It was a privilege to be able to attend Obama's inauguration. Many people I've talked to and some in the media have commented on the relative absence of applause lines in Obama's speech. First, I thought it was a good speech in setting up the public for what lies in store for us and preparing us for the tasks ahead, because our problems will not be solved just because we elected some new officials; these problems will take patience and input from ourselves. I thought Obama hit these notes when he talked about the need for us to take "responsibility" seriously again.
Second, I wonder whether the advent of the online age has or will have some effect on these speeches. Until now, speeches have been events heard once and quoted occasionally. But now they can be accessed anytime at our convenience. Perhaps Obama's speeches are geared to some extent for those interested in a repeat hearing in a screen-to-individual setting. If so, then the need to lay out a good argument may take precedence over a series of good applause lines.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Our Questionable Commitment On Kids' Health Insurance
The House has passed a bill expanding S-CHIP, the combined state-federal program for children's health insurance. It passed Congress in 2007 but was vetoed by President Bush. With expanded Democratic majorities and a Democratic president, it seems likely to become law this time around. And who can be against making sure that kids have adequate health care, right?
Me. Or at least this version of ensuring it.
The problem is the payment mechanism. The bill pays for the expansion by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents per pack. I have two objections to this funding method.
First, it's either unsustainable or it taxes addicts. The idea of a "sin tax" is to reduce the consumption or the activity being taxed. If the goal of raising the cigarette tax is to reduce smoking while at the same time expanding children's health insurance coverage, then its implementation will indeed reduce cigarette sales and eventually deprive the program of the money it relies on. A sin tax is simply not a sustainable source of revenue for any program if the sin tax accomplishes its objective. Or, if raising the price of smoking doesn't decrease the incidence of smoking, then perhaps all we are doing is shifting the cost of the program expansion to those who are addicted to nicotine and who have no choice but to pay whatever taxes are required to satisfy their habit. That hardly seems like a just way to fund a kids program.
But my more fundamental objection is that taxing smokers absolves the rest of us from taking responsibility for this program that most people say they want. Most people say they support health insurance for kids; but how strong is that support if the best we can say is "yes, insure kids--but only if smokers pay for it." I think if I support a program, then I should be willing to help pay for it myself, not sluff off the responsibility on others.
This legislation is one example of what's wrong with our relationship to our government today--or, conversely, our government's relation to us. It's easy to be for something that requires nothing of us. It was easy to be for the Iraq war if we were asked neither to server nor to pay for it. It was easy to be for tax cuts if we didn't have to give up any programs that would help make those cuts fiscally responsible. And it's easy to favor expanding health care as long as someone else picks up the tab.
But that approach is not sustainable, and it's not realistic. Government isn't an abstract entity that just takes our money, or just doles out programs. It's the way we work together to achieve certain goals that we think are of national importance. It's the way we pay together for programs we say we want. And we do pay together, for the most part; I don't want to minimize the taxes that many people pay or the burden they impose on some households.
But by placing the burden of paying for popular programs on a particularly small part of the population, we avoid having a real discussion about what we are and are not willing to pay for ourselves. I think we should have that discussion because I think it's the only way to achieve long term fiscal responsibility. I think that if we really care about health insurance for kids, we should be asked to help contribute to the cause. And if a majority of us say that we're not willing to pay, then maybe some of us don't really care about insuring kids as much as we say we do. Real support is manifested by a willingness to act; talking about some wonderful goal won't make it happen.
If most people say they don't want to pay for kids' health insurance, it may not be the outcome I prefer. But at least that's responsible democracy. To impose programs or reduce taxes as if they're all free may be democracy too, but it's not a responsible one, and it's not an approach we can keep up for long without suffering the fiscal consequences. Let's have an honest discussion with ourselves on this and other issues, and let the chips fall where they may.
Me. Or at least this version of ensuring it.
The problem is the payment mechanism. The bill pays for the expansion by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents per pack. I have two objections to this funding method.
First, it's either unsustainable or it taxes addicts. The idea of a "sin tax" is to reduce the consumption or the activity being taxed. If the goal of raising the cigarette tax is to reduce smoking while at the same time expanding children's health insurance coverage, then its implementation will indeed reduce cigarette sales and eventually deprive the program of the money it relies on. A sin tax is simply not a sustainable source of revenue for any program if the sin tax accomplishes its objective. Or, if raising the price of smoking doesn't decrease the incidence of smoking, then perhaps all we are doing is shifting the cost of the program expansion to those who are addicted to nicotine and who have no choice but to pay whatever taxes are required to satisfy their habit. That hardly seems like a just way to fund a kids program.
But my more fundamental objection is that taxing smokers absolves the rest of us from taking responsibility for this program that most people say they want. Most people say they support health insurance for kids; but how strong is that support if the best we can say is "yes, insure kids--but only if smokers pay for it." I think if I support a program, then I should be willing to help pay for it myself, not sluff off the responsibility on others.
This legislation is one example of what's wrong with our relationship to our government today--or, conversely, our government's relation to us. It's easy to be for something that requires nothing of us. It was easy to be for the Iraq war if we were asked neither to server nor to pay for it. It was easy to be for tax cuts if we didn't have to give up any programs that would help make those cuts fiscally responsible. And it's easy to favor expanding health care as long as someone else picks up the tab.
But that approach is not sustainable, and it's not realistic. Government isn't an abstract entity that just takes our money, or just doles out programs. It's the way we work together to achieve certain goals that we think are of national importance. It's the way we pay together for programs we say we want. And we do pay together, for the most part; I don't want to minimize the taxes that many people pay or the burden they impose on some households.
But by placing the burden of paying for popular programs on a particularly small part of the population, we avoid having a real discussion about what we are and are not willing to pay for ourselves. I think we should have that discussion because I think it's the only way to achieve long term fiscal responsibility. I think that if we really care about health insurance for kids, we should be asked to help contribute to the cause. And if a majority of us say that we're not willing to pay, then maybe some of us don't really care about insuring kids as much as we say we do. Real support is manifested by a willingness to act; talking about some wonderful goal won't make it happen.
If most people say they don't want to pay for kids' health insurance, it may not be the outcome I prefer. But at least that's responsible democracy. To impose programs or reduce taxes as if they're all free may be democracy too, but it's not a responsible one, and it's not an approach we can keep up for long without suffering the fiscal consequences. Let's have an honest discussion with ourselves on this and other issues, and let the chips fall where they may.
Where Was Cheney's Plan B?
In his Jan. 14 PBS Newshour interview, Vice President Cheney said that he "underestimated...the extent of which the Iraqi population had been beaten down by Saddam Hussein," adding that "we thought that the Iraqis would be able to bounce back fairly quickly once Saddam was gone or the new government established and step up and take major responsibilities for governing Iraq." When asked for the source of that miscalculation, he said "Well, we didn't have that good of intelligence, I don't think, with respect to sort of the state of affairs inside Iraq. A lot of that had been wiped out over the years. Saddam Hussein was so brutal, killed so many people, slaughtered so many innocents, that it had a lasting effect on Iraqi society that was greater than I expected."
This seems to me to be revisionism at its finest. My understanding it that there were plenty of people at the State Department who warned that Iraqis should not be expected to be able to take over major government functions, that there was likely to be a power vacuum, that more troops would be needed to supply security and the delivery of basic services, and that it would take time for Iraqis to develop the capacity for self-governance. I don't think the problem was an absence of good intelligence; the problem was that the administration had decided it was only going to listen to those who already agreed with what they thought was going to be the case and rejected the opinions of those who disagreed with them.
But even if the intelligence was bad regarding the Iraqi's ability to establish a new government, is that any excuse for the failure of American planning? Only fools make major plans based only on a best-case scenario. Even the most minor businesses have contingency plans and backups in case things go wrong. Where was this administration's backup plan? Why assume that in a project as complicated as reconstituting an entire national government would go exactly as those in charge of the operation would hope? If there was any doubt as to the nature of the operation, wouldn't it be incredibly stupid not to plan for other scenarios, even worst-case scenarios? In a project this complicated, wouldn't common sense dictate going in with the resources to deal with the most adverse set of circumstances instead of the minimal resources needed to deal with an ideal situation?
But such has always been the case with this administration. There is no Plan B except to make Plan A work. They believed that the way to eliminate the national debt is to cut taxes and "grow the economy." And if it doesn't work? Forget the idea of paying down our debt and then cutting taxes when it might be safer to do so. Plan A will work, and the possibility that it might leave us worse off isn't enough to have a contingency plan.
I can only speculate as to why this administration never has a backup plan. Perhaps it's because making sure things will work would actually make demands on government resources that they don't want to face. Going into Iraq with enough troops would prove too costly and conflicted with their tax cut mantra--never mind that doing it wrong would cost us far more in the long run. Paying off the debt before trying out their tax cuts wasn't as politically popular as cutting taxes now--never mind that running up more debt would leave us in a far more vulnerable position if the economy turned sour.
This administration hasn't just been irresponsible. It has been reckless. And those that run it have refused to take responsibility.
On another note, Cheney also said in the interview that "I think the tax packages we passed in '03, for example, produced 52 months - uninterrupted months of job growth.
This seems to me to be revisionism at its finest. My understanding it that there were plenty of people at the State Department who warned that Iraqis should not be expected to be able to take over major government functions, that there was likely to be a power vacuum, that more troops would be needed to supply security and the delivery of basic services, and that it would take time for Iraqis to develop the capacity for self-governance. I don't think the problem was an absence of good intelligence; the problem was that the administration had decided it was only going to listen to those who already agreed with what they thought was going to be the case and rejected the opinions of those who disagreed with them.
But even if the intelligence was bad regarding the Iraqi's ability to establish a new government, is that any excuse for the failure of American planning? Only fools make major plans based only on a best-case scenario. Even the most minor businesses have contingency plans and backups in case things go wrong. Where was this administration's backup plan? Why assume that in a project as complicated as reconstituting an entire national government would go exactly as those in charge of the operation would hope? If there was any doubt as to the nature of the operation, wouldn't it be incredibly stupid not to plan for other scenarios, even worst-case scenarios? In a project this complicated, wouldn't common sense dictate going in with the resources to deal with the most adverse set of circumstances instead of the minimal resources needed to deal with an ideal situation?
But such has always been the case with this administration. There is no Plan B except to make Plan A work. They believed that the way to eliminate the national debt is to cut taxes and "grow the economy." And if it doesn't work? Forget the idea of paying down our debt and then cutting taxes when it might be safer to do so. Plan A will work, and the possibility that it might leave us worse off isn't enough to have a contingency plan.
I can only speculate as to why this administration never has a backup plan. Perhaps it's because making sure things will work would actually make demands on government resources that they don't want to face. Going into Iraq with enough troops would prove too costly and conflicted with their tax cut mantra--never mind that doing it wrong would cost us far more in the long run. Paying off the debt before trying out their tax cuts wasn't as politically popular as cutting taxes now--never mind that running up more debt would leave us in a far more vulnerable position if the economy turned sour.
This administration hasn't just been irresponsible. It has been reckless. And those that run it have refused to take responsibility.
On another note, Cheney also said in the interview that "I think the tax packages we passed in '03, for example, produced 52 months - uninterrupted months of job growth.
"We've run into trouble recently, obviously, beginning in '08 because of the financial crisis, as well as the recession, but those are not U.S. problems alone. Those are global problems, those are problems that have affected nations and economies all over the world; that's not something that is just a U.S. problem."
First, it's hard to link economic growth to the tax cuts as effect and cause. Clinton raised taxes coming out of a recession, and we had more economic growth than this administration got with its tax cuts. Second, Cheney conveniently omits, or just doesn't realize, that those 52 months of job growth did nothing for most Americans. The job growth was by all accounts anemic for an economy coming out of a recession. And those years of "growth" did not move median salaries. The only ones who benefited were those at the top.
And yes, the economic problems today are global; but many economists trace their sources to the US. Foreign banks bought the securities based on mortgages in the US that never should have been sold and which assumed that US housing prices would never go down. So Cheney refuses to acknowledge that a fair share of the global economic crisis was inextricably linked to what was going on in the US.
But at least those packaging securities based on the false assumption that US housing prices would never go down show that this administration wasn't the only entity that lacked a Plan B.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Running Versus Governing
While I'm glad to see Democratic majorities in Congress and a Democrat coming to the White House, I remain concerned about the long-term--heck, even the short-term--policies for the nation. Because I see races being won on policies that are neither wise nor sustainable, and I think our newly elected officials know better.
Yes, politicians run on what they need to to get elected. But running is different than governing, and if the governing goes badly, it makes it a lot harder to get reelected.
We know that our nation's fiscal policy cannot survive endless tax cuts. Yet both Democrats and Republicans ran on tax cuts for just about everyone. Obama, whose tax plan which raises rates on the highest-income Americans, proudly stated that his proposal was still a net tax cut for the nation (probably so that he wouldn't get labeled as a tax-and-spender). Yet if revenues decrease and expenditures continue to rise at present rates, we know we will dig ourselves into dependency and penury.
Many Democrats and Republicans both ran on lower gas prices. But we all know, or should know, that low gas prices are inconsistent with our calls for energy independence. Now that gas is back down, there are indications that bad habits are returning: people are driving more, and the incentive to buy more efficient cars is lessened. And it should be obvious that when gas is cheap, alternative fuel sources can't compete, delaying our inevitable and ultimately beneficial transition off of foreign oil. For economic, environmental, and national security reasons, the sooner we make the transition the better. Yet our politicians seem trapped by the demand for lower gas prices now and for the foreseeable future.
And after years of talking about Social Security, there is still no serious proposal on the table for dealing with its long-term future. We know that with our aging population, the demographics of the situation will lead to huge costs if nothing is done. But since there is no immediate problem, no crisis, the public ignores it and our politicians don't bring it up since it can only lose votes.
So how can we start to address these important issues when there seems to be no sense of urgency? I think it goes something like this.
Our elected officials need to say that we have some hard choices ahead. But they can't make the hard choices unless enough of their constituents are willing to make those same hard choices. Because that is where the ultimate accountability lies in our system of government: not with 535 representatives on Capitol Hill and the resident of the White House, but with the 200+ million eligible voters of this nation. We can't expect our officials to make difficult decisions about our future unless we are willing to do the same.
So then we can be asked: do we really want low gas prices? Because we can have it--but then we should be told not to expect to achieve energy independence. Do we really want to preserve Social Security? We can do it, but not without some kind of action on our part. Do we really want tax cut after tax cut? We can have it, but not without destroying our society's future.
We can, with the help of our elected leaders, look at our problems and see that the solutions lie within our grasp, but only if we choose to act. We can take responsibility for our fiscal situation and realize that "the government" doesn't tax us; we tax ourselves for the programs we say we want. Then we can have that messy, sprawling discussion that resolves itself however imperfectly through our representative system. We can ask ourselves how badly we want energy independence and consider whether we'd tolerate a gradually increasing gas tax to create incentives for ourselves to change our behavior. We can think about whether caring for the retired is worth asking those of us in our 30s, 40s, and perhaps early 50s to wait a little longer before receiving Social Security benefits when we retire.
Our leadership should not tell us what to think, but what to think about. And then we can choose. Right now, I fear we're not even thinking. We're not thinking because most people don't have the interest, time, or energy, and our leaders see little to gain by bringing these things up. But we could all be so much better off if some group of legislators on the Hill got together and decided to ask us as a nation: are we serious about these problems? And if we are serious, what are we willing to do?
The public has expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction with the direction of the country. Someone should tell us that the direction is our responsibility. If we want different results, we have to start making different choices. And some of those choices will be tough ones. It would help if our leaders would start letting us off the hook for the choices we have made, and asked us what choices we are willing to make to change our direction. Because pulling a lever for a candidate of a different party won't give those who get elected any more support for hard choices if we continue to avoid those choices ourselves.
Yes, politicians run on what they need to to get elected. But running is different than governing, and if the governing goes badly, it makes it a lot harder to get reelected.
We know that our nation's fiscal policy cannot survive endless tax cuts. Yet both Democrats and Republicans ran on tax cuts for just about everyone. Obama, whose tax plan which raises rates on the highest-income Americans, proudly stated that his proposal was still a net tax cut for the nation (probably so that he wouldn't get labeled as a tax-and-spender). Yet if revenues decrease and expenditures continue to rise at present rates, we know we will dig ourselves into dependency and penury.
Many Democrats and Republicans both ran on lower gas prices. But we all know, or should know, that low gas prices are inconsistent with our calls for energy independence. Now that gas is back down, there are indications that bad habits are returning: people are driving more, and the incentive to buy more efficient cars is lessened. And it should be obvious that when gas is cheap, alternative fuel sources can't compete, delaying our inevitable and ultimately beneficial transition off of foreign oil. For economic, environmental, and national security reasons, the sooner we make the transition the better. Yet our politicians seem trapped by the demand for lower gas prices now and for the foreseeable future.
And after years of talking about Social Security, there is still no serious proposal on the table for dealing with its long-term future. We know that with our aging population, the demographics of the situation will lead to huge costs if nothing is done. But since there is no immediate problem, no crisis, the public ignores it and our politicians don't bring it up since it can only lose votes.
So how can we start to address these important issues when there seems to be no sense of urgency? I think it goes something like this.
Our elected officials need to say that we have some hard choices ahead. But they can't make the hard choices unless enough of their constituents are willing to make those same hard choices. Because that is where the ultimate accountability lies in our system of government: not with 535 representatives on Capitol Hill and the resident of the White House, but with the 200+ million eligible voters of this nation. We can't expect our officials to make difficult decisions about our future unless we are willing to do the same.
So then we can be asked: do we really want low gas prices? Because we can have it--but then we should be told not to expect to achieve energy independence. Do we really want to preserve Social Security? We can do it, but not without some kind of action on our part. Do we really want tax cut after tax cut? We can have it, but not without destroying our society's future.
We can, with the help of our elected leaders, look at our problems and see that the solutions lie within our grasp, but only if we choose to act. We can take responsibility for our fiscal situation and realize that "the government" doesn't tax us; we tax ourselves for the programs we say we want. Then we can have that messy, sprawling discussion that resolves itself however imperfectly through our representative system. We can ask ourselves how badly we want energy independence and consider whether we'd tolerate a gradually increasing gas tax to create incentives for ourselves to change our behavior. We can think about whether caring for the retired is worth asking those of us in our 30s, 40s, and perhaps early 50s to wait a little longer before receiving Social Security benefits when we retire.
Our leadership should not tell us what to think, but what to think about. And then we can choose. Right now, I fear we're not even thinking. We're not thinking because most people don't have the interest, time, or energy, and our leaders see little to gain by bringing these things up. But we could all be so much better off if some group of legislators on the Hill got together and decided to ask us as a nation: are we serious about these problems? And if we are serious, what are we willing to do?
The public has expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction with the direction of the country. Someone should tell us that the direction is our responsibility. If we want different results, we have to start making different choices. And some of those choices will be tough ones. It would help if our leaders would start letting us off the hook for the choices we have made, and asked us what choices we are willing to make to change our direction. Because pulling a lever for a candidate of a different party won't give those who get elected any more support for hard choices if we continue to avoid those choices ourselves.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The Tyranny of Ideology
I continue to be amazed at how ideology trumps facts in some people's minds. Some people, even those very prominent within their movements, are so convinced that they are right on principle that they cannot even appear to contemplate that they might be wrong, and are oblivious to the disastrous effects that clinging to such ideology in the face of a changing reality will have to their own goals.
In yesterday's New York Times article, Grover Norquist, the president for Americans for Tax Reform and a prominent conservative, scoffed at those who called for the Republican party to move left politically. "They will be cheerfully ignored," he said.
But what does he offer to regain a political majority? What has he or his movement proposed to deal with the real issues facing people today? We just had an election, and there seemed little appetite in the public for less economic regulation, a hands-free approach to health care, or letting people get kicked out of their homes. When families have problems paying the bills, ideology purity is not on their list of priorities. Though I think claims of a political realignment may be premature, there has been a significant shift in public attitude. And unless Mr. Norquist's party adjusts, he will find their proposals being uncheerfully ignored at the polls.
The same article cites Texas governor Rick Perry as advocating that the Republican party continue to stay focused on social issues, claiming that anti-gay marriage measures in California, Arizona, and Florida show that conservative social values still matter to many Americans and so would be an asset to the party that adopts and promotes them.
But he's fighting a losing battle. Regardless of the ability of people to change their minds on such matters (and some do), the demographics regarding gay marriage at least is inexorable: older people think this issue is far more important than younger people. The California anti-gay marriage voters have been losing ground every time it has been brought up, and most people think that the outcome will flip in four or eight years. People of course are free to have their individual opinions on the matter, but it would appear to be self-destructive for a political party to bet its future on what is clearly a losing demographic battle. Why a sitting governor would think that this approach is good for rebuilding his party is a mystery.
And in another context, Stephen Moore, founder of The Club For Growth and presently on the Wall Street Journal editorial board, was on the Colbert Report last week arguing that higher taxes would kill the economy, that we should cut all government spending by 25%. This despite clear evidence that the marginally higher tax rates of the Clinton years was a period of robust growth. This despite the fact that there is no serious possibility or will to cut our massive expenditures in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense by 25% (which, with debt financing, constitute over 65% of the budget), much less aid for schools, law enforcement, environmental protection, or a host of other less costly programs. Even if he's right that smaller government will make everyone better off in the long run, such a proposal has no political support whatsoever and is simply not politically possible. It doesn't address people's present needs and won't serve as a plausible platform for Republican reconstruction.
Principles are important. But they shouldn't be considered inviolate when reality requires a different approach.
In yesterday's New York Times article, Grover Norquist, the president for Americans for Tax Reform and a prominent conservative, scoffed at those who called for the Republican party to move left politically. "They will be cheerfully ignored," he said.
But what does he offer to regain a political majority? What has he or his movement proposed to deal with the real issues facing people today? We just had an election, and there seemed little appetite in the public for less economic regulation, a hands-free approach to health care, or letting people get kicked out of their homes. When families have problems paying the bills, ideology purity is not on their list of priorities. Though I think claims of a political realignment may be premature, there has been a significant shift in public attitude. And unless Mr. Norquist's party adjusts, he will find their proposals being uncheerfully ignored at the polls.
The same article cites Texas governor Rick Perry as advocating that the Republican party continue to stay focused on social issues, claiming that anti-gay marriage measures in California, Arizona, and Florida show that conservative social values still matter to many Americans and so would be an asset to the party that adopts and promotes them.
But he's fighting a losing battle. Regardless of the ability of people to change their minds on such matters (and some do), the demographics regarding gay marriage at least is inexorable: older people think this issue is far more important than younger people. The California anti-gay marriage voters have been losing ground every time it has been brought up, and most people think that the outcome will flip in four or eight years. People of course are free to have their individual opinions on the matter, but it would appear to be self-destructive for a political party to bet its future on what is clearly a losing demographic battle. Why a sitting governor would think that this approach is good for rebuilding his party is a mystery.
And in another context, Stephen Moore, founder of The Club For Growth and presently on the Wall Street Journal editorial board, was on the Colbert Report last week arguing that higher taxes would kill the economy, that we should cut all government spending by 25%. This despite clear evidence that the marginally higher tax rates of the Clinton years was a period of robust growth. This despite the fact that there is no serious possibility or will to cut our massive expenditures in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense by 25% (which, with debt financing, constitute over 65% of the budget), much less aid for schools, law enforcement, environmental protection, or a host of other less costly programs. Even if he's right that smaller government will make everyone better off in the long run, such a proposal has no political support whatsoever and is simply not politically possible. It doesn't address people's present needs and won't serve as a plausible platform for Republican reconstruction.
Principles are important. But they shouldn't be considered inviolate when reality requires a different approach.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Primary Memory Lane
Remember all those arguments that we heard during the primaries?
Hillary wins the big states.
Hillary wins the swing states necessary for Democrats to win in November (implying that Obama won't win those states).
Obama can't get the white blue-collar vote.
Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama.
The supposed snubbing of Michigan and Florida in the primaries will be big problems for Democrats in the general election.
Just goes to show what many of us argued all along: you can't conclude much about general election results from primary results.
The idea that if people prefer A to B, then they won't prefer B to C was fallacious from the start. Perhaps intuitively attractive, but logically fallacious. We can't know if Clinton would have done better or worse than Obama in the general election, but we do know that his loss to Clinton in Ohio primary did not prevent him from winning Ohio against McCain. Or Pennsylvania. Or Florida. Or Indiana. Or New Hampshire. And he carried Virgina and North Carolina, states which might not have been as competitive if Clinton had been the nominee, though she probably would have had an easier time in Florida.
Most Clinton supporters came home to the party. Of course most of them would, just as most Obama supporters would have voted for Clinton if she had been the nominee. There was too much at stake for people not entirely wrapped up in the personality of the candidates to do otherwise.
The early primary controversies in Michigan and Florida turned out to be complete non-factors. Michigan wasn't even contested down the stretch, with the McCain campaign withdrawing from the state long before election day. Florida was close, but it was going to be so with Obama as the nominee regardless of what happened during the primaries. I've heard nothing to suggest that the Florida primary problems affected the final tallies in the general election.
As for the white blue-collar vote, Obama won white voters earning under $50,000 by 52% to 46% and received a greater percentage of the white vote than Gore and Kerry. And Pennsylvania, home of the blue-collar Clinton voter, was called very early on election night for Obama despite the concentrated efforts of the McCain campaign to wrest the state from the Democrats.
Sure, there may have been intervening factors that prognosticators weren't thinking about when they made their assertions during the primaries. The Palin selection may have pushed many Clinton supporters to Obama who might not otherwise have voted for him or stayed home. The financial crisis may have given Obama more heft with blue-collar voters than he would have had otherwise.
But I think it's hard to refute the assertion that many of the claims linking primary results to the general election were wrong. And it makes sense that they were wrong because they had little logical basis to begin with.
Do people who make assertions that turn out to be wrong ever admit their mistakes, or become more cautious about doing so in the future?
Hillary wins the big states.
Hillary wins the swing states necessary for Democrats to win in November (implying that Obama won't win those states).
Obama can't get the white blue-collar vote.
Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama.
The supposed snubbing of Michigan and Florida in the primaries will be big problems for Democrats in the general election.
Just goes to show what many of us argued all along: you can't conclude much about general election results from primary results.
The idea that if people prefer A to B, then they won't prefer B to C was fallacious from the start. Perhaps intuitively attractive, but logically fallacious. We can't know if Clinton would have done better or worse than Obama in the general election, but we do know that his loss to Clinton in Ohio primary did not prevent him from winning Ohio against McCain. Or Pennsylvania. Or Florida. Or Indiana. Or New Hampshire. And he carried Virgina and North Carolina, states which might not have been as competitive if Clinton had been the nominee, though she probably would have had an easier time in Florida.
Most Clinton supporters came home to the party. Of course most of them would, just as most Obama supporters would have voted for Clinton if she had been the nominee. There was too much at stake for people not entirely wrapped up in the personality of the candidates to do otherwise.
The early primary controversies in Michigan and Florida turned out to be complete non-factors. Michigan wasn't even contested down the stretch, with the McCain campaign withdrawing from the state long before election day. Florida was close, but it was going to be so with Obama as the nominee regardless of what happened during the primaries. I've heard nothing to suggest that the Florida primary problems affected the final tallies in the general election.
As for the white blue-collar vote, Obama won white voters earning under $50,000 by 52% to 46% and received a greater percentage of the white vote than Gore and Kerry. And Pennsylvania, home of the blue-collar Clinton voter, was called very early on election night for Obama despite the concentrated efforts of the McCain campaign to wrest the state from the Democrats.
Sure, there may have been intervening factors that prognosticators weren't thinking about when they made their assertions during the primaries. The Palin selection may have pushed many Clinton supporters to Obama who might not otherwise have voted for him or stayed home. The financial crisis may have given Obama more heft with blue-collar voters than he would have had otherwise.
But I think it's hard to refute the assertion that many of the claims linking primary results to the general election were wrong. And it makes sense that they were wrong because they had little logical basis to begin with.
Do people who make assertions that turn out to be wrong ever admit their mistakes, or become more cautious about doing so in the future?
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The McCain Campaign: "Country First" or Me First?
An Open Letter To The McCain Campaign
Dear Senator McCain:
Your convention was themed “Country First.” You had a day of that convention devoted to “service.” You have pledged to fight the “me-first” crowd in Washington.
But after watching your campaign the past several weeks, I must ask: are you putting country first? Have you asked for service? Or have you employed me-first tactics to the detriment of our nation and to get yourself elected president?
Putting country first would have your campaign engage Obama on real issues such as health care, housing, the economy, the environment, energy, education, Iraq, and Iran, and then letting the voters decide. Instead, we’ve gotten policy-less accusations of “celebrity,” mock outrage about lipstick, and deliberately deceptive innuendos about sex education for kindergarteners. Is this what your campaign calls putting country first? Or is it the ultimate expression of “me first”: that it’s OK to say anything as long as it helps you to get elected?
I would be thrilled to see you and Obama really discuss the problems that matter to Americans so they can make informed decisions that should constitute the foundation for our democratic process. To me, that would really be putting the country first. But I don’t know how you can look at the warping of your opponent’s positions and say you’re really willing to let the people reach their own conclusions. You’ve repeatedly said that Obama will raise “your” taxes. If “your” means “everyone,” then you must know that your statement will be wrong as applied to at least 80% of the public. Is that distortion putting country first? Why is there such fear to honestly describe your plan and Obama’s plan and simply argue why you think your plan is better?
Nor do I see from your campaign any call for real service. Your budget plan calls for more tax cuts, but there are no proposed budget cuts that come close to paying for them and you do not ask the public what they might be willing to give up to satisfy their desire for lower taxes. Instead, you seem to pretend that everything will be free; but do you truly believe that such a path leads to anything but economic ruin? Even more pointedly, you call for an extended military presence in Iraq but you have not asked the public for an iota effort to really support our troops: we have not paid for them so far, and there are no plans to pay for them in the future. As a military man yourself, I though that you would have the courage to say that if we send our troops to war, the very least we could to is pay for it. Instead, we have borrowed the money and not paid a dime ourselves; indeed, we have been lavished with tax cuts, and you have promised still more. Is this your idea of service, that we should be fine with letting a tiny fraction of the population bear all of the risk and sacrifice while we contribute less and less to their effort and send the bill instead to our children?
It seems to me that your proposals are anything but country first and almost entirely me-first. They pretend that wars are free, that tax cuts are free, that we have to do nothing to get the things we say we want. They ask nothing of us. Instead, they play along with the fiction that we can have everything while doing nothing. That approach may get you elected, but it is inadequate for governing because it is unsustainable. And promising the public something that is not sustainable is not putting country first; it’s putting our nation’s future at terrible risk.
Democrats are not blameless on these matters. I disagree with their proposal to expand children’s health insurance by taxing smokers: if that issue is something we care about, we should care enough to do something about it ourselves and not sluff off the responsibility to others. Nor are Democrats pure on the attack ad front, as I know that some of your statements have been taken out of context.
But at least Obama has asked some of us for action. He is asking those of us who are wealthy and have done so well over the past eight years to pay a little more in taxes so that the vast majority who have not benefited can have some tax relief. He is asking those of us who are serious about energy independence to make some changes in our own lives to help achieve that goal. By contrast, you now support maintaining tax cuts for the wealthy even though you previously opposed them as unfair, and you mocked suggestions that people take such small but easy steps such as properly inflating their tires to reduce oil consumption. I fail to see how either of these positions are put country first or asked any of us for the slightest bit of service.
So I ask you if you are serious about “country first” and “service.” If you are, you will stop your campaign’s rapid downward mud-slinging spiral and focus on the real and serious problems we face today. And you will talk about not only your goals for the nation but honestly tell us what we as individuals will need to do to achieve those goals.
I know politics is a rough sport, and I don’t expect purity from either side in this election season. But someone who has adopted the themes of “country first” and “service” must be able to do better that what we’ve seen so far. Otherwise, those terms will be nothing more than ironic as punch lines that you never meant seriously in the first place. I think the American people deserve better.
Don’t you?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)