Saturday, December 26, 2009
Duh...
Adam Nagourney must have finally read or heard about my arguments, or he is a year later than I in coming to this conclusion...
Sunday, December 20, 2009
It's Snowing and I Hate Grading, soo...
I'll write more on how John McCain revealed himself to be a rather postmodern thinker today on Fox News, but for now, I simply wish to predict that, in the aftermath of a relatively large coastal snowstorm, many of the cable TV idiots (me being charitable)/demagogues (me being accurate) will use this single event to generalize to a trend.
Sorry, peeps, one snowstorm does not generalize to a refutation of glabal warming...dispute science with science, not with stupidity...this is yet another front in the battle on postmodern conservatism: they love to grasp at events as scientific conclusions. The best we can do with these people is let them fulminate and ignore them, focusing instead on a Jeffersonian (or, to bow to my learned colleagues, a Rousseauian) ideal of political education for those willing to use their god-given brains as more than impulse machines. So, I am doing so by entering this here and not in a venue where stupidity can make an equal claim to rationality...
Back to grading...
Sorry, peeps, one snowstorm does not generalize to a refutation of glabal warming...dispute science with science, not with stupidity...this is yet another front in the battle on postmodern conservatism: they love to grasp at events as scientific conclusions. The best we can do with these people is let them fulminate and ignore them, focusing instead on a Jeffersonian (or, to bow to my learned colleagues, a Rousseauian) ideal of political education for those willing to use their god-given brains as more than impulse machines. So, I am doing so by entering this here and not in a venue where stupidity can make an equal claim to rationality...
Back to grading...
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Obama in Norway
Obama's speech is yet another example of how he gives us exactly what is in his mind. This was a unique and gutsy move, and he seemes to have made his hosts feel uncomfortable. He was also, as usual, in the middle between the realists and idealist. Can he stay in the middle of the road without being run over? Stay tuned.
Friday, December 4, 2009
An Analysis of Obama's Speech Far Better Than Anything I Have
A former counterterrorism expert from Australia, Leah Farrell, has an excellent and unconventional spin on Obama's speech the other day. Read it; it is really worth the time...
http://allthingsct.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/first-thoughts-on-obamas-speech/
http://allthingsct.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/first-thoughts-on-obamas-speech/
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Another Voice That Obama Should Heed
Bob Herbert, of the New York Times. I too think this is like LBJ and Vietnam escalation, although I do not think Obama is going to fall into the same trap. LBJ was responding in part emotionally, since he felt inferior. There is not a shred of evidence that Obama feels inferior to anyone.
The Audacity of...?
President's Obama will announce his decision on troops in Afghanistan tonight, and if the impressions are correct, it will mean what some might label as a "smart surge," that surges, but not enough to make those who feel an all-out commitment of troops is necessary. If so, this will verify my call nearly twoyears ago that this is the centrist, modernist leader we haven't seen muhc from since LBJ.
But it is also likely to do significant damage in the postmodern realm of media buzz for Obama. Why? Because it contradicts the image that won him a Nobel Peace Prize within days of being sworn into office. And, it will disappoint many of his strongest supporters.
An example of the argument for why this is the wrong move can be found here. If this argument resonates with me, I bet it resonates with many other people who supported candidate Obama. This is not merely angering the base; it has the potential for creating disenchantment among young voters, perhaps the most important new part of the Obama/Democratic coalition in 2008.
But it is also likely to do significant damage in the postmodern realm of media buzz for Obama. Why? Because it contradicts the image that won him a Nobel Peace Prize within days of being sworn into office. And, it will disappoint many of his strongest supporters.
An example of the argument for why this is the wrong move can be found here. If this argument resonates with me, I bet it resonates with many other people who supported candidate Obama. This is not merely angering the base; it has the potential for creating disenchantment among young voters, perhaps the most important new part of the Obama/Democratic coalition in 2008.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Obama, Fitting In, and Afghanistan
Several posts ago I made the argument that President Obama is a centrist in part because of his desire (or need, if we want to be psychological) to fit in with every crowd. Take this comment, and add to it the historical reality that Democrats do not want to seem weak on defense, and that probably explains most of the explanation for Obama sending more troops to a situation that may or may not benefit.
I am sure Obama is convinced that the policy objectives are achievable, since he is smarter than I could ever dream to be, but I am also sure that, like the centrism on dealing with the economy (lots of money for states to plug budget gaps and private companies in the form of contracts, but nothing for the poor suckers who need it most), he is attracted by the ideas of those around him, and naturally moves toward them. That includes military advisors.
Since he isn't giving General Petraeus the whole number requested, Obama is already being criticized for not giving the generals all they need. As if the generals know what is best policy. They don't, you know...nor do the critics, regardless of whether they have any experience in macro-level military policy.
I remember being four years old and in the waiting room to see a psychiatrist (long story, but suffice it to say that my mother was at her wits end in trying to deal with my rather active and manipulative behavior..high IQ/ADHD/Middle Child Syndrome, or some combination). I saw General Westmorland on the cover of Time and asked my mother about him and Vietnam. Even to this four year old, the plan did not make sense to me. I have the same feeling here.
I have a former colleague in Afghanistan; he served as Finance Minister for several years. The stories he has shared in his surprise visits back lead me to believe that, unlike Iraq, there is no civil, educations, or economic infrastructure in Afghanistan. I do not see an increase of troops as promising development.
For the sake of my former students and the tens of thousands of people who are serving there, I hope I am wrong...
I am sure Obama is convinced that the policy objectives are achievable, since he is smarter than I could ever dream to be, but I am also sure that, like the centrism on dealing with the economy (lots of money for states to plug budget gaps and private companies in the form of contracts, but nothing for the poor suckers who need it most), he is attracted by the ideas of those around him, and naturally moves toward them. That includes military advisors.
Since he isn't giving General Petraeus the whole number requested, Obama is already being criticized for not giving the generals all they need. As if the generals know what is best policy. They don't, you know...nor do the critics, regardless of whether they have any experience in macro-level military policy.
I remember being four years old and in the waiting room to see a psychiatrist (long story, but suffice it to say that my mother was at her wits end in trying to deal with my rather active and manipulative behavior..high IQ/ADHD/Middle Child Syndrome, or some combination). I saw General Westmorland on the cover of Time and asked my mother about him and Vietnam. Even to this four year old, the plan did not make sense to me. I have the same feeling here.
I have a former colleague in Afghanistan; he served as Finance Minister for several years. The stories he has shared in his surprise visits back lead me to believe that, unlike Iraq, there is no civil, educations, or economic infrastructure in Afghanistan. I do not see an increase of troops as promising development.
For the sake of my former students and the tens of thousands of people who are serving there, I hope I am wrong...
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Just When I Think Cable TV is Useless for Understanding Political Matters...
Well, my missive against Morning Joe needs to be tempered by the following conversation between Chris Matthews, Chris Mathhews, and Rev. Thomas Tobin, Bishop of Providence, on the problem of religion dictating specific political positions. As much as it pains me to admit it, Matthews drives home a central point, often unexamined, about the problem of bishops telling members of Congress what they want in terms of abortion.
Watch the entire clip (12:30), as it exposes one of the inherent weaknesses in the position being pushed by the conservatives among the American bishops.
My experience with leaders in the American Catholic Church is that most of them are not very good politicians in a diverse and deliberative setting. Bishops who speak out tend to think they are the able to maintain their faith status when they become lobbyists. Roger William had this one correct...
Watch the entire clip (12:30), as it exposes one of the inherent weaknesses in the position being pushed by the conservatives among the American bishops.
My experience with leaders in the American Catholic Church is that most of them are not very good politicians in a diverse and deliberative setting. Bishops who speak out tend to think they are the able to maintain their faith status when they become lobbyists. Roger William had this one correct...
Another Lesson in Why We Should Not Watch Cable
During the 2008 presidential nominating campaign, I became somewhat addicted to Morning Joe on MSNBC. The obsessive talk about campaign politics early in the season was perfect no-calorie candy for my political sweet tooth. By April, however, I had grown weary, and instead began watching reruns of Law and Order (part of me still wants to be a litagator) or Malcolm in the Middle (speaks to my childhood more than I care to reveal).
Every once in a while, however, I lift the political candy ban, and every time I do it, I realize what it must be like to be a recovering addict. This morning was one of those days.
I flipped to MSNBC at 6:00 to fill my attnetion while I ate my cereal and what do I see? Joe Scarborough talking about the 2012 presidential election, reporting a poll that shows that Obama and Palin are in a dead heat right now. The presidential election of 2012 has already begun for these people!!!
Please, someone take my television from me...
Every once in a while, however, I lift the political candy ban, and every time I do it, I realize what it must be like to be a recovering addict. This morning was one of those days.
I flipped to MSNBC at 6:00 to fill my attnetion while I ate my cereal and what do I see? Joe Scarborough talking about the 2012 presidential election, reporting a poll that shows that Obama and Palin are in a dead heat right now. The presidential election of 2012 has already begun for these people!!!
Please, someone take my television from me...
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Interesting Graph on a Tale of Two Montana Senators
Athough the warning is to Senator Blanch Lincoln (D-AR), the graph examining the fates of the two Montana senators is fascinating. One, Baucus, relished the attention he has gotten as chair of the Finance Commitee. The other, Tester, has been very quiet. Which one do you think has suffered? The one at the middle of the now-vitriolic health care debate. Maybe Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Joe Lieberman (?-CT) should heed the advice that Nate Silver is giving: just shut up and take a position, unless you wish to kill your political future...
President Obama May Have Been Boxed In.
There is increasing concern that Preisdent Obama is betraying the progressive wing of his own party. Additional evidence of this can be seen in the week's Time article on how Greg Craig got forced out of his position by the pragmatists, especially Rahm Emmanuel, who prefer decisions that give red meat to liberals while also reassuring centrists or traditionalists that Obama isn't one of these crazy liberals. In the case of Craig, it was the backtracking of the promise to liberals to end all the things the Bush Administration did that got hundreds of thousands of ideological liberals to knock on doors for John Kerry in 2004 (what else could have stirred so many to spend so much time working for such a boring and uninspiring candidate?).
The strategy is consistent with Obama, the WYSIWYG President, but it may also be playing into the Republican hope that they may make significant gains in 2010 by driving a wedge into the Obama coalition. Republicans seem to have done a great job of labeling Obama as an ideological liberal for those who think they are uncomfortable with liberals (for those of you who have forgotten, he was probably the most centrist of the 2008 Democratic nomination candidates). The anger among progressives that seems to be emerging over Obama's reluctance to take a clear stand on virtually anything (like W did, much to the chagrin of those very liberals who now complain about Obama), combined with what is an irrational fear among conservatives that Obama is a liberal socialist commie authoritarian multiculturalist, spells potential doom for Obama in 2010.
Shades of Clinton in 1994? Or, shades of LBJ in 1966? My hunch (and by the way, my hunches are nearly perfect, although I do not have the proper documentation to support this assertion) is that Obama will be more like FDR in 1934 or 1938...
The strategy is consistent with Obama, the WYSIWYG President, but it may also be playing into the Republican hope that they may make significant gains in 2010 by driving a wedge into the Obama coalition. Republicans seem to have done a great job of labeling Obama as an ideological liberal for those who think they are uncomfortable with liberals (for those of you who have forgotten, he was probably the most centrist of the 2008 Democratic nomination candidates). The anger among progressives that seems to be emerging over Obama's reluctance to take a clear stand on virtually anything (like W did, much to the chagrin of those very liberals who now complain about Obama), combined with what is an irrational fear among conservatives that Obama is a liberal socialist commie authoritarian multiculturalist, spells potential doom for Obama in 2010.
Shades of Clinton in 1994? Or, shades of LBJ in 1966? My hunch (and by the way, my hunches are nearly perfect, although I do not have the proper documentation to support this assertion) is that Obama will be more like FDR in 1934 or 1938...
Saturday, November 21, 2009
What I learned from reading the Audacity to Win.
Well, I listened to it, unabridged, during a trip to New Jersey (including a mightmare 9 hour drive--it is usually under four) and finished it in the past week.
I am usually wary of books written by political operatives, since they tend to be self-justifying and congratulatory, and they tend to really be written by a ghost-writer. David Plouffe, the campaign manager of the Obama campaign, does engage in some of the first (but less than I expected), and wrote the book himself. The result is a very interesting and useful book.
Although I recall most of what Plouffe shares, his book reminded me of two very important things that can help to understand President Obama today. First, the strategy of the campaign--to stay close to Clinton in big primary states while winning big in the smaller state--was a real innovation and reinforces the idea that Obama takes slightly different paths than the one most traveled. Plouffe's discussion of how winning big in the Idaho primary while losing in New Jersey by a dozen points actually led to Obama getting more delegates than Clinton. The Clinton campaign's refusal to compete in the small states did them in.
The second major insight is Obama's consistency. Despite my suspicions that this is a bit exaggerated, when things looked dicey for Obama in the spring, he never wavered. That steely confidence will likely be seen once Obama makes a decision on Afghanistan.
A third insight is the extent to which Mark Penn, the main consultant for Hillary Clinton, has no friends in the Obama Administration. Plouffe takes as many opportunities as possible to insult Penn, who, by the way, probably deserves most of Plouffe's arrows...
I am usually wary of books written by political operatives, since they tend to be self-justifying and congratulatory, and they tend to really be written by a ghost-writer. David Plouffe, the campaign manager of the Obama campaign, does engage in some of the first (but less than I expected), and wrote the book himself. The result is a very interesting and useful book.
Although I recall most of what Plouffe shares, his book reminded me of two very important things that can help to understand President Obama today. First, the strategy of the campaign--to stay close to Clinton in big primary states while winning big in the smaller state--was a real innovation and reinforces the idea that Obama takes slightly different paths than the one most traveled. Plouffe's discussion of how winning big in the Idaho primary while losing in New Jersey by a dozen points actually led to Obama getting more delegates than Clinton. The Clinton campaign's refusal to compete in the small states did them in.
The second major insight is Obama's consistency. Despite my suspicions that this is a bit exaggerated, when things looked dicey for Obama in the spring, he never wavered. That steely confidence will likely be seen once Obama makes a decision on Afghanistan.
A third insight is the extent to which Mark Penn, the main consultant for Hillary Clinton, has no friends in the Obama Administration. Plouffe takes as many opportunities as possible to insult Penn, who, by the way, probably deserves most of Plouffe's arrows...
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Obama - The WYSIWYG President
Modern and postmodern presidents generally have avoided presenting their true selves to the American people. Be it the replackaged product that hid the real, dark character of Richard Nixon, the simulated image of Ronald Reagan as the ideal president we might see in a movie from the 1940s, or the American Dream presidency Bill Clinton, presidents rarely present themselves as themselves. Even relatively straightforward presidents like Carter and George H.W. Bush hid behind images (Carter the humble, hardworking puritain and Bush the silver-spooned tough guy). Not so with Obama.
I have to give credit for this insight to my colleague at Providence College, Julia Jordon-Zachery. In a series of conversations I have had with her since Obama's election, she has convinced me that all that we should expect from Obama is that which we have already seen in him. In other words, he is WYSIWYG (a now-antiquated computer term, "What You See is What You Get").
What does this mean for us? We should not expect him to change his pragmatism. We should not expect him to make moves that are dramatic. We should not expect him to make ideologically-motivated decisions. And, we should not expect him to do anything other than try and stay in the middle.
For liberals, Obama will continue to disappoint. But they should also take heart, because Republicans will never be able to pull off the tactic, now-outdated, as demonizing him as an extremist. The fact that the GOP still tries to do this (even in the face of extensive evidence to the contrary) is an indication of how addicted they have become to the politics of personal destruction. Unlike Bill Clinton, whose personal conduct (even before we realized he was doing inappropriate things with an intern) always suggested that Republican critics were right, Obama's personal character, which is apparently who he really is, cannot be associated with the excess of big spending liberals.
So, the lack of inference between Obama's character and excess makes it hard for his opponents to successfully pull off a "Clinton," and the reality that Obama's policy approach matches his character means that we have a symmetrical presidency, one where what we are seeing is actually an accurate reflection of what we are getting.
I know that people are used to the separation of the concept of a person and the actual person, but, as I have written before, Obama is a throwback. Who is the last president to be WYSIWYG? My pick is Truman...
I have to give credit for this insight to my colleague at Providence College, Julia Jordon-Zachery. In a series of conversations I have had with her since Obama's election, she has convinced me that all that we should expect from Obama is that which we have already seen in him. In other words, he is WYSIWYG (a now-antiquated computer term, "What You See is What You Get").
What does this mean for us? We should not expect him to change his pragmatism. We should not expect him to make moves that are dramatic. We should not expect him to make ideologically-motivated decisions. And, we should not expect him to do anything other than try and stay in the middle.
For liberals, Obama will continue to disappoint. But they should also take heart, because Republicans will never be able to pull off the tactic, now-outdated, as demonizing him as an extremist. The fact that the GOP still tries to do this (even in the face of extensive evidence to the contrary) is an indication of how addicted they have become to the politics of personal destruction. Unlike Bill Clinton, whose personal conduct (even before we realized he was doing inappropriate things with an intern) always suggested that Republican critics were right, Obama's personal character, which is apparently who he really is, cannot be associated with the excess of big spending liberals.
So, the lack of inference between Obama's character and excess makes it hard for his opponents to successfully pull off a "Clinton," and the reality that Obama's policy approach matches his character means that we have a symmetrical presidency, one where what we are seeing is actually an accurate reflection of what we are getting.
I know that people are used to the separation of the concept of a person and the actual person, but, as I have written before, Obama is a throwback. Who is the last president to be WYSIWYG? My pick is Truman...
Friday, November 13, 2009
When Outsiders Leave the White House
White House Counsel Grag Craig, the Clintons' classmate at Yale Law School who jumped Team Clinton for Obama in 2008, is leaving his position at the White House. Why?
I am not sure I know the answer, but I wonder if he just felt out of place, or whether the Chicago Guys (my new name for the inner cirlce of Obama, created in response to a recent conversation with Amy Sullivan of Time Magazine) just did not like the intruder. However, this follows a familliar pattern of first-year adjustments to the White House Staff that we can discern across presidencies. The internal dynamic here seems to follow the familiar pattern: those closest to the president in their lead up to winning the office seem to crowd out capable people who drank the Kool-Aid relatively late in the game.
Who else might leave? Good question. I guess I need to go and look at the list of senior White House aids who (1) are not early Obama people, (2) are not Biden people, and (3) are too old to keep up with the (to borrow Sullivan's concept) frat house atmosphere...
I am not sure I know the answer, but I wonder if he just felt out of place, or whether the Chicago Guys (my new name for the inner cirlce of Obama, created in response to a recent conversation with Amy Sullivan of Time Magazine) just did not like the intruder. However, this follows a familliar pattern of first-year adjustments to the White House Staff that we can discern across presidencies. The internal dynamic here seems to follow the familiar pattern: those closest to the president in their lead up to winning the office seem to crowd out capable people who drank the Kool-Aid relatively late in the game.
Who else might leave? Good question. I guess I need to go and look at the list of senior White House aids who (1) are not early Obama people, (2) are not Biden people, and (3) are too old to keep up with the (to borrow Sullivan's concept) frat house atmosphere...
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Is Afghanistan another Vietnam?
Frank Rich's column in today's (Sunday 9/27/09) New York Times discusses a chilling reminder about how wrong advisors get things with presidents. His discussion of Gordon Goldstein's Lessons in Disaster makes me wonder why smart outsiders, like Obama, listen at all to Washington foreign policy insiders. Just as George Ball, Undersecretary of State, warned Kennedy of the impending disaster in Vietnam, Joe Biden, for all his self-important puffery, seems to know what is likely to happen if we expand the war in Afghanistan. I hope Obama is listerning....
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Is Obama "Going Public?"
The weekend blitz by President Obama can be seen as engaging in a strategy detailed by political scientist Samuel Kernell in his book Going Public: New Strategies In Presidential Leadership. First published in 1986, Kernell argues that presidents "go public" to expand the scope of political conflict to include the general population, who then exert overt or implicit pressure on members of Congress to go along with presidential initiatives. In this view, the president must do this on every issue, since the stability of party is not a given.
Although there are some elements of Kernell's theory here, I doubt that this is what Obama is doing. Instead, I think that Obama is focused on using this public blitz to appeal to the opinion elite, not the masses. Do not have time now to explain this, but I will, if I don't forget to make another entry soon...
Although there are some elements of Kernell's theory here, I doubt that this is what Obama is doing. Instead, I think that Obama is focused on using this public blitz to appeal to the opinion elite, not the masses. Do not have time now to explain this, but I will, if I don't forget to make another entry soon...
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Now, Let's See What Happens
Just a quick blog entry, since the readings I assigned to my students are rather boring (Nice Move: turn them off in the first week by assigning dry material...) and I don't wish to read them for the fifth time...
Okay, President Obama has shown his respect for the constitutional provisions that not only suggest, but demand, that Congress be the body that deliberates legislation. Now, let's see how deft he is at using his extra-constitutional power of bargaining. I get the impression that he is very good at it, despite the rather shallow analyses that pervade the airwaves (and we wonder why people like my brother, sister, and brothers-in-law are so uninformed about politics and prone to manipulation of demagogues?!).
First, I hope you saw the faces on Republicans as he spoke to them on Wednesday about health care. The vacuous ones in the popular press do not seem to connect the frustrated blurting of Rep. Wilson to the grimaces on most Republicans (or McCain's painful smile and "thumbs up" when Obama cornered him by adapting his views to McCain's), who know they are cooked. We may be seeing the end of the Republican Party as we know it (I am not willing to make such a bold assertion yet, though), and they know it. That is why they are grasping at fiction in countering the Obama plan.
This guy is good, a modernist in a postmodern political era, but one who actually appreciates the postmodern dilemma. He seems to understand that responding in-kind, the method used by Democrats in the Clinton era, is not the way to win.
I have always thought that postmodern politics would burn itself out, and I think Obama is dousing the flames in a cool, effective manner. Let's see if I am right on health care...
Okay, President Obama has shown his respect for the constitutional provisions that not only suggest, but demand, that Congress be the body that deliberates legislation. Now, let's see how deft he is at using his extra-constitutional power of bargaining. I get the impression that he is very good at it, despite the rather shallow analyses that pervade the airwaves (and we wonder why people like my brother, sister, and brothers-in-law are so uninformed about politics and prone to manipulation of demagogues?!).
First, I hope you saw the faces on Republicans as he spoke to them on Wednesday about health care. The vacuous ones in the popular press do not seem to connect the frustrated blurting of Rep. Wilson to the grimaces on most Republicans (or McCain's painful smile and "thumbs up" when Obama cornered him by adapting his views to McCain's), who know they are cooked. We may be seeing the end of the Republican Party as we know it (I am not willing to make such a bold assertion yet, though), and they know it. That is why they are grasping at fiction in countering the Obama plan.
This guy is good, a modernist in a postmodern political era, but one who actually appreciates the postmodern dilemma. He seems to understand that responding in-kind, the method used by Democrats in the Clinton era, is not the way to win.
I have always thought that postmodern politics would burn itself out, and I think Obama is dousing the flames in a cool, effective manner. Let's see if I am right on health care...
Friday, August 14, 2009
The Best Performance by a President
In my memory, we have seen few presidential performances as good as President Obama's hosting the Medal of Freedom event this week. In addition to picking an amazingly impressive and diverse group (including four non-citizens), the symbolic impact of the event is incredible. His statement, that their lives reflect that greatness is determined by what we do more than by who we are was outstanding. It also, by the way, created an opening for us to think about his own remarkable accomplishments, without us knowing it.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Two Good Days for Obama
Yesterday's town hall in New Hampshire was, in my view, the turning point for the health care debate. Only the craziest of opponent could come away thinking the meeting was "supporters only," and Obama set a tone that will be hard to change. I think the Republicans are in deep trouble on this and they they have overplayed their hands so much, that they will soon be reeling.
Today, Obama's incredibly sincere and relaxed hosting of the Medal of Freedom ceremony was President Obama at his best. By choosing such a wide array of people, taking care to include someone almost every American can admire (except those craziest of the crazies), Obama sent a message that he does not intend to abandon his conviction that we are all assets. This was the best event of his presidency so far, IMHO.
Today, Obama's incredibly sincere and relaxed hosting of the Medal of Freedom ceremony was President Obama at his best. By choosing such a wide array of people, taking care to include someone almost every American can admire (except those craziest of the crazies), Obama sent a message that he does not intend to abandon his conviction that we are all assets. This was the best event of his presidency so far, IMHO.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Charles Krauthammer Actuall Makes Sense?!
I usually read Charles Krauthammer only because I love reading very smart people who are so blinded by their ideology that they rationalize anything (and he is a psychiatrist to boot, which makes his unconscious behavior even more interesting), but I must say I agree with the two items he mentions in his column today.
Think about this in strategic ways: Dems throw malpractice lawyers into the fire, thus showing real guts and a further commitment to "bipartisanship," and Republicans are boxed into a corner.
Think about this in strategic ways: Dems throw malpractice lawyers into the fire, thus showing real guts and a further commitment to "bipartisanship," and Republicans are boxed into a corner.
Let's be sensible in our counter-responses
Although I am offended that he uses the term "political terrorist" to describe the liars in the Republican camp, Steven Pearlstein has a very good commentary in today's Washington Post on how inaccurate the broad claims of government-run health care, trillion dollar costs, and (my favorite) how Obama is going to make real the fictional Soylent Green (for a comic distraction go here for the original) approach to dealing with seniors.
The good news is that my impression is that the Republican tactic of stalling until after the summer recess was a mistake on their part. This tactic is based in part on Gresham's Law of Information: bad information crowds out good information. I need to divert into academic matters to explain why Republicans chose the tactic and why it is going to backfire.
In political science, scholars like Samuel Popkin have argued that people cope with too much information and too little time or interest to pay close attention through the use of "cues," like whether seemingly minor behaviors of presidential candidates can tell people a lot about them (whether they eat ethnic food properly, can hit bowling pins with a ball, whether they are willing to do shots with the guys in a bar, or whether they wear a crisp white dress shirt on the stage of a country music festival).
In addition, decision making theory speaks to the issue as well. Most political consultants and practitioner tend to assume Herbert Simon's theories of decision making. Simon argued that truly rational decision making requires a three step process of gathering information on alternatives, analyzing all potential consequences of actions, and being able to make clear and systematic comparisons. Simon argued that this is not possible. Instead people and organizations tend to make incremental decisions that are "good enough."
So, how do these theories relate to Republican tactics on health care? Okay...the first assumption they are making is that people will latch on to the frames they create through the sophisticated use of language. Frank Luntz, a political scientist by training, is their main guru on using language (he claims a role in the Contract for America and in redefining inheritance taxes as death taxes). So, you hear the terms "run," "takeover," and other frightening words connected to "government." You also hear comparisons of the Obama public option to the Postal Service and the DMV (two decentralized entities that everyone hates, even though they do a pretty good job of dealing with the mess of interacting with everyone in our country). These are attempts to frame the issue in a way to give people who are minimally interested and attentive a quick reference that will lead to position taking that helps the Republicans.
The second assumption is based on information overload. If we throw garbage into the discussion and repeat it over and over, that information will crowd out thoughtful, rational information that may actually inform people. This messy, loud and confusing screaming match will create an information overload, leading to people deciding to maintain the status quo. It will also turn people off to politics, since most of us want harmony, not conflict.
So, why are the Republicans wrong? First, Popkin's theory of "good enough" information only works when everyone is hearing the same message. If people listen to different messages they get different cues. The result is that counter-framing is likely to provide for a competition in the minds of those who use shortcuts. What we are witnessing right now is the Democratic counter-framing response, and the congressional break is giving them time to make it work.
The second reason the break is a mistake for Republicans is that I personally do not think that Gresham's Law of Information works quite the same way as in the past. The theory is based upon a natural flow if information from interested parties. What we see now is a synthetic flow of information that is not organic, and so it messes up the natural process of perception that leads to bad information crowding out good. I personally think that the opposite is beginning to happen.
So, I think that had Obama stuck to his original deadline, he would have lost. Now, his chances are better. I know this is counter intuitive, but I am confident that the better information will sway the swayables, increase the polling numbers a bit, and help the Democrats pass a plan (which will be less than progressives want and more than what the Blue Dogs want).
The good news is that my impression is that the Republican tactic of stalling until after the summer recess was a mistake on their part. This tactic is based in part on Gresham's Law of Information: bad information crowds out good information. I need to divert into academic matters to explain why Republicans chose the tactic and why it is going to backfire.
In political science, scholars like Samuel Popkin have argued that people cope with too much information and too little time or interest to pay close attention through the use of "cues," like whether seemingly minor behaviors of presidential candidates can tell people a lot about them (whether they eat ethnic food properly, can hit bowling pins with a ball, whether they are willing to do shots with the guys in a bar, or whether they wear a crisp white dress shirt on the stage of a country music festival).
In addition, decision making theory speaks to the issue as well. Most political consultants and practitioner tend to assume Herbert Simon's theories of decision making. Simon argued that truly rational decision making requires a three step process of gathering information on alternatives, analyzing all potential consequences of actions, and being able to make clear and systematic comparisons. Simon argued that this is not possible. Instead people and organizations tend to make incremental decisions that are "good enough."
So, how do these theories relate to Republican tactics on health care? Okay...the first assumption they are making is that people will latch on to the frames they create through the sophisticated use of language. Frank Luntz, a political scientist by training, is their main guru on using language (he claims a role in the Contract for America and in redefining inheritance taxes as death taxes). So, you hear the terms "run," "takeover," and other frightening words connected to "government." You also hear comparisons of the Obama public option to the Postal Service and the DMV (two decentralized entities that everyone hates, even though they do a pretty good job of dealing with the mess of interacting with everyone in our country). These are attempts to frame the issue in a way to give people who are minimally interested and attentive a quick reference that will lead to position taking that helps the Republicans.
The second assumption is based on information overload. If we throw garbage into the discussion and repeat it over and over, that information will crowd out thoughtful, rational information that may actually inform people. This messy, loud and confusing screaming match will create an information overload, leading to people deciding to maintain the status quo. It will also turn people off to politics, since most of us want harmony, not conflict.
So, why are the Republicans wrong? First, Popkin's theory of "good enough" information only works when everyone is hearing the same message. If people listen to different messages they get different cues. The result is that counter-framing is likely to provide for a competition in the minds of those who use shortcuts. What we are witnessing right now is the Democratic counter-framing response, and the congressional break is giving them time to make it work.
The second reason the break is a mistake for Republicans is that I personally do not think that Gresham's Law of Information works quite the same way as in the past. The theory is based upon a natural flow if information from interested parties. What we see now is a synthetic flow of information that is not organic, and so it messes up the natural process of perception that leads to bad information crowding out good. I personally think that the opposite is beginning to happen.
So, I think that had Obama stuck to his original deadline, he would have lost. Now, his chances are better. I know this is counter intuitive, but I am confident that the better information will sway the swayables, increase the polling numbers a bit, and help the Democrats pass a plan (which will be less than progressives want and more than what the Blue Dogs want).
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The Need to Change Our Educational Paradigm
Not about politics, per se, but interesting nonetheless. Ken Robinson at TED, discussing how we need to reform the way we view education. I generally agree.
Astroturf, Crazies and Mainstream Republicans
Steven Benen at the Washington Monthly makes a good point about the problems with sitting back and letting the corporate Republican community use astroturf politics to destroy health care reform. The point is that if left unchecked, mainstream Republicans have nowhere else to go but the extreme and inaccurate positions being spewed out by the likes of Betsy McCaughey (who effectively lied about the Clinton plan in 1994, repeating the lies so many times that it became assumed that she was possibly correct).
A case in point. A relative of mine (to be unnamed) asked me about the current proposals and how they might impact people who buy their own coverage. I sent an analysis done by Business Week that described the current plans in the House and Senate. The response? This relative assumed that (a) the ceiling for premiums was the percent of income we will all pay (11%), (b) that everyone would have to buy the most expensive plans, and (c) their family would be paying higher taxes. All of these are wrong, and could have been corrected if this person read carefully. But the point is that in the days of Twitter, people do not read details. therefore, they make assumptions based upon the information out there in the general media environment. So, lies do not get dismissed; instead, they reinforce the fuzzy belief systems of inattentives.
The moral of this story: there does need to be some response to the crazies..
A case in point. A relative of mine (to be unnamed) asked me about the current proposals and how they might impact people who buy their own coverage. I sent an analysis done by Business Week that described the current plans in the House and Senate. The response? This relative assumed that (a) the ceiling for premiums was the percent of income we will all pay (11%), (b) that everyone would have to buy the most expensive plans, and (c) their family would be paying higher taxes. All of these are wrong, and could have been corrected if this person read carefully. But the point is that in the days of Twitter, people do not read details. therefore, they make assumptions based upon the information out there in the general media environment. So, lies do not get dismissed; instead, they reinforce the fuzzy belief systems of inattentives.
The moral of this story: there does need to be some response to the crazies..
On Obama Losing Control in the Health Care Debate.
A common criticism of President Obama lately has been that he let Congress take the lead in crafting the details of health care reform. This is assumed to be a bad thing. It is not.
First, we need to keep in mind that Obama grew up during the era that many academics call "The Imperial Presidency." Those of us who were children when LBJ was in office and teens when Nixon resigned tend to have an instinctual reluctance to trust centralized authority.
Second, as a President with legislative experience, Obama has respect for the legislative process of bargaining and compromise. This is reinforced by his organizational ideology, one that emphasizes collaboration, even with opposing sides (refer to the work of John Kretzmann and Jon McNight on post-Alinsky organizing that emphasizes "asset-based" community development).
Third, as a constitutional scholar, Obama does appear to respect the original design of our Constitution, which is premised on the belief that equilibrium is achieved in the Newtonian laws of political physics: power and authority is shared by competing political institutions and forces.
This guy is a throwback to the modern era of presidents, and so he wants the legislature to be the arena where he works. The White House is indeed working to influence health care, but in an inside way consistent with the approach of presidents in the FDR-Johnson era. This is a good thing, not a bad one.
One last connection: taking this approach is tapping into the idea that the more minds and interests that go into a decision, the better the result, Read James Surowicki's The Wisdom of Crowds if you want a clearer understanding of how collective decisions are almost always more successful than ones made by individuals or small groups of experts...
First, we need to keep in mind that Obama grew up during the era that many academics call "The Imperial Presidency." Those of us who were children when LBJ was in office and teens when Nixon resigned tend to have an instinctual reluctance to trust centralized authority.
Second, as a President with legislative experience, Obama has respect for the legislative process of bargaining and compromise. This is reinforced by his organizational ideology, one that emphasizes collaboration, even with opposing sides (refer to the work of John Kretzmann and Jon McNight on post-Alinsky organizing that emphasizes "asset-based" community development).
Third, as a constitutional scholar, Obama does appear to respect the original design of our Constitution, which is premised on the belief that equilibrium is achieved in the Newtonian laws of political physics: power and authority is shared by competing political institutions and forces.
This guy is a throwback to the modern era of presidents, and so he wants the legislature to be the arena where he works. The White House is indeed working to influence health care, but in an inside way consistent with the approach of presidents in the FDR-Johnson era. This is a good thing, not a bad one.
One last connection: taking this approach is tapping into the idea that the more minds and interests that go into a decision, the better the result, Read James Surowicki's The Wisdom of Crowds if you want a clearer understanding of how collective decisions are almost always more successful than ones made by individuals or small groups of experts...
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Keep the Birthers Going
The oddity of the fringe movement that insists that President Obama was not born in the United States is a guarantee that Obama's popularity will remain in the 50s or higher through the rest of the debate on health care. Why? Because people who are truly in the middle have no desire to be associated with the craizes. So, keep them going if you support Obama.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Since nobody reads this blog, I can post these thoughts without fear...
Okay, I do not wish to dwell on the "he said-he said" dynamic of the Gates arrest and whether President Obama should or should not have applied value judgments to actions taken at the Gates home, but the debate and, specifically, the comments made by both Professor Gates and Sargent Crowley, fall under the general theme of this blog about being "Grownups." Here goes...
First, I agree that this is less a matter of race and the insecurity of law enforcement officers and more a matter of two men misbehaving and letting their testosterone (or their desire for a testosterone rush) get control of their judgment. Gates flew off the handle and Crowley let his defensiveness get the best of him. Both reactions seem to be understandable if not appropriate.
Second, I am deeply troubled with the notion that a person cannot rant in their own home without the threat of arrest. So long as it is fairly clear that it is a temper tantrum that does not present any kind of physical threat, such rants should not provide sufficient reason to arrest, no matter how insulting they may be.
Third, given Crowley's description of the incident where he noted that he sought to get Gates out onto his porch (which is afforded lesser constitutional protection of privacy), I see this as behavior aimed at manipulating circumstances to make an arrest "legal." This is, in my view, an indicator of premeditation on the part of Crowley, and will not serve him well as we eventually hear more about the details.
Fourth, Gates' explosive reaction should be a lesson to us all We should try to control our urges to act out in ways that result in making ourselves vulnerable to others having control over the meaning of our outbursts (in other words, we should control our temper). However, this is easily stated by me, a white guy who has never been stopped, followed, searched, harassed, or suspected by law enforcement officials. Gates clearly has deeply scarred experiences with authority (especially law enforcement officers), something that every black male I have known also shares. The closest thing I have experienced this myself is when an African colleague of mine was in the passenger seat of my car when I drove into the gates of my campus. The gate had been open, but the security guard--someone very familiar with me and my car--put the gate down for a few seconds, until he noticed the mistake.
Finally--and this is the statement that I will be criticized for if anyone besides my sister is reading--I am very distressed with the assumption that law officers should have a presumption of controlling interactions with citizens. They are public servants, not paramilitary officials. They are there to serve us, not to control us. In every case where there is not imminent threat of physical harm, police should defer to citizens' rights to express themselves. And, when they are in the home of a person, they must assume that they are guests, with law enforcement power only when there is a clear public safety threat.
It is my view that the real error was made after police were convinced that the call was a false alarm. They should have left, and apologized to Gates, while also noting that they were responding to a 911 call.
First, I agree that this is less a matter of race and the insecurity of law enforcement officers and more a matter of two men misbehaving and letting their testosterone (or their desire for a testosterone rush) get control of their judgment. Gates flew off the handle and Crowley let his defensiveness get the best of him. Both reactions seem to be understandable if not appropriate.
Second, I am deeply troubled with the notion that a person cannot rant in their own home without the threat of arrest. So long as it is fairly clear that it is a temper tantrum that does not present any kind of physical threat, such rants should not provide sufficient reason to arrest, no matter how insulting they may be.
Third, given Crowley's description of the incident where he noted that he sought to get Gates out onto his porch (which is afforded lesser constitutional protection of privacy), I see this as behavior aimed at manipulating circumstances to make an arrest "legal." This is, in my view, an indicator of premeditation on the part of Crowley, and will not serve him well as we eventually hear more about the details.
Fourth, Gates' explosive reaction should be a lesson to us all We should try to control our urges to act out in ways that result in making ourselves vulnerable to others having control over the meaning of our outbursts (in other words, we should control our temper). However, this is easily stated by me, a white guy who has never been stopped, followed, searched, harassed, or suspected by law enforcement officials. Gates clearly has deeply scarred experiences with authority (especially law enforcement officers), something that every black male I have known also shares. The closest thing I have experienced this myself is when an African colleague of mine was in the passenger seat of my car when I drove into the gates of my campus. The gate had been open, but the security guard--someone very familiar with me and my car--put the gate down for a few seconds, until he noticed the mistake.
Finally--and this is the statement that I will be criticized for if anyone besides my sister is reading--I am very distressed with the assumption that law officers should have a presumption of controlling interactions with citizens. They are public servants, not paramilitary officials. They are there to serve us, not to control us. In every case where there is not imminent threat of physical harm, police should defer to citizens' rights to express themselves. And, when they are in the home of a person, they must assume that they are guests, with law enforcement power only when there is a clear public safety threat.
It is my view that the real error was made after police were convinced that the call was a false alarm. They should have left, and apologized to Gates, while also noting that they were responding to a 911 call.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Obama's "Sinking" Numbers
To follow up on the last posting, I wish to contextualize the findings in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll that shows support for President Obama's policy initiatives "slipping" to below 50%.
Reading the article and looking at the figure comparing the level of support for Obama versus the level of support for the Republican Party on these issues, it is clear that what we see is not a function of declining support as much as the effect of the partisan polarization that has seeped down through elites to the general public. There is a rising consensus among political scientists that party polarization, which has occurred in Congress since the 1970s, has crept (probably through an increasingly partisan media) down into the broader polity. By the middle of the presidency of George W. Bush, this polarization solidified, leaving a public that is as Manichean in their political views as political elites have been since the mid-1990s. So, the result is that a President will always have at least a third of the public strongly opposed to any initiative.
By the way, I believe this polarization and political manicheanism is very bad for us and a harbinger of trouble in the future.
Reading the article and looking at the figure comparing the level of support for Obama versus the level of support for the Republican Party on these issues, it is clear that what we see is not a function of declining support as much as the effect of the partisan polarization that has seeped down through elites to the general public. There is a rising consensus among political scientists that party polarization, which has occurred in Congress since the 1970s, has crept (probably through an increasingly partisan media) down into the broader polity. By the middle of the presidency of George W. Bush, this polarization solidified, leaving a public that is as Manichean in their political views as political elites have been since the mid-1990s. So, the result is that a President will always have at least a third of the public strongly opposed to any initiative.
By the way, I believe this polarization and political manicheanism is very bad for us and a harbinger of trouble in the future.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Honeymoons, Presidents, and Policy
I was flipping channels yesterday and saw someone on cable waxing about the meaning of the latest polling showing that President Obama's approval rating had slipped below 60% for the first time. Of course, with the usual lack of insight, the person (I do not remember the channel or the person, since I have little time to waste on uninformed talking heads) wondered why this might have happened and whether this is the beginning of the end of the Obama presidency.
I have several things to comment on regarding this issue. First, President Obama's approval ratings do not seem to have varied much at all, hovering around 60% and, in some polls, dipping to the upper 50s several times since January. A single data point of a CBS poll done right before the Sotomayor hearings and during presidential travel abroad, does not a trend make.
Second, comparing the trends we have seen thus far to recent presidents (with data courtesy of the Roper Center for Public Opinion at the University of Connecticut, the first clear decline in support has generally occurred long before July of the first year. George W. Bush saw a dip by May of 2001, Bill Clinton say ratings in the low 50s by February, and George H.W. Bush was in the mid 50s by May. So, in comparison to recent presidents, the "honeymoon" for Obama is longer than we might expect.
Third, I want to remind everyone that the definitive research on presidents and public opinion, done by Paul Brace and the late Barbara Hinckley, finds that when it comes to public support, presidents have two basic choices: they either retain their popularity at the cost of promoting their policy agenda, or they push their agenda, with the expected decrease in the level of public approval.
It seems to me that grown-up (or, to use the political science label, modern) presidents choose the latter approach, while postmodern presidents choose the former...
I have several things to comment on regarding this issue. First, President Obama's approval ratings do not seem to have varied much at all, hovering around 60% and, in some polls, dipping to the upper 50s several times since January. A single data point of a CBS poll done right before the Sotomayor hearings and during presidential travel abroad, does not a trend make.
Second, comparing the trends we have seen thus far to recent presidents (with data courtesy of the Roper Center for Public Opinion at the University of Connecticut, the first clear decline in support has generally occurred long before July of the first year. George W. Bush saw a dip by May of 2001, Bill Clinton say ratings in the low 50s by February, and George H.W. Bush was in the mid 50s by May. So, in comparison to recent presidents, the "honeymoon" for Obama is longer than we might expect.
Third, I want to remind everyone that the definitive research on presidents and public opinion, done by Paul Brace and the late Barbara Hinckley, finds that when it comes to public support, presidents have two basic choices: they either retain their popularity at the cost of promoting their policy agenda, or they push their agenda, with the expected decrease in the level of public approval.
It seems to me that grown-up (or, to use the political science label, modern) presidents choose the latter approach, while postmodern presidents choose the former...
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Taking Advantage of Hypocracy
In this article we can see a way to remind President Obama of the ever-vigilant position into which--as do all presidents do--he has fallen: the notion that presidents must take expansive power positions on executive actions. Although I am not afraid of President Obama's use of this expansive view of executive power, I do think that the other branches must keep him honest, lest he fall into the same trap as recent well (and not-so-well) intentioned presidents.
Because running our government is so hard to do alone and because it is even harder to do in conjunction with Congress, presidents who are itching to get control over the torrent of issues before them have a constant need to find quick ways to do it. And so, like President Obama on detention issues, they tend to find the quickest, easiest, and most effective methods within the area of executive powers. This is also the most dangerous trap for them. So, even though these Bush-appointed judges are born-again Madisonians, at least they serve to remind the Obama Administration that they should try to resist this overwhelming temptation to take democratic shortcuts.
Because running our government is so hard to do alone and because it is even harder to do in conjunction with Congress, presidents who are itching to get control over the torrent of issues before them have a constant need to find quick ways to do it. And so, like President Obama on detention issues, they tend to find the quickest, easiest, and most effective methods within the area of executive powers. This is also the most dangerous trap for them. So, even though these Bush-appointed judges are born-again Madisonians, at least they serve to remind the Obama Administration that they should try to resist this overwhelming temptation to take democratic shortcuts.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Okay, Let's Learn From Our Past Mistakes
Although I am as tempted as anyone to focus my time and energy on the recent sex scandals of Republicans, let me remind you all that as we bow to the temptation to obsess over Governor Sanford, the language coming out of North Korea is genuinely frightening. We need to be paying attention to what is important, not what is, in the words of Joan Didion, political pornography.
Fifteen years ago I taught a course in political psychology and had students profile a world leader. One of my best students did Kim Jong-Il, the son of the founder of the PRK, Kim Il-Sung (who, by the way, died fifteen years ago, but serves as "Eternal President"). Even in 1995, there were clear indications that Kim Il-Jong was insane, possibly from the long-term effects of syphilis. His actions defy rationality when using common sense standards. North Korea's threat to bring a "shower" of nuclear weapons in a military confrontation is--far and away--a more important news story than anything Mark Sanford could do, say or write.
Now is the time for all of us to engage in "grown-up politics" and ignore the trivial to focus on the dire. Fortunately, I do think that most of the people in Washington who do the important work (and, since the media have stopped covering those who work for those who entertain, this work goes unnoticed) are not neglecting the important tasks, but there is a danger that politicians will be forced to divert their time to meaningless things, to the detriment of the nation.
If we wish to learn from history, we need only look to the mess in the former Yugoslavia in the late 1990s, when Bob Dole visited the White House after returning from a trip to negotiate a peace and Clinton spent the whole visit asking Dole about his impending Senate trial for lying about his sexual misconduct. One could make the argument that thousands of people (yes, non-Americans count as people) died because Clinton was distracted from the crisis.
Fifteen years ago I taught a course in political psychology and had students profile a world leader. One of my best students did Kim Jong-Il, the son of the founder of the PRK, Kim Il-Sung (who, by the way, died fifteen years ago, but serves as "Eternal President"). Even in 1995, there were clear indications that Kim Il-Jong was insane, possibly from the long-term effects of syphilis. His actions defy rationality when using common sense standards. North Korea's threat to bring a "shower" of nuclear weapons in a military confrontation is--far and away--a more important news story than anything Mark Sanford could do, say or write.
Now is the time for all of us to engage in "grown-up politics" and ignore the trivial to focus on the dire. Fortunately, I do think that most of the people in Washington who do the important work (and, since the media have stopped covering those who work for those who entertain, this work goes unnoticed) are not neglecting the important tasks, but there is a danger that politicians will be forced to divert their time to meaningless things, to the detriment of the nation.
If we wish to learn from history, we need only look to the mess in the former Yugoslavia in the late 1990s, when Bob Dole visited the White House after returning from a trip to negotiate a peace and Clinton spent the whole visit asking Dole about his impending Senate trial for lying about his sexual misconduct. One could make the argument that thousands of people (yes, non-Americans count as people) died because Clinton was distracted from the crisis.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Check out this quote from Maureen Dowd in her column in the New York Times today.
"What a relief to have an urbane, cultivated, curious president who’s out and about, engaged in the world. Not dangerously detached, as W. was, or darkly stewing like Cheney. Not hanging with the Rat Pack like J.F.K. or getting bored and up to mischief like Bill Clinton."
I could not have said it better!
"What a relief to have an urbane, cultivated, curious president who’s out and about, engaged in the world. Not dangerously detached, as W. was, or darkly stewing like Cheney. Not hanging with the Rat Pack like J.F.K. or getting bored and up to mischief like Bill Clinton."
I could not have said it better!
Thursday, May 14, 2009
More Examples of Obama Being the Grown-up
More examples of why Obama is the grownup arose in the past day. First, his decision to not reveal photos of torture. In doing so, the President has reached across the partisan divide to give to Republican and military conservatives something they need: cover from the real abuses that took place under the Bush Administration. And, Obama did this, knowing that progressives would put this one in the bank of resentment that is already growing among the most progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
Second, Obama's speech as Arizona State was masterful. He figuratively bowed to ASU's board, while using the perceived slight to encourage graduates to think about something beyond themselves, and to think about a life-long body of work. Very smart, very grown-up...
Second, Obama's speech as Arizona State was masterful. He figuratively bowed to ASU's board, while using the perceived slight to encourage graduates to think about something beyond themselves, and to think about a life-long body of work. Very smart, very grown-up...
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Obama, the "Grown-Up President"
"We want this to be a political mud pit for Obama...Our mission is to tar him with the blood of the babies so he can never shake it between now and 2012." - Randall Terry, on his work in trying to disrupt the Obama speech at Notre Dame. See the full discussion here, at the Washington Post "On Religion" section.
When will conservatives understand that the days of the postmodern approach to politics, which emphasizes polarization and demonizing opponents rather than respectful disagreement, are behind us? When President Obama goes to South Bend on Sunday (and I when I will be sitting with a Thich Nhat Hanh book reading it to try and stay awake during Providence College's uninspiring and inelegant ceremony), expect him to show everyone how political divides can speak with dignity and respect. That is more than what conservatives, who do not seem to get the major paradign shift we have seen in politics, are able to comprehend.
Respect for others and the will to express oneself with integrity; these are two hallmarks of the Grown-up in the White House. And, it is a refreshing change...
When will conservatives understand that the days of the postmodern approach to politics, which emphasizes polarization and demonizing opponents rather than respectful disagreement, are behind us? When President Obama goes to South Bend on Sunday (and I when I will be sitting with a Thich Nhat Hanh book reading it to try and stay awake during Providence College's uninspiring and inelegant ceremony), expect him to show everyone how political divides can speak with dignity and respect. That is more than what conservatives, who do not seem to get the major paradign shift we have seen in politics, are able to comprehend.
Respect for others and the will to express oneself with integrity; these are two hallmarks of the Grown-up in the White House. And, it is a refreshing change...
Monday, May 11, 2009
A Bit More on the Nixon-Obama Comparison
This one is going to be disappointing to anyone who is not a presidential studies geek, but I get this impression of the similarity from the concerns expressed by Senator Robert Byrd about his concern that Obama is using administrative mechanisms to subvert the constitutional process of confirmations. Specifically, his selection of White House staffers to deal with a variety of serious issues means that he has decided to keep control over policy firmly in the White House and is giving major policy responsibilities to people who are loyal only to the president. Nixon did this repeatedly. This is something that Clinton did as well, and something for which Byrd was critical back in the 90s.
The point here is that in almost every way Obama is a throwback to the modern era for presidents, one where substance of policy was central to decision making, and political considerations are filtered through the policy goals of the President. this is good. But it seems like even Obama uses tools of the postmodern presidency to scoot around the constitutional system of separated institutions sharing power. The tendency to build on the informal powers of his predecessors to speed up the deliberative and implementation processes means that at least in one respect, Obama is subject to the forces of inevitability that determine the parameters and approaches of all presidents.
The point here is that in almost every way Obama is a throwback to the modern era for presidents, one where substance of policy was central to decision making, and political considerations are filtered through the policy goals of the President. this is good. But it seems like even Obama uses tools of the postmodern presidency to scoot around the constitutional system of separated institutions sharing power. The tendency to build on the informal powers of his predecessors to speed up the deliberative and implementation processes means that at least in one respect, Obama is subject to the forces of inevitability that determine the parameters and approaches of all presidents.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Well, the Obama press conference the other night was interesting, not because he was engaging, but precisely because Obama's responses were long, detailed, and boring. He continues to remind us that a President should be detailed rather than simplle, and be concerned with educating instead of entertaining...this is really a return to a combination of Kennedy and Eisenhower...
Friday, April 24, 2009
Similarities Between President Obama and Past Presidents
You would be surprised to discover that President Obama's style is a little similar to Richard Nixon! Ask me how...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)