Thursday, February 25, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Marijuana Raids
I'm a little late on this, but, it seems clear that we have to reduce Obama's list of accomplishments down from one to zero.
Monday, February 22, 2010
A Fit of Rationality?
The heavy booing notwithstanding, Ron Paul's popularity with "conservatives" could be a harbinger of doom for Democrats.
Paul himself is not a great politician, and almost surely won't be the Republican nominee in 2012, let alone have any chance of beating the President in a general election, but if more Republicans started campaigning on limited government, and Constitutional principles (without sounding like absurd hypocrites) and kept away from the whole pro-torture and anti-gay line of attack, they would doubtless be swept into power in Congress, and probably maintain healthy majorities for years to come.
This would happen for two reasons: 1) Republicans love to play the fear/terrorism card to their base. It works... with the BASE. But, to a good chunk of everyone else, they sound a little angry, reactionary and even crazy. Similarly, Democrats play the "I'm not crazy" card to their base. This is where the Democratic politician, usually some lame, unprincipled and relatively unremarkable clown plays up the fact that she stands for some basic policies that sounds eminently reasonable to your average voter: tough regulations on Wall Street, Healthcare for kids, investing in education, bringing our foreign wars to a responsible end etc. This goes over pretty well, especially compared to a Republican cut from the Sarah Palin mold: railing on about gays getting married, or salivating at the thought of waterboarding someone of Arab descent. Democrats have to win on ideas, and judgment because they can't win on bravado and soundbites, and I like to believe that independents are eventually swayed by the appearance of rationality.
But what if Republicans suddenly started making sense without using fear? What if they could put something substantial on the sound judgment scale? What if they sounded credible while doing it? Just imagine the debate:
I'm guessing, with this approach, Repubs would kill in elections where voters were already leaning away from Democrats and recognizing the inherent dysfunctionality of the federal government.
2) Small government and Constitutional principles, put to work would likely also create good government. Which, if attributed to Republicans' majorities in Congress, would allow them to maintain power. In other words, if a majority (or at least a substantial portion) of politicians in DC were Ron Paul disciples, Americans would see their government become more restrained, less corrupt, less fiscally absurd and therefore more effective. They would like this. They would vote for whom they thought was responsible for it.
But, alas, this love affair is complete and utter bullshit. Soon, conservatives will start saying "I love Ron Paul and all, but I disagree with him on [Drug policy; Foreign policy; Civil Liberty issue X; you name it]." Familiarity with Paul's actual views will breed some serious contempt amongst people who, almost intrinsically, hate civil liberties, love foreign wars, are ok with corporate welfare, and who only use "freedom" as a punchline when talking about lowering taxes.
In the end, Paul is nothing if not principled, and converting (Republican) politicians to a set of actual principles, will be a lot like getting your 70 year-old uncle to stop smoking cigarettes.
Paul himself is not a great politician, and almost surely won't be the Republican nominee in 2012, let alone have any chance of beating the President in a general election, but if more Republicans started campaigning on limited government, and Constitutional principles (without sounding like absurd hypocrites) and kept away from the whole pro-torture and anti-gay line of attack, they would doubtless be swept into power in Congress, and probably maintain healthy majorities for years to come.
This would happen for two reasons: 1) Republicans love to play the fear/terrorism card to their base. It works... with the BASE. But, to a good chunk of everyone else, they sound a little angry, reactionary and even crazy. Similarly, Democrats play the "I'm not crazy" card to their base. This is where the Democratic politician, usually some lame, unprincipled and relatively unremarkable clown plays up the fact that she stands for some basic policies that sounds eminently reasonable to your average voter: tough regulations on Wall Street, Healthcare for kids, investing in education, bringing our foreign wars to a responsible end etc. This goes over pretty well, especially compared to a Republican cut from the Sarah Palin mold: railing on about gays getting married, or salivating at the thought of waterboarding someone of Arab descent. Democrats have to win on ideas, and judgment because they can't win on bravado and soundbites, and I like to believe that independents are eventually swayed by the appearance of rationality.
But what if Republicans suddenly started making sense without using fear? What if they could put something substantial on the sound judgment scale? What if they sounded credible while doing it? Just imagine the debate:
Democrat: I will plan to invest in education to help the children, because children are great, and we should help them all get super smart and be awesome!
Republican: Well, I have always valued education as a parent, but I think education is best served by giving power to parents, teachers and communities and taking it away from the federal government. Besides, the Department of Education is wasteful and inefficient, and it's frankly not producing results. Let's send the money back to the taxpayers so they can invest it in their children's education the best way they see fit
I'm guessing, with this approach, Repubs would kill in elections where voters were already leaning away from Democrats and recognizing the inherent dysfunctionality of the federal government.
2) Small government and Constitutional principles, put to work would likely also create good government. Which, if attributed to Republicans' majorities in Congress, would allow them to maintain power. In other words, if a majority (or at least a substantial portion) of politicians in DC were Ron Paul disciples, Americans would see their government become more restrained, less corrupt, less fiscally absurd and therefore more effective. They would like this. They would vote for whom they thought was responsible for it.
But, alas, this love affair is complete and utter bullshit. Soon, conservatives will start saying "I love Ron Paul and all, but I disagree with him on [Drug policy; Foreign policy; Civil Liberty issue X; you name it]." Familiarity with Paul's actual views will breed some serious contempt amongst people who, almost intrinsically, hate civil liberties, love foreign wars, are ok with corporate welfare, and who only use "freedom" as a punchline when talking about lowering taxes.
In the end, Paul is nothing if not principled, and converting (Republican) politicians to a set of actual principles, will be a lot like getting your 70 year-old uncle to stop smoking cigarettes.
Friday, February 19, 2010
"Pizza-Butt"
Andrew Sullivan indirectly makes a very good point here about the pernicious and unintended effects of government regulation an their being unavoidably intertwined with corporate preferences.
Surely few people would object to federal regulations about car safety, and many think that federal regulations could be the solution to environmental problems, by raising emissions standards. But, here we see that government regulations - as insisted on by powerful corporations - are actually obstructing serious progress in the area of more efficient, and enviro-friendly transportation. Unintended consequences are everywhere, and corporations and government are, once again, predictable bed-fellows.
Surely few people would object to federal regulations about car safety, and many think that federal regulations could be the solution to environmental problems, by raising emissions standards. But, here we see that government regulations - as insisted on by powerful corporations - are actually obstructing serious progress in the area of more efficient, and enviro-friendly transportation. Unintended consequences are everywhere, and corporations and government are, once again, predictable bed-fellows.
Minus 26
This is pretty dead-on, generally speaking. In sum, Obama's first year scores a minus 26 in terms of restoring the rule of law, according to the ACLU. They reached that score after adding up all the decisions Obama has made and whether those were positive (Plus 1, or Plus .5) or negative (Minus 1, or Minus .5) with respect to that issue, and then added up the total. That means Obama made at least 26 more lawless, non-transparent, or torture-protecting decisions than not.
This number is especially noteworthy considering how oeven-handed and, really, forgiving the ACLU's analysis is. In reading the report I found myself flabbergasted that they only gave out Minus .5s for some decisions, and actually gave pluses for very insignificant things. For example, they gave Plus 1 for things entitled "Guantanamo" and "Future Detainee Policy." Of course nothing has really changed on these fronts, but they gave him credit for setting (missed) goals and setting up commissions or whatever to examine these issues. They also gave out a Plus .5 for the actions entitled "Administration brings charges against ‘enemy combatant’; refuses to give up the power to hold people indefinitely." I'm not sure what in there is supposed to be a positive thing, especially since Obama has now claimed the power of indefinite detention, but here we see that this scorecard is likely just a direct comparison to the Bush Administration. So I guess a lack of blatant disregard for the law altogether gets you a pat on the head.
Which brings us full circle to the idea of just how fucking awful a job you have to do to get a score of Minus 26, when you are being compared to 8 years of Fuck-up Magee, the most lawless President in American History. Did I mention how much I agree with this report?
This number is especially noteworthy considering how oeven-handed and, really, forgiving the ACLU's analysis is. In reading the report I found myself flabbergasted that they only gave out Minus .5s for some decisions, and actually gave pluses for very insignificant things. For example, they gave Plus 1 for things entitled "Guantanamo" and "Future Detainee Policy." Of course nothing has really changed on these fronts, but they gave him credit for setting (missed) goals and setting up commissions or whatever to examine these issues. They also gave out a Plus .5 for the actions entitled "Administration brings charges against ‘enemy combatant’; refuses to give up the power to hold people indefinitely." I'm not sure what in there is supposed to be a positive thing, especially since Obama has now claimed the power of indefinite detention, but here we see that this scorecard is likely just a direct comparison to the Bush Administration. So I guess a lack of blatant disregard for the law altogether gets you a pat on the head.
Which brings us full circle to the idea of just how fucking awful a job you have to do to get a score of Minus 26, when you are being compared to 8 years of Fuck-up Magee, the most lawless President in American History. Did I mention how much I agree with this report?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)