February 7, 2010 [LINK / comment]

Sarah Palin at the Tea Party

I made a point to watch (on C-SPAN) nearly all of Sarah Palin's keynote address at the Tea Party convention last night, and I thought she did a pretty good job. Anyone expecting a profound discourse on the tattered state of our body politic or on the vexing economic policy dilemmas created by the skyrocketing national debt would be disappointed, but of course hardly anyone did. What Gov. Palin did was to cover most of the contemporary "hot button" issues, and to give conservatives a reason to hope that they can capitalize on popular discontent in the 2010 and 2012 elections. Stylistically, she performed well in the first venue with a true national audience that she has faced for many months. Except for a couple awkward transitions, she remained poised, upbeat, and confident. In short, she gave every indication that she really wanted to earn the hefty ($100,000?) honorarium from the Tea Party organizers.

At frumforum.com (hat tip to Bruce Bartlett), Jonathan Kay derided Palin's speech as a "Barack-Obama put-down every 60 seconds." Well, what else would you expect? Kay provides a useful summary description of the Tea Party movement:

Tea Party organizers tend to describe their agenda with five bullet points: Less taxes, fiscal responsibility, greater liberty, state's rights, national security. But that quintet -- which also summarizes the major planks of the Republican Party -- doesn't really cover it. The Tea Party movement is mostly made up of refugees from the mainstream GOP. They rail hard against John McCain and other RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). Bipartisanship -- "Koombaya politics," as its derisively called -- is dismissed as a sell-out.

That sounds exactly like some of the fratricidal nuts who have been wreaking havoc in the Republican Party here in the Shenandoah Valley. Kay observes that many Tea Partiers don't fit on the traditional left-right spectrum, and he also criticizes the "smug left-wing take on the Tea Party movement" as a bunch of racists; Janeane Garofalo often expresses such a view. That insulting stereotype is also bandied about by many moderates who want to seem sophisticated by distancing themselves from humble folk. (Obviously, I have mixed feelings on the subject.) Whether the delegates to the Tea Party Convention were able to define a common agenda in terms of concrete policy proposals remains to be seen.

Palin's speech didn't devote much time to foreign policy, which is of secondary concern to most Tea Partiers. Andrew Sullivan conjectured what kind of foreign policy Sarah Palin would have if she were elected President. He sees her support of Jewish settlements on the West Bank as a sign she is under the influence of AIPAC, and her call for a more forceful containment of Iran's nuclear ambitions as evidence she is an aspiring war-monger. "Now she is a paid-up neocon fanatic." (Hat tip to Bruce Bartlett) My response on Facebook:

Sullivan's speculation is premature, and it's a waste of time to read serious intent into anything Palin says on subjects outside her knowledge. She is as much of a blank slate, foreign policy-wise, as GW Bush was in 2000. So, whether she would actually attack Iran or support Israeli settlements depends on who she picks as foreign policy advisors.

Er, on second thought, Bush didn't pay much heed to Colin Powell or Condi Rice. So, the real question is, who would Palin pick as her "Karl Rove"?

Viguerie joins Tea Party

Once again, "grassroots" (pseudo-)conservative activist Richard Viguerie can't seem to make up his mind on whether to work within the Republican Party, or create outside organizations to challenge it. At conservativehq.com, he urged the Tea Partiers not to form a separate party "A third party would be a disaster for the cause of limited government." In December 2008, however, he said "It's critical for conservatives to also operate independently of the GOP..."

February 5, 2010 [LINK / comment]

Tea Party national convention

The Tea Partiers are gathering in Nashville, Tennessee for their first-ever national convention, eliciting a wide range of reactions across the country: hopeful anticipation, contemptuous derision, fear, and befuddlement. It's too bad more people don't reserve judgment and at least try to listen to what the participants are saying. According to the Washington Post, however, all is not well among the grassroots activists:

Some high-profile speakers and activist groups have canceled their appearances in protest of alleged profiteering by the convention organizers.

Attendees have paid $549 a ticket ... Some of the proceeds will cover former Alaska governor Sarah Palin's reported $100,000 fee for Saturday's keynote address.

I don't think that Ronald Reagan himself ever got paid so much for making a speech. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) were scheduled to speak, but both withdrew in protest against the way the event is being organized by teapartynation.com. Spokesman Mark Skoda, chairman of the Memphis Tea Party, said that the movement is "growing up." I sure hope so. In spite of deep differences within the movement,

the factions have largely united around a common cause: a don't-tread-on-me brand of fiscal conservatism and a belief that the government, first under President George W. Bush and now under Obama, has recklessly plunged deeper into debt and overstepped its constitutional powers. (SOURCE: WaPo)

Well, I certainly go along with that. It is not clear, however, whether and by what means the far-flung local chapters intend to aggregate their respective voices and articulate a common agenda. It will take a lot of effort to undo the image that many of the Tea Partiers tend to be on the kooky side. Obviously, I remain wary of the movement, which seems to be under some of the same unhealthy influences that have run the Republican Party into the ground over the past decade. But perhaps more uplifting voices will prevail, and they will serve a useful public purpose. After the convention is over, the question will arise as to what the movement's long-term goals are: to influence the Republican Party, to support individual candidates with whom they agree, or to lead in the formation of a third party? In the latter case, what would they call it -- the Tea Party Party?

For more fun, see teapartyexpress.org, official site of the cross-country caravan that will start off on March 27 with a rally in Searchlight, NV (home of Sen. Harry Reid) and finish in Washington, D.C. on April 15 -- Tax Day!

Sarah Palin, superstar

I'm probably one of the few people in America who lacks a strong opinion about Sarah Palin, polarizer extraordinaire. She has great potential as a leader who can reach out to millions of disaffected people on the right side of the spectrum, but is also plagued by grave inadequacies that would require many months of remedial effort on her part. Nevertheless, with the publication of her book Going Rogue: An American Story last fall, she has become a true "superstar," not unlike Barack Obama back in January 2007. It is useful to recall that Obama "portrays his lack of experience in national politics as an asset." Palin could be excused for botching her September 2008 interview with Katie Couric due to lack of time to prepare, so soon after being tapped as John McCain's running mate, but by now she ought to have done her homework. That is why her inability to name any founding fathers other than George Washington is so troubling; watch the youtube.com and prepare to grimace in empathetic pain. At a time when the Tea Partiers are reminding us of this country's constitutional roots, that is hard to excuse. But for her adoring fans, such gaffes do not matter in the least.

Among some of the major cyber-pundits, Andrew Sullivan genuinely fears Palin, which strikes me as puzzling. Does he think the American public is so desperate and so vulnerable to sweet-talking that it will anoint her as some kind of fascist queen? I don't think so. Back in November, Sullivan reviewed Going Rogue, treating it as a postmodern literary work, "deconstructing" Sarah, as it were:

In this, the book is emblematic of late degenerate Republicanism, which is based not on actual policies, but on slogans now so exhausted by over-use they retain no real meaning.

That sounds about right to me. Elsewhere, Sullivan has pointed out Palin's recourse to "victim" status, blaming her woes on the mean old Mainstream Media. That's not a good sign of leadership, and it's another characteristic that she shares with President Obama.

One of Palin's weaknesses is "shooting from the lip," blurting out opinions without thinking about the ramifications of what she is saying. For example, she was quoted at talkingpointsmemo.com, backtracking on her warnings about "death panels":

The term death panel "should not be taken literally," says Palin. The phrase is "a lot like when President Reagan used to refer to the Soviet Union as the 'evil empire.'"

Well, of course they're not going to convene panels to expressly condemn people to death. The problem is that one could easily construe her remarks to mean that the Soviet Union was not really an "evil empire." From a Republican point of view, that is darn near heresy.

Finally, just for "fair and balanced" laughs, watch Jon Stewart's (of Comedy Central "Daily Show" fame) final word on Sarah Palin at huffingtonpost.com.

What's your News IQ?

Take the Pew News IQ Quiz at pewresearch.org. I went too fast and missed one of the 12 questions, ending up at 92 percentile. Hat tip to Connie.

January 29, 2010 [LINK / comment]

Obama: "We can do it together"

In what appeared to be a magnanimous gesture of outreach to his opponents in his State of the Union Address on Wednesday night, President Obama offered to seek common ground with the Republicans in Congress. What struck me about the speech, however, was the jarring dissonance between the conciliatory words he read from his teleprompter and the smug, condescending attitude evinced by his facial expressions. At a time when a more prudent leader might have displayed more sober acknowledgment of his own past mistakes, as dramatized by recent electoral setbacks, Obama just couldn't resist needling the Republicans. Perhaps he was trying to ease tensions with a little light-hearted humor, but his forced grin suggested he was deeply angry at them. A little more humility and/or a little less jesting would have gone a long way. Here are some of the speech highlights, taken from the transcript at whitehouse.gov, followed by my "fair and balanced" comments:

It's because of this spirit -- this great decency and great strength -- that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight.

The President started off on the right foot, at least, using his phenomenal grace and charm to try to lift the spirits of the downtrodden nation. He fulfilled that presidential duty quite well. Then he went on to the core economic issues:

And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it -- (applause.) I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal. (Laughter.)

But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular -- I would do what was necessary.

Likewise, he used a good opportunity to emphasize what the two parties agree on, and the root canal analogy may be apt -- if the bailouts ultimately achieve their goals to make the pain worth enduring, that is. But when Obama claimed to acting without regard to political consequences or poll numbers, his credibility started to wear thin. Then he talked about how to get that money back:

To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks. (Applause.) Now, I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea. But if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.

True enough, sadly. Those banks accepted the money, and now they are semi-socialized wards of the state. As for his stimulus programs, widely criticized as ineffective, the President remained steadfastly upbeat:

Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed.

Here Obama is treading on very thin factual ice: estimates of the effects of policy on aggregate employment are notoriously unreliable, because of the complex interactions in our economic system, and in this case there are widespread reports that local officials were obliged to inflate the job figures they reported back to the government.

I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -- because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.

It is hard to avoid the impression that he was mocking his Republican opponents for refusing to believe in the True Religion of Global Warming. It certainly didn't win over any new converts to Obama's brand of bipartisanship from the Republican side of the aisle. It was a virtual carbon copy of Sen. Tim Wirth's famous remark in 1988, when he was accompanied by Al Gore. (See the "Global warming update" section of this piece below.) On a more positive note, the President made a big pitch for foreign trade, resisting calls for protectionism:

We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. (Applause.) To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security.

Then he went on to education, one of those issues where almost everyone agrees, it seems:

Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. ... [Hence the need to] make college more affordable. ... [But we also should forgive college debts] because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college.

Huh??? Is the glaring contradiction between those two statements not obvious to everyone? Or at least obvious to everyone with a high school education? Why on earth should we push more people into college if there is not a solid expectation that it will pay off for them in the long run? Next the President addressed the most difficult issue of all, the centerpiece of his rise to power, and quite possibly the reason for his decline.

[B]y now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics. (Laughter.) I took on health care because of the stories I've heard from Americans with preexisting conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who've been denied coverage; families -- even those with insurance -- who are just one illness away from financial ruin.

So he's basing public policy on anecdotal evidence? That makes no sense at all -- especially given his track record of avoiding tough choices. (See above.) I'm not saying that compassion should have no part in policy, simply that it should be subordinated to a rational assessment of likely costs, benefits, and issues of equity. But Obama persists in ignoring critics and treats this issue as an overriding moral imperative:

Here's what I ask Congress, though: Don't walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. (Applause.) Let's get it done. Let's get it done. (Applause.)

Then he turned to the uncomfortable reality that the government's financial footing is shaky at best, making such ambitious reforms very difficult to carry out. The President recounted the economic emergency measures undertaken by his predecessor in the final months of his term, and outlined a new, more realistic approach to fiscal policy:

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.

The problem is, of course, that discretionary spending is only about one-sixth of the total Federal budget, and it is going to take a huge amount of belt-tightening to make much of a difference. The only way to restore fiscal sanity is to make radical reform in those three big entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. (As any economically aware person should know, adding a new Federal entitlement such as health care at a time when existing entitlements are leading us toward national bankruptcy is sheer folly.) And as Jay Leno noted last night, the average cash-strapped American family just uses their Visa card anyway. Hello, China? Would Obama or the Democratic leaders dare to do that? Not bloody likely. That, of course, is why he proposed a "bipartisan fiscal commission" to make the tough choices out of the public spotlight, behind closed doors:

Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.

As I stated last week, "creating a legislative agency by executive fiat is a flagrant violation of the whole principle of separation of powers." Once again, Obama is determined to do things his own way, no matter what the Constitution says.

... we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust -- deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve. *

* Emphasis added; that closely resembles the title of a book my father wrote: The Government We Deserve. More trouble came when the President took on a controversial legal issue (the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, decided just last week) and issued a shockingly blunt repudiation of the Supreme Court, whose members were seated just a few feet in front of him:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections.

TV cameras showed Associate Justice Samuel Alito scowling after Obama said that, and mouthing the words "That's not true." Evidently Alito shares the same opinion of Obama that Rep. Joe Wilson expressed last September: "You lie!" Seriously, though, that was one of the most painful moments in the entire speech -- the President of the United States directly challenging the validity of a Supreme Court ruling that was just made. Such an overt verbal criticism of the highest court in such a dignified setting is almost unprecedented in U.S. history, and constitutes a monumental act of disrespect -- "due deference" notwithstanding. In today's Washington Post, my former colleague at Sweet Briar College, Dr. Barbara Perry, was quoted as saying, "I did think it was an unfortunate display for both branches. ... I'll leave the individuals aside."

Having insulted the judicial branch, Obama went on to lament the partisan divide in Washington, saying he "will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics." (???) Then he spent a few obligatory minutes on foreign policy, culminating with a warning to the theocratic government in Iran, which is busy figuring out how to making nuclear bombs:

And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise.

To shore up support among the activists who put him into office, Obama declared that he would seek legislation to end all remaining restrictions on gays serving in the military, and to ensure equal pay for women. Neither of those initiatives will come easily, however. Clearly, President Obama remains frustrated that everything is not going according to plan:

I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone.

Well, those sky-high expectations were exactly why millions of people voted for you in the first place! Notably absent from Obama's speech was any mention of his far-reaching goal of "transforming the nation." (See March 1, 2009.) In sum, the President has his work cut out for him as he tries to re-calibrate his agenda to fit the world of objective reality, so as to reduce the inevitable popular disappointment to a tolerable level. That readjustment will be a truly monumental undertaking in itself.

I happened to hear Rush Limbaugh's take on the speech on Thursday afternoon, and it was about as brutal as you might expect: He sees Obama as a petulant, narcissistic man-child who can barely contain his rage at those who refuse to follow him. I don't think I would go that far, and it will take years of study by psychologists and historians to come up with a clear assessment of Obama's character and personality. Limbaugh did make an interesting observation, however: unlike most past presidents, Obama never really stopped to characterize the state of the union overall, other than to lament the continuing economic hardships.

McDonnell's response

Less than two weeks after his inauguration, Gov. Bob McDonnell was chosen to give the Republican response, and he measured up fully, in terms of style, poise, and substance. Unlike past responses by opposition leaders, this speech was given before a joint session of the Virginia General Assembly, with other invited guests. Here is what I consider the highlight of his speech, from soturesponse.com

Top-down one-size fits all decision making should not replace the personal choices of free people in a free market, nor undermine the proper role of state and local governments in our system of federalism. As our Founders clearly stated, and we Governors understand, government closest to the people governs best.

Well put! Before the speech, Virginia Democratic Chairman Dick Cranwell said, "My view is, this governor ought to be at home taking care of Virginia," seeming to forget the many out-of-state trips taken by former Governor Tim Kaine on behalf of the Democratic Party. (See Washington Post.) Actually, McDonnell was at home, in Richmond, and the point of his speech was precisely to take care of Virginia's own business, minimizing outside interference.

Global warming update

President Obama's statement about global warming sounded familiar, and after some checking I realized that it was an eerily close match to Sen. Tim Wirth's famous remark in 1988 (when he was accompanied by Al Gore):

Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.

(SOURCE: "Planet Gore" at nationalreview.com; Daniel Sarewitz and Roger Pielke Jr. at theatlantic.com; and a similar quote from 1990 in Science under Siege by Michael Fumento) That can't be purely coincidental, can it?

And to bring this farcical saga up to date, NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen has endorsed a new (2009) book by British author Keith Farnish, Time's Up, which calls on environmental activists to engage in widespread sabotage aiming at the destruction of industrial civilization, as the only way to stop global warming. (!!!???) I guess this means that the exploration of space by humans will soon come to an end. For more, see Prison Planet.

January 27, 2010 [LINK / comment]

They got the Wall Street blues

Even as Republicans are beside themselves with joy in the wake of Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts last week, most economic indicators remain bleak, and investor confidence is flagging. In spite of renewed hopes in the GOP that the free enterprise system can still be saved, there's a lousy mood on Wall Street -- an interesting psychological contrast that bears pondering.

So far, the White House seems to be reacting to last week's defeat by adopting an even more populist rhetorical approach, bashing wealthy bankers for causing the nation's problems. There's more than a little truth in that, but still it's a risky road to take because it makes it hard to sustain a prudent course in economic policy. It will be interesting to see whether the President continues to use such crowd-pleasing words in his State of the Union Address later this evening.

In practice, however, Obama seems to be quite cautious, preferring to keep current government officials in place, as long as they have proven that they are "team players," not prone to spilling the beans about the bad underlying conditions. In that sense, Ben Bernanke is the perfect choice to remain as head of the Federal Reserve Bank, notwithstanding the fact that he has an abysmal record in overseeing the nation's financial system. But it seems that Washington elites on both sides of the aisle are circling the wagons to protect one of their own, and it now appears that the Senate will probably confirm him for a second term. Senator Max Baucus (D-MO), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) will vote to confirm Bernanke for a second term, while Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) will vote against him. Ironically, MoveOn.org opposes Bernanke, while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce favors him. See the Washington Post. I have heard Bernanke testify any number of times, and while he may know what he's talking about, he just does not convey the firm sense of determination to fix glaring defects in our economy. He does not do well in the critical financial task of "moral suasion."

Another sign of the stay-the-course approach is that President Obama has recruited a former Reagan-era official, Paul Volcker, to sell a proposed new bank regulation system. The proposed "Volcker Rule" is an attempt to deal with the problem of banks that are "too big to fail." (Volcker was first nominated to chair the Federal Reserve Board by President Carter in 1979, and played a central role in defeating the menace of inflation during the 1980s, but he never got enough credit for it.) "Volcker's plan restricts "banks from making speculative investments that do not benefit their customers." (For example, hedge funds.) It would also limit bank consolidation, one of the prime examples of Alan Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" during the 1990s. From the Washington Post,

Volcker had been arguing that banks, which are sheltered by the government because lending is important to the economy, should be prevented from taking advantage of that safety net to make speculative investments.

In a sign of the troubled times, perhaps, Obama has embraced Volcker's proposal, marking what could be a truly momentous shift in economic policy. Time will tell.

Intentionally or not, the return of Paul Volcker to policy-making world has had the effect of undermining Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner. He may end up playing the role of "fall guy" for the Obama administration, and given the miserable shape things are in, they sure need somebody to do so. Ironically, when he was being vetted by Obama staffers for the Treasury job in late 2008 Geithner warned that he carried political baggage because of his role in the bailout of AIG and major banks. So who's in charge? This confusion over future policy direction provoked a large sell-off on Wall Street, as the Dow Jones tumbled four percent during the week.

Moral hazards

The Volcker Rule addresses the perennial question of moral hazards, when public policies or private insurance creates a perverse incentive to be less responsible. If somebody else is going to pay for my mistakes, what is the point in exercising caution? Professor Bainbridge (hat tip to Bruce Bartlett) finds that the proposal "look[s] potentially quite reasonable." Unlike me, Bainbridge sees no need to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act (1933) prohibition on investment peddling by depository banks. But I do agree with him that the Obama's proposal will be a key test to see whether the Republicans in Congress are prepared to support needed financial reforms or will remain the "party of no."

Meanwhile, at Mother Jones (hat tip to Matthew Poteat), economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote an article on this very same subject, but it just seemed to miss the basic point. So, I commented:

That article brings to light a very real fatal flaw in our economic system, but Stiglitz seems totally confused. He says "Market fundamentalism has eroded any sense of community," blaming free markets and a "moral deficit" among bank bosses. He doesn't seem to understand that the moral hazard problem does not stem from the moral failings of individuals, but from lax institutions and practices. Government intervention to prop up failing enterprises is the very antithesis of laissez faire. Banks got lazy and sloppy because of misguided regulations and mandates that took away their discretion over making loans. That, coupled with the absence of any anti-trust enforcement since the 1980s, allowed crooked mega-banks to dominate the market, which led to the demise of (semi-) free market capitalism.

Stiglitz is right that financial leaders haven't learned much if anything from their near-death experience -- but why should they? Bush or Obama or whoever will bail them out in the end. The habit of "socializing losses as we privatize gains" (an apt Marxian critique) did not start in the last ten years, but has long applied to airlines, pro sports franchises, etc. Blaming "Market fundamentalism" for the sins of crony capitalism will lead to the wrong remedies.

National debt sinkhole

I bet you never thought that Russia, Mexico, and Peru would achieve a ranking superior to the good ol' U.S.A. in terms of indebtedness relative to Gross Domestic Product. Altogether, the U.S. government owes $8.68 trillion, or 60.8% of GDP in the aggregate. Actually, Japan is even worse off than we are. Take a sobering look at the GDP vs National Debt by Country graphic at visualeconomics.com. This, in turn, raises the interesting question of whether or for how long countries can indulge the slide toward socialism; James Turk claims that "the ideological bankruptcy of socialism will be laid bare by government insolvency." He may be optimistic, however. Many countries in Latin America and Africa have continued with bankrupting socialist policies for years, astounding those who never dreamed that things could keep getting worse.

Global poverty declines

Here's good news, for most of us, anyway: "world poverty is disappearing faster than previously thought. From 1970 to 2006, poverty fell by 86% in South Asia, 73% in Latin America, 39% in the Middle East, and 20% in Africa." It really shouldn't be that much of a surprise, however, because until the last few years, there was a strong shift toward free market policies around the world, as part of the "neoliberal" wave. Gimme that good old (free market) religion! Contrary to left-wing populist dogma, markets tend to equalize differences among countries, though there is often a tendency to exacerbate inequalities in the wealthier nations, as the working class is forced to compete with dirt-poor peasants who are only too glad to work all day for a few dollars. See voxeu.org; hat tip to Bruce Bartlett.

Cutting health costs

A reasonable proposal to cut health costs was laid out by Dr. Charles Wheelan, Ph.D. He is pragmatic and refrains from any radical solutions, but he does at least recognize some of the biggest flaws in the current system and logical inconsistencies in Obamacare. See yahoo.com; hat tip to Dan.

Freedom of speech, Inc.?

Last week the Supreme Court issued a ruling (in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) that overturns statutory limits on donations to political campaigns by corporations. Generally speaking, I'm opposed to arbitrary limits on campaign spending, but the way this case was decided causes me concern. The justices seem to be saying that corporations enjoy free speech rights just as much as human individual citizens do. (What??!!) I hope they are not inventing a new right, as the justices who voted for Roe v. Wade in 1973 did. See the Washington Post.

By the way, Citizens United is the PAC run by conservative activist David Bossie. He gained fame attacking Hillary Clinton a couple years ago (perhaps helping Barack Obama get elected?), and last year I finally received the video on Hillary that his organization promised me -- about a year too late.

Expect more government

I swear, I'm NOT making up this latest cybernetic initiative from the Obama White House: expectmore.gov; hat tip to Connie. Was that a Freudian slip, or perhaps a taunt? In fairness, I think they are trying to convey the idea that the government should live up to people's expectations.

January 20, 2010 [LINK / comment]

Obama's budgetary sneak play

So, how do you suppose President Obama and the Democrat leaders in Congress reacted to the obvious signs of growing and widespread antipathy toward their agenda, in Massachusetts and elsewhere? Why, by pushing to make the government less democratic, of course! Apparently some folks in the White House and Capitol Hill finally got the message that this country's finances are going to hell in a handbasket, and they are determined to show that they really care about it! Rather than calling for belt-tightening measures that would risk more electoral defeats, however, they came up with an unaccountable government body that would make the unpleasant but necessary decisions on which budget items to cut, in backroom sessions. Some "transparency"! What's more, Congress wouldn't have to vote on the recommendations until after the next elections, when many of them are lame ducks and therefore immune to public pressure. Utterly disgusting. From today's Washington Post:

Under the agreement, President Obama would issue an executive order to create an 18-member panel that would be granted broad authority to propose changes in the tax code and in the massive federal entitlement programs -- including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- that threaten to drive the nation's debt to levels not seen since World War II.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to any of them, however, that creating a legislative agency by executive fiat is a flagrant violation of the whole principle of separation of powers. (What-ever!) Kudos to Rep. Frank Wolf for vehemently protesting this scam and insisting that "the American people participate and have a say in how their tax dollars are spent." On Facebook, I thanked Rep. Wolf for "resisting this unconstitutional and anti-democratic bit of skullduggery, and for remaining vigilant in defense of open, representative government."

Miscellaneous

The Huffington Post (hat tip to Connie) blames Martha Coakley's loss on the failure to use social media such as Facebook. To which I say, there are so many reasons for her calamitous drop in the polls over the past month that it would take a page or more just to list them.

It puts a smile on my face to see the newly revamped governor.virginia.gov Web page, with Gov. Bob McDonnell. Brighter days are ahead...

Finally, here's my favorite bumper sticker from libertystickers.com:

The Constitution doesn't matter unless you say it does.

January 19, 2010 [LINK / comment]

Brown defeats Coakley, decisively

Sorry, Democrats, there won't be any recounts in Massachusetts! Confirming what the polls were saying, Scott Brown easily prevailed over Martha Coakley in the special election for the U.S. Senate today, by a 52%-47% margin. Let the record show that Republican Brown won the election by capturing an overwhelming share of the independent voters -- the same winning strategy followed by Bob McDonnell last year, and the same approach which I have advocated over and over through the years. Granted, that's the only real way a Republican can win in Massachusetts. But maybe the message is finally sinking in among Republicans nationwide. As Brown declared in his victory speech tonight:

The independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken!

It's just too bad the Fox News had to spoil the occasion by featuring two guest commentators who epitomize the unfortunate polarizing tendency within the Republican Party today: Karl Rove and Sarah Palin.

Speaking of which, Andrew Sullivan (hat tip to Bruce Bartlett) has some (predictable) cautionary words that remind us that the Republicans need to reflect just a bit before exulting in glee. He says Brown "has no plans to cut the debt or control government," and that the Republicans "merely want to kill a reform presidency. They have no alternative [policy]." I don't know about Brown, but he may have a point about many of the Republicans in Congress. My comment on Facebook:

Sullivan is on target as far as Rovian hypocrisy, though I would like to think the Massachusetts election is more than a "hissy fit." If the Republicans, and especially the Tea Party "Base," don't face up to the ugly truth about their own complicity in this country's fiscal mess, it's all but certain that they will misinterpret today's results just as badly as the Democrats misinterpreted Obama's 2008 victory, and likewise miss another historic opportunity for true reform.

Be that as it may, we can at least be sure that the threat of a government takeover of health care, and the march toward socialism in general, has been stalled for the moment, at least. How the next chapter unfolds depends to a large extent on whether the Democrats are going to ignore voter sentiment and press on with their agenda before their "window of opportunity" slams shut. Will they make excuses to prevent Brown from taking office in the Senate until they have pulled some legislative tricks? Not if the people of Massachusetts have anything to do with it. In the middle of the victory rally, the crowd started a chant aimed directly at the Democratic leaders in Congress:

Seat him NOW! Seat him NOW! Seat him NOW!

Actually, the threat of Democratic stalling tactics has just diminished, as Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) released a statement urging that no votes on health care be taken until Brown is officially seated as U.S. Senator. If a Democrat says such a thing, there is no way that Harry Reid will risk further damage to his party's sullied image. Good for Webb!

So what will the political ramifications be in Washington? Yesterday, Republitarian solicited forecasts as to how the Democrats would spin a loss by Coakley. My two cents:

Easy -- they will blame it on the lousy economy which Obama inherited from Bush. They can't heap blame directly on Coakley, of course, because she's a women, and it would be hard for Democrats to alienate a key constituency. They will reflexively accuse Brown of lies and distortions and scare tactics, linking him to the Tea Baggers, but in so doing they might even put themselves in a bigger hole for the elections next fall, because all indications are that Brown is a very decent [and] sincere guy.

"America Rising" video

It may seem a little disturbing for younger viewers, but for a good portrayal of the deep, widespread anger against Obama and the Democrats across the Fruited Plain, watch the America Rising Video at youtube.com.

January 18, 2010 [LINK / comment]

Our new governor: Bob McDonnell!

After eight years of Democrats occupying the Governor's Mansion in Richmond, Republicans have a lot to celebrate now that Bob McDonnell has been elevated to the top executive leadership position in the Old Dominion. The new governor struck a sober yet upbeat and inspirational tone in his hour-long speech to the General Assembly this evening, stressing bipartisan cooperation and making good-natured references to Del. Ward Armstrong and other Democratic legislators. Stylistically, it was right on target.

As for the substance, McDonnell covered the gamut of issues, mostly revolving around the difficult dilemma posed by the severe budget crunch. He focused like a proverbial "laser beam" on the fundamental task of job creation, the subject of Executive Order #1, which he signed on Saturday, within hours of taking the oath of office. My only real criticism of McDonnell was in putting too much emphasis on the standard tools by which state and local governments give special preferential incentives to attract investment from out-of-state. (He mentioned the tourist and movie-making industries as being prime examples of big payoff opportunities.) From a broader, nationwide perspective, however, such incentives yield little if any net increase in aggregative private investment, merely shifting investment from one state or locality to another, as in a zero-sum game. But otherwise, McDonnell said all the right things about the need to ease the regulatory burdens on small businesses, and to firmly reject any proposals to raise taxes on "hard-working Virginia families." Good! (It was also good that he left just a little bit of wiggle room for negotiating purposes.)

McDonnell repeated one line that caught my attention from his inaugural address on the Capitol steps, eliciting loud cheers along with some boos from Democrats:

We will make Virginia the energy capital of the east coast.

To which I say, "Don't count your chickens before they hatch." I support the proposed off-shore drilling measures, as long as there are strong environmental safeguards, but I am under no illusion that we are necessarily going to strike it rich. I was never much impressed with the simplistic slogan, "Drill here, drill now!" Maybe we will get lucky, as Brazil did two years ago, or maybe not. For a detailed summary and analysis of the Governor's speech, read Jim Hoeft at Bearing Drift.

Sunday's News Leader reported on local folks who made it down to Richmond for the inaugural festivities, including Jimmy Brenneman, a young Staunton Republican. [Also present at the ceremonies was the new 20th District Delegate, Dickie Bell and his wife, Anne.] (I was seriously considering making the trip, but the household vote on the issue was tied, 1-1.) If I had only known the 70s acoustic rock group America was going to play at the inaugural ball...

In the months to come, Governor McDonnell will have a precious opportunity to prove that he can tackle tough issues in a bipartisan fashion without giving up on conservative principles. He will be under heavy pressure from the "grassroots" to do their bidding. Fortunately, he seems to be a very capable and gifted leader, so there is very good reason to expect that he will rise above the old partisan bickering and gamesmanship, and do what is in the best interest of all Virginians.

I have made no secret of my deep dissatisfaction with the Grand Old Party over the past few years, and I have explained my reasoning in fine detail. Being that I have striven to be discreet about intra-party squabbling, however -- in marked contrast to the "grassroots" leadership -- you sometimes have to "read between the lines" in my critiques. For the record, I ceased involvement in the formal party organization after the final "mediation effort" came to naught in mid-2008. Since then, I have limited my political activities to occasional public meetings, campaign events, and the Mountain Valley Republicans. I am gratified that the victory last November validated the approach I have been calling for, and I hope that it signifies the beginning of a fresh turn in a more sane and constructive direction.

Special Senate elections

In Virginia's 37th Senate District, being vacated by Attorney General-to-be Ken Cuccinelli, Democrat Dave Marsden defeated Republican Steve M. Hunt by only 327 votes: 50.64% to 49.26%. Some Democrats are crowing about the narrow win, but given the demographic makeup of Northern Virginia, the race should not have been so close. Clearly, something is amiss on the Democratic side. Meanwhile, the GOP held on to the 6th District Senate seat, being vacated by Ken Stolle (just elected as Sheriff of Virginia Beach), as Jeff McWaters beat Bill Fleming in a landslide. See the Virginia State Board of Elections. That means the Democrats now have a 22-18 majority in the state Senate, rather than a 21-19 majority as before. Accordingly, I have updated the table showing the composition of the Virginia government on my Politics blog page.

GOP upset in Mass.?

There is also a special election in Massachusetts tomorrow, for the United States Senate. Somehow, the Democratic favorite Martha Coakley has totally botched her campaign, wrongly assuming that the seat was an inherited peerage like in the House of Lords. Amazingly enough, the latest polls show the Republican Scott Brown with a significant lead that keeps growing. (Nine percent??? -- see politico.com.) I commented on a couple blogs that I expect the Democrats to manage to hold on to the "Kennedy seat" one way or another, but I hope I'm wrong. It is clear that a Democratic defeat would signify a humiliating repudiation of President Obama, but I would be very dubious about any claim that the "Tea Party" movement is responsible for a Republican win -- even if the original Tea Party was in Boston! A more convincing argument is that the tax hikes planned under Obamacare would severely penalize the manufacturers of medical devices that operate in Massachusetts, causing workers in that industry to defect from Democratic ranks. Ver-r-ry interesting!

Martin Luther King Day

Today, for the first time since an African-American became president, we celebrated the birthday of Martin Luther King, father of the great Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Local Republican activist Carl Tate, one of the rare breed of African-Americans who is proud to stand by the "Party of Lincoln," attended a program in honor of his late grandfather, Oliver J. Tate. I read the elder Mr. Tate's obituary in the News Leader a few months ago, and I can see where Carl got his character and gumption.

Thanks to the miracle of social networking, I learned about another African-American with a Republican identity: Samantha Rucker. She is running for the school board in the Mason District of Fairfax County. (I used to play softball in Mason District Park!) She says, "I am not running to promote one specific agenda or any partisan principles. I am running to be a part of the solution." Sounds good to me.

January 11, 2010 [LINK / comment]

Steele on the Republican Party

Ordinarily, party leaders are supposed to emphasize the positive aspects of their party, but in the Republican Party of today, that is rather difficult. RNC Chairman Michael Steele is catching a lot of flak for his new book, Right Now: A 12-Step Program for Defeating the Obama Agenda. (I'll withhold judgment about the book itself until I've read it.) He says Republicans in general have "screwed up" since Ronald Reagan was president. (New York Times) That is accurate about the last few years, I think, but seems unduly harsh when you consider all the progress that was made during the (all-too-brief) Republican Revolution led by Newt Gingrich in 1995. As the Washington Post reports, Steele's call for "grass-roots activism" on behalf of the "core conservative values of limited government, fiscal restraint and a strong national defense" could alienate independent voters.

In response to Steele, David Frum calls that book "Steele's 12-Step Plan for Self-Destruction." (Via Andrew Sullivan) Frum says the book "amounts to a formula for narrowing the party into the fundraising arm of the tea party movement." Ouch! He also points out some major omissions by GOP leaders, including failure to prevent or deal with all the congressional scandals related to Jack Abramoff, etc. Frum is one of the solid mainstream (i.e., not populist) conservatives with whom I identify.

In contrast to those who eagerly anticipate punishing Democratic incumbents for passing the "Obamacare" bill, Steele is pessimistic about retaking the House next fall, and for good reason. The "civil war" within the GOP shows little sign of abating any time soon, and leaders such as Steele who try too hard to pander to the populist (Tea Party) wing will end up discredited. I respect the Tea Partiers for raising public consciousness about vital constitutional issues, but I am also wary of some of the kooks in their midst. I think they can serve as a key part of a conservative-Republican alliance, but if the GOP hitches their wagon to that group, goodness knows where it will lead.

In sum, I admire Steele for having the guts to say unpopular things, and I agree with most of his criticisms. I'm not sure that he has exhibited good judgment in trying to convey that message, however. As a persistent, firm critic of the direction the party has taken since the second term of George W. Bush (see November 2005) and as a gentle critic before that, I fully understand the dilemma in which Steele finds himself.

Speaking of dissenting voices within the party, I have not heard much lately from the Republican Leadership Council, the moderate GOP faction of which Steele was formerly a leading member. The pragmatic "big tent" advocates, with whom I sympathize to a certain extent, are probably smart enough to keep a low profile for the time being.

"Dirty war" on Obama?

Andrew Sullivan makes some good points about the nasty tone of much of the criticism of President Obama, who he says is "locked in dirty war with the right." See the Times Online (London); hat tip to Andrew Murphy, on whose Facebook page I commented:

I agree with most of Sullivan's analysis, and of course he understands the pathology in today's GOP as well as anyone, but you really have to take his writings with a grain of salt. He reeks of bitterness, and his recent obsession with Palin and Trig was downright creepy.

New year, new photos

In keeping with the new year, I have put a new photo montage at the top of my politics blog page. Unlike the previous such montage, which included images from multiple years, all of the photos in the new montage were taken during the previous year (2009). The group photo at the bottom was at the protest against Obamacare in Waynesboro last October.

At the top: the White House, and a group of "Tea Party" protesters at the Staunton July 4 parade. Middle row: Creigh Deeds, Bob Goodlatte, Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling, and Dickie Bell. Bottom row: Ben Marchi, Scott Sayre, Ken Cuccinelli, and George Allen.

January 10, 2010 [LINK / comment]

Sen. Reid trumped by race card

It all started when excerpts from a new book filled with tawdry gossip from the 2008 presidential campaign were leaked, soon flooding cyberspace. Most infamous was the comment by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said that Barack Obama could win because he didn't have a "Negro dialect." (See politico.com.) Well, isn't that special? It's not the first time that a Democrat has used implicit racist words about Obama, and it probably won't be the last. The book is called Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin.

The question is, just how serious is the verbal offense? Is it enough to warrant replacing Reid as leader of the Senate? He is not exactly a soul-stirring leader, after all. What about the partisan angle? Are Democrats living up to the same high standard to which Republican leaders are being held by the mainstream media? Some have compared Reid's gaffe to then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott's unseemly praise for segregationist Strom Thurmond in December 2002. Of Lott, I wrote that "if he's going to hand the Democrats an issue on a silver platter like this, it's obviously time for him to step aside." If I were a Democrat right now, I would say the same thing about Reid. But since I'm not, I hope he stays as the Democrats' leader in the Senate!

For the moment, Reid's ill-chosen words may take the heat off RNC Chairman Michael Steele. (According to Mike Allen at politico.com, however, Steele stood behind Lott when that December 2002 flap took place, suggesting a lack of consistency.) Steele has been criticized lately for taking money for speeches he has given, and whose new book has a lot of harsh criticism about the GOP. For a party leader, however, he does seem unduly pessimistic about the electoral prospects this November. More on that subject later.

Greenpeace fights back

In apparent response to the scandal over the leaked e-mail messages exposing a scientific coverup at East Anglia University last month, activists from Greenpeace have launched a counteroffensive here in Virginia: They are filing a Freedom of Information Act request for all communications sent and received by U.Va. professor Patrick Michaels since he was named as the state climatologist in the 1980s. See the News Leader. It could take years to gather and sift through all that material, and what could it possibly prove? I think it's like a frivolous lawsuit, and will only further diminish Greenpeace's image among those who care more about the environment than politics.

Instapundit too "pithy"?

I must confess that over the past few months, I have fallen out of the habit of following some of my favorite blogs, such as Instapundit, authored by Glenn Reynolds. Maybe there's a good reason, in the case of that blog, at least. At True Slant, blogger Conor Friedersdorf expresses one of my misgivings about Reynolds: "he too often writes posts whose pithiness comes at the expense of substance, accuracy or integrity." What he means to say is that Reynolds' terse and ironic style of writing is aimed at his regular readers who already know his attitudes and pet peeves. It's an enormous yet very closed social group, with their own language and buzz-words that are indecipherable to outsiders, much like the in-crowd at the local shopping mall. It's an unhealthy tendency that inevitably creates misunderstandings and undermines broader political discourse in the country. It may simply be another one of those unstoppable trends engendered by the Internet, however. Hat tip to Bruce Bartlett.

Speaking of which, you folks in Rio Linda ... Nah, I won't go there.

Ray Stevens protests

For a hilarious and uplifting protest against Obamacare, watch and listen to Ray Stevens's new song, "We the People" at youtube.com. It is excellent!!! As I noted on Facebook, I'm actually old enough to remember his song "Wildwood Flower" from 1970 or so.

January 9, 2010 [LINK / comment]

Democrats hit a speed bump

Just when President Obama is on the verge of achieving an historic legislative victory through the passage of his health care bill (or what's left of it, anyway), the Democratic Party is experiencing some "blowback" from angry voters. In recent days, two veteran Senate Democrats and Gov. Bill Ritter of Colorado have announced that they will not run for reelection this year. Senators Byron Dorgan (ND) and Chris Dodd (CT) called it quits, even though both are in the prime of their political lives. See the Washington Post. Next on the list of endangered Democrats: Majority Leader Harry Reid, who his trailing badly in all the polls in Nevada.

Dodd, of course, has serious ethical problems related to the collapse of the mortgage industry (see Sept. 20, 2008), and would have had a difficult race in any case. But still it makes you wonder why the Democrats would put so much effort into passing a health care bill that is so unpopular. After all, aren't members of Congress motivated first and foremost by their own political survival, meaning reelection? On Facebook recently, I made the suggestion Democrats are willing to pay a heavy electoral price this year precisely because the health care bill will have such a profound transformative effect on the country that it will change the entire political landscape and create a built-in constituency for the Democrats for a generation to come. (For many of them, whether this country can even afford such an ill-considered extravagance is beside the point.) Any thought of repealing the health care bill, as some right-wing activists are demanding of Republican candidates this year, is extremely unrealistic. It's very sad but very true.

Don't forget, President Obama campaigned on a pledge to "transform a nation" (see March 1, 2009), and I have no doubt whatsoever that he is dead serious about it. We may not even recognize this country a few years from now. So, the Democrats may calculate that the short-term losses will be more than offset by the prospects for achieving long-term political hegemony.

Who is Erroll Southers?

He's President Obama's nominee to head the Transportation Security Administration, but his chances of getting Senate confirmation are declining day by day. Southers abused his investigative powers by accessing a database for personal use while an FBI agent during the late 1980s, and then he made false statements about it in an affidavit submitted to a Senate committee. That's not smart at all. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) played a leading role in insisting that Southers get further scrutiny before being confirmed. (DeMint is playing an increasingly prominent role in the Senate, and I expect him to gain further renown as a national leader in years to come.) See the Washington Post. At a time when the TSA is playing an extremely important role in resisting the threat of terrorism, we can't afford to have an ethically-challenged person head that agency.

Transparent government

Some people may recall that President Obama made a firm pledge during the 2008 campaign that negotiations among congressional leaders would be fully open to the public. It was an extremely unrealistic pledge, and he should have known better. Indeed, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi laughed at the idea that she would be obliged to live up to Obama's campaign promise, not a good sign for party unity. At washingtonpost.com (hat tip to Connie), Ezra Stein suggests ways to "make government more transparent," which is hard to argue with. He derides the Senate Republicans attempt to delay the health care bill by reading the entire bill on the Senate floor, partly because no normal person can understand that language anyway. I commented:

A noble sentiment, but it would be easy to circumvent any such reforms. Plus, the easier it is to access a given piece of legislative information, the less hard most citizens are likely to work to get it. Bottom line: The less the government tries to do, the less need there is to make its actions comprehensible to the general public.

In sum, government transparency is not likely to happen as long as congressional leaders feel secure enough not to worry about withstanding a serious challenge to reelection -- and that hardly ever happens. Maybe Harry Reid will start to open up...

---

NOTE: Earlier today (Saturday) I discovered that my politics blog post for Jan. 10, 2009 ("Bush's fiscal profligacy: a recap") had originally been labelled as "Jan. 10, 2008." Since it was a fairly important post which I have cited since then at least once, and may do so again, I corrected that error, and included a note at the bottom, along with a screen shot of the original date stamp to show when it was originally posted.