My Shocking Energy Dependence
by neolibertarian
My energy consumption has grown greater in recent years, and I produce a shockingly low percentage of the energy I consume. Clearly this is a catastrophe and if nothing stops me, then there's a good chance that I will continue to be both productive and happy but without my own source of energy.
As my income and wealth increase, I tend to use greater amounts of energy. Although I do partake in some energy-efficient behaviors, overall I am still directly dependent on others for all my energy consumption.
My oil and natural gas production are at a paltry 0% of world production, with zero million barrels of oil per day pumped and zero million cubic feet of gas produced. My coal, nuclear, solar, wind and hydroelectric production are similarly all at the zero level. My capital assets include zero drilling platforms, zero derricks, zero mines, zero reactors, zero windmills, zero dams, and zero solar arrays. Even if I did purchase, for example, a solar array, I would be dependent upon others for its design, manufacture, installation and maintenance. I have frivolously decided not to purchase a car that runs on banana peels or cooking oil, and even if I did so I would be dependent on others for bananas and oil. I have not invested any time into researching for new methods of energy production, like fusion or geothermal or convection towers.
In fact, even the caloric energy I use to walk and think and type is provided through food that I do not grow. Stunningly, I am not a farmer or a gardener and thus do not provide my own foodstuffs. I also do not breed or maintain livestock, and even if I did I would be dependent upon others for the meals I fed my animals.
Unfortunately, I also do not produce my own light, as I am dependent upon electricity companies and light-bulb manufacturers to provide those needs.
This dramatic dependence on essentially all forms of energy is deepened by my own pathetic acceptance of it - for I am regularly and consistently ASKING these parties to cater to my dependence. I have short-sightedly chosen to do something I'm good at in order to make money and then trade that money for the things I need.
My only solace is that every one of the providers of energy to me is equally dependent on others for labor, raw materials, food and more.
Election Wrap-Up
by neolibertarian
Well, Obama won the presidency, so my vote for McCain-Palin lost. We can all at least be reassured that the historic nature of his victory is a positive sign for the country, even given all Obama's shortcomings. How did my other positions fair?
President/VP - McCain/Palin
Obama won, and pretty handily in the electoral college.
CA Props:
Prop 1A - High speed train
I voted no, but this one passed by a four- or five-point margin. This will be a huge waste of money; at least expanding the BART would get some commuter traffic off the road and allow people to buy cheaper homes further from the Bay.
Prop 2 - Farm animal cages
I voted no, but this one passed nearly 2 to 1. That really surprised me. Expect this to have some effect on the price of eggs and on the profitability of some farms. It was a comparatively mild form of animal rights compared to the "don't test vaccines on anyone but humans" crowd.
Prop 3 - Hospitals
I voted no to more spending, but this passed by nine or ten points. Put 'children' and 'health' in a spending measure and it passes.
Prop 4 - Parental notification for abortion
I voted yes but Californians by a five-point margin evidently think that abortion is some special exemption from the normal rules on raising children. This measure improved over its 2006 performance, if I recall (I voted for that one, too).
Prop 5 - Drug Offenders
I voted no on this one, and Californians agreed handily. This measure would have lightened sentences but also made addiction a legal excuse to get out of punishment.
Prop 6 - Crime (Runner Initiative)
I voted no, and California agreed over two to one.
Prop 7 - Renewable Energy
I voted no, so did California. Not realistic.
Prop 8 - Gay Marriage
I voted no, but California voted yes, eliminating the right to new gay marriages starting today. This is ridiculous. I had assumed that the fate of 4 and 8 would be more closely linked, but apparently at least a few million Californians think minors are responsible enough to consent to surgical procedures and to kill their babies, but that gays aren't responsible enough to choose marriage over civil union. Either that, or somehow calling a gay marriage a 'marriage' instead of a 'civil union' is harmful to society, while letting children abort their children is beneficial to society. Even if you're pro-choice, then you can at least concede that the libertarian argument for gay marriage is ten times stronger than the libertarian argument for minors procuring abortions. If nothing else, a gay marriage is dissoluble, while nobody can un-abort a child.
Prop 9 - Victims' Rights
I voted yes, hesitantly, and California agreed.
Prop 10 - Alternative Fuels Bond
I reject T. Boone Pickens and voted no, as did California. Do your rent-seking somewhere else, pal. At least selling oil to energy consumers is honest (if maligned) work; campaigning for government subsidies of your new alternative fuels investments is anything but honest.
Prop 11 - Redistricting
I voted yes, and redistricting finally passed (with 95% reporting). This is a long time coming. It's not perfect and doesn't include the US House seats, but it's a start and it takes the drawing of districts away from the politicians running to hold those districts.
Prop 12 - Money to Veterans
I voted no, but California not surprisingly voted yes. It's hard to say no to veterans, though I managed to do it. No word yet on plans to give money to other sympathetic groups like orphans, firefighters, and kittens.
In my local races, I predictably lost on the congressional and state legislature races (damn you, Marin!), though at least the two Libertarians I voted for got around 4 and 5 percent - if only because the Republicans are a lost cause here. At least Marin county agreed with me on Prop 8 (shocker, that!). They passed a parcel tax for the teachers' union, but fortunately couldn't get the 2/3 vote for a commute train plan.
Tom McClintock's race for the House has ended with Tom less than 500 votes up on Charlie Brown. Smells like a recount. Good luck, Tom.
Overall, it's hard to be too sad over Obama winning, if only because it was such a left-slanted year. The Democrats had a great year, winning 30 House seats and 5 Senate seats in 2006 and following it with at least 20 more House seats and 5 more Senate seats - and the White House! - in 2008. The Democrats had a good night. Does this make the US a center-left, New Deal-worshipping, Democrat-loving country? No. But the Democrats are definitely in charge.
Watch for the Democrats' bad ideas in at least five key areas -
1) Card-check. The unions are obsessed with it, businesses hate it. Obama has said he supports it.
2) Freedom of Choice Act. It will, unless modified, eliminate effectively all abortion restrictions at any level, and mandate taxpayer funding for abortion. Obama has said he supports it.
3) Fairness Doctrine. This one is less likely to pass, but has surprising strength in the Senate. Obama has said he supports it.
4) Iraq Withdrawal. We may be winning, but we might start pulling out immediately, regardless of consequences. Obama has said he supports it.
5) Taxes, Taxes, Taxes. Obama has promised to raise tons of taxes, including capital gains tax, business tax, and payroll tax.
Palin on Immigration
by neolibertarian
Rightwingers are hyperventilating a bit, but I'm thrilled by Palin's emphasis in a recent interview on immigration at NRO. She said she supports a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants "because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country."
Naturally, this pisses off conservatives who seem to have forgotten that the biggest effect of the great 2006 immigration crisis was to move Hispanics away from the Republicans after Bush moved heaven and Earth to nearly close the gap with Hispanics. And how did all the immigration frenzy help out the Republicans? They got spanked in 2006, with the fuller-throated anti-immigration advocates often getting the worst of it.
Conservatives are saying that Palin didn't have personal opinions against immigration so she didn't moderate McCain's opinion on immigration when giving it in an interview, and that she just regurgitated McCain's immigration views without the security-first requirement.
Forget that the question (as cited) was simply for her views, not McCain's. Forget also that immigration has been a topic for decades, and that it was a big topic in 2006 when she was already running for Governor of Alaska. It doesn't seem to occur to the NRO author Mark Krikorian that maybe these are Palin's personal views, shaped by her Alaskan attitudes.
Alaska is a state, first, founded by a bunch of people who come from somewhere else, with a huge proportion of people born in another state (perhaps the highest of any state, but I don't have that data on hand). It's also a state with a strong libertarian impulse to be left alone, to get away from others, to follow your own prerogatives. The kind of state where massive roundups of suspects might be viewed very suspiciously by locals. It's also a very large state with a lot of space left, so it might make sense that immigrants would be welcomed. (I don't know Alaskan attitudes to immigrants, but I assume they're hands-off on the issue).
Being libertarian on immigration also fits nicely with Palin's (and Alaska's) opinions on marijuana and gay partnership benefits - not to mention guns. She's of course not a full-on libertarian, but she does have some nice trends in the right direction.
CA Ballot Measures
by neolibertarian
Here's how I'm going to vote on the California ballot measures:
Prop 1A - High speed train
No! Stupid. I'm certain it's going to cost way more than they predict. It's supposed to move people from SF to LA when the real focus should be on moving people from exurbs to cities. People going between SF and LA can just take a plane. Their plan says that this $10 billion bond is just the first part. For a state already saddled with one of the largest debts in human history (thanks a LOT, 2006 election results), and a chronic budget deficit, and an overstretched tax base, more bonds for unprofitable ventures are not a good idea.
Prop 2 - Farm animal cages
No. Makes food more expensive, especially eggs.
Prop 3 - Hospitals
No! A billion-dollar bond supposedly for children's hospitals. We don't need more debt and the government is very bad at deciding where to spend money.
Prop 4 - Parental notification for abortion
Yes! This is a pretty moderate bill with tons of exceptions and limitations, but minors shouldn't be getting medical treatment without parental consent. Abortion is not a special area of the law where regular principles like parental consent don't apply. And of course, even a mild reduction in the number of abortions is a good thing.
Prop 5 - Drug Offenders
No. It's good to reduce penalties for drug use and to lighten the burden on California prisons, but this initiative would also lighten the punishment for non-drug crimes if the perpetrator was doing it for drugs. The reason that drugs should be legal is that we're all responsible, accountable individuals. Taking accountability away is the last thing we want to do.
Prop 6 - Crime (Runner Initiative)
No! It's reasonable to increase penalties for certain crimes, but a set-aside for law enforcement is a bad idea just as the set-aside for education is bankrupting the state. I also think the RICO-like gang databases are a horrible idea and we shouldn't loosen hearsay rules. Also, this will be more expensive in enforcement and prison costs.
Prop 7 - Renewable Energy
No! Dumb.
Prop 8 - Gay Marriage
No! People should be allowed to marry, gay or not. I get the process arguments related to the judiciary, but I think it was rightly decided (unlike federal law, CA law does explicitly restrict discrimination for orientation) and that the courts exist for just this reason. The government shouldn't be deciding which relationships are valid or superior, which is what the debate comes down to.
Prop 9 - Victims' Rights
Yes. I'm not fervent about this one, though it's an emotion-laden issue. But, certainly it does some good, like prioritizing restitution to victims and allowing for victim input at certain points. Also, the fact that teachers' unions are against it makes me want to like it, even though I suspect it will cost more money and to some degree further crowd prisons. I think overall it's a good measure or at least moving in an important direction, so I plan to vote for it.
Prop 10 - Alternative Fuels Bond
No! Five billion dollar bond to give to alt. fuels and T. Boone Pickens. Bad idea. Just looking for some welfare subsidies. Move along.
Prop 11 - Redistricting
Yes! The fact that this isn't a perfect solution is mitigated by the fact that even a complicated commission is a better way to redistrict than allowing politicians to make up their own districts. Unfortunately, it won't apply to the US House. Flawed, but an improvement. What California really needs is an increase in representation. There are 80 Assembly members and 40 state Senators to represent the most populous state in the union.
Prop 12 - Money to Veterans
No! Everybody loves vets, but we can't just give infinite money to all the people and groups we like. This particular measure will pass (too hard to vote against vets owning homes) but it might pay for itself unlike other bonds. If the vets make their payments then this bond at least might not unduly burden the state, unlike the general obligation bonds which have to be paid out of general revenue. I still oppose it, though.
Liability and Responsibility
by neolibertarian
A lot of corporate law deals with liability - who is liable for the actions and failures and successes of whom. This is a part of most corporate law, from tort liability (your driver hit me!) to tax cheating. It's a complicated balancing act, with many different aspects and extremes and middle-grounds. There are a huge number of legal principles (respondeat superior) and legal structures (Limited Liability Corporation) to impact ultimate responsibility.
Then you have the federal government, whose interactions with the world seems to consist of two strategies - blame companies for everything regardless of the facts, and money solves all problems. In the case of the bailout, despite all the different levels of insurance, of bankruptcy protections, of investment, the government is rushing in to shovel dollars at anybody with an open hand or money clip, and then blaming corporations for greedily ruining our economy.
Of course, the companies were (greedily) responding to strong government pressure to lower borrowing credentials, as well as an implied government guarantee behind mortgages. And the economy is now that much more imperiled that responsibility for 'fixing it' has been shifted from the industry itself to all taxpayers.
If this is all such a mess and these financial guys are so clueless and evil, why on Earth do I want to give them even more money?
The Bailout-Induced Apathy
by neolibertarian
I've been feeling so cynical lately about the never-ending string of government bailouts that I've been tempted to simply not vote at all this year, or to boycott the federal races. Russ Roberts expresses a similar feeling.
The string of bailouts is putting taxpayers on the hook for a projected $1.8 trillion. That includes $0.7 trillion for the bailout bill, $0.5 to buy the GSEs and give money to the FHA, and hundreds of billions more for other bailouts. Many of the billions are guarantees not expenditures, so the promise is made now but the money might be paid years down the road (or, hopefully, never). Others are purchases that could theoretically recoup themselves, or partially offset their costs (of course, the government is specifically buying the worst items and guaranteeing the riskier investments, so the chance of benefit is not great). The bailout bill only passed when it was loaded to the brim with harmful and useless earmark pork spending.
On top of that, the bailout bill provides the Treasury Secretary with the power to rewrite existing mortgages (!) and their terms, and the power to dictate the salaries of top executives in banking concerns. I think everybody is at least peeved at the idea of executives throwing around money while begging for public support in the most dire language imaginable. But the thought that somehow the government (let alone a single Cabinet member) should have authority over salaries or compensation is very disturbing.
Countries around the world are nationalizing their banks, thus punishing the smart investors who avoided risky investments and exposing their national budgets to enormous risk.
This is all going really quickly and very far in the wrong direction. If these companies fail, then we should let bankruptcy procedures step in. If there are losses and some investors get wiped out on their investment, then that's the result - they certainly are going to (nor should they!) offer to let Uncle Sam in on an investment's profits if it pans out. These big companies need to get taken down, reorganized or rewarded as their situations merit, and it is market conditions that should determine who is who.
I'm sure in this way a great deal of paper value will be lost. But the economy itself has real value. This country is full of ingenious entrepreneurs, hardworking professionals and loads and loads of valuable commodities and natural resources. To think that somehow the value of all these things could be wiped out due to one industry's extreme turbulence - even the financial industry's - is ludicrous. This seems mostly panic-driven. The economy will recover (in fact, it's hardly as bad as people say, since banks are still lending personally and commercially).
McCain not only voted for the bailout (as did Obama), but he's now pushing an additional mortgage bailout measure.
I would have hoped to see McCain run a campaign against the bailout, deriding it as a pork project or as another harebrained Washington idea (he's been doing this with ethanol in Iowa, free trade in Ohio, jobs in Michigan, etc.). Unfortunately, McCain is a sucker for consensus and nothing gets consensus in Washington like a truly horrible idea that invests authority, power and prestige in Washington.
I'm still going to vote, probably. But it's severely sapping my strength and conviction on the issue. Obama's extremely idiotic policies (taxes, card-check, taxes, Medicare for all, taxes, anti-free trade, taxes, etc.) make me still unwilling to vote for him or to sit out in protest. But this whole situation is very disheartening.
Considering that one of McCain's big issues is how government stupidity causes voter anger and apathy, maybe at some point he'll catch on to the populist (if not libertarian) arguments against the never-ending bailouts.
Why Not to Vote for Obama
by neolibertarian
Here are several reasons, all at least one step removed from politics while still linked to it, to vote against Obama.
1. His arrogance.
While it may seem stylistic, Obama's arrogance is very critical to how he would govern. Government breeds isolation and alienation from regular people, it encourages groupthink and jealousy over power. Government often gives its members a sense of superiority over the citizenry, as though citizens are criminals or fools that need to be restrained. It also gives a sense of entitlement to its members who think they should be exempt from the rules they inflict on citizens.
It's dangerous to go into government with an ego already well-inflated beyond that of other politicians (and it doesn't on this front help that Obama picked Biden as VP). It's not just things like the Berlin speech, the seal, the Latin motto, etc. It's also his extremely closed relations with the press, his imperious manner in dealing with questions, his halting speech whenever he's forced to converse instead of lecture, or his unwillingness to answer questions. It's all of those, plus his attempts to so often place criticism of him as out of bounds, even when asking about his past actions, record and associations.
Obama is an arrogant and self-obsessed person (two autobiographies before finishing one term in the Senate). It makes me worry that he's inflexible when a policy needs to be changed. It will affect his governing style in how he crafts and views policy (his arrogance might lead him to be more controlling, and certainly leads him away from sympathy towards all the businesses who will be punished by his tax hikes).
2. Uncritical of allies.
Obama follows his allies whenever he needs something from them, even when he's otherwise critical of them. He failed to support reformers in Chicago and instead backed the machine's shameless nepotism and efforts to thwart reform. He didn't challenge supporters like Ayers and Dohrn, despite now saying that their acts of terror were despicable. He didn't challenge the racism, hatred and stupidity of crazy preachers like Wright until Obama felt personally slighted (see #1 re arrogance; note how conspiracy theories, anti-Americanism, and racism don't deserve serious rebuke, but a personal insult to Obama brings excommunication). He doesn't challenge labor unions when they want to legalize retaliation and intimidation against anti-union workers. He doesn't challenge teachers unions when they attempt to thwart any efforts at real school reform. He doesn't challenge the environmental groups who are blocking nuclear energy from becoming our 'carbon-friendly' energy provider. He doesn't challenge the ethanol lobby even as it's become clear to everyone else that ethanol is nothing but unproductive rent-seeking. He doesn't challenge the pro-choice lobby, even going so far as to keep infanticide legal if it follows a botched abortion.
Obama is simply not willing to challenge his supporters, even those guilty of stupidity, hatred, or intolerance, even those with bad ideas, bad philosophies, or selfish intentions. It makes me think that he values the obtaining of power more than the purpose for it, thus there's no sense rocking the boat from people who can help you. McCain, of course, is closer to the opposite, picking high-profile issues to run out and piss off Republicans and work with whomever in order to do something (even if I often hate the result).
3. Not serious.
Obama just isn't serious about the presidency. When asked in the first debate what he would cut to pay for the $700B bailout, he said sacrifice is necessary and then listed nothing at all to sacrifice. He's making all the tax cuts, all the spending hikes, all the new programs. His answer to what to cut is a list of what he won't cut, and it includes everything in his plan. Not at all serious. Biden repeated this strategy.
They want to tax their way out of the Social Security problem, talk their way out of proliferation threats, and let the UN do the heavy pulling during a crisis sparked by a country with a Security Council veto. Obama wants to talk to foreign leaders, no matter what they do or say (he won't simply retract this statement - more arrogance). He wants to raise business taxes during a recession. He wants to limit drilling during an energy crunch. He wants to retreat while we're finally winning a war.
These policies are a joke. He's just not serious to admit how wrongheaded these ideas are.
McCain's Health Care Plan
by neolibertarian
McCain's health care plan was attacked in both the first McCain-Obama debate and in the Palin-Biden debate. They attacked it as a tax hike - funny, coming from a team that wants to massively hike taxes on businesses large and small, and rails against tax cutting. I wonder if maybe McCain and Palin are both emotionally distant from the plan, since it's so good and so free market I suspect it came from a think-tank team instead of from McCain himself.
Whatever the reason, I will come to the defense of McCain's plan. It's complicated, but I want to highlight the tax change and the interstate commerce change.
TAX CHANGE - Since WWII, employers have gotten a tax credit to provide health insurance to employees. Back then, wage competition was restricted by the government, but health care was allowed as a means for employers to compete for employees. The result is that our employers choose our health care providers, allowing us to participate within that framework they choose. If we lose the job, the health care goes away (though COBRA laws are a partial response to this problem).
McCain's tax change is to remove the tax credit employers get for health care, and give it to Americans (employed or not). So if you buy out of pocket and exercise a free choice as an individual, you aren't punished by Uncle Sam. It's a refundable credit, meaning that it's basically free money and if your taxes are low enough, you get a check in the mail for the balance of your credit. So really this is still a welfare program (though far better than the alternatives being kicked around by Democrats).
It's $5k for families and half that for singles. That won't 100% pay for each person's insurance, and thank goodness for that. But it does mean you don't get penalized for making your own choices.
We would never accept a system where employers were primarily responsible for picking our grocery stores or our real estate agents, controlling our choices of diet and home. For some reason, we think it's a good thing to have our choice of doctors controlled by our employers.
This tax change is a first step in getting people to control their own health care and because smart consumers of health care. We shop obsessively for cars, negotiate and compare on homes, and otherwise examine a lot of our purchases, big and small. We need to bring that same judicious eye to health care.
INSURANCE - The next step in exercising consumer choice in health care is having more choices. McCain wants to let people buy health insurance across state lines, to allow for more competition and more options. This is a great idea that lets people have more options for health care. Most crucially, it lets you bypass the often stupid regulations of a state legislature that mandates controls on insurance. For example, New York and California and other states require insurance cover different treatments - everything from IVF to acupuncture to psychotherapy. Now if I just want a plan that's ACTUAL insurance, and simply protects me from bankruptcy by capping my costs in a given period, and I know I won't need acupuncture or IVF, then I'd like to have that option.
I should be able to buy that high-deductible catastrophic insurance, which is the same model of insurance that actual insurance works on. If my car needs an oil change, I don't do a co-pay with my auto insurance. That means I also don't have to worry about in-network issues or fighting with the insurance company or getting eight bills for an hour's worth of work. I know the price, it's there up-front, and I either pay it or I look further. In other words, I price-shop.
That price shopping is what controls costs, but in health care, the incentive to save is greatly reduced and obscured. Health insurance isn't just insurance (protecting you from a possible but unlikely catastrophe), it's also a method to pay for the things we KNOW we will need and we KNOW will not bankrupt us. Since the employer bears some of the brunt for buying insurance, we step away and don't decisions that are as price-conscious. Since the insurance company will cover many tests, we go ahead with most of the tests the doctor wants.
Of course, the biggest effect would be felt if we all moved to a high-deductible scenario. But a great start is to make people responsible for their own health insurance. Greater responsibilities for the costs of health care will flow from that.
Interstate competition also gets rid of 'community rating,' whereby the young and healthy and the old and sickly are charged similar rates. The effect is that a lot of sickly people get a price signal that encourages them to buy insurance and healthy people get a signal that discourages them from it. Meaning insurers are undercharging a lot of people who will use a lot of health care, and pricing out the healthy people who would pay for health care without using it. Those healthy young folk aren't going to overpay for insurance. Insurance is a different product based on who's being insured (e.g., the drop in auto insurance rates around age 25), so it should be priced differently.
By letting young people pay a low rate, closer to what they're willing to pay (i.e. the market rate) we can actually get MORE of them to join in insurance plans. That means more money going into the plan. By charging more for sickly people, we can encourage them to seek insurance that gives them only what they need. This means people won't overuse health care or under-participate in insurance.
NOTE - This does not mean that I want poor or sick people to go without health coverage. There should always be charities and social structures in place for assistance in such matters. I think charity is awesome and I hope everybody gets all the medical care they need. But I also think everybody who wants it should have a car, a TV, cable Internet, a nice house with at least 2 full baths, a loving spouse, loyal friends, and a fulfilling career. But I'm not going to say that the government should guarantee these things or even be involved in their provision. In fact, it's because I value these things that I hope the government stays far away from them.
As for McCain's view, certainly Medicaid and Medicare would still be available to the poor and the elderly, respectively. McCain is not at all an anarcho-capitalist, and I'm sure would never vote to totally abolish public welfare.
DEMOCRATS - Just to contrast, the Democrats (the plans of both Obama and Hillary) want to further distort and pervert the incentives. They want to further ingratiate employers into the selection of our health care, they want to further diffuse the costs and increase the incentive to overuse. They want to bring the health care system closer to a model where costs are mandatory and consumption is costless. So if it costs the same to you either way, there's no real financial incentive to reduce health care consumption. Of course, the government is going to be the one paying, but not the one consuming, so the government is going to be the one deciding where to make cuts.
In Canada and England and other government-run, cost-numb systems, there's rationing to deal with the cost. They ration the health care by not building enough centers or hiring enough doctors, forcing people to wait months and months for even life-saving surgeries. They have government institutions dedicated as technological gatekeepers, disallowing government money to be spent on certain medical procedures. Certain treatments, drugs and surgeries that are available in the US might be available only to the privately insured in the UK.
Obama is not recommending a direct leap to nationalization or to price controls (though Hillary did recommend in her campaign a gatekeeper institution that would weed out costly procedures like they do in the UK). But by further separating the cost from the consumtion, costs will have to rise absent a price freeze. A price freeze will have the effect of shortages. Spiraling costs without a freeze will force the self-payers to get employer health care, force the lower-middle class into Medicaid, and eventually force insurance companies to abandon the medical insurance industry - pushing more and more people into the government's arms as a result of boneheaded government regulations.
It will take a while, but if we continue to increase the separation of medical consumers from medical costs, we'll eventually head to a collision.
The Center-Right on the Bailout
by neolibertarian
Regarding the bailout, it's also regretful that so many conservative and Republican commentators abandoned their free market allegiances to cautiously support the bailout. This just shows again that the majority of elected Republicans are New Dealers with some market sympathies, not Free Marketeers making some unavoidable concessions to the welfare state. The distinction was important, and that is why so many of our standard-bearers among the center-right capitulated to authority instead of sticking to their guns.
There are many strains of thought among the center-right: freedom, religiosity, morality, tradition, authority, honor. There are also different general groups of conservatives - the business conservatives, the religious conservatives, the military conservatives, the authority conservatives, and the libertarian conservatives. A lot of these overlap to a large degree. Personally, I'm not a conservative at all (go heterodoxy!) but I rely on them to advance some of the causes I favor. In this case, the usual business-freedom alliance broke down; this was an issue where capitalism and business were on opposite sides, with big businesses seeking favors and influence from the government.
Normally, the government is seen as intervening on behalf of the poor or workers, and so uniting business supporters and libertarians makes sense. But much of the time the government chooses to side with large businesses, who provide voter-friendly jobs and campaign contributions. Businesses wanted a bailout, and so the capitalists were separated from their pro-business allies.
A similar thing happened to the left, where the interventionist and utilitarian Democrats wanted to futz and meddle with the economy, but the class-warfare and activist-left Democrats didn't want to help out large finance concerns in the process. So the Democrats split up as well.
A lot of Republicans fell in line behind authority, thinking that we must do "the responsible thing" or "show leadership" by trusting one of history's largest one-time capital infusions to one mega-bureaucrat who comes from the industry he's supposedly fixing. Warning signs galore.
Som,e authority conservatives suggested that it was somehow more adult or more serious to get behind the bailout. The assumption that it's needed is barely discussed. Apparently the fact that somebody in goverment says it's needed is sufficient.
Of course, more Republicans than not voted against it, not least because the public seems to be set against it. Thank goodness for the majority of House Republicans, who managed to avoid a bullet on this one. I only hope they continue to oppose this monstrosity (even as the proponents whittle down their demands) until we can all see that the economy has not collapsed for the lack of it.
Underlining much of the debate on this issue, the proponents more or less acknowledge that voters hate the bailout, think it sounds corrupt and wasteful, and will probably vote out supporters. Yet it's needed - as though the voters are too stupid to understand, and it rests with their social superiors in a wise and knowing government to protect them. 'Forgive the voters, they know not what they do when they reject an enormous bailout of an industry that got itself into this mess.'
Bush's approval rating is down to a rump of diehard Republicans, Congress' approval is down to staffers and family members, and the finance guys asking for the money bet their companies on risky mortgages. If government is so wise, it sure hasn't earned out trust. As Jay Leno said:Here's the way a bailout works. A failed president and a failed Congress invest $700 billion of your money in failed businesses. Believe me, this can't fail.
The government is not all-knowing and cannot be trusted as a good economic steward. When it comes to small issues or longstanding issues, wavering capitalists can be won over by good free-market arguments, but as soon as something scary happens they run back to FDR and the New Deal and the "do-something-do-anything" mentality.
Frankly, I think those instincts are rather childish in expecting that there must always be a government standing buy to bail you out of perceived problems. It's too bad many Republicans currently forgetting how inept the government is at every other aspect pf intruding into the economy, because those 'principles' of his would be mighty useful now.
Here's to those Republicans who listened to their principles and/or constituents in blocking this disaster of a bailout package.
The Bailout
by neolibertarian
The Paulson/Bernanke proposed bailout of Wall Street, which thankfully failed in a floor vote on Monday, is a bad idea. It's a product of fallacies, tunnel vision and fear.
It makes sense that Paulson would think that a crisis hitting big Wall Street firms would be a big idea, given that he was apparently CEO at Goldman Sachs. But a failure of big finance firms is not indicative of a massive economic failure any more than the impending death of the Big Three automakers. Cars will still be available, because it's profitable to sell them. In the same way, lending will still be available, because it's profitable to charge interest.
I don't believe there's a liquidity crisis right now. Lending on a small level is still vibrant and competitive, despite all the turmoil of late. The Fed has already slashed its rates over the last 13 months (including three special meetings) for both the Fed Funds and the discount. In a little over 8 months, the Fed Funds rate went from 5.25 to 2.00 and the discount went from 6.25 to 2.25. The Fed meddled in the Bear Stearns failure and is now trying to get the altogether-arbitrary sum of $700 BILLION to be flushed down the drain of these incompetently-managed firms.
We have heard some people making comparisons to the Japanese crisis. That's just silly and unhelpful. If we wanted to be more like Japan's economic crisis, we would codify the bailout process, forcing all successful firms to subsidize the unsuccessful.
If the bailout were just about liquidity, then the government has the machinery to pump liquidity into the economy itself, for example via the SBA loans. The bailout is propping up the firms that over-invested in the MBS fiasco, but isn't really about liquidity.
After the bailout bill failed 205-228, the stock market plunged almost 800 points. Of course, it partially regained the next day, and it had climbed prior to the vote in anticipation of all that free federal money, so the amount of value that was truly wiped out is questionable. It depends on how one views the economy and the stock market.
Do assets have a hardy, sustainable value to them, or are they ephemerally valued based on the whims of a fragile, delicate lie? By that I mean, is value just a massive tacit conspiracy, where the stock market takes valueless pieces of paper and turns them into valued assets? Of course not! There's real value represented by those stocks and companies, and if the value persists then we will see their value recover or climb, as deserved.
Plenty of money will lose money (myself included) if the stocks don't recover, but it's not the government's job to decide that stock owners should be favored over stock buyers by keeping the prices artificially high. And the longer the government tries to prop up the falsely high value of stocks (if it is false that they should be so valued) then the more expensive it becomes, as the contradiction between the reality and the price continue. This is similar to PM John Major and the Bank of England's stubborn defense of the pound against the attacks of speculators, only to finally concede defeat and let the natural price resume (though that was related to falsely fixing the value of the pound to other European currencies).
So, to sum up:
- The economy has value, and even big stock drops don't wipe out its value. If anything, it allows for smart investors to pick up undervalued assets.
- Liquidity is not a major problem for most of the economy, and regardless it should not suffer the false signals of the feds. If investment temporarily tapers off, then it means lenders are responding cautiously (and appropriately!) to signs that they need to be wiser about how they lend.
- Bad companies shouldn't be coercively subsidized by the good ones. This should apply equally whether we're talking about blue-collar jobs assembling cars or white-collar jobs investing in securities.
- Let some of the big companies, new and old, fail and go through some sort of bankruptcy proceeding, such as the FDIC's handling of WaMu, and get the assets into the hands of companies that are more stable and presumably know what they're doing (if they don't, let those companies falter or fail themselves, to be bought by others).
- Investing and lending will continue to be a major part of the US financial system, because they are long-term profitable and valuable.
- If Congress really wants to help the economy stay strong and encourage people to invest, then it can cut the capital gains rate, rationalize the business tax regime, and repeal harmful regulations like SarbOx.
Of course, this whole debate is half-ridiculous because Congress doesn't care about the economy, it cares about voters being short-term happy. If Congress truly cared about the economy, then Davis-Bacon would be long gone, free trade improvements would always pass, and the unions' Card-Check election-rigging scam would be laughed out of DC.
Update: Also, it's ridiculous that in the span of a week or two Congress and the nation are supposed to discuss, debate and approve the appropriation of $700 billion -more than the entire annual Defense Department budget- and the bestowal of czar-like powers on the Treasury Secretary to arbitrarily pick winners and losers in the marketplace. Given that government programs rarely die, both the money and the power would very likely be repeated for years into the future. That's a huge decision to make so urgently, and with limited chance for thought, reflection or study.
Random Trip Through Election History
by neolibertarian
Since the Republican and Democratic parties have run against each other (either 1856 or 1860, depending on your reckoning), there have only been four Democrats to get over half the popular votes for President, and only three who also won office. The four exceeding 50% are Tilden in 1876, FDR all four times (1932, '36, '40, and '44), Johnson in 1964 and Carter in 1976.
Of these four, Tilden edged out Hayes in the popular vote with under 51% but through negotiations lost the Electoral College vote (Hayes had to promise to wrap up Reconstruction in exchange). This was also a long time ago, when national Democrats were still very forward about appeals to racism against nonwhites.
Johnson went to a smash victory in 1964 against Goldwater, who was easily caricatured as erratic and has since been often (wrongly) classified as a racist. So Johnson did really well in 1964, but by 1968 he couldn't even win party-orchestrated primaries for reelection and bowed out.
Carter looked like he had an enormous lead in the summer 1976, following the Republican scandal of Watergate, until he shed almost all of that lead and barely managed to beat the uncharismatic Ford. Ford had been appointed by a crook (Nixon) to replace a crook (Agnew), alarmingly asserted that the Soviets did not control Eastern Europe, and was caught tripping in public (despite being a star athlete in his younger days). Carter managed to beat him by a scant two points in the popular vote, but went on to a clear-cut loss to Reagan, even as Reagan was competing for moderate votes with Anderson.
So really the only electoral hero, the only sustainable success the Democrats have, is FDR. He won four straight elections, never by less than a seven-point margin, and remains a folk hero and inspiration to lazy Democrats (who keep trying to take the same tired New Deal programs and repackage them to focus funding at different issues).
It would also be reasonable to provisionally add Clinton to the list with an asterisk, since it's not entirely clear what Perot's effect was in 1992 and 1996. Perot's presence in 1992 is usually seen as a boon for Clinton, and even in 1996 Clinton was not quite able to muster up enough votes to break the majority. Clinton is arguably the most electorally successful Democratic President since FDR, having been reelected twice and avoiding major embarrassments that tanked the popularity of the other elected Democrats (Truman and Korea/steel industry fiasco, LBJ and Vietnam, Carter and Iran/inflation). It would be interesting to have seen more from Kennedy, who certainly showed potential to reach a majority vote in 1964, had he lived.
The Republicans, meanwhile, have a string of popular vote winners and generally a good record of bringing the majority in presidential races. There are six GOP presidents who didn't break 50% of the popular vote. The first three are Hayes, Garfield, and B. Harrison, in 1876, 1880, and 1888 respectively. This was a while ago (like Tilden, see above), so it bears not all that strongly on today, but it's interesting nonetheless. It was also a time of small issues (mostly debating a then-useless tariff, followed by Northern accusations of treason and Southern accusations of race-mixing). Hayes was a weak-ish candidate running after four straight GOP-won elections (although Johnson had been president, he was elected Lincoln's VP). Garfield was a better candidate, but he was following the much-hated Hayes and running against General Hancock - a man who had been one of the Union's most accomplished generals, preventing Republicans from running against the pro-Southern tendencies of the Democrats. And Benjamin Harrison probably only won due to the British ambassador's assertion that Cleveland was more pro-British, thereby alienating the Irish to vote Republican, and moving the decisive New York to the GOP.
The other three GOP presidents to fail the 50% mark were two-termers Lincoln in 1860, Nixon in 1968, and Bush in 2000. The first two were still popular-vote plurality winners, where Bush was beaten by half a point. Lincoln ran in a four-way national race without being on the ballot in any Southern state. Nixon ran in a three-way race (he was probably helped by Wallace splitting Southern votes away from Humphrey) and Bush ran against Gore with a small showing from Nader (who probably took enough Gore votes in FL and NH to prevent Gore's victory). As a sidenote, Nixon also ran in 1960, and then he also failed to break fifty percent, and was a tiny fraction away from Kennedy's plurality.
All three of these Republicans, however, followed their under-50% elections with over-50% elections. Lincoln's 1864 victory was a more than 15-point improvement (most of the South did not cast popular votes, but the main issue was that the war had recently become an apparently-impending Union victory). Nixon improved by over 17 points, and won all but one state (it helped with his percentage that McGovern was easily cast as an ultra-leftist and Wallace could not run after being shot). And Bush improved his record by a mere 3 points, but in a tight race amidst losing a war.
As for the other GOP popular-majority winners, the list is long if not always exciting: Grant (1868 and 1872), McKinley (1896 and 1900), T. Roosevelt (1904 but not in 1912), Taft (1908 but not in 1912), Harding (1920), Coolidge (1924), Hoover (a smash 17-point victory in 1928 followed by a dreadful 17-point loss in 1932 to FDR), Eisenhower (1952 and 1956), Reagan (1980 and 1984), and Bush-41 (1988, followed by a loss partly due to Perot in 1992). The 1912 election needs a little comment, if only to point out that the combined-Taft-TR vote was muscular, and Wilson got a majority of votes nowhere outside the South
This is not to say that these or all Republicans are impervious or perfect, that they didn't have dumb luck or the support of corrupt fixers, nor that Republicans are anointed to be more popular in all but the worst years. It does seem to suggest, however, that maybe the Republican choices tend to be a better fit to the country than the Democratic choices.
It also means, especially coupled with modern history, that Democrats need to be somewhat more modest about their chances in elections, including this one. McCain is not going to give Obama the chance to make another 1964 moment, and although Bush has been profoundly unpopular of late, McCain can't be tied to him the way Ford was easily tied to Nixon. Given that the best model Obama has for a successful Democrat is Clinton (with Perot's help, twice), it's interesting that he isn't running any sort of moderate, swing-focused campaign. Instead, he's fusing Mondalesque pledges to make dramatic tax increases with nonpartisan, high-minded rhetoric.
Republicans should get their caution from more recent history: from 1992 to 2004, Republicans have had fairly capped performances, with three popular-vote losses and one minor (if solid) win. So the country, even if it loves Republicans over the last 150 years, has certainly not been giving them a blank check for the last two decades.
Trig Palin Whispering Campaign
by neolibertarian
In the tradition of rumors that President Harding was part black, John McCain's adopted daughter was from a dalliance, Andrew Jackson's wife was a bigamist, and John Quincy Adams provided young American girls to perverted Russian nobles, comes now the Trig Palin rumor campaign. And it's thoroughly needless and despicable - so naturally, it comes to us from the crazies at DailyKos (here and here).
The whispered rumor is multi-part, the first part being that Sarah Palin didn't look pregnant at seven months, when she became the second sitting Governor to announce her own pregnancy. Therefore, goes the whispered rumor, Sarah Palin was NOT pregnant.
Before moving on, let's be clear that, although I have no personal knowledge of Palin's pregnancy, I have seen this photo of Palin horrendously pregnant. It's helpfully provided by some DailyKos community members who apparently still remember that being a good person means not smearing people of different political persuasions.
So Sarah Palin WAS pregnant, but why would she lie? Well, the second part of this rumor is that the baby was actually Bristol Palin's baby. The Governor was supposedly covering up the pregnancy to hide the shame, or help her career, or to control her daughter's reproductive rights or do other evil, family-hating Republican things (note: extreme sarcasm). As evidence, the rumor mongers say that Bristol Palin had an extended leave of absence from school, reported as a number of months, due to alleged mono. They say she couldn't have been sick because she got several auto tickets in that time. She was actually pregnant, they say.
Now I'll take another aside to point out that Bristol Palin is currently five months pregnant (and marrying the father of the baby) and therefore could not have delivered Trig four months ago.
What's truly despicable here is the DailyKos analysis of her supposed pregnancy with Trig. They basically took photos as entirely dispositive. As they used seemingly-skinny photos of Sarah Palin to entirely disprove her pregnancy, they used supposedly-pregnant photos of Bristol Palin to prove her alleged pregnancy. Unfortunately, the photos DailyKos used were out of the timeline, and would have meant Bristol Palin was pregnant from 2006 to 2008 - which even DailyKos people should recognize as not possible.
What's essentially happened here is that a rumor mill has called a girl pregnant when she wasn't, and photos have fixated on her stomach, pronouncing that her stomach -which was and is perfectly normal and healthy- was indicative of carrying a baby. In other words, this rumor is also one big elaborate way to call teenage girls fat. That's in a way more despicable than all the rest, because the Palin children do not need to be investigated or exposed, let alone slandered and smeared. And by the way, by the standards of the DailyKos rumormongers, a huge number of runway models must be pregnant (stomachs with small bumps seem to be incredibly common among these fashion waifs).
Can we all agree that this is a stupid and hurtful rumor, that it's apparently and entirely false, and that it provides no insight into how Palin would act as Vice President? This is simply slanderous, with more than a tinge of bullying a teenage girl.
Leave their kids alone.
Palin & Biden Picks
by neolibertarian
First, I have top say up front that I've been rooting for McCain to pick Palin for several months now. So, I've been especially jazzed since hearing Friday that she was picked. I think it's a great pick not just because of her gender (though obviously it helps to have a ticket that looks better), but because of what it means and how it positions the tickets. I also think that Biden, though a reasonable guy that's very popular in Washington circles, was not a good pick for Obama.
If I had to pick from among the Democrats in the 2008 primaries, Biden was far from the worst pick. But relative to Obama's positioning, he's a disaster. Obama both played it safe and sold out his winning theme. He's probably banking on the idea that a move of caution was fine because of his established reputation for change (and also because his racial background alone makes him a change candidate). While he may be vindicated, I still say it was a mistake to sacrifice change for experience.
One, Biden's experience does not rub off on Obama. Although it can help to have an old hand on the team, as Cheney did for Bush, it does not make the presidential candidate look experienced. It's also strange that everyone thinks Biden is a foreign policy genius, who was wrong in the Cold War, on Desert Storm, on partitioning Iraq and on the surge. The most the Biden pick does is make it look like Obama values experience, not that he possesses it. Biden is actually a contrast against Obama's inexperience. It's an admission that Obama's critics were right: experience matters. It validates their criticism without bedding it down.
Two, the Biden pick diminishes the "change" focus Obama captured so successfully in the primaries. I was strongly in favor of him picking Kaine or Sebelius, either one of which would have doubled-down on his change, youth and reformist image. Biden has been around forever, is neither very centrist nor very leftist, and doesn't bring his own constituency (the way Hillary would probably bring women - though I think a Hillary pick would have been a mistake).
Obama is steering away from change, which served him so well in the primaries, and instead tacking closer to experience. Experience is not a great issue. If Obama happens to make some more big gaffes, experience might have become a big issue. But even then, it's small-ball. Change and reform are the big-idea themes. By thinking small, Obama is selling short his own legacy.
McCain, meanwhile, has picked Palin and seemingly jettisoned experience as a critique. I think experience can still be raised in several ways: Obama's willingness to meet with any foreign leader, any time; his back-to-back comments that Iran is both not a threat and a horrible threat; his stated intention to bomb inside of an allied country, but not a hostile one; his eery lack of ideological focus, record or substance. If he's president, what will the priorities truly be? Experience is still an issue. But I don't really like experience itself. Obama's dumb ideas in relation to terror and foreign leaders aren't just experience-related, they're ideology-related.
What's a great issue is reform. By picking Palin, McCain is flanking Obama on change. Palin is a Washington outsider, unlike the other three Senators on the major tickets. She's a proven reformer and takes on her own party to do what's right. McCain is rekindling his connection to the maverick reformer, the guy who will take risks and step on toes to do right.
While Obama was focusing on experience and listening to the criticism of pundits, McCain grabbed change out from under him - and Obama hasn't caught on yet! Their first criticism was predictable, if dirty, citing Palin's experience as a suburban mayor (as though she wasn't elected governor of America's biggest state). It's difficult for them to criticize on much else, but experience is still a losing issue.
McCain stole change from Obama by picking Palin, and Obama doesn't even get it yet.
Obama's Dirty Attacks
by neolibertarian
Obama is personally attacking John McCain for not knowing how many homes he owns, and for JOKINGLY saying that rich people should be defined as those making $5 million a year or more. Obama is saying that McCain is rich and out of touch and implying that McCain (contrasting him with schoolteachers) is just out to make money. This is making it much harder for me to scrounge up a single nice thing to say about Obama (I was more forthcoming with praise even yesterday) and making me stick more loyally to McCain, who I voted for in the primaries but am not ideologically close to.
I saw the video of the $5 million comment, and McCain immediately followed it by saying that the comment would be taken out of context. he laughed when he said it, the crowd and moderator laughed. He said it to make a point - that we should raise taxes on as few people as possible. To take this out of context is becoming extremely typical Obama behavior (e.g. taking the 100 years comment and making it say exactly the opposite of what McCain said).
As to the houses, McCain technically owes no homes. His wife owns the homes and he shares several with her. So technically he's not super-rich, she is. McCain contributes all the royalties from his five books to charity, as well as every Senate pay raise he's ever received. Since 1991, he's given $450,000 in Senate pay raises to charity. Since 1998, he's given over $1.8 millon in book royalties to charity. Charitable contributions for McCain (filing separately) were 19% of his AGI in 2006 and 27.2% of his AGI in 2007. McCain and his wife contribute so much to charity that they have a charitable foundation to oversee the giving.
I don't know the full financial situation, but it's just reprehensible to imply that McCain is greedy or money-focused. A guy who only cared about money wouldn't trap himself into a pledge to return pay increases he opposed, and certainly would keep a closer eye on the homes he owned. McCain's lack of interest in the homes his wife owns are a symptom of McCain's disdain for money-making.
If anything, McCain is far too opposed to making money, implying in a primary debate that Romney was somehow dishonorable for making lots of money. Granted, Romney's much-touted business experience does not carry the strong character reference that McCain's Vietnam experience does, but is still a perfectly fine and even good thing for the country (streamlining and even selling off businesses keeps the economy healthy and growing). I wish McCain were much MORE interested in making money, which is not only legal and honorable, but contributes directly and indirectly to greater wealth for others. McCain is far too anti-money for a major capitalist like me to appreciate, so hearing this drivel from Obama makes me want to either laugh or pull my hair out.
Obama, meanwhile, bought a mansion with the help of Tony Rezko, a convicted felon and known shady dealer. Trying to burnish his own humble roots, Obama tries to side with us pitiful masses by claiming he has only one house and is therefore 'not rich' while McCain is so rich he can't count everything he owns. That's incredibly despicable and stupid. Michelle Obama's full salary alone is enough to qualify for Obama's rich-people tax, and most of us can't afford the four or five million dollar Obama home (even with the help of friends in the loan industry and two separate shady deals with a guy like Rezko). There's nothing wrong with being rich, only with trying to excite the hatred of some people against others perceived as different. It's really crazy to do it when one is oneself quite wealthy. Face it, Obama, you're richer than the vast majority of the population of both this country and the world.
Obama doesn't even like us huddled masses, convinced that we use religion and guns as opiates to cope with our degraded and miserable condition. We hate foreigners and international trade as well - though that doesn't stop Obama from bashing 'outsourcing,' or calling for more restrictions on foreign goods, or punishing companies that do business overseas, or threatening our two closest neighbors and allies with arbitrary and capricious abrogation of NAFTA. To Obama, we're pitiful creatures, too stupid to understand the source of our petty idols and childish obsessions with guns, and we're lucky that he deigns to condescend to us.
It definitely rings hollow when Obama plays the populist card. This is contrast to McCain, who has trouble NOT viewing an issue through a populist prism.
Obama's also using an opportunity to again imply McCain is old - saying in an attack ad on the homes issue "he lost track, he couldn't remember." This after another recent ad comparing McCain to Bush emphasized the word OLD in large text. We get it, McCain is greedy and senile - but how can Obama accuse McCain of dirty politics and turning people against one another? Obama's doing plenty of that on his own.
Trying to paint John McCain as greedy? The man wouldn't even accept early release from Hanoi to save himself from torture and the threat of death. He's supposed to care about money but not his own physical safety? His principled and selfless refusal cost him an extra five years in a hellish prison, much of it in solitary confinement, as well as the full use of his arms. McCain selfish? Just watch for the next time he tries to raise his arms -which will never again rise above his shoulders- and ask yourself if that fits the profile.
UPDATE: Typos corrected.
Obama's Berlin Speech
by neolibertarian
I first read Obama's speech and only two days later did I watch the video. The rhetorical flourishes and repetitions do not read quite as well as they sound, but the lack of substance is obvious from either medium.
In the first few minutes, Obama gets huge applause just for walking out (to the point where he has to work just to get the crowds to calm down and listen), for thanking the city of Berlin, for thanking the audience, and for pointing out that he's not white. He also gets some applause for referencing Kenya.
But when he gives a stirring recounting of the tension and stakes during the Berlin Airlift, and casts his host city as the hero for the West, he gets only determined applause from a small number. Here's that section of the speech:This is where the two sides met. And on the twenty-fourth of June, 1948, the Communists chose to blockade the western part of the city. They cut off food and supplies to more than two million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom in Berlin.
The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe. Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin.
This reads decently, but it sounds pretty powerful in the speech. It reminds me of a speech Kennedy or esecially Reagan might make (see Reagan's Pointe du Hoc speech). But upon being credited for this historic and honorable role as a bastion for freedom, the Berliners assembled were quiet. They get louder when the speech turns to their perseverance but without heroic overtones.
Perhaps they didn't like the idea of armed conflict, but then the Berlin Airlift was achieved peacefully without a shot being fired (though military infrastructure was indispensable). I think it might have to do with the idea of conflict at all, or perhaps of defeating communism. They probably dislike the role the US played in the story. Maybe they distrust heroism itself. This may be a deeper question then I can here answer.
This under-appreciated part of the speech is arguably the best. Aside from flattering the host, it honors freedom and courage and pictures the US and Germany as historic allies.
But Obama takes off from this point into a direction that can only be described as stupidly vacuous. He starts foreshadowing his speech's theme of unity, and then says "People of the world - look at Berlin!" This sounds great, it's a line from Nixon, Kennedy, Reagan and the rest, showcasing West Berlin's freedom and prosperity against East Berlin's repressive poverty, and West Berlin's perseverance against Communism aggression. But today, what does that mean? The forces of freedom or of the West are not under thread from a vast militaristic empire as they were in the Cold War, and there's no longer an East Berlin to showcase the horrible effects of our opponents' misrule. There's just a city full of people who don't want to fight, even in a fight like Afghanistan, where the whole world agreed conflict was justified.
The unity Obama is trying to sell is not useful in our current struggle against terrorism, Islamic fascism, or blind hatred. He's not posing it as an attempt to unify the West in a fight against its enemies, but to unify more or less everyone for unity's sake.
What Obama's selling is the 1990s and the end of history, as David Brooks put it yesterday. During the 2004 election, this was called a September 10th mentality - the idea that the world was still defined in the terms of the '90s: as a struggle to cooperate over trade, organized crime, the climate and so forth, with no significant readjustment needed to combat Islamic fascism. The September 12th mentality is the reverse: this is a new challenge on the order of World War II or the Cold War that requires a series of alliances and we should interpret current events with an eye toward their effect on the War on Terror.
Obama symbolizes the desire to return to the time when diplomatic struggles over copyright protection and death penalty extradition and EU integration were the pinnacle of global controversy. Unfortunately, he does everyone a disservice by downplaying the fact that there is a real struggle, and it's not a troubling lack of world unity - it's some number of nihilistic Muslims who've inherited fascism and anti-Semitism directly from the Third Reich and intend to wreak destruction, pain and death in this world.
He gives lip service to the pressing issues that he has to mention, like global warming, Darfur and so forth. It's ironic that he mentions Darfur ("The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all.") given his stated opposition to military intervention to prevent genocide.
In the midst of this check-off ideologizing, he inserted this phrase: "Now the world will watch and remember what we do here - what we do with this moment." The moment I read it, it sounded like Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and not in a good way. Commentators have noted this as well. Lincoln, of course, used the phrase to humble himself and honor the dead: The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what [the brave dead] did here. Lincoln used the speech to focus on the heroes of Gettysburg and the righteousness of the war. Obama used a similar-sounding phrase to prioritize the activists over their cause. It's a very arrogant phrase, a trait that often turns up under Obama speeches after you scratch the surface rhetoric.
He continues in the speech to characterize the Berlin Airlift as an exercise in unity to achieve progress - rather than the daring attempt of the West to defend free people without precipitating a war. His characterization of the airlift is so out of place (obviously a theme dictated by the location of his speech) because he eventually describes it almost as an effort without an enemy, or as though the only enemy were disunity or hunger, not a security-obsessed, imperialistic Soviet Union.
It's like a Cuban missile crisis without Cuba or the USSR (just a bunch of people working together to build bomb shelters). It's like watching the Lion King with no evil hyenas, Bambi with no hunters, the Lord of the Rings with no Sauron, Star Wars with no Empire, or Schindler's List with no Holocaust. In Obama's world, Bambi's task was to make friends with that rabbit, the Hobbits just needed to go on a cross-country trek, the X-Wing pilots were going for target practice and Schindler was just hiring employees.
He depicts the Berlin Airlift well at the beginning of the speech, but in later references he progressively removes the Soviet Union - the catalyst, the antagonist, and the source of danger and tension. It gives me the strong impression that he doesn't see the fundamental challenge facing the world.
I have to give him good marks:
- He told the Germans to give more troops to the NATO effort Afghanistan. They were quiet, but it was nice that he did at least one useful thing with the forum.
- As usual, it was a beautifully-delivered and -constructed speech.
- It was probably a smart move in the short term for him to play it safe (make no mistake, this was super-safe) and simply to let the whole trip make him look presidential. Just being there makes him look good, and challenging people with anything that might be controversial is a risk. I would have given a lot more credit, though, if he had swung for the fences - history tends to forget the superficial presidents (Clinton) and remember the idealistic presidents (Reagan).
- It hints at what dignity-promotion (Obama's preference over democracy-promotion) means in practice - more food drops and aid.
- He hits the good American themes of freedom, hope, exceptionalism and diversity. Europeans need these themes in their faces.
Overall, the speech tends to annoy me more with further exposure. It's vacuous, historically inaccurate and draws totally wrong lessons from past experience. It pays homage to the theme-less laundry list of global goals that the diplomatic corps of the world have been touting but neglecting for years. It's intellectually insulting. Obama is increasingly content-free in his campaign.
What a missed opportunity.
Flag Pins
by neolibertarian
That whole Obama flag pin controversy reminds me to say a few quick things.
First, I'm wary of too much emphasis on outwardly sporting symbols in order to qualify as a good person. This is similar to Roman requirements to make outward sacrifices to the gods and reminds me of Soviet generals and ambassadors wearing hammer and sickle pins. Heterogeneity is a good thing.
Second, this also reminds me that I'm really glad we don't have national celebrations of politicians' birthdays like they do in some countries and cultures. I'm actually rather disappointed that after reading an unrelated article I even know McCain's birthday (August 29 - now you suffer with me!). Those sorts of showy, superficial prostrations at the feet of country or leaders can lead to dark and miserable results.
Finally, with that said, you'd think I would really appreciate Obama's defense that not wearing a flag pin is actually more patriotic (since the pin is supposed to be a substitute for Obama's true patriotism). I don't think that failure to wear a pin should be a mark of shame, but neither do I think that wearing one should signify a shallow love of country. As anyone can see, most pages of the www.neo-libertarian.com website have an American flag image at the bottom. Maybe that biases me, maybe it doesn't. Regardless, it seems like the point should be that actions speak louder than symbols, not that the lack of symbols speaks louder than symbols. That's just the same fallacy in reverse.
Style: McCain versus Obama
by neolibertarian
While I'm still shuddering at McCain's continued endorsement of the cap-and-trade response to global warming (an enormously disastrous juxtaposition of central planning, favoritism and taxation), I have to comment on his stylistic advantage over Obama. McCain, although he can be incredibly self-righteous and arrogant, is far humbler overall than Obama. Even though Obama will admit that there's room to disagree on politics (and McCain tends to think there's room for him to disagree but not for others to disagree with him), he's much more closed and self-righteous about himself and his campaign.
On his connections to variously disreputable associates from his Chicago past - be they terrorists like Ayers and Dohrn, influence peddlers like Rezko, or radical clergymen like Wright and Pfleger - he tends to deny or downplay any association, then deny or downplay the damage or import of the association, and then cut the party loose. He didn't cut Wright loose until he perceived personal sleight. Politicians are going to do these sorts of things, but Obama just strikes me as having a pervasive if subdued attitude of entitlement.
He doesn't want to be questioned. He avoids press avails, his campaign treats journalists somewhat distantly and when the questioning gets too tough he complains, "can't I just eat my waffle?" or "c'mon, guys, that was like eight questions." Even as he completely distorts John McCain's position on Iraq into being a 100-year full-combat crusade, any attack on Obama using widely-accepted terms like 'left' or 'liberal' is old politics.
Everyone has moments of hypocrisy, but the entitlement is far more dangerous. A simple hypocrite is a common and unfortunate creature in politics, but an entitled leader is not something we should stand. We need leaders who recognize their own limits instead of substituting their judgment for ours and leaders who accept that not all criticism and questioning is invalid.
McCain has his problems, but in this arena, if anything, he goes overboard. Upon hearing of improper remarks from supporters, including endorsements from controversial preachers, he renounces the endorsements. This has led to several former endorser-preachers turning against him. When a radio host continually used Obama's Islamic middle name to introduce McCain at an event, McCain quickly renounced the comments and the support - and the host then angrily endorsed Hillary.
He has made himself widely available to the press in his campaign, a huge distinction from Obama's above-the-need-to-answer-questions attitude.
McCain's speech-giving skills are fairly poor. While he doesn't make the awkward stumbles and horrible cadence mistakes of Bush, McCain just sounds a little flat in his speeches and it's too obvious that he's simply reading it. But when talking to voters, even quite hostile ones, McCain hits his stride. He loves engaging directly with people and it shows. His debate skills are somewhere in between these two poles, his modest performances partially bolstered by his penchant for humor and self-effacement.
Obama prefers to lecture and speechify. His oratory is quite impressive, though his words and arguments fall short of his stylistic prowess. But in engaging in debates or talking to people, he does less well. He does not like to engage people on their terms, preferring a captive, adulatory audience to a participatory, critical one.
Style is one more reason I prefer McCain, who likes to engage ideas and people, to Obama, who likes to lecture instead of discuss.
Update: Jim Geraghty at NRO has a more detailed accounting of Obama's defensiveness when cornered. I don't expect the guy to walk on water (though some of his supporters give the impression that they think he does), but I think his entitled, defensive attitude needs to be accounted for.
Revenge on Energy Providers
by neolibertarian
Summoning a Medieval-inspired rage against the financially important but socially digusting elements of society, leftists continue to thunder for a pound of flesh from the oil companies.
Even though corn prices have risen from $3 to $6 a bushel in the last few years and agricultural lobbyists just secured a pork-brimming agri-bill to guarantee price supports, trade protections and subsidies anyway, the left reserves all anger for the oil companies.
Of course, this is an incredibly emotional and reason-free impulse, as embodied (in a moment entirely lacking in self-awareness) by Derrick Z. Jackson in an op-ed for the Boston Globe. It's appropriately and ridiculously titled, "Getting Big Oil to feel our pain," which might as well be titled "Showing World Jewry How Mad We Germans Are About Versailles." I didn't realize that taxes and regulations should be meted out solely to make other people feel as though their irrational hatreds are being properly expressed and affirmed. Probably the worst part of the rant is here:In fact, Peter Robertson, vice chairman of Chevron, blatantly told the Senate panel, "I feel very proud of what we do."
Who will wipe the smirk off their faces?
That just says it all, doesn't it? Wiping the smirk off of some rich guy's face for the audacity of being proud to provide energy to the world economy. Might as well set up the stakes and get the fires a-burning, because Derrick Z. Jackson wants to show a Chevron VP how angry he is.
Whenever politicians talk about increasing employment and economic growth, who do you think provides the energy for that? Who is going to provide the energy that will transport those workers? Who is going to provide the energy to transport the goods and services those workers are to provide?
When the politicians passed a silly stimulus package to make the economic statistics artificially inflate (so they could show constituents they were 'doing something'), who do you think provides the energy? Those people have to make their way to the stores by car, bus or taxi and those stores have to order supplies in by truck, train or plane.
Now that energy is more expensive, guys like Derrick Z. Jackson want someone to blame - which is not just an irrational and immoral use of state power, but an absolutely counter-productive task as well. Energy companies are pulling in maybe 4 cents on the dollar, or perhaps 16 cents of a $4 gallon of gas. The US government alone takes something like 18 cents a gallon and the states take in more on top of that.
It's noteworthy that since a low in the 90s of something like $12 or $15 a barrel for oil (maybe less?) we've now hit a high of over $100, yet gas is not nine or ten times more expensive. Of course, many other factors feed into the cost of a gallon of gas, but it's hard to miss the fact that oil is so expensive. Are the oil companies secretly manipulating the spot-market rates? Almost impossible for somebody who doesn't have a lasting control over the natural resources in question.
Derrick Z. Jackson is made, and even though oil companies are engaging in voluntary trade that benefits both sides, he needs to make sure that his jealousy and outrage are translated into the most draconian expressions the government has available, punishing oil companies for not undercharging themselves and their shareholders into bankruptcy.
Obama and Talking to Enemies
by neolibertarian
I really like that Barack Obama was willing to go against orthodoxy and argue that America should always be willing to parley with its enemies. I disagree with the policy and the arguments for it, but the fact that he's willing to challenge conventional wisdom is commendable. The fallacy of tradition is often one of the weakest yet most sacred of logical fallacies.
Of course, I'm pretty sure Krauthammer has it right that this was not planned and was more of a spur of the moment, dogpile on Bush instance. It's also notable that all of his advisors are either hedging ('he meant mid-level representatives') or outright correcting Obama's statements - even though Obama has been both forceful and explicit in his pledge to meet with dictators, specifically mentioning Ahmadinejad.
Many of Obama's arguments for this policy are embarrassingly bad. He often uses historical examples, such as Reagan and Kennedy.
But Kennedy's summit with Khrushchev was a failure that probably encouraged the Soviets to be more aggressive, thinking that Kennedy was weak and easy to compromise. That summit is often blamed as a factor behind the Soviets putting nukes in Cuba.
And Reagan's summits with Gorbachev followed his previously critical stance toward the USSR, and even with Gorby he refused to abandon missile defense.
This doesn't mean that diplomacy and compromises are always bad, as they certainly provide countless positive results. But simply going to talk to any enemy, no matter what, is naivete or vanity.
If elected, President Obama's time would be far more productively spent supporting our allies than indulging the vanity of camera-hungry leaders like Chavez and Ahamdinejad. Instead of a Tyrants Tour, maybe Obama could spend his first year as President supporting our friends and allies around the world - meeting with reformers, dissidents, and the leaders of allied countries. It would make for a positive message that stressed the benefits of friendship with the US.
Of course, left out of the discussion is trade and commerce. For some reason, political observers find the character issue fascinating - wimp versus nuanced; courageous versus cowboy - and forget that the most important thing the US can do with other countries (except the specific ones we might go to arms against) is trade. Saying you want to forge a common bond with the world by limiting carbon emissions is one thing. Actually giving the people of the world access to the US market is far more meaningful.
While I'm sure the rest of the world is very pissy about Iraq and the US military even existing, and that a lot of diplomats and activists really care about the ABM, Kyoto or ICC treaties, the most impactful part of US-global relations is trade. Obama thinks the US should use its massive power to tilt trade in favor of itself. Even though we're by far one of the richest and most prosperous countries in human history, and even though trade creates benefits all around that are often far in excess of its temporary drawbacks, Obama still thinks that the US economy should be managed for the benefit of Americans - much to the detriment of everyone else.
Improving relations with the rest of the world is a lot more than just talking to dictators and diplomats. Ask him for the ability to compete fairly in the US market and suddenly Mr. Hope-of-the-World Obama clams up.
Why Hillary Lost
by neolibertarian
Although the campaign is not entirely over and there's still a shot at Hillary pulling an amazing upset victory in the wake of an enormous Obama scandal, it's essentially clear that Obama will otherwise be the victor and the nominee running against John McCain.
Warning, this post is a little lengthy but I have a lot to get out there.
There are plenty of factors that contributed to Hillary's loss.
- Her personality issues, including defensiveness, arrogance and entitled condescension.
- She overemphasized Iowa, possibly her weakest state, instead of spreading focus to later states.
- She didn't spend enough time doing retail politics in Iowa and other states, instead relying on ads and press.
- The Clintonian arrogance and condescension towards the press alienated journalists at a time that Obama embodied their fantasies.
- Her campaign was ridiculously managed by people who clearly didn't have the experience to manage a primary campaign (thus wasting an enormous fundraising advantage).
- The lack of central authority in the campaign management meant there was no leader to keep others accountable.
- At the same time, an obsessive focus on loyalty meant any challenge to conventional wisdom or campaign doctrine was viewed with suspicion, thus silenced.
- Hiring Patti Solis Doyle to manage the campaign on the basis of loyalty was silly.
- Letting Mark Penn both decide the strategy and then be the only pollster to poll-test the strategy was stupidity.
- Financial planning was nonexistent, from overspending in Iowa to underspending in caucus and post-February states to running the campaign into a hole.
I wasn't in the campaign, so I can't attest to all of these commonly-asserted reasons. I think most of them probably have a lot of validity. The biggest reason in my opinion was the message. Clinton just wanted to win and so her message was highly variable, changing as often as needed in order to achieve victory.
It's a bit of stereotype that female candidates tend toward wonkery instead of message, identity or leadership. I think it's very easy to overstate that stereotype, but female or not Hillary's problem was just that; she emphasize policies but not themes. She had trouble tapping into an identity or a milieu that people could easily grasp. Since she was already married to the world's most notorious liar and spinster, it didn't help when she flipped on driver's licenses for immigrants in the span of a few minutes. The sniper lie confirmed it further. She lies to be popular - which probably every national politician does regularly. But she lies with ease and without commitment to a side.
Her message was policies but no personality. Is she strong like when she voted for the war and when she (fictionally) ran from sniper fire? Is she sensitive and compassionate like when she cried? I can look at Obama and tell you something about him and his personality.
Obama is a thinker, he's a fairly deep person. He's somewhat vain and a little entitled, has an aloof arrogance that coexists with a well-meaning charitability. He values ideals and the abstract and prefers the quixotic to the mundane. His visage is melancholic or rageful while his voice is ringing, methodical and confident.
I can tell you about McCain. He's a joker, a rascal who is very comfortable with mischief. He adores above all other things honor, commitment, service and sacrifice, and his political views are largely shaped around these principles. An energetic and self-righteous anger waits just under the surface of a man who deeper down is very friendly and charitable towards others.
I could go into detail too about Reagan or Clinton. Reagan was friendly, idealistic to the utmost, simple in principles but brilliant of mind. Clinton is at his core an arrogant and self-entitled man who seeks approval through his good works and campaigns, always able to find a smile, shed a tear or unleash a tirade depending on the situation.
These leaders had definable and accessible emotions, personalities that made it possible to truly know them and to find something to admire - something to vote for, something they symbolized. Clinton empathized, Reagan inspired, etc. What is Hillary's personality? Is she truly the defensive, paranoid, entitled, closed off person? I doubt it. I'm sure even Saddam, Stalin and Hitler had positive qualities and it seems ridiculous to think that Hillary could somehow be less human than genocidal tyrants.
The problem is not that she has no personality or that she is pure evil. The problem is that she has a closed, uber-professional facade with not a lot of personality showing through. Given her penchant for lies, flipping and entitlement, how can one get to know her? How can one identify with her?
This same problem plagued previous Democrats, including Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, etc. They come of as cold, aloof, distant, condescending and policy-focused. When they then try to tell you they sympathize with your plight or that they want you to sacrifice more to the IRS it just sounds wrong. When FDR demanded lives and fortunes for the war and the New Deal, it came from a leader who emoted and had an accessible identity and personality (and FDR is far closer to a tyrant than Hillary has gotten).
The people who did identify with Hillary were the older women who saw in her a memory of their struggle against sexism. Younger people see feminism as a movement not much more relevant than abolitionism; in other words, it won and everybody sane agrees with it, so why re-fight a victorious campaign? I suspect that a lot of the voters who backed her associated her with the Clinton years of high economic growth and low unemployment - this isn't sexism, as Al Gore relied even more heavily on this bloc of voters, whom he spurned by rejecting Bill's help.
Obama's policies are a little incoherent and ill-defined - what exactly does he want to change? So far it seems he most wants to change the fact that people can criticize him (somehow 'appeasement' is a false political attack while 'cowboy diplomacy' is an insightful criticism; 'third Bush term' is a great argument but 'liberal elite' is trash politics, etc.). But at least he adheres people to him who want a movement toward some kind of sanity and bipartisanship in politics. It may be hypocritical, but he has a clear direction.
Hillary's policies are clear but her theme is nebulous and self-justifying. Vote for Hillary to fight the Republicans. The question of why or for what end we should fight the Republicans is not treated to a grand theme like 'for the poor' or 'for world peace' or even 'for the future.'
Obama is a theme in search of focus; Hillary is a mash of policies in search of a principle. When it came down to it, Democrats voted for a person they can understand with a message they liked before policies they like from a person they don't get.
MOST IMPORTANT is the voter's mentality. Once you get into the voting booth, the cost of deciding on an issue or candidate often feels remote - a tax cut 18 months away, a health care subsidy seven quarters in the future. This is especially true between Obama and Hillary, who occupy very similar ideological space. What really helps drive people to vote for one is the personality and themes of a candidate, and Obama's strong theme and personality were able to pull people away from massively-favored frontrunner Hillary, who provided people with little reason to feel anything personally at stake in her election.
Politicians give you a connection to something larger by your support. McCain and Reagan tap into feelings of national honor; Reagan and Obama appeal to your sense of idealism and the universe's perfectability; Clinton made you think he cared where things were going; Clinton and Reagan told you that whatever happens the world is basically good and things are getting better.
A vote for Obama can be interpreted by the voter as a vote for the future, for honesty and racial harmony, a vote for bipartisanship, a vote for a thoroughgoing liberal or a vote for a committed moderate - or any combination of these.
A vote for Hillary does not tie into anything grand except that a woman can be President or Bill Clinton should be President again.
