let his imagination run wild, and came up with a couple of alternative takes on Brad Pitt movies: What if it was Nancy Pelosi in Mr. and Mrs. Smith, instead of Angelina Jolie? This is hysterical.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Obama is a socialist: discuss, debate, or ridicule?
Conservatives keep trying to call Obama a socialist. This is, of course, ludicrous. I don't know the precise definition of "socialism." And I'm not going to try to find out what it is, because I seriously doubt that there is one definition of "socialism." For now, let's just say that "socialism" means the government controls at least some of the means of production in a country, and heavily regulates the rest. Right now there is a raging debate about whether or not banks should be nationalized. I don't know.
What I do know is that Obama is not a socialist. He is not interested in the government controlling or owning large companies. Not his cup of tea. Harold Meyerson of the WaPo, and once upon a time of the LA Weekly, has a great and wonderful column about this topic, with some of the history of socialism in this country, and some of the history of socialism used by Republicans as a slander against Democrats. Meyerson argues, quite convincingly, that the villains in this drama are capitalists. Then again, it's easy to be quite convincing when the arguments in your favor consist of most of what's happening in the world.
One aspect of this attempt to pummel Obama with this vaguely ominous criticism is that they seem to be using it because their standard bogeyman for years - "liberal" - apparently is no longer working. Maybe the fact that Obama is not in the least bit afraid of being called a liberal has something to do with it.
Conservatives have their own definition of "socialist." It is roughly this: a socialist is someone who is going to take things from me - my money, my freedom, my guns, my superior socioeconomic position bestowed upon me by the accident of birth - and give it to someone less deserving. That "less deserving person" is someone who they think don't works as hard as they do, and who whines a lot.
The irony of their own status as whiners is utterly lost on conservatives. As are many instances of irony.
What I do know is that Obama is not a socialist. He is not interested in the government controlling or owning large companies. Not his cup of tea. Harold Meyerson of the WaPo, and once upon a time of the LA Weekly, has a great and wonderful column about this topic, with some of the history of socialism in this country, and some of the history of socialism used by Republicans as a slander against Democrats. Meyerson argues, quite convincingly, that the villains in this drama are capitalists. Then again, it's easy to be quite convincing when the arguments in your favor consist of most of what's happening in the world.
So, for conservatives searching for the culprits behind this transformation of capitalism: Despite our best efforts, it wasn't Bernie [Sanders] and it wasn't me. It was your own damn system.But don't worry, he reminds us, Obama, like FDR before him, will save capitalism from itself. After which salvation, of course, conservatives will be just as ungrateful as ever.
One aspect of this attempt to pummel Obama with this vaguely ominous criticism is that they seem to be using it because their standard bogeyman for years - "liberal" - apparently is no longer working. Maybe the fact that Obama is not in the least bit afraid of being called a liberal has something to do with it.
Conservatives have their own definition of "socialist." It is roughly this: a socialist is someone who is going to take things from me - my money, my freedom, my guns, my superior socioeconomic position bestowed upon me by the accident of birth - and give it to someone less deserving. That "less deserving person" is someone who they think don't works as hard as they do, and who whines a lot.
The irony of their own status as whiners is utterly lost on conservatives. As are many instances of irony.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
The Impact of Milk
The WaPo looks at the cultural impact that "Milk" has had. It hasn't made much money; $27 million at the box office.
But my feeling is that it has had, and, more importantly, will have, a dramatic impact. The article points out that it has had a great impact on the younger generation, providing them a glimpse of what the gay rights movement was like back in the day. Because, let's face it, this movie is better than anything that will ever show up in even the most progressive high school textbooks.
As for the impact on the straight population? I think it will be nothing but good, largely because it's such a sweet, positive movie. The scene where he picks up James Franco is one of the most wonderful seduction scenes you will ever see, because it's just so obviously love at first sight. Sean Penn plays Harvey Milk as just a peach of a guy, the kind of man anybody would love to have as their neighbor or coworker or brother-in-law or friend. He's smart, funny, honest, brave and compassionate. What's not to love?
But there is one simple fact about Harvey Milk that may be the most inspiring, and which he had no control over. He is an American, and his story is a quintessentially American story. It's a story about love and freedom. What could be more American?
But my feeling is that it has had, and, more importantly, will have, a dramatic impact. The article points out that it has had a great impact on the younger generation, providing them a glimpse of what the gay rights movement was like back in the day. Because, let's face it, this movie is better than anything that will ever show up in even the most progressive high school textbooks.
As for the impact on the straight population? I think it will be nothing but good, largely because it's such a sweet, positive movie. The scene where he picks up James Franco is one of the most wonderful seduction scenes you will ever see, because it's just so obviously love at first sight. Sean Penn plays Harvey Milk as just a peach of a guy, the kind of man anybody would love to have as their neighbor or coworker or brother-in-law or friend. He's smart, funny, honest, brave and compassionate. What's not to love?
But there is one simple fact about Harvey Milk that may be the most inspiring, and which he had no control over. He is an American, and his story is a quintessentially American story. It's a story about love and freedom. What could be more American?
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Obama's (first) Op-Ed
"The writer is president of the United States." That's the byline for Obama's first Op-Ed, published today in the Washington Post. Normally I shorten that to "WaPo," but when you're writing about the president publishing his first opinion piece, at least his first as president, somehow a bit of formality seems more appropriate. That's a nice perk of being president: you can get your Op-Ed pieces published any time you want. "Hello, Washington Post? I'd like to publish something tomorrow. Could you please make some room on your Op-Ed page. Thanks so much." I wonder if he gets paid the standard rate.
He's pushing to have his stimulus package passed.
I've heard rumors and grumblings among liberals about Obama willing to work with Republicans. Some people seem to think that he's giving away the store, letting John Boehner and Mitch McConnell dictate the rules of the game. I disagree. Obama is doing exactly what he promised to do - listen to his opponents respectfully, work with them when possible, and compromise when necessary. It's very clear that he actually believes his campaign rhetoric, and he is acting accordingly. He is doing what he said he would do. That's incredibly refreshing, particularly in comparison to George W. Bush. Obama is going to benefit from that comparison for a long time, much to the chagrin of Republicans. He generates political capital for himself just by not being a jerk. He generates political capital for himself by speaking in coherent sentences. He generates political capital for himself by having a well-written Op-Ed piece published in the Washington Post, signaling that he trusts the American people to actually read something published in a newspaper and think about it.
Right now Congress is going through the usual motions of political gamesmanship, fighting for leverage and position, magnifying trivial differences, claiming the moral high ground. Obama is good at playing that game. But what Republicans don't seem to appreciate is that he actually believes this whole bipartisan schtick, and he is going to generate yet more political capital by virtue of it. If he comes across as reasonable yet decisive and determined, and they are constantly sniping at him, they are going to look petty and cynical.
Assuming that the Republicans try to filibuster it, the stimulus package will need 60 votes in the Senate, which means it will probably need at least two Republicans. I think he'll get them. As soon as it passes, Obama looks like a winner. And then comes the important part: actually getting things done. It's entirely possible that this package will really do some of the things that Obama says it will. At which point Obama will look even better. Which, I suspect, is what truly has Republicans terrified. They are this cynical: they're afraid that government might actually help people.
He's pushing to have his stimulus package passed.
So we have a choice to make. We can once again let Washington's bad habits stand in the way of progress. Or we can pull together and say that in America, our destiny isn't written for us but by us. We can place good ideas ahead of old ideological battles, and a sense of purpose above the same narrow partisanship. We can act boldly to turn crisis into opportunity and, together, write the next great chapter in our history and meet the test of our time.I'm in favor of the stimulus package, with some exceptions, like the tax break for movie studios, and I'm not a big fan of tax breaks generally, given the massive federal debt.
I've heard rumors and grumblings among liberals about Obama willing to work with Republicans. Some people seem to think that he's giving away the store, letting John Boehner and Mitch McConnell dictate the rules of the game. I disagree. Obama is doing exactly what he promised to do - listen to his opponents respectfully, work with them when possible, and compromise when necessary. It's very clear that he actually believes his campaign rhetoric, and he is acting accordingly. He is doing what he said he would do. That's incredibly refreshing, particularly in comparison to George W. Bush. Obama is going to benefit from that comparison for a long time, much to the chagrin of Republicans. He generates political capital for himself just by not being a jerk. He generates political capital for himself by speaking in coherent sentences. He generates political capital for himself by having a well-written Op-Ed piece published in the Washington Post, signaling that he trusts the American people to actually read something published in a newspaper and think about it.
Right now Congress is going through the usual motions of political gamesmanship, fighting for leverage and position, magnifying trivial differences, claiming the moral high ground. Obama is good at playing that game. But what Republicans don't seem to appreciate is that he actually believes this whole bipartisan schtick, and he is going to generate yet more political capital by virtue of it. If he comes across as reasonable yet decisive and determined, and they are constantly sniping at him, they are going to look petty and cynical.
Assuming that the Republicans try to filibuster it, the stimulus package will need 60 votes in the Senate, which means it will probably need at least two Republicans. I think he'll get them. As soon as it passes, Obama looks like a winner. And then comes the important part: actually getting things done. It's entirely possible that this package will really do some of the things that Obama says it will. At which point Obama will look even better. Which, I suspect, is what truly has Republicans terrified. They are this cynical: they're afraid that government might actually help people.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
2008 - The best, and the worst
This morning, I was reading washingtonpost.com and happened to notice the date: 1/1/09/. Just seeing those numbers, I felt a mild sense of relief. 2008 is gone, it's history, it's all in the past. Whew. What a year.
To steal from Dickens, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Sometimes the best and the worst were embodied by the same person. John McCain represented the best of straight white American male traditions - the honorable war hero who speaks his mind. But then he was also the worst of straight white American male traditions - the man willing to do almost anything to advance his own career, the freewheeling ne'er-do-well who lives by his own rules, ignoring the concerns of others, a man at once burdened by a great personal heritage, and yet who feels entitled by virtue of that same heritage. The man committed for years to a noble cause, but one who makes the most important decision of his career - his choice of vice-president - on the careless and reckless basis of gut instinct.
Sarah Palin contained multitudes of contradictions. The first woman VP candidate for the GOP, a working mom, a fresh face from outside the political establishment, she broke new ground in lots of ways. But she was also one who - you betcha - had many of the same disastrous qualities of those within that establishment. A petty, vindictive, mean-spiritied liar, with an ego inflated way out of proportion to her accomplishments. It takes extraordinary hubris to decide to run for national office, but Palin's sense of her personal potential was way out of whack even by the ridiculous standards of American politics. A woman who invented her own terminology for being down-to-earth - the "hockey mom" - broke new ground for being a diva.
Tina Fey started out the year doing well - star and producer of her own TV sitcom, accomplished writer, star of a movie with her good friend Amy Poehler, Baby Mama. And then, with only a few minutes of TV time over a couple of months, she went from rising star to cultural icon. No good roles for women? Hold on, sister; women created great new roles for other women.
One of those women who created new roles for women was, of course, Hillary Clinton. She went on a roller coaster few other people - men or women - have ever experienced. On Jan. 1, 2008, she was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Two days later, on January 3, came the Iowa caucuses, won by Barack Obama. Hillary placed third, behind John Edwards. Then she won New Hampshire, but never really gained momentum. She endured her share of vitriol and abuse - some of it, I admit, from me - but then gave the speech of her life when she conceded to Obama. For a few months they were opponents, but never enemies. Now they are allies. All in one year.
Remember all the Republican nominees? Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, the Thompsons, Tommy and Fred? Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee? Some of them had parts that were attractive to large swaths of the American population, but none had the complete package. If a mad scientist had been able somehow to combine Huckabee's folksy charm and common sense, Mitt Romney's money and basic competence, and John McCain's war hero status (and his late, lamented independence from the right wing), they might have had a chance to win this year. Except, of course, the one thing no Republican could have changed was the legacy of George W. Bush.
I'm not going to explore the contradictions of Bush. That would require a book, not part of a blog post.
On the grand scale, we elected our first African-American president, decades before almost anyone thot it would be possible. It turns out that old white guys aren't the dominant, all powerful demographic in this country anymore. And about those white guys: they inflicted incredible damage on themselves, as the contradictions of conservative ideology came crashing down around them. It turns out that "smaller government" and "less regulation" also means "freedom without accountability," which can also turn into "greed without restraint." Which is a recipe for corruption.
I am very much looking forward to 2009.
To steal from Dickens, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Sometimes the best and the worst were embodied by the same person. John McCain represented the best of straight white American male traditions - the honorable war hero who speaks his mind. But then he was also the worst of straight white American male traditions - the man willing to do almost anything to advance his own career, the freewheeling ne'er-do-well who lives by his own rules, ignoring the concerns of others, a man at once burdened by a great personal heritage, and yet who feels entitled by virtue of that same heritage. The man committed for years to a noble cause, but one who makes the most important decision of his career - his choice of vice-president - on the careless and reckless basis of gut instinct.
Sarah Palin contained multitudes of contradictions. The first woman VP candidate for the GOP, a working mom, a fresh face from outside the political establishment, she broke new ground in lots of ways. But she was also one who - you betcha - had many of the same disastrous qualities of those within that establishment. A petty, vindictive, mean-spiritied liar, with an ego inflated way out of proportion to her accomplishments. It takes extraordinary hubris to decide to run for national office, but Palin's sense of her personal potential was way out of whack even by the ridiculous standards of American politics. A woman who invented her own terminology for being down-to-earth - the "hockey mom" - broke new ground for being a diva.
Tina Fey started out the year doing well - star and producer of her own TV sitcom, accomplished writer, star of a movie with her good friend Amy Poehler, Baby Mama. And then, with only a few minutes of TV time over a couple of months, she went from rising star to cultural icon. No good roles for women? Hold on, sister; women created great new roles for other women.
One of those women who created new roles for women was, of course, Hillary Clinton. She went on a roller coaster few other people - men or women - have ever experienced. On Jan. 1, 2008, she was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Two days later, on January 3, came the Iowa caucuses, won by Barack Obama. Hillary placed third, behind John Edwards. Then she won New Hampshire, but never really gained momentum. She endured her share of vitriol and abuse - some of it, I admit, from me - but then gave the speech of her life when she conceded to Obama. For a few months they were opponents, but never enemies. Now they are allies. All in one year.
Remember all the Republican nominees? Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, the Thompsons, Tommy and Fred? Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee? Some of them had parts that were attractive to large swaths of the American population, but none had the complete package. If a mad scientist had been able somehow to combine Huckabee's folksy charm and common sense, Mitt Romney's money and basic competence, and John McCain's war hero status (and his late, lamented independence from the right wing), they might have had a chance to win this year. Except, of course, the one thing no Republican could have changed was the legacy of George W. Bush.
I'm not going to explore the contradictions of Bush. That would require a book, not part of a blog post.
On the grand scale, we elected our first African-American president, decades before almost anyone thot it would be possible. It turns out that old white guys aren't the dominant, all powerful demographic in this country anymore. And about those white guys: they inflicted incredible damage on themselves, as the contradictions of conservative ideology came crashing down around them. It turns out that "smaller government" and "less regulation" also means "freedom without accountability," which can also turn into "greed without restraint." Which is a recipe for corruption.
I am very much looking forward to 2009.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
An idiotic civics test
Kathleen Parker, a conservative columnist, writes in the WaPo about one of those civics test that occasionally demonstrate just how stupid the American public is.
Parker goes on to bemoan the lack of intellectual curiosity of the average American (Parker is one of the few conservatives who have criticized Sarah Palin, which has gotten her in trouble with fellow conservatives), and proposes some solutions, including forcing high school and college students to read newspapers. Good luck with that.
I have a better solution: let's all completely ignore idiotic tests that do nothing except make us feel bad about ourselves. This test is not a worthwhile examination of a person's understanding of American democracy. Some of the questions have nothing whatsoever to do with America, and some are so obscure that only people with a well-above-average interest in history or politics even have a chance of getting them right. Try this one:
There's a very subtle hidden agenda at work here. "A" and "C" are clearly statements of moral relativity. "E" does not say anything about moral absolutes, but it forces you to define these four philosophers in a way that specifically DOES NOT associate them with moral relativism. At the end of the test, there are several questions about how to define capitalism, which strongly suggests that the writers of this test designed it to put conservative, "traditional" values in a positive light. There's nothing wrong with that, except that they're not upfront about it.
Or consider this question, which is about American history, but is very obscure:
And then, some of the questions are open to interpretation:
Finally, some of the questions touch on important topics, but do so in a trivial way:
I could go on. There are a number of questions that are, in fact, perfectly legitimate, simple questions that, I agree, Americans should know.
This test is garbage. If it were a test designed to test students of a particular course, it might be worthwhile. But it asks questions that highly educated people could easily get wrong for perfectly valid reasons. The fact that there are journalists out there who use this test to complain about the political and historical literacy of the American public says more about those journalists' lack of critical faculties than it does about the American educational system.
O ut of 2,500 American quiz-takers, including college students, elected officials and other randomly selected citizens, nearly 1,800 flunked a 33-question test on basic civics. In fact, elected officials scored slightly lower than the general public with an average score of 44 percent compared to 49 percent.I took this test a few days ago, and got 31 out of 33 right, so I guess I am part of the 0.8%. Parker doesn't provide a link, but I googled it, and retook it - this time I got 100% (I remembered the correct answers the two that I got wrong the first time).
Only 0.8 percent of all test-takers scored an "A."
Parker goes on to bemoan the lack of intellectual curiosity of the average American (Parker is one of the few conservatives who have criticized Sarah Palin, which has gotten her in trouble with fellow conservatives), and proposes some solutions, including forcing high school and college students to read newspapers. Good luck with that.
I have a better solution: let's all completely ignore idiotic tests that do nothing except make us feel bad about ourselves. This test is not a worthwhile examination of a person's understanding of American democracy. Some of the questions have nothing whatsoever to do with America, and some are so obscure that only people with a well-above-average interest in history or politics even have a chance of getting them right. Try this one:
13) Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas would concur that:"D" is a trick answer: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, all lived in ancient Athens, a good 300 years before the birth of Christ; they could not have been Christians. "Evolution," as in what we learned from Darwin, was also an idea formulated in an era somewhat past their time. I have a degree in philosophy and I had to think hard about the answer, and took an educated guess. The correct answer is "E." I don't associate "E" particularly strongly with any of those four philosophers, and I've read several Platonic dialogues. In other words, very well-educated, politically aware and sophisticated people could easily get that wrong. It's absurd to claim that average Americans are not politically aware because they got that question wrong.
A. all moral and political truth is relative to one’s time and place
B. moral ideas are best explained as material accidents or byproducts of evolution
C. values originating in one’s conscience cannot be judged by others
D. Christianity is the only true religion and should rule the state
E. certain permanent moral and political truths are accessible to human reason
There's a very subtle hidden agenda at work here. "A" and "C" are clearly statements of moral relativity. "E" does not say anything about moral absolutes, but it forces you to define these four philosophers in a way that specifically DOES NOT associate them with moral relativism. At the end of the test, there are several questions about how to define capitalism, which strongly suggests that the writers of this test designed it to put conservative, "traditional" values in a positive light. There's nothing wrong with that, except that they're not upfront about it.
Or consider this question, which is about American history, but is very obscure:
11) What impact did the Anti-Federalists have on the United States Constitution?I've lived in Washington, DC, and have been an avid student of politics and American history for decades, and I had to take an educated guess on this one. I guessed "A," because the term "Anti-Federalists" suggest people skeptical about the power of the federal government, and part of the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to constrain the power of the government (the First Amendment being a prime example). But I couldn't name a specific "Anti-Federalist" off the top of my head if you paid me. The question implies that they had an impact on the Constitution when it was being written, which also leads me to the Bill of Rights. But, again, it's a tricky question, and not being able to answer it correctly says essentially nothing about a person's knowledge of American politics or history. You would have to have specifically studied this one group in one era of American history to know this well. I haven't done that, and I have an excellent education.
A. their arguments helped lead to the adoption of the Bill of Rights
B. their arguments helped lead to the abolition of the slave trade
C. their influence ensured that the federal government would maintain a standing army
D. their influence ensured that the federal government would have the power to tax
And then, some of the questions are open to interpretation:
29) A flood-control levee (or National Defense) is considered a public good because:The correct answer is "B." I got this wrong the first time (I think I chose "D"), but just about any of those answers could be considered valid. A member of a construction workers' union would probably choose "C," and who could blame her? And isn't "D" technically correct? If I were the CEO of an insurance company, that would probably be my answer.
A. citizens value it as much as bread and medicine
B. a resident can benefit from it without directly paying for it
C. government construction contracts increase employment
D. insurance companies cannot afford to replace all houses after a flood
E. government pays for its construction, not citizens
Finally, some of the questions touch on important topics, but do so in a trivial way:
15) The phrase that in America there should be a “wall of separation” between church and state appears in:Separation of church and state is a fundamental American democratic value, but the fact that the specific phrase "wall of separation" is found in Thomas Jefferson's letters ("D") is a piece of trivia. Again, I had to take an educated guess, and used the process of elimination: I doubt George Washington talked much about the separation of church and state. It probably wouldn't have been an issue in the Mayflower Compact, because that was a small group of people from the same religion; the issue comes up once in the Constitution, in the First Amendment, which doesn't use that phrase; and I've never read it in the Declaration of Independence, which was about justifying the separation of the colonies from England. And I know that Jefferson was particularly proud of his efforts to advance the cause of religious freedom. But knowing the origin of that specific phrase signifies nothing about whether or not a person understands the significance of the idea of separation of church and state in American history and politics.
A. George Washington’s Farewell Address
B. the Mayflower Compact
C. the Constitution
D. the Declaration of Independence
E. Thomas Jefferson’s letters
I could go on. There are a number of questions that are, in fact, perfectly legitimate, simple questions that, I agree, Americans should know.
3) What are the three branches of government?That one everybody should get. But without seeing any results, we don't know how many people did, in fact, get that one right. It's possible that 99% of the people who took this test got that question right. I have no idea. So I am not going to worry about it.
A. executive, legislative, judicial
B. executive, legislative, military
C. bureaucratic, military, industry
D. federal, state, local
This test is garbage. If it were a test designed to test students of a particular course, it might be worthwhile. But it asks questions that highly educated people could easily get wrong for perfectly valid reasons. The fact that there are journalists out there who use this test to complain about the political and historical literacy of the American public says more about those journalists' lack of critical faculties than it does about the American educational system.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Taking Nader seriously one last time
A friend of mine who is a Ralph Nader supporter (he and his wife are the only Nader supporters I know) called me yesterday. He's committed to supporting a noble but hopeless cause. I told him I would blog one last time about Nader, because there is just one last thing that I would like to say about him.
Nader's relationship with the Democratic party is a classic example of the insider-outsider dynamic. The outsider accuses the insider of selling out to a corrupt system; the insider regards the outsider as a naive, pretentious, self-righteous nag, lacking either the ability or the fortitude to participate in the game of politics. There's some truth in both allegations.
Nader and others of his ilk make the argument that one reason they are not more popular is that the mainstream media exclude them from their coverage. Again, there's an element of truth in that. The mainstream media replies that their readers are not interested in fringe candidates, and they have only so many resources.
But new media should have solved that problem for Nader. The fact that he has a Website means that his message is available to anyone. More voices on the radio, like Air America, mean more opportunities for him to be interviewed in person. God knows there is a wealth of airtime on cable news channels and talk shows.
To say nothing of all the political blogs out there with all the bandwidth they want to let the world know about third party candidates.
And yet, Nader is much less of a phenomenon than he was in 2000. I think part of this is his fault; when you tell most of your supporters that they need to get a grip, they tend to no longer be your supporters.
But a big part of Nader and others' problem is that new media has, if anything, rendered him even less important than he was before, because it has opened up both the mainstream media, and, in particular, the Democratic party, to a much wider range of voices and influences. Daily Kos is both a source of analysis and commentary, and a clearinghouse of information about specific candidates. It also fundraises for some of those candidates. The party itself does not control Daily Kos or sites like it. Nor does the party want to. The DNC is perfectly happy to let a thousand (or a million) Websites bloom, if it means more opportunities for people to get involved, and yet less work for them.
Nor do corporations control Daily Kos or Talking Points Memo. Both are for-profit, which I think is a good thing. Their relationships with large news organizations is symbiotic; they rely on the NY Times and Washington Post for stories, but they also criticize them, and occasionally scoop them.
So Nader's campaign is one of those odd success stories of politics; his message has been so successful that other people have taken it and created organizations that address the problem. He'll never admit that. I think he has too much ego invested in his status as outsider to let himself take credit for actually changing the system.
Nader's relationship with the Democratic party is a classic example of the insider-outsider dynamic. The outsider accuses the insider of selling out to a corrupt system; the insider regards the outsider as a naive, pretentious, self-righteous nag, lacking either the ability or the fortitude to participate in the game of politics. There's some truth in both allegations.
Nader and others of his ilk make the argument that one reason they are not more popular is that the mainstream media exclude them from their coverage. Again, there's an element of truth in that. The mainstream media replies that their readers are not interested in fringe candidates, and they have only so many resources.
But new media should have solved that problem for Nader. The fact that he has a Website means that his message is available to anyone. More voices on the radio, like Air America, mean more opportunities for him to be interviewed in person. God knows there is a wealth of airtime on cable news channels and talk shows.
To say nothing of all the political blogs out there with all the bandwidth they want to let the world know about third party candidates.
And yet, Nader is much less of a phenomenon than he was in 2000. I think part of this is his fault; when you tell most of your supporters that they need to get a grip, they tend to no longer be your supporters.
But a big part of Nader and others' problem is that new media has, if anything, rendered him even less important than he was before, because it has opened up both the mainstream media, and, in particular, the Democratic party, to a much wider range of voices and influences. Daily Kos is both a source of analysis and commentary, and a clearinghouse of information about specific candidates. It also fundraises for some of those candidates. The party itself does not control Daily Kos or sites like it. Nor does the party want to. The DNC is perfectly happy to let a thousand (or a million) Websites bloom, if it means more opportunities for people to get involved, and yet less work for them.
Nor do corporations control Daily Kos or Talking Points Memo. Both are for-profit, which I think is a good thing. Their relationships with large news organizations is symbiotic; they rely on the NY Times and Washington Post for stories, but they also criticize them, and occasionally scoop them.
So Nader's campaign is one of those odd success stories of politics; his message has been so successful that other people have taken it and created organizations that address the problem. He'll never admit that. I think he has too much ego invested in his status as outsider to let himself take credit for actually changing the system.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Elective Compulsive Disorder
Patt Morrison in the LA Times diagnoses herself, me, and many other people with a new disease: Elective Compulsive Disorder. Fortunately, it's temporary.
It's probably a good thing I don't have cable, or I wouldn't be getting anything else done.
Just a few more days.
Of course, then I'll probably go into withdrawal.
This must be what it's like to be a lush. The ECD sufferer goes sneaking off when no one's looking, not for a snort of Stoli but for a quick hit at a polling website.I completely understand this problem. Thank God Andrew Sullivan blogs on a constant basis, otherwise I don't know what I would do. The NYTimes doesn't update fast enough for me. Washingtonpost.com? Ha! This was the worst possible time for HSX to be down, because I was lacking access to my favorite other computer-based obsession.
Nothing's too minor to obsess over. You learn that Nebraska and Maine allot electoral votes by congressional district instead of winner-take-all, and off you go on a Google-quest for voter registration stats in Omaha and Bangor. You sign up for alerts about election-day weather forecasts in Ohio. You don't give a hang about who wins the World Series, except that they're both swing-state teams and how would that affect voters' moods?
It's probably a good thing I don't have cable, or I wouldn't be getting anything else done.
Just a few more days.
Of course, then I'll probably go into withdrawal.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
WaPo on Obama's mortgage: bad journalism 101
Today the Washington Post is driving me nuts. I just blogged about a column challenging the conventional wisdom that Bush is "The Decider." I obviously liked that column because I agreed with it. But I also read an article about the Obamas' mortgage that I think is shoddy journalism. Obviously, I'm biased because they're criticizing Barack Obama. But I think I can handle that. I'm fully expecting to read criticism of Obama that I agree with.
This article, however, is riddled with innuendo and guilt by association. The basic facts are this: after he was elected to the Senate, the Obamas bought a new house. Being elected to the Senate meant that Barack got a raise, and Michelle was promoted at the University of Chicago. Together, they were making around $500,000 a year. His job is about the most secure in the country; she's got a great track record. They have no debt, and they just sold their condo for a profit. So their credit record is, presumably, damn good. Also, Barack had just signed a book deal worth over $2 million.
The problem, according to the WaPo, is that the interest rate was preferable.
Let's repeat this central idea: The Obamas are, personally, models of financial rectitude. Isn't that a good thing? Isn't that what we want in our presidents? But somehow the WaPo spins it as smelling fishy.
There are a lot of good comments at FiveThirtyEight.com, many about the bad math at the WaPo. But none of them seem to notice the slippery language in the article. The article sets out the political context: other senators, we have recently found out, got sweetheart deals from Countrywide financial. Jim Johnson, Obama's guy for vetting his VP choices, the one who resigned, was head of Fannie Mae. Of course, Johnson was head of Fannie Mae many years ago, long before any of this happened, which makes his position there utterly irrelevant.
The writer asks this question:
Then there's this line:
Now the article gets into the details of the Obamas' income and their finances, but it is after establishing the controversy of senators getting sweetheart deals. I find this this paragraph particularly egregious:
And then there's the line "Mortgage specialists say that many high-end buyers pay cash." That's meaningless in this context. Yes, I am guessing that were Bill Gates to buy this kind of house, he would not be arranging for a mortgage, but would instead use his ATM, or whatever spare change he had lying around. Cindy McCain also presumably can afford to pay cash, which this article points out - the McCains have no mortgages on their houses. So what does that line have to do with the Obamas?
These two paragraphs towards the end also bothered me (just about everything about this article bothered me):
This is just ridiculous. Those two paragraphs are actually exonerating Barack Obama completely. But they start out by citing Countrywide, which is becoming a code word for "corrupt mortgage lender." How about that phrase "leaked internal emails?" That's more code for "somebody doing something bad." And is there any reason to cite Angelo Mozilo, other than to bring in another mention of another shady character?
I want to walk through the logic of the phrase "Unlike Countrywide." That means the opposite of Countrywide. Countrywide is a mortgage lender that has developed a reputation for what were, at best, sloppy mortgage lending practices. So the opposite of Countrywide would be, we can assume, something good.
But that's using a double negative to establish a positive, which is confusing. The article doesn't come right out and say "Northern Trust is a responsible bank that does not engage in the kind of nefarious practices that got Countrywide in trouble." The phrase "has no formal program to provide discounts to public officials" means that they do not provide favors to politicians. Which is a good, responsible approach to mortgage lending - we don't cut special deals for our friends. But it's a rather dry, technical description, and easily misunderstood. They are saying that do not engage in legalized bribery. Good for them! Solid Midwesterners, apparently. But they are also saying that they have no "formal" program to give discounts. What about "informal" programs? Can individual bankers use their discretion to provide favors to friends? Maybe. Which might be what is suggested with the next line, "Loan officers may consider a borrower's occupation when establishing an interest rate, the bank said." So they don't technically have a program to do favors for politicians, but they can consider a person's occupation. That's technically accurate - I would assume that all loan officers consider a person's occupation when they are applying for a mortgage. But given the context established, i.e. that some senators got sweetheart deals because of their occupations, this is highly suggestive.
This article has all kinds of implied negative judgment, but when a positive judgment is called for - i.e. that this bank DOES NOT engage in questionable practices, the writer uses obfuscatory terminology and phrasing. There's no definitive statement to the effect that Obama did not get any preferential treatment because of his status as a United States senator. Given the amount of innuendo to the effect that he did get preferential treatment, the lack of clarity on this score is very disturbing.
What's almost comical about the following paragraph is that it's classic lawyerese: it's making something completely normal sound odd:
Having conclusively failed to produce any statistically damning evidence against Obama, the writer now turns to more good old innuendo, citing contributions by bank employees in federal elections and to Obama in particular. More suggestions of malfeasance without a scintilla of evidence. Perhaps employees of this bank donated money to Barack Obama because they are all from Chicago. I'm guessing you could look at any bank in Chicago and find donations to people running for federal office and to Barack Obama in particular. They also cite $739,000 in donations since 1990. That is well before Obama ran for any office, state or federal. That's a highly irresponsible number to cite; it has very little to do with Obama. "Federal" elections would presumably include all of the House and Senate races since 1990; in Illinois, that would be dozens of races. And among the people running in those races could be Denny Hastert, former Speaker of the House. I would be surprised if bankers in Chicago didn't contribute to the Speaker's campaigns. It's perfectly normal for bank employees, who are, we can guess, financially well off, to contribute to elections. More perfectly normal behavior somehow rendered suspicious.
And then of course the writer recycles the Rezko nonsense, which is so old at this point that I am not going to go into it.
Bottom line: this article is technically accurate, which is the only thing that keeps it from being a pure hit piece. But it goes to great lengths to imply that Barack Obama got a sweetheart deal on his mortgage, without providing one iota of evidence to that effect. Incredibly irresponsible journalism from the Washington Post.
What particularly bothers me, apart from the sheer irresponsibility, is the corrosive effect that this has on the public's faith in politicians. I hope many people see through this and recognize it for the sham that it is, but I know that others will buy it, and their faith in Obama, and their respect for him, will be diminished, and with it their faith in the political process. And all because Barack and Michelle Obama did exactly what millions of other successful Americans have done: they bought a nice house because they worked hard, and they could afford it.
I really don't like to criticize the "MSM." I think criticizing the press can very easily become an intellectually sloppy, knee-jerk response to bad news for your side. I think both sides practice it, and it comes from all kinds of commentators, from Noam Chomsky to Rush Limbaugh to bloggers of every ideology and degree of intellectual sophistication. The point being that I am reluctant to blame the press if my candidate doesn't seem to be doing well.
But this is ridiculous. The Obamas achieved the American dream: two African-Americans worked their way up the ladder, earning every ounce of their success. The one mistake Obama made was associating with Tony Rezko; he's admitted that, but it's a very trivial detail, and, as for buying their house, they did just about everything right, and basically nothing wrong (other than associating with Rezko).
The exact opposite, unfortunately, is true of the Washington Post.
This article, however, is riddled with innuendo and guilt by association. The basic facts are this: after he was elected to the Senate, the Obamas bought a new house. Being elected to the Senate meant that Barack got a raise, and Michelle was promoted at the University of Chicago. Together, they were making around $500,000 a year. His job is about the most secure in the country; she's got a great track record. They have no debt, and they just sold their condo for a profit. So their credit record is, presumably, damn good. Also, Barack had just signed a book deal worth over $2 million.
The problem, according to the WaPo, is that the interest rate was preferable.
He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago.Never having applied for a mortgage, I'm not sure how good that is. But FiveThirtyEight.com takes apart the stats (via DailyKos.com). Basically, The WaPo does not have anything regarding a case. Barack and Michelle Obama were making good money, had very secure jobs, and no debt. They got a good deal on their mortgage because they deserved it. Like millions of other responsible, normal Americans. Also, the WaPo does not seem to understand the concept of "average." It means that there will be people on both sides of a number; some below, some above. There HAVE to be some people below the average, by definition of the term.
Let's repeat this central idea: The Obamas are, personally, models of financial rectitude. Isn't that a good thing? Isn't that what we want in our presidents? But somehow the WaPo spins it as smelling fishy.
There are a lot of good comments at FiveThirtyEight.com, many about the bad math at the WaPo. But none of them seem to notice the slippery language in the article. The article sets out the political context: other senators, we have recently found out, got sweetheart deals from Countrywide financial. Jim Johnson, Obama's guy for vetting his VP choices, the one who resigned, was head of Fannie Mae. Of course, Johnson was head of Fannie Mae many years ago, long before any of this happened, which makes his position there utterly irrelevant.
The writer asks this question:
Driving the recent debate is concern that public officials, knowingly or unknowingly, may receive special treatment from lenders and that the discounts could constitute gifts that are prohibited by law.That's a fair question. The next paragraph would seem to be fair, as well. It's technically accurate, after all.
"The real question is: Were congressmen getting unique treatment that others weren't getting?" associate law professor Adam J. Levitin, a credit specialist at Georgetown University Law Center, said about the Countrywide loans. "Do they do business like that for people who are not congressmen? If they don't, that's a problem."But note that the speaker is referring to the Countrywide loans. Those were the loans made to the other senators, i.e. the ones that ARE NOT BARACK OBAMA. Obama did not receive a Countrywide loan. But this article is almost entirely about him, so it's almost impossible NOT to infer that the speaker is referring to Obama when he refers to "congressmen getting unique treatment." You have to stop and think and realize that he cannot be talking about Obama, because Obama did not get a Countrywide loan. But unless you stop and think, anyone reading this is almost invariably going to associate Obama with this practice of receiving preferential treatment.
Then there's this line:
"It's certainly safe to say that this borrower did better than average," said Keith Gumbinger, an HSH vice president, noting that consumer rates vary widely. "It's a good deal."Given the context established, i.e. that senators have been getting sweetheart deals, the suggestion is obvious: Obama got a sweetheart deal because he's a senator. But look at the quote: "this borrower did better than average." But if Obama got a better deal than average because he's a senator, that might be because Senators are better than average. They make more money than "average" people, and they have extremely secure jobs. And maybe these borrowers did better than average because both husband and wife are graduates of Harvard Law School. Maybe they did better than average because they ARE better than average. Which, personally, is a solid part of my defining criteria for president.
Now the article gets into the details of the Obamas' income and their finances, but it is after establishing the controversy of senators getting sweetheart deals. I find this this paragraph particularly egregious:
Jumbo loans are for amounts up to $650,000, but the Obamas' $1.32 million loanLook at the line "the Obamas' $1.32 million loan was so large." This sounds suspiciously like it's reinforcing the "elitism" charge against the Obamas - they got a huge loan. They were doing very well financially, and so they bought a nice house. Isn't that the American dream?
was so large that few comparables are available. Mortgage specialists say that
many high-end buyers pay cash.
And then there's the line "Mortgage specialists say that many high-end buyers pay cash." That's meaningless in this context. Yes, I am guessing that were Bill Gates to buy this kind of house, he would not be arranging for a mortgage, but would instead use his ATM, or whatever spare change he had lying around. Cindy McCain also presumably can afford to pay cash, which this article points out - the McCains have no mortgages on their houses. So what does that line have to do with the Obamas?
These two paragraphs towards the end also bothered me (just about everything about this article bothered me):
Unlike Countrywide, where leaked internal e-mails documented a special discount program for friends of chief executive Angelo Mozilo, Northern Trust says it has no formal program to provide discounts to public officials. Loan officers may consider a borrower's occupation when establishing an interest rate, the bank said.
"A person's occupation and salary are two factors; I would expect those are two things we would take into consideration," said Northern Trust Vice President John O'Connell. "That would apply to anyone seeking to get a mortgage at Northern Trust." He added that the rates offered to Obama were "consistent with internal Northern Trust rates at that time."
This is just ridiculous. Those two paragraphs are actually exonerating Barack Obama completely. But they start out by citing Countrywide, which is becoming a code word for "corrupt mortgage lender." How about that phrase "leaked internal emails?" That's more code for "somebody doing something bad." And is there any reason to cite Angelo Mozilo, other than to bring in another mention of another shady character?
I want to walk through the logic of the phrase "Unlike Countrywide." That means the opposite of Countrywide. Countrywide is a mortgage lender that has developed a reputation for what were, at best, sloppy mortgage lending practices. So the opposite of Countrywide would be, we can assume, something good.
But that's using a double negative to establish a positive, which is confusing. The article doesn't come right out and say "Northern Trust is a responsible bank that does not engage in the kind of nefarious practices that got Countrywide in trouble." The phrase "has no formal program to provide discounts to public officials" means that they do not provide favors to politicians. Which is a good, responsible approach to mortgage lending - we don't cut special deals for our friends. But it's a rather dry, technical description, and easily misunderstood. They are saying that do not engage in legalized bribery. Good for them! Solid Midwesterners, apparently. But they are also saying that they have no "formal" program to give discounts. What about "informal" programs? Can individual bankers use their discretion to provide favors to friends? Maybe. Which might be what is suggested with the next line, "Loan officers may consider a borrower's occupation when establishing an interest rate, the bank said." So they don't technically have a program to do favors for politicians, but they can consider a person's occupation. That's technically accurate - I would assume that all loan officers consider a person's occupation when they are applying for a mortgage. But given the context established, i.e. that some senators got sweetheart deals because of their occupations, this is highly suggestive.
This article has all kinds of implied negative judgment, but when a positive judgment is called for - i.e. that this bank DOES NOT engage in questionable practices, the writer uses obfuscatory terminology and phrasing. There's no definitive statement to the effect that Obama did not get any preferential treatment because of his status as a United States senator. Given the amount of innuendo to the effect that he did get preferential treatment, the lack of clarity on this score is very disturbing.
What's almost comical about the following paragraph is that it's classic lawyerese: it's making something completely normal sound odd:
"A person's occupation and salary are two factors; I would expect those are two things we would take into consideration,"Well, yeah. My guess is that roughly 100% of the mortgage applications in this country take into account a person's occupation and salary. Wouldn't it be incredibly irresponsible of a bank NOT to? And then the final line that
the rates offered to Obama were "consistent with internal Northern Trust rates at that time."In other words, this is completely, utterly normal. Two highly educated, established professionals, both with good-paying jobs and excellent credit records, one with one of the most secure jobs on the planet earth, apply for a mortgage under very normal conditions, and they get it. But it's phrased in dry, bureaucratic terms, which sounds to many people sounds obfuscatory. Why can't the writer just write something along the lines of "the bank says that the Obamas got a regular deal?"
Having conclusively failed to produce any statistically damning evidence against Obama, the writer now turns to more good old innuendo, citing contributions by bank employees in federal elections and to Obama in particular. More suggestions of malfeasance without a scintilla of evidence. Perhaps employees of this bank donated money to Barack Obama because they are all from Chicago. I'm guessing you could look at any bank in Chicago and find donations to people running for federal office and to Barack Obama in particular. They also cite $739,000 in donations since 1990. That is well before Obama ran for any office, state or federal. That's a highly irresponsible number to cite; it has very little to do with Obama. "Federal" elections would presumably include all of the House and Senate races since 1990; in Illinois, that would be dozens of races. And among the people running in those races could be Denny Hastert, former Speaker of the House. I would be surprised if bankers in Chicago didn't contribute to the Speaker's campaigns. It's perfectly normal for bank employees, who are, we can guess, financially well off, to contribute to elections. More perfectly normal behavior somehow rendered suspicious.
And then of course the writer recycles the Rezko nonsense, which is so old at this point that I am not going to go into it.
Bottom line: this article is technically accurate, which is the only thing that keeps it from being a pure hit piece. But it goes to great lengths to imply that Barack Obama got a sweetheart deal on his mortgage, without providing one iota of evidence to that effect. Incredibly irresponsible journalism from the Washington Post.
What particularly bothers me, apart from the sheer irresponsibility, is the corrosive effect that this has on the public's faith in politicians. I hope many people see through this and recognize it for the sham that it is, but I know that others will buy it, and their faith in Obama, and their respect for him, will be diminished, and with it their faith in the political process. And all because Barack and Michelle Obama did exactly what millions of other successful Americans have done: they bought a nice house because they worked hard, and they could afford it.
I really don't like to criticize the "MSM." I think criticizing the press can very easily become an intellectually sloppy, knee-jerk response to bad news for your side. I think both sides practice it, and it comes from all kinds of commentators, from Noam Chomsky to Rush Limbaugh to bloggers of every ideology and degree of intellectual sophistication. The point being that I am reluctant to blame the press if my candidate doesn't seem to be doing well.
But this is ridiculous. The Obamas achieved the American dream: two African-Americans worked their way up the ladder, earning every ounce of their success. The one mistake Obama made was associating with Tony Rezko; he's admitted that, but it's a very trivial detail, and, as for buying their house, they did just about everything right, and basically nothing wrong (other than associating with Rezko).
The exact opposite, unfortunately, is true of the Washington Post.
Bush the non-Decider
The WaPo has a great column by Daniel Benjamin about how, contrary to popular myth, George W. Bush is not particularly good at making foreign policy decisions. It's packed with lots of good information.
[Y]ou can't fully comprehend the Bush record without understanding another Bush problem: a chronic failure to reach decisions or implement those that are made. On one key issue after another, from the Middle East to North Korea to the Department of Homeland Security, Bush has proven himself to be a dawdler, a foot-dragger who can't make fundamental choices or press his team to follow his commands. Call him the non-decider.The writer was on Clinton's National Security Council staff, so he's obviously biased, but he makes a lot of great points. I hope we see more of this meme.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Ethics problems at the WaPo
Surfing political blogs on a Saturday night is usually an exercise in futility; most responsible bloggers have gone on to live their lives, as they should do. But I happened upon an interesting link at Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish. A quote from David Broder:
Woodward also made some speeches, but put all of the money into a foundation. Better, but still somewhat questionable. In his position, I can see why he would do that. He is famous, and this sounds like a way to put that fame to use.
What really blew my mind, though, was this sentence from Howell's column:
As in, THE WASHINGTON POST DOESN'T HAVE SUCH AN ETHICS POLICY ON SPEECHES BY STAFF?
What is WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?! You cover WASHINGTON. World center of ethical scandals. Congress has clear and specific rules on members giving speeches. Bill Clinton has made a fortune giving speeches. Inviting influential people to show up at a conference to share their wisdom is a very common way of spreading the wealth among the capitol's elite. You didn't notice this?
Allow me to share an anecdote. When I was in high school in suburban Detroit, Carl Levin came and gave a speech. The school had raised money for a speaker's fund in honor of a student who died. We gave a check to Levin at the end of his speech. He immediately gave it back, because he does not accept speaking fees.
That was in the 1980's. Carl Levin has had that policy for AT LEAST TWENTY YEARS. And it hasn't occured to anyone at the Washington Post that maybe they need a clearly defined policy along the same lines? This was the best that they could come up with:
"I am embarrassed by these mistakes and the embarrassment it has caused the paper,''Curious about what malfeasance David Broder has been guilty of, I followed the link, and wound up here, a column by the Washington Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell. I like her; she seems like the kind of person who should be watching over the ethical standards of one of the country's most important papers, serious and responsible. Apparently Broder took some speaking fees from organizations that he shouldn't have. He clearly made a mistake, but how serious is open to question; it doesn't look like he took money in exchange for anything other than giving a talk. He's already semi-retired, so there isn't much the Post can do to him. I used to be a fan of Broder, but I tend to agree with the Kossacks that he has been a font of misguided wisdom of late. I distinctly remember reading him on a regular basis when I lived in DC and occasionally being impressed with his insight. I don't know what happened exactly, but I don't think he has kept pace with how politics has changed. And it's unfortunate that a long career ends on this unfortunate note. He clearly was not thinking clearly.
Woodward also made some speeches, but put all of the money into a foundation. Better, but still somewhat questionable. In his position, I can see why he would do that. He is famous, and this sounds like a way to put that fame to use.
What really blew my mind, though, was this sentence from Howell's column:
Most of all, The Post needs an unambiguous, transparent well-known policy on speaking fees and expenses.I'm sorry, but what was that verb again? NEEDS? As in, there is a need to be met?
As in, THE WASHINGTON POST DOESN'T HAVE SUCH AN ETHICS POLICY ON SPEECHES BY STAFF?
What is WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?! You cover WASHINGTON. World center of ethical scandals. Congress has clear and specific rules on members giving speeches. Bill Clinton has made a fortune giving speeches. Inviting influential people to show up at a conference to share their wisdom is a very common way of spreading the wealth among the capitol's elite. You didn't notice this?
Allow me to share an anecdote. When I was in high school in suburban Detroit, Carl Levin came and gave a speech. The school had raised money for a speaker's fund in honor of a student who died. We gave a check to Levin at the end of his speech. He immediately gave it back, because he does not accept speaking fees.
That was in the 1980's. Carl Levin has had that policy for AT LEAST TWENTY YEARS. And it hasn't occured to anyone at the Washington Post that maybe they need a clearly defined policy along the same lines? This was the best that they could come up with:
[Executive Editor Len] Downie unearthed a 1995 memo outlining the rules on speeches, but it is not widely known about in the newsroom.Woodward and Bernstein have been world famous for 35 years. I imagine Post reporters have all kinds of opportunities to make money on the side - they talk to lobbyists, businesspeople, conference organizers, etc., all the time. And the best they could come up with is an old memo from 13 years ago that no one has seen? Hello? The potential for conflicts of interest or the appearance of impropriety in this kind of situation, in WASHINGTON, DC, hasn't occured to anyone recently? My respect for the Post just dropped a notch or two. I'm going to narrow that to say that my respect for the Post's management is what has been compromised here, and leave the reporters and editors out of it. But I am disappointed. I will be watching to see what happens here.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Post-mortems, #2
A reader alerted me to this article in the WaPo, with yet more detail about how Obama won with his targeted-delegate strategy.
What I learned from this article is that Obama capitalized on this arrogance, and this is a big reason why he won. Hillary and her campaign did not think places like Idaho and Kansas mattered. And by that, I mean that they did not think those places "mattered" in several respects. They don't matter culturally, they don't matter financially, and they don't matter politically. I think Obama did well in part because he was paying attention to people who were starved for it.
The Obama campaign also had this insight going for them:
At its most basic, voting for a candidate is a matter of relating to another human being. We do not base most of our human relations on matters of policy. Not with our friends, our significant others, our coworkers. We may associate with them because of a general agreement, but not because of specifics. We choose our friends, our lovers, and our colleagues in large part on things like trust and empathy. Do they have our sense of humor? Do they see the world the same way? Do we admire them?
Beyond the strategy of targeting specific districts and crunching the numbers for the delegates, the Obama campaign had a unique strategy for empowering voters:
There's one point in this article that I somewhat disagree with:
The insurgent strategy the group devised instead was to virtually cede the most important battlegrounds of the Democratic nomination fight to Clinton, using precision targeting to minimize her delegate hauls, while going all out to crush her in states where Democratic candidates rarely ventured.The more I think about it, the less I am surprised. I have felt for a long time that the Democratic party has an anti-heartland bias. I've heard far too many liberals who are from either or both coasts dismiss people from the Midwest as stupid. I've actually heard that word used - "stupid." Many people in the "flyover" states are aware of this. This is why they don't like elitists, and it's a big part of why John Kerry and Al Gore lost. As much as Hillary tried to portray herself as a regular person, she's still the Senator from New York who lives in Washington.
. . .
The surprise was how well his strategy held up -- and how little resistance it met.
. . .
"We kept waiting for the Clinton people to send people into the caucus states," marveled Jon Carson, one of Obama's top ground-game strategists.
"It's the big mystery of the campaign," said campaign manager David Plouffe, because every delegate counts."
What I learned from this article is that Obama capitalized on this arrogance, and this is a big reason why he won. Hillary and her campaign did not think places like Idaho and Kansas mattered. And by that, I mean that they did not think those places "mattered" in several respects. They don't matter culturally, they don't matter financially, and they don't matter politically. I think Obama did well in part because he was paying attention to people who were starved for it.
The Obama campaign also had this insight going for them:
The message -- of unity and hope -- did not come out of nowhere. David Axelrod, a Chicago campaign consultant, long ago hatched the idea that Democrats' campaigns should revolve more around personality than policy.I agree with this. I mostly agree with Obama on policy, obviously, but I couldn't tell you a lot of specifics. And I'm a person who likes policy discussions.
At its most basic, voting for a candidate is a matter of relating to another human being. We do not base most of our human relations on matters of policy. Not with our friends, our significant others, our coworkers. We may associate with them because of a general agreement, but not because of specifics. We choose our friends, our lovers, and our colleagues in large part on things like trust and empathy. Do they have our sense of humor? Do they see the world the same way? Do we admire them?
Beyond the strategy of targeting specific districts and crunching the numbers for the delegates, the Obama campaign had a unique strategy for empowering voters:
From May through the summer of last year, more than 750 volunteers learned the do's and don'ts of canvassing, working phone banks and recruiting others to help at what came to be known as "Camp Obama"I went to a Camp Obama, and I learned some things. It was great. It was based on at least one simple premise: inspiration takes hard work. It's like that saying from (I think) Thomas Edison: genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. The Obama campaign knew that it was not going to be enough to inspire lots of voters. They knew they were going to have to turn that inspiration into perspiration.
There's one point in this article that I somewhat disagree with:
"It's the story that hasn't been written yet, how Obama did everything right, targeting caucuses, targeting small states, avoiding the showdowns in the big states where he could," said Bill Ballenger, editor of Inside Michigan Politics, who watched the strategy play out in microcosm in his own state, "and how in the end Clinton did so much so wrong."That's true, insofar as it applies to this campaign. But the real story that hasn't been written yet is how that strategy will play out in the general election, and then in politics in general after January 20, 2009.
Post-mortems
One interesting aspect of this very long primary race is that there is now a great deal of material to be analyzed, thot over, regretted, learned from.
The WaPo has a good analysis. The title explains quite a bit:
The Wall Street Journal has an analysis that puts it succinctly:
The WaPo has a good analysis. The title explains quite a bit:
'She Could Accept Losing. She Could Not Accept Quitting.'I think this may be because of something that has gone largely unremarked in this campaign: Hillary had never lost a campaign before this. She ran against two Republicans (in her Senate races) that no one (including me) remembers. Obama, on the other hand, ran for Congress in 2000 and lost. There's that old saying that failure can be the best teacher. At this point in her life, Hillary must be having a hard time adjusting to having to deal with the need to quit.
The Wall Street Journal has an analysis that puts it succinctly:
The bottom line is this: She called the biggest plays, and she got them wrong.There's also this, which I hadn't heard before:
The Clintons were unfamiliar with caucuses: Mr. Clinton had left Iowa to native son Sen. Tom Harkin in the 1992 Democratic race and was unopposed there for his 1996 re-election.So the Clintons didn't know their own blind spots. That is probably true in other respects, as well.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
One incredibly bad idea: Hillary Clinton on the Supreme Court
There's been an idea floating around for the past few days that one way to resolve the Obama-Clinton tension would be for Obama to promise Clinton a seat on the Supreme Court. James Miller, in the WaPo, offers several reasons, including this one:
I cannot begin to think of a worse idea for ending this primary season. First of all, Hillary did not pass the DC bar exam back in the 70's; passing the bar exam, i.e. being legally entitled to practice law in the District of Columbia, would seem to be a prerequisite for sitting on the Supreme Court.
Second, it's an absurdly crass solution to a political problem. Obama has a reputation for integrity and class; this would immediately tarnish that reputation, particularly among moderate Republicans, who are otherwise very open to Obama.
Third, it would politicize the Supreme Court, which is exactly what this country DOES NOT NEED at this point. Bush's attempt to put Harriet Miers on the Court was not a smart move, but at least no one knew who she was. Many people disagree with various members of the Court, but at least those members have arrived at their positions through established legal channels. I disagree with Antonin Scalia on almost everything, but there's no question that he is intellectually qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. He's not making the decisions that he does because he has political ties to a specific political group. At the end of the day, I understand that part of the price of living in a democracy is that judges will occasionally make decisions that I disagree with. But then they will also make decisions that I do agree with. That's the deal.
But Hillary would be constantly subject to the criticism that she is making decisions for political reasons, not legal ones. Her opponents would claim that she was making decisions because she wanted to advance a cause that she is or was affiliated with.
It would be about the most polarizing move Obama could make. I suspect that this idea has been the subject of much laughter in the Obama camp.
Unless the Supreme Court were to get mired in minuscule details of what constitutes universal health care, Obama could assume that he'd be pleased with most Clinton votes, certainly on major issues such as abortion.
I cannot begin to think of a worse idea for ending this primary season. First of all, Hillary did not pass the DC bar exam back in the 70's; passing the bar exam, i.e. being legally entitled to practice law in the District of Columbia, would seem to be a prerequisite for sitting on the Supreme Court.
Second, it's an absurdly crass solution to a political problem. Obama has a reputation for integrity and class; this would immediately tarnish that reputation, particularly among moderate Republicans, who are otherwise very open to Obama.
Third, it would politicize the Supreme Court, which is exactly what this country DOES NOT NEED at this point. Bush's attempt to put Harriet Miers on the Court was not a smart move, but at least no one knew who she was. Many people disagree with various members of the Court, but at least those members have arrived at their positions through established legal channels. I disagree with Antonin Scalia on almost everything, but there's no question that he is intellectually qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. He's not making the decisions that he does because he has political ties to a specific political group. At the end of the day, I understand that part of the price of living in a democracy is that judges will occasionally make decisions that I disagree with. But then they will also make decisions that I do agree with. That's the deal.
But Hillary would be constantly subject to the criticism that she is making decisions for political reasons, not legal ones. Her opponents would claim that she was making decisions because she wanted to advance a cause that she is or was affiliated with.
It would be about the most polarizing move Obama could make. I suspect that this idea has been the subject of much laughter in the Obama camp.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)