Obama’s transition team is working very quickly to prepare for inauguration day. The peaceful transition of leadership is one of democracy's most amazing events, and it is critical that the new administration be ready to step up. Obama and his advisers are doing a lot to prove that they will be “ready on day one,” to use the familiar cliché.
CNN reports that Obama is announcing his picks earlier than traditional for the President-elect. The comments coming from the Obama camp indicate that this is an intentional move to reassure the American people that Obama is in control. Economic appointments have been particularly swift, a wise choice considering that the economic crisis cannot be put on hold until the swearing ceremony.
All these appointments (some official, most leaked) have given the press a bevy of material to talk about. After all, these appointees will be doing much of the day-to-day work of government, and their success or failure (see “Brownie” for details) will have a great impact on the nation. The commentary varies widely; depending on who you listen to, the appointees are too liberal, too conservative, too establishment, or just right. From my limited exploration, the buzz seems generally positive.
Three appointments in particular have been greatly discussed, and I’d like to provide my own take on them. So let’s take a look at Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary Clinton, and Robert Gates.
One of Obama’s first appointments was Rahm Emmanuel as White House Chief of Staff. Almost immediately Obama’s detractors interpreted this as a sign that his post-partisan rhetoric was a sham. Emmanuel has a reputation for strong-arm legislative tactics, and even gained the nickname Rahm-bo. At first the right-wing criticism seems to make sense here; if you’re trying to usher in an era of bipartisan cooperation, why make your right hand man someone that specializes in ramming legislation down the opposition’s throat? I don’t have a great answer to that question myself, but just because Emmanuel has been rough in the past does not mean that will be the starting point for the Obama administration. Rather, I bet he will be the pit bull that gets unleashed only when necessary. If there’s something that Obama really thinks is important, and cooperation hasn’t worked, then hopefully Emmanuel can provide a solution. While Emmanuel’s post is certainly an important one, there’s no reason to believe his old style politics will define Obama’s approach. In fact, if you’re trying to change the game, you may need someone that is an expert at winning the old version. *Aside (mostly irrelevant, but interesting): for TV fans, there are rumors that Josh Lyman from The West Wing was based on Emmanuel and Ari Gold from Entourage was based on his brother.
Though it has not been publicly announced, reliable sources indicate that Hillary Clinton has accepted an offer to be Secretary of State. Again, there is a reasonable criticism here. After Obama questioned how being First Lady gives you foreign policy experience, and Clinton attacked Obama for his willingness to negotiate with American enemies, they’re going to work together? However, I think the move is again a smart one. Campaign rhetoric aside, Clinton is very smart and very capable. After all the primary nastiness, putting her in such a prominent position sends a clear message to all the Clinton supporters: “we remember you, too.” But that’s mostly pragmatic and political, what about actually doing the job? I’ll admit that there are probably more qualified foreign policy experts, but Clinton has the personality and leadership experience to run a very tight ship over at State. That’s what is most important for the position, along with an ability to understand and advocate for the policy positions the whole foreign policy team comes up with.
Now here’s the really interesting one. Obama ran on a platform of “change,” so why is he keeping Secretary of Defense Robert Gates? Gates was appointed in 2006, replacing the much-maligned Donald Rumsfeld after the “thumpin” the Republicans received in the midterms. Since then he has run the DoD, obviously including the Iraq War and its part in the War on Terror. Given that Obama is planning to drastically change course on defense policy, his decision to keep Gates has drawn criticism. Like the Hillary appointment, this seems to be a part of his Lincoln-inspired “team of rivals” approach. The idea is to encourage dissent and debate within his circle of advisors, and thus avoid the ideological incest that characterized the Bush administration. I think this is a good plan. After all, one of the key assumptions of democracy is that discussion and debate help lead to the best policy. That’s a good philosophy to have internally as well, as it allows Obama to synthesize different viewpoints and come to a decision. Obviously, without cooperation, such an approach can disintegrate if everyone starts pulling in different directions. If everyone is willing to abide by the President’s final judgment, though, it could turn out great.
So, three interesting appointments – though they don’t seem to make a great deal of sense at first, I’m optimistic that they will be good choices. Feel free to disagree because I certainly don’t know as much as I should about these people. Sorry this turned out so long.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Iran, Game Theory, and You
For months, pundits from the left and from the right have emphasized the dangers of allowing the nation of Iran to advance its nuclear program. If Iran were to attain nuclear weapons, many argue, it could strike neighboring states like Israel or sell them to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, which could detonate them on civilian populations. However, I would like to posit that allowing Iran to attain nuclear weapons would not have cataclysmic or even Armageddon-esque consequences—but may in fact be positive for the region.
First, I would like to emphasize that I do not actually believe that Iran becoming a nuclear power—I know I wrote the last sentence—would probably be a positive development. To the contrary, I believe that the opposite is true and, all else being equal, I hope that Iran does not get the bomb. But all else is not equal. From the United States’ perspective, there is, potentially, a tremendous cost in preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. This cost is potentially threefold: economic, political, and military—though the three are highly related. The economic cost is clear; the United States has—along with its allies—posed sanctions on Iran for more than a year, prohibiting what is sure to be millions of dollars worth of transactions and trade between Iran and other nations like the United States. In addition, the United States stands to lose a sizable amount of political capital with an anti-Iranian policy. This is due to the fact that Iran is becoming increasingly close with international powers apart from the United States, but vital to U.S. interests, including China and Russia. China, the United States’ second largest trading partner, has an incredibly lucrative oil trade with Iran; the two powers recently signed a $70 billion oil deal. Russia, fresh out of the cold war, is unofficially led by a man—Vladimir Putin—who some say wishes to spoil Russo-U.S. relations by leading us back to it. Russia, though, is also growing increasingly close to Iran, with Putin visiting Tehran in 2007. This visit solidified a developing Russian and Iranian relationship, with Russia suspected of providing direct aid to the Iranian nuclear program. By stifling Iranian nuclear ambitions, the United States stands to lose the ability to negotiate with nations like China and Russia—a loss of political capital—on other key issues. Finally, some, including president-elect Obama, have kept the military option in regards to Iran on the table. This military option would likely have to involve full-scale invasion, as many believe—including David Kay, former U.S. inspector in Iraq—that targeted bombings would simply not work against Iran as they did for Israel against Iraq in 1981. Such an invasion would likely cost far more than the estimated $600 billion and the more than 4,000 U.S. lives that the United States has spent so far in Iraq: Iran is three times its size and has a much stronger military. Therefore, preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons by military means—as well as economic or political—is a costly endeavor.
The high cost associated with preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is higher than the cost associated with allowing it to develop these weapons. Basically, if Iran attains nuclear weapons, nuclear foreign policy boils down to a game, and can be explained by game theory; this game is the prisoner’s dilemma.
The prisoner’s dilemma is as such: two suspects who are thought to both have committed the same crime together are placed in different cells and cannot communicate. The police investigators do not have enough evidence to convict the suspects on the higher charges that they deserve to be convicted of, so they must elicit a confession from one or both of the prisoners. If one of the prisoners confesses while the other does not, the first prisoner receives no jail time while the second receives 5 years. If they both confess, they both receive three years. If neither confess, they only receive 1 year. The Nash equilibrium for this game—the equilibrium based on what it is rational for both players to do—is that both prisoners confess. However, the situation changes when, and this becomes more theoretical, the game must be played over and over again. Then, eventually, one player will inevitably decide to try not confessing, hoping the other player will soon, in turn, realize it is the best strategy for both players in the long run—they will collude.
This repeated game is the game played on the world’s stage by nuclear powers. In this world game, countries cannot be eliminated in one fell swoop—there are multiple rounds of the game; nuclear attack by one country almost certainly means nuclear retaliation by that same country or by another, leading to nuclear war. This is mutually assured destruction, irrational for all parties involved. So, to prevent this, both parties collude by not launching pre-emptive—or any—nuclear strikes on the other. In fact, this phenomenon has been observed historically, and even presently. Nuclear weapons were likely the major reason why the United States and the Soviet Union did not directly militarily engage each other—doing so would have meant certain annihilation. Mutually assured destruction is likely the primary reasons why Pakistan and India—two nuclear powers—have not had a major war since the development of both countries’ nuclear programs.
For Iran to attain nuclear weapons would add an element of supreme danger to the region that would likely make full scale war between—Iran and Israel, for example—impossible. Neither side would be willing to risk total annihilation by warring with the other. In addition, there is little danger that Iran would risk providing nuclear weapons to non-state terrorist groups like Hezbollah. With modern intelligence, such an action would soon be the open secret of the international community, all but guaranteeing retaliation on Iran. Iran, a rational international actor (yes, Ahmadinejad yaks with a fiery rhetoric, but this blather is just that: rhetoric), would not risk such an action.
It may seem a little farfetched to assume that the leaders of states like Iran would always act rationally—in their best interest—by not risking nuclear war with another nation. But I must invoke the anthropic principle: we’re still here, aren’t we? Look, for Iran to attain nuclear weapons should clearly not be a stated policy goal of the United States. However, the costs associated with preventing, as well as potential benefits of, a nuclear Iran, means that it might just be not that bad. Hey, when it comes to nuclear war, I’m an optimist.
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/25/iran.sanctions/index.html
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/31/content_387140.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/world/10nuke.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/01/world/main4493241.shtml
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
First, I would like to emphasize that I do not actually believe that Iran becoming a nuclear power—I know I wrote the last sentence—would probably be a positive development. To the contrary, I believe that the opposite is true and, all else being equal, I hope that Iran does not get the bomb. But all else is not equal. From the United States’ perspective, there is, potentially, a tremendous cost in preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. This cost is potentially threefold: economic, political, and military—though the three are highly related. The economic cost is clear; the United States has—along with its allies—posed sanctions on Iran for more than a year, prohibiting what is sure to be millions of dollars worth of transactions and trade between Iran and other nations like the United States. In addition, the United States stands to lose a sizable amount of political capital with an anti-Iranian policy. This is due to the fact that Iran is becoming increasingly close with international powers apart from the United States, but vital to U.S. interests, including China and Russia. China, the United States’ second largest trading partner, has an incredibly lucrative oil trade with Iran; the two powers recently signed a $70 billion oil deal. Russia, fresh out of the cold war, is unofficially led by a man—Vladimir Putin—who some say wishes to spoil Russo-U.S. relations by leading us back to it. Russia, though, is also growing increasingly close to Iran, with Putin visiting Tehran in 2007. This visit solidified a developing Russian and Iranian relationship, with Russia suspected of providing direct aid to the Iranian nuclear program. By stifling Iranian nuclear ambitions, the United States stands to lose the ability to negotiate with nations like China and Russia—a loss of political capital—on other key issues. Finally, some, including president-elect Obama, have kept the military option in regards to Iran on the table. This military option would likely have to involve full-scale invasion, as many believe—including David Kay, former U.S. inspector in Iraq—that targeted bombings would simply not work against Iran as they did for Israel against Iraq in 1981. Such an invasion would likely cost far more than the estimated $600 billion and the more than 4,000 U.S. lives that the United States has spent so far in Iraq: Iran is three times its size and has a much stronger military. Therefore, preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons by military means—as well as economic or political—is a costly endeavor.
The high cost associated with preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is higher than the cost associated with allowing it to develop these weapons. Basically, if Iran attains nuclear weapons, nuclear foreign policy boils down to a game, and can be explained by game theory; this game is the prisoner’s dilemma.
The prisoner’s dilemma is as such: two suspects who are thought to both have committed the same crime together are placed in different cells and cannot communicate. The police investigators do not have enough evidence to convict the suspects on the higher charges that they deserve to be convicted of, so they must elicit a confession from one or both of the prisoners. If one of the prisoners confesses while the other does not, the first prisoner receives no jail time while the second receives 5 years. If they both confess, they both receive three years. If neither confess, they only receive 1 year. The Nash equilibrium for this game—the equilibrium based on what it is rational for both players to do—is that both prisoners confess. However, the situation changes when, and this becomes more theoretical, the game must be played over and over again. Then, eventually, one player will inevitably decide to try not confessing, hoping the other player will soon, in turn, realize it is the best strategy for both players in the long run—they will collude.
This repeated game is the game played on the world’s stage by nuclear powers. In this world game, countries cannot be eliminated in one fell swoop—there are multiple rounds of the game; nuclear attack by one country almost certainly means nuclear retaliation by that same country or by another, leading to nuclear war. This is mutually assured destruction, irrational for all parties involved. So, to prevent this, both parties collude by not launching pre-emptive—or any—nuclear strikes on the other. In fact, this phenomenon has been observed historically, and even presently. Nuclear weapons were likely the major reason why the United States and the Soviet Union did not directly militarily engage each other—doing so would have meant certain annihilation. Mutually assured destruction is likely the primary reasons why Pakistan and India—two nuclear powers—have not had a major war since the development of both countries’ nuclear programs.
For Iran to attain nuclear weapons would add an element of supreme danger to the region that would likely make full scale war between—Iran and Israel, for example—impossible. Neither side would be willing to risk total annihilation by warring with the other. In addition, there is little danger that Iran would risk providing nuclear weapons to non-state terrorist groups like Hezbollah. With modern intelligence, such an action would soon be the open secret of the international community, all but guaranteeing retaliation on Iran. Iran, a rational international actor (yes, Ahmadinejad yaks with a fiery rhetoric, but this blather is just that: rhetoric), would not risk such an action.
It may seem a little farfetched to assume that the leaders of states like Iran would always act rationally—in their best interest—by not risking nuclear war with another nation. But I must invoke the anthropic principle: we’re still here, aren’t we? Look, for Iran to attain nuclear weapons should clearly not be a stated policy goal of the United States. However, the costs associated with preventing, as well as potential benefits of, a nuclear Iran, means that it might just be not that bad. Hey, when it comes to nuclear war, I’m an optimist.
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/25/iran.sanctions/index.html
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/31/content_387140.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/world/10nuke.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/01/world/main4493241.shtml
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Death to the death penalty
Those who support the death penalty often point to its retributive function, its finality and completeness, its strong deterring force. In light of humanity's most severe crimes - brutal counts of rape, homicide, and torture - the death penalty may seem to be the only tool society has to fully compensate for these immense injustices. However, in light of the immorality of the punishment itself, I argue that the practice should be abolished entirely.
It is intuitive to us what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes clear: punishment is "now acknowledged to be an inherently retributive practice." The entire institution of modern punishment is based off the idea that we are, by punishing, restoring some balance to the social order that is disturbed when a crime is committed. The "compensation" provided by capital punishment, however, does not actually provide the retribution society seeks; by taking a criminal's life, the government is not un-raping or un-killing a victim. Proponents of the death penalty may argue that the death penalty provides permanent separation between the perpetrator and society; others may say it takes away someone's life who doesn't deserve it. The first aim could be accomplished by sentencing someone to a life in prison, and the second aim, by claiming that some don't "deserve" life is to say that some people aren't human. Recall that every person has a core of individual rights, one of which is the right to life that cannot be violated, least of all by the government.
We must also consider the humanity of the process itself. As Linda Greenhouse of the NYT Online writes, 38 of 39 states with the death penalty use the lethal injection (Nebraska still uses the electric chair), which may not be as "safe" a procedure as one would expect. As Greenhouse writes, "Leading medical organizations have told their members not to participate, and lawyers for death-row inmates have produced evidence showing that in the absence of expert medical attention, there is a substantial risk of error in administering the combination of anesthesia and paralyzing drugs necessary to bring about a quick and painless death." Though I believe that taking another's life (even if the operant is the government) is inhumane in the first place, doing it in a matter that is painful (even if briefly) is not just.
It is intuitive to us what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes clear: punishment is "now acknowledged to be an inherently retributive practice." The entire institution of modern punishment is based off the idea that we are, by punishing, restoring some balance to the social order that is disturbed when a crime is committed. The "compensation" provided by capital punishment, however, does not actually provide the retribution society seeks; by taking a criminal's life, the government is not un-raping or un-killing a victim. Proponents of the death penalty may argue that the death penalty provides permanent separation between the perpetrator and society; others may say it takes away someone's life who doesn't deserve it. The first aim could be accomplished by sentencing someone to a life in prison, and the second aim, by claiming that some don't "deserve" life is to say that some people aren't human. Recall that every person has a core of individual rights, one of which is the right to life that cannot be violated, least of all by the government.
We must also consider the humanity of the process itself. As Linda Greenhouse of the NYT Online writes, 38 of 39 states with the death penalty use the lethal injection (Nebraska still uses the electric chair), which may not be as "safe" a procedure as one would expect. As Greenhouse writes, "Leading medical organizations have told their members not to participate, and lawyers for death-row inmates have produced evidence showing that in the absence of expert medical attention, there is a substantial risk of error in administering the combination of anesthesia and paralyzing drugs necessary to bring about a quick and painless death." Though I believe that taking another's life (even if the operant is the government) is inhumane in the first place, doing it in a matter that is painful (even if briefly) is not just.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Social Conservatism, Kekes, and 2008
I’m something of a Real Clear Politics junkie. You’ve probably heard of it. If not, I recommend you check it out (www.realclearpolitics.com). The site tilts conservative, but it brings together some of the most interesting political commentary out there.
Anyway, yesterday I was poking around RCP and found a story that was particularly interesting in light of our Kekes discussion, in which I had commented that social conservatism seemed to conflict with Kekes’s rejection of absolutism. Overall, “The Basic Beliefs” just seemed to suggest a more libertarian philosophy to me. "A Libertarian Defense of Social Conservatism" presents an interesting alternative view. I certainly don’t agree with everything Mr. Hoven says, but I think the argument has some merit.
The link between Kekesian pluralism and social conservatism seems to be federalism. Abortion is the obvious case to consider here. If conservatives attained their goal of overturning Roe v. Wade, we would not revert to an absolutist prevention of abortion, but a pluralist system that allowed states to decide. The federalist notion of leaving all but the most fundamental decisions to the states seems perfectly in line with Kekes’s assertion that “There may be some variations in the required conventions of a good society, but the variations cannot be [so great that they violate the minimum conditions of good lives.”
Obviously this is not a defense of far-right positions that would support national bans on gay marriage, abortion, pornography, or any other such perceived evils. Indeed, the absolutism of these provisions, coupled with their extreme interference in the autonomy of the citizenry make them even less conservative than the analogous liberal positions.
Perhaps the stronger argument that social conservatism conforms to Kekesian principles is the traditionalism argument. This quote from the article sums up the sentiment quite nicely:
Anyway, yesterday I was poking around RCP and found a story that was particularly interesting in light of our Kekes discussion, in which I had commented that social conservatism seemed to conflict with Kekes’s rejection of absolutism. Overall, “The Basic Beliefs” just seemed to suggest a more libertarian philosophy to me. "A Libertarian Defense of Social Conservatism" presents an interesting alternative view. I certainly don’t agree with everything Mr. Hoven says, but I think the argument has some merit.
The link between Kekesian pluralism and social conservatism seems to be federalism. Abortion is the obvious case to consider here. If conservatives attained their goal of overturning Roe v. Wade, we would not revert to an absolutist prevention of abortion, but a pluralist system that allowed states to decide. The federalist notion of leaving all but the most fundamental decisions to the states seems perfectly in line with Kekes’s assertion that “There may be some variations in the required conventions of a good society, but the variations cannot be [so great that they violate the minimum conditions of good lives.”
Obviously this is not a defense of far-right positions that would support national bans on gay marriage, abortion, pornography, or any other such perceived evils. Indeed, the absolutism of these provisions, coupled with their extreme interference in the autonomy of the citizenry make them even less conservative than the analogous liberal positions.
Perhaps the stronger argument that social conservatism conforms to Kekesian principles is the traditionalism argument. This quote from the article sums up the sentiment quite nicely:
Shouldn't we have some humility about changing the most fundamental institutions that got us to that point? Things like traditional marriage, the nuclear family, schools, private property, the free market and the Bill of Rights? That is not to say we don't change them at all. But let's be careful, incremental and be prepared to change the change.This sort of argument goes a long way towards explaining why McCain couldn’t compete this year. In an election that was framed in terms of “change,” the conservative temperament was a serious liability. It also helps explain why I define myself as a liberal; I believe that there are problems with the status quo, and we can find solutions through knowledge, reason, and debate. In other words, we should trust ourselves, and need not fear change. I guess that’s the sort of optimism Kekes isn’t comfortable with, but I sort of like it.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Lucky to Become President in This Period of Economic Turmoil
Almost two months remain before President-elect Obama takes office on January 20, and he is already acting fast not only to cement his soon-to-be administration, but also to complete his first task upon inauguration. The US is in a precarious economic situation, to say the least, and the world is looking at Obama to assume a leadership role in stabilizing our financial circumstance. One small mishap – perhaps due to the obstinacy of Congress, or due to a handful of campaign promises that Obama is looking to fulfill – might be enough in our present dire circumstance to dent the enormous amount of confidence and hope that citizens have in him. But Obama should actually feel lucky that he is coming into office during a period of economic disaster because he has to worry less about the means of getting his plan passed and more about the quality of his actual plan.
Congress is very willing to act in a new direction after eight years of Republican ideology. Some Republicans are disillusioned with President Bush’s economic plans – or, as a possible criticism, the lack thereof. These Republicans wince at the trickle-down effect of Bush’s unpopularity and might be more willing to acquiesce to a different approach, if only to feel the relief of having someone else take the brunt of responsibility. Democrats, on the other hand, have been mostly frustrated since the 2006 midterm elections, having swept away the reins of Republican power in what many celebrated as a mandate for change, only to face the biting reality of the president’s veto power. These Democrats are salivating for a “partner in the White House” who will help pass legislation, as Senator Harry Reid expressed (Calmes). Not much hard persuasion, in fact, is needed on Obama’s part to spur Congress to action when the majority of citizens clamor for something to be done to alleviate the current crisis. The responsibility, that is, lies with Obama not to focus on the means of persuading Congress to pass his plan. Rather, Obama merely has to focus on the effectiveness of his plan: less emphasis on political maneuvering, more emphasis on solid ideas.
Some may object that most presidents are successful in their first hundred days of office, a standard that became popular after Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s immensely active first hundred days, during which Congress passed 15 major bills. Johnson, for example, used his first hundred days to define his presidency as a continuation of Kennedy’s. Reagan convinced the Democratic majority in Congress to support his tax cats during his first hundred days. But those processes were not easy. Johnson was forced to define his presidency as the legacy of Kennedy because of Kennedy’s surge in popularity after his assassination. Knowing that he would not have the clout to pass his bills in Congress without Kennedy’s buttressing legacy, Johnson was forced to retain most of Kennedy’s former cabinet and continuously make speeches praising Kennedy. Likewise, Reagan had to use the power of the bully pulpit to force Senate Democrats into submission regarding taxes. He appealed strongly to ordinary Americans to pressure their congressmen into voting for the tax cuts, and once Democrats saw how fervently many Americans wanted the tax cuts, the Democrats reversed their position and countered with proposed tax cuts of their own. But Obama’s situation is different. Unlike Reagan, he does not need to appeal to citizens in order to fight Congress, because most citizens agree with most Congressmen that something needs to be done during the financial crisis. Nor does Obama need to worry about political decisions to gain clout like Johnson, because the yet unofficial Obama presidency is already a legacy that is made even stronger in light of the current situation. In other words, presidents like Johnson and Reagan had a double burden: they had to somehow persuade Congress to implement the plans of new presidents, and then they had to hope for their plans to work. Obama, on the other hand, only has the single burden of hoping that his plan works because Congress is already mostly persuaded to follow the new leadership. Like Roosevelt, then, Obama’s way forward is actually made easier due to the terrible economy that he inherits.
Another advantage that Obama has is that he can fulfill almost all of his campaign promises by packaging them into one comprehensive stimulus package. This benefit primarily lowers the “transaction cost” of passing bills. Rather than risk Congress’s decreasing enthusiasm for each successive bill to be signed into law, Obama can have multiple successes by passing one bill. For example, Obama can cut taxes for middle- and lower-class workers and improve public infrastructure in one bill: stimulate more demand among consumers by giving them some tax money back, and stimulate artificial demand by hiring workers to rebuild roads that were in need of improvement in the first place. Without the financial crisis to relate these two separate goals, Obama probably would have passed two separate laws. Other campaign promises, likewise, can also be formatted to fit into the stimulus package, for example the creation of green jobs by providing incentives for corporations that abide by green technology. This is not to say that Obama would not have fulfilled all of his campaign promises without the financial crisis, but he certainly has an easier time of achieving much more of them within a much smaller time period, leading to the possibility of higher approval ratings and more praise from American citizens.
It is true that even with a more pliable Congress, Obama might not fulfill all of his campaign promises. This negative scenario, however, leads into Obama’s final advantage. Obama does not need to fulfill all of his campaign promises to receive admiration, because there are certain campaign promises one which he can afford to renege. In fact, it might be better if Obama broke his word on those campaign promises. One possible candidate is Obama’s pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts before they expire in 2011. Many of those who voted for Obama supported his position on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but the financial crisis makes it hard for people to ardently favor repealing tax cuts, even for the wealthy. Between getting no money for oneself but seeing the wealthy pay more taxes, and getting money for oneself but not seeing the wealthy pay more taxes, the average citizen would probably choose the latter. Americans are more focused on their own financial circumstances right now. It would actually help Obama if he broke his campaign promise and let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011 instead of actively repealing them before 2011. Then Obama would seem more practical for not effectively raising taxes on the wealthy at a time when both the non-wealthy and the wealthy are suffering. Furthermore, Obama could reconcile himself slightly with Republicans who still would not be happy that the Bush tax cuts will not be made permanent, but who would be less unhappy than if the Bush tax cuts were actively repealed before 2011. The financial crisis, therefore, presents a way for Obama to cross party lines and gain some support from Republicans even if he cannot fulfill a campaign promise that seems untimely during this turbulent period.
The above arguments should not be construed as to belittle Obama’s ability to be president. Obama already has made great choices thus far, in fact, when selecting new members of his administration. He has reached across the partisan divide by choosing Peter Orszag to be the head of the Office of Management and Budget, someone who is respected by both Democrats and Republicans (Brooks). He has reached across the Democratic divide by hinting that Hillary Clinton will be Secretary of State. Obama has given the impression that he will be a pragmatist, not an ideologue who will pursue his ideals at any cost. These are all accomplishments. But these accomplishments do not change the fact that Obama still enjoys an advantage of coming into office in a time of economic despair. Of course Obama has a hard road ahead of him; no one can deny that. Huge burdens of responsibility rest on Obama to show Americans and citizens of other countries that the plans and proposals he has will work to improve the economy. But Obama can devote all his energy to ensuring that his plans are sound instead of wasting time worrying about whether Congress will listen to a new president. He can piece together the details of his plans without worrying about whether Congress has the stamina to pass all of them one by one. Obama became president because the majority of voters believed that his plans would work. Now the financial crisis has greatly cleared the road of potential political hindrances that could have prevented Obama from implementing his plans. Now is the best opportunity for Obama to vindicate his supporters and prove that his detractors were wrong.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/us/politics/24transition.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/27/zelizer.hundred/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/21brooks.html?em
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/18/obama.omb/
Congress is very willing to act in a new direction after eight years of Republican ideology. Some Republicans are disillusioned with President Bush’s economic plans – or, as a possible criticism, the lack thereof. These Republicans wince at the trickle-down effect of Bush’s unpopularity and might be more willing to acquiesce to a different approach, if only to feel the relief of having someone else take the brunt of responsibility. Democrats, on the other hand, have been mostly frustrated since the 2006 midterm elections, having swept away the reins of Republican power in what many celebrated as a mandate for change, only to face the biting reality of the president’s veto power. These Democrats are salivating for a “partner in the White House” who will help pass legislation, as Senator Harry Reid expressed (Calmes). Not much hard persuasion, in fact, is needed on Obama’s part to spur Congress to action when the majority of citizens clamor for something to be done to alleviate the current crisis. The responsibility, that is, lies with Obama not to focus on the means of persuading Congress to pass his plan. Rather, Obama merely has to focus on the effectiveness of his plan: less emphasis on political maneuvering, more emphasis on solid ideas.
Some may object that most presidents are successful in their first hundred days of office, a standard that became popular after Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s immensely active first hundred days, during which Congress passed 15 major bills. Johnson, for example, used his first hundred days to define his presidency as a continuation of Kennedy’s. Reagan convinced the Democratic majority in Congress to support his tax cats during his first hundred days. But those processes were not easy. Johnson was forced to define his presidency as the legacy of Kennedy because of Kennedy’s surge in popularity after his assassination. Knowing that he would not have the clout to pass his bills in Congress without Kennedy’s buttressing legacy, Johnson was forced to retain most of Kennedy’s former cabinet and continuously make speeches praising Kennedy. Likewise, Reagan had to use the power of the bully pulpit to force Senate Democrats into submission regarding taxes. He appealed strongly to ordinary Americans to pressure their congressmen into voting for the tax cuts, and once Democrats saw how fervently many Americans wanted the tax cuts, the Democrats reversed their position and countered with proposed tax cuts of their own. But Obama’s situation is different. Unlike Reagan, he does not need to appeal to citizens in order to fight Congress, because most citizens agree with most Congressmen that something needs to be done during the financial crisis. Nor does Obama need to worry about political decisions to gain clout like Johnson, because the yet unofficial Obama presidency is already a legacy that is made even stronger in light of the current situation. In other words, presidents like Johnson and Reagan had a double burden: they had to somehow persuade Congress to implement the plans of new presidents, and then they had to hope for their plans to work. Obama, on the other hand, only has the single burden of hoping that his plan works because Congress is already mostly persuaded to follow the new leadership. Like Roosevelt, then, Obama’s way forward is actually made easier due to the terrible economy that he inherits.
Another advantage that Obama has is that he can fulfill almost all of his campaign promises by packaging them into one comprehensive stimulus package. This benefit primarily lowers the “transaction cost” of passing bills. Rather than risk Congress’s decreasing enthusiasm for each successive bill to be signed into law, Obama can have multiple successes by passing one bill. For example, Obama can cut taxes for middle- and lower-class workers and improve public infrastructure in one bill: stimulate more demand among consumers by giving them some tax money back, and stimulate artificial demand by hiring workers to rebuild roads that were in need of improvement in the first place. Without the financial crisis to relate these two separate goals, Obama probably would have passed two separate laws. Other campaign promises, likewise, can also be formatted to fit into the stimulus package, for example the creation of green jobs by providing incentives for corporations that abide by green technology. This is not to say that Obama would not have fulfilled all of his campaign promises without the financial crisis, but he certainly has an easier time of achieving much more of them within a much smaller time period, leading to the possibility of higher approval ratings and more praise from American citizens.
It is true that even with a more pliable Congress, Obama might not fulfill all of his campaign promises. This negative scenario, however, leads into Obama’s final advantage. Obama does not need to fulfill all of his campaign promises to receive admiration, because there are certain campaign promises one which he can afford to renege. In fact, it might be better if Obama broke his word on those campaign promises. One possible candidate is Obama’s pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts before they expire in 2011. Many of those who voted for Obama supported his position on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but the financial crisis makes it hard for people to ardently favor repealing tax cuts, even for the wealthy. Between getting no money for oneself but seeing the wealthy pay more taxes, and getting money for oneself but not seeing the wealthy pay more taxes, the average citizen would probably choose the latter. Americans are more focused on their own financial circumstances right now. It would actually help Obama if he broke his campaign promise and let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011 instead of actively repealing them before 2011. Then Obama would seem more practical for not effectively raising taxes on the wealthy at a time when both the non-wealthy and the wealthy are suffering. Furthermore, Obama could reconcile himself slightly with Republicans who still would not be happy that the Bush tax cuts will not be made permanent, but who would be less unhappy than if the Bush tax cuts were actively repealed before 2011. The financial crisis, therefore, presents a way for Obama to cross party lines and gain some support from Republicans even if he cannot fulfill a campaign promise that seems untimely during this turbulent period.
The above arguments should not be construed as to belittle Obama’s ability to be president. Obama already has made great choices thus far, in fact, when selecting new members of his administration. He has reached across the partisan divide by choosing Peter Orszag to be the head of the Office of Management and Budget, someone who is respected by both Democrats and Republicans (Brooks). He has reached across the Democratic divide by hinting that Hillary Clinton will be Secretary of State. Obama has given the impression that he will be a pragmatist, not an ideologue who will pursue his ideals at any cost. These are all accomplishments. But these accomplishments do not change the fact that Obama still enjoys an advantage of coming into office in a time of economic despair. Of course Obama has a hard road ahead of him; no one can deny that. Huge burdens of responsibility rest on Obama to show Americans and citizens of other countries that the plans and proposals he has will work to improve the economy. But Obama can devote all his energy to ensuring that his plans are sound instead of wasting time worrying about whether Congress will listen to a new president. He can piece together the details of his plans without worrying about whether Congress has the stamina to pass all of them one by one. Obama became president because the majority of voters believed that his plans would work. Now the financial crisis has greatly cleared the road of potential political hindrances that could have prevented Obama from implementing his plans. Now is the best opportunity for Obama to vindicate his supporters and prove that his detractors were wrong.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/us/politics/24transition.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/27/zelizer.hundred/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/21brooks.html?em
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/18/obama.omb/
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Who Owns the Republican Party? Palin?
As Obama looks to organize his administration, the Republicans look for what went wrong. Some commentators say that this was just a bad year for Republicans, with an unpopular incumbent and faltering economy. Others though, suggest that the party needs a change of message, or at least of image.
It is not yet clear what form that message shift might take, but it will not be an easy one. This is, after all, America’s conservative party, which is temperamentally inclined to favor proven ideas and the status quo. However, Obama’s resounding victory has left some wondering whether the Bush/McCain brand of conservatism is in fact a diminishing force.
Already, a number of Republicans are gearing up into the apparent power vacuum. There is currently no clear leader of the Republican Party, but a whole bunch of people are applying for the job.
Lacking the deep political knowledge to actually tell you who some of the unexpected candidates might be, I’m going to discuss the obvious one here – Sarah Palin.
Okay, what makes Palin a possible 2012 candidate? Her VP run has given her national visibility as of yet unmatched by any other possibility. Her personality has gained her a loyal following of “Sarah-ites” who love her because “she’s like me.” As an evangelical, she seems to hold the reins of the most powerful coalition remaining in the Republican Party.
Palin herself clearly is positioning for ascension to the national stage. Recently she conducting a barrage of interviews and hogged center stage at the convention of Republican governors.
But what about the cons? Her VP run has made visible her general incompetence on the issues. Her poor performance has already made many voters disdain her, and these votes lost are probably irredeemable. Other Republicans (particularly from within the McCain campaign) have already set out to sabotage her. Her strong stances send moderates running for the hills.
Ultimately, I think the pro-Palin faction is not a broad societal movement, but a passing fad. Since it is unlikely Miss Wasilla will have the opportunity to appoint herself to the Senate, she will spend the next four years governing the frigid north, generally out of the national spotlight. And when she does step into the spotlight, people from both the right and the left will be ready to point out her inadequacies. Though I expect Palin will remain popular with evangelicals, unless they become the sole dominating force on the right, that will not overcome the number of moderates she alienates.
I don’t think we have to fear a President Palin, but let’s not get complacent.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a8rBJX.lvwms&refer=home
http://www.examiner.com/x-1166-DC-Conservative-Examiner~y2008m11d17-Palins-run-was-the-peak-of-her-career
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/11/13/jpinkerton_1113/
http://www.news-register.net/page/content.detail/id/517155.html
http://www.timesanddemocrat.com/articles/2008/11/17/opinion/13318238.txt
It is not yet clear what form that message shift might take, but it will not be an easy one. This is, after all, America’s conservative party, which is temperamentally inclined to favor proven ideas and the status quo. However, Obama’s resounding victory has left some wondering whether the Bush/McCain brand of conservatism is in fact a diminishing force.
Already, a number of Republicans are gearing up into the apparent power vacuum. There is currently no clear leader of the Republican Party, but a whole bunch of people are applying for the job.
Lacking the deep political knowledge to actually tell you who some of the unexpected candidates might be, I’m going to discuss the obvious one here – Sarah Palin.
Okay, what makes Palin a possible 2012 candidate? Her VP run has given her national visibility as of yet unmatched by any other possibility. Her personality has gained her a loyal following of “Sarah-ites” who love her because “she’s like me.” As an evangelical, she seems to hold the reins of the most powerful coalition remaining in the Republican Party.
Palin herself clearly is positioning for ascension to the national stage. Recently she conducting a barrage of interviews and hogged center stage at the convention of Republican governors.
But what about the cons? Her VP run has made visible her general incompetence on the issues. Her poor performance has already made many voters disdain her, and these votes lost are probably irredeemable. Other Republicans (particularly from within the McCain campaign) have already set out to sabotage her. Her strong stances send moderates running for the hills.
Ultimately, I think the pro-Palin faction is not a broad societal movement, but a passing fad. Since it is unlikely Miss Wasilla will have the opportunity to appoint herself to the Senate, she will spend the next four years governing the frigid north, generally out of the national spotlight. And when she does step into the spotlight, people from both the right and the left will be ready to point out her inadequacies. Though I expect Palin will remain popular with evangelicals, unless they become the sole dominating force on the right, that will not overcome the number of moderates she alienates.
I don’t think we have to fear a President Palin, but let’s not get complacent.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a8rBJX.lvwms&refer=home
http://www.examiner.com/x-1166-DC-Conservative-Examiner~y2008m11d17-Palins-run-was-the-peak-of-her-career
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/11/13/jpinkerton_1113/
http://www.news-register.net/page/content.detail/id/517155.html
http://www.timesanddemocrat.com/articles/2008/11/17/opinion/13318238.txt
Monday, November 17, 2008
Civil Rights In The New Millennium
As we are all aware, an amazing thing happened on November 4th. History was undoubtedly made and America’s took a step forward on its path to social progressivism by electing its first minority president. By November 5th, we had taken three steps back.
In perhaps the most heated social debate in the election season, with millions in spending on both sides, bans on marriage of homosexual couples were passed in California, Florida, and Arizona. While I feel the passing of these measures were blatant and unjust impositions that effectively disenfranchised a recognized minority from their basic civil liberties, the dynamics of this election cycle have raised some interesting questions that strike the core of our democratic system. Are we essentially a morally conservative or theocratic democracy? Is it just for our legislation to forcibly shape the moral fiber of our society? And how far are individual liberties protected from the tyranny of the majority vote? When should the will of the people be overturned to protect our basic freedoms?
Although undoubtedly clouded by a biased view, I cannot understand the basis for Proposition 8 nor for its overwhelming support. If the controversy were merely an issue of religious conservatism, I would think that with our constitutional rights to freedom of religion would come protection from theocratic imposition. If the issue is centered about the notion of social structuring, as it seems to be, then, I ask, how is homosexuality disrupting the flow of our society? Surely, it’s not a problem of under-population, and the 50% divorce rate has already interrupted our traditional family unit (not to mention that marriage need not be defined by raising offspring). Again, I wonder, what gives? (Pardon the colloquialism.)
However, there is hope as California officials are urging the state Supreme Court to quickly see lawsuits looking to overturn the ban. With a bit of luck and public support, this sanction on civil liberties will be long forgotten.
1.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06marriage.html
2.http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/17/gay.marriage.court.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch
In perhaps the most heated social debate in the election season, with millions in spending on both sides, bans on marriage of homosexual couples were passed in California, Florida, and Arizona. While I feel the passing of these measures were blatant and unjust impositions that effectively disenfranchised a recognized minority from their basic civil liberties, the dynamics of this election cycle have raised some interesting questions that strike the core of our democratic system. Are we essentially a morally conservative or theocratic democracy? Is it just for our legislation to forcibly shape the moral fiber of our society? And how far are individual liberties protected from the tyranny of the majority vote? When should the will of the people be overturned to protect our basic freedoms?
Although undoubtedly clouded by a biased view, I cannot understand the basis for Proposition 8 nor for its overwhelming support. If the controversy were merely an issue of religious conservatism, I would think that with our constitutional rights to freedom of religion would come protection from theocratic imposition. If the issue is centered about the notion of social structuring, as it seems to be, then, I ask, how is homosexuality disrupting the flow of our society? Surely, it’s not a problem of under-population, and the 50% divorce rate has already interrupted our traditional family unit (not to mention that marriage need not be defined by raising offspring). Again, I wonder, what gives? (Pardon the colloquialism.)
However, there is hope as California officials are urging the state Supreme Court to quickly see lawsuits looking to overturn the ban. With a bit of luck and public support, this sanction on civil liberties will be long forgotten.
1.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06marriage.html
2.http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/17/gay.marriage.court.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch
New President, New Deal
The past few weeks have shown an interesting transition period in American politics. The current economic crisis is obviously first and foremost on our nation’s mind, but I have not found much reporting on our president-elect's potential long-term strategies (besides op-ed pieces). This is interesting, because I see a number of factors coming together that could allow Obama to move towards a sort of “New Deal;” maybe focusing on the economy, or energy initiatives and environment, but hopefully both.
A little history: for the moment I admire our current president for calling together the G20 summit, and especially for including the leaders of developing countries. This summit produced a communiqué telling worldwide “financial regulators to demand that banks create bigger liquidity cushions, assess their risk-management practices and boost capital requirements for certain risky investing practices,”(1) yet major decisions are to be left to “a second summit [in March 2009] just 101 days after Mr. Obama is sworn in.”(1) The President-elect declined to attend the summit; his first economic move since the election has been to ask for a partial bailout of GM.
While I won’t try to debate the potential effectiveness of this economic decision, it is a little disappointing that Obama is first voicing concern over this matter. It's obviously cautious to not want the first aspect of your presidency to be the failing of the Detroit Three. Even if this is a good economic move, I wish he could find something better for us long-term from this crisis. Not only because Obama has been the candidate of change, but because of the current situation. First, the second G20 summit is well-situated for Obama to assume a leading economic role. Bush, already a lame-duck, either did not push for too much in this first session, or knew he would not be able to. On the flip side, though, by all accounts the Bush administration is making an excellent effort to help the Obama team make a smooth transition into the White House. If Obama continues to make Cabinet appointments at record rates, coupled with the Pennsylvania Avenue security clearance already being granted to his aides, his team should already have plans in place by January. And while the knee-jerk, short term boosting of the US economy has already been made in Washington, and legislation is starting to settle down, I think both legislators and the public are looking for structural change to the economy.
Now, Obama has a few bullet points on the situation, for example “Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America” and “Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.”(2) Both good ideas, yet nothing revolutionary. It is my hope that President Obama will instead introduce a great number of programs to restructure the economy. Al Gore has outlined one such persuasive course of action by creating multiple programs oriented towards "reversing climate change and ridding ourselves of foreign energy dependence."(3) Professor Paul Krugman also advocates for a New Deal of sorts, in which bold short-term moves could engineer a full economic recovery, even more so that Roosevelt did. In his words, "Progressives can only hope that he has the necessary audacity."(4)
As I said many more, although less visible, journalists have written op-ed pieces of the same vein. Considering this, and the favorable situation outlined above, I hope the lack of leaked ideas from the Obama camp will turn into a flood of reform once he takes office.
(1) New York Times, “As Leaders Wrestle with Economy, Developing Nations Get Ringside Seats,” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/washington/16leaders.html?scp=2&sq=g20&st=cse
(2) change.gov, Energy & Environment, http://change.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment_agenda/
(3)New York Times, "The Climate for Change," http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/09gore.html?pagewanted=2
(4)New York Times, “Franklin Delano Obama?”, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/opinion/10krugman.html?scp=2&sq=%22new+deal%22&st=nyt
A little history: for the moment I admire our current president for calling together the G20 summit, and especially for including the leaders of developing countries. This summit produced a communiqué telling worldwide “financial regulators to demand that banks create bigger liquidity cushions, assess their risk-management practices and boost capital requirements for certain risky investing practices,”(1) yet major decisions are to be left to “a second summit [in March 2009] just 101 days after Mr. Obama is sworn in.”(1) The President-elect declined to attend the summit; his first economic move since the election has been to ask for a partial bailout of GM.
While I won’t try to debate the potential effectiveness of this economic decision, it is a little disappointing that Obama is first voicing concern over this matter. It's obviously cautious to not want the first aspect of your presidency to be the failing of the Detroit Three. Even if this is a good economic move, I wish he could find something better for us long-term from this crisis. Not only because Obama has been the candidate of change, but because of the current situation. First, the second G20 summit is well-situated for Obama to assume a leading economic role. Bush, already a lame-duck, either did not push for too much in this first session, or knew he would not be able to. On the flip side, though, by all accounts the Bush administration is making an excellent effort to help the Obama team make a smooth transition into the White House. If Obama continues to make Cabinet appointments at record rates, coupled with the Pennsylvania Avenue security clearance already being granted to his aides, his team should already have plans in place by January. And while the knee-jerk, short term boosting of the US economy has already been made in Washington, and legislation is starting to settle down, I think both legislators and the public are looking for structural change to the economy.
Now, Obama has a few bullet points on the situation, for example “Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America” and “Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.”(2) Both good ideas, yet nothing revolutionary. It is my hope that President Obama will instead introduce a great number of programs to restructure the economy. Al Gore has outlined one such persuasive course of action by creating multiple programs oriented towards "reversing climate change and ridding ourselves of foreign energy dependence."(3) Professor Paul Krugman also advocates for a New Deal of sorts, in which bold short-term moves could engineer a full economic recovery, even more so that Roosevelt did. In his words, "Progressives can only hope that he has the necessary audacity."(4)
As I said many more, although less visible, journalists have written op-ed pieces of the same vein. Considering this, and the favorable situation outlined above, I hope the lack of leaked ideas from the Obama camp will turn into a flood of reform once he takes office.
(1) New York Times, “As Leaders Wrestle with Economy, Developing Nations Get Ringside Seats,” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/washington/16leaders.html?scp=2&sq=g20&st=cse
(2) change.gov, Energy & Environment, http://change.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment_agenda/
(3)New York Times, "The Climate for Change," http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/09gore.html?pagewanted=2
(4)New York Times, “Franklin Delano Obama?”, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/opinion/10krugman.html?scp=2&sq=%22new+deal%22&st=nyt
Monday, November 10, 2008
It’s Time to Take Control of Rent Laws
Especially given today’s turbulent markets and lasting housing crisis, it seems easy, at least on an emotional level, to demand help for those plagued with high costs of living to be given relief. Even with falling home values, a 2007 Census Department study found that “almost 15 percent of American homeowners with a mortgage -- were spending half of their income or more just on their mortgage, property taxes and insurance.” With food costs spiraling higher almost as much as the stock market spirals lower, half of one’s income spent on one expenditure is exorbitant. Still, the idea of controlling rents or mortgages is not the answer, and doing so causes more problems than are otherwise solved.
Rent control is, in the United States, fairly widespread, with many major cities having some form or another of price controls. New York City was the first city to implement rent control; President Roosevelt signed a federal bill into law in 1943. Other cities were soon to follow. Still, some cities, such as Boston, ended rent control by state referendum in 1994, though no major rent control laws have been changed since then.
This is likely due to the theory of why rent controls should be in place. Proponents of rent control argue that artificially lowering prices, though against the free market, reduces rent costs for lower and middle class individuals and families who would otherwise not be able to live in expensive housing. Proponents argue that though landlords may make less money than they otherwise would, rent control protects working families from having to live in cheap, dirty, and dangerous housing.
Unfortunately, rent control, overall, does much more harm to society than good, acting as a conventional price ceiling that, while exhibiting the small benefits of such a ceiling, shares all of the negative characteristics. Assuredly, there are some clear winners and losers when it comes to rent control: those who are renting a rent controlled apartment pay less than they otherwise would while those who rent a controlled room receive less than they otherwise would. However, rent control—and price control—share four further consequences that are not superficially apparent: inefficient allocation of goods to consumers, wasted resources, inefficiently low quality, and illegal activity.
First, when it comes to the allocation of apartments to consumers, rent control causes shortages. This makes it fairly clear why apartments are allocated inefficiently to consumers. As there are shortages—because at the artificially lower price many more people would want to rent an apartment than at the normal equilibrium price—the kind of people who can get apartments often have special connections or some other insider ties. This means that they people who want to rent an apartment the most, those would be willing to pay the most money for one, are often the people who are shirked out of available housing. Rent control also causes consumers to waste resources, namely time, looking for apartments because there is such high demand and resultant shortages. The New York Times reports that some in San Francisco literally must look for months to find available housing. In addition, artificially controlling prices has the effect of making the apartments that are rented of inefficiently low quality. This is due to the fact that because demand is so high, and renters are so fortunate to be able to rent a home for less than it is actually worth, the landlords—partially to make a greater profit and partially to make up for the fact that they are receiving unfairly low levels of rent—will make the quality of the homes overly poor. This translates into, for example, old and unsafe elevators in apartment buildings, or unpainted and dirty hallways. Basically, landlords have no incentive to improve the quality of the housing units, as consumers, due to the high demand, will rent them anyway. Finally, rent control has the unintended consequence of providing tremendous incentives for the creation of black markets, or illegal market transactions. For example, this can happen if, because a consumer truly desires to live in a rent-controlled apartment, and has the means, she will agree, contractually, to pay the rent-controlled price, but then slip the landlord some money on the side. Renters also have an incentive to illegally sublet their apartments for more than the market price. In sum, though rent control may cause those who are lucky enough to find apartments to pay lower prices, this comes at the price of a host of other inefficiencies.
Apart from economic arguments, one must ask whether rent control is even theoretically justified, approached from a rights perspective. Certainly Nozick, but possibly other political philosophers that we have read, have argued for the importance of rights, specifically property rights. For the government (or any other source of power) to artificially cheapen the value of one’s property through rent control is to in effect rob that person of their wealth, a clear violation of rights. If we reflect, is this an acceptable equilibrium?
Finally, due to the myriad problems with rent control, others have proposed solutions that accomplish the same goals—but without the problems. These goals are to find affordable housing for lower and middle class citizens. An effective solution would be housing subsidies, or providing money or a credit to individuals who cannot afford housing themselves. Other, though possibly more indirect solutions relate to the earned income tax credit, another way for the government to provide transfer payments that people can choose to use for housing. Both of these solutions bypass the economic inefficiencies that are associated with rent control.
Paul Krugman, in 2000, wrote an editorial in the New York Times harshly critical of New York’s rent control laws. In it, he alludes to the so-called Murphy’s Law of Economic Policy, namely that which is agreed upon most the most economists will be followed the least. Indeed, Krugman states, 93% of economists agree that rent control reduces both the quality and quantity of housing. Still, I’m optimistic that rent control will soon be a political issue of the past. Until then, it won’t be just Murphy’s Law that causes my toilet to overflow.
Sources:
Krugman, Paul, and Robin Wells. Economics. New York: Worth Publisher, 2006. 87-88.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/10/AR2008101000049_pf.html
http://www.tenant.net/Oversight/50yrRentReg/history.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E3D61438F936A25755C0A9659C8B63
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E4DF153FF934A35755C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
Rent control is, in the United States, fairly widespread, with many major cities having some form or another of price controls. New York City was the first city to implement rent control; President Roosevelt signed a federal bill into law in 1943. Other cities were soon to follow. Still, some cities, such as Boston, ended rent control by state referendum in 1994, though no major rent control laws have been changed since then.
This is likely due to the theory of why rent controls should be in place. Proponents of rent control argue that artificially lowering prices, though against the free market, reduces rent costs for lower and middle class individuals and families who would otherwise not be able to live in expensive housing. Proponents argue that though landlords may make less money than they otherwise would, rent control protects working families from having to live in cheap, dirty, and dangerous housing.
Unfortunately, rent control, overall, does much more harm to society than good, acting as a conventional price ceiling that, while exhibiting the small benefits of such a ceiling, shares all of the negative characteristics. Assuredly, there are some clear winners and losers when it comes to rent control: those who are renting a rent controlled apartment pay less than they otherwise would while those who rent a controlled room receive less than they otherwise would. However, rent control—and price control—share four further consequences that are not superficially apparent: inefficient allocation of goods to consumers, wasted resources, inefficiently low quality, and illegal activity.
First, when it comes to the allocation of apartments to consumers, rent control causes shortages. This makes it fairly clear why apartments are allocated inefficiently to consumers. As there are shortages—because at the artificially lower price many more people would want to rent an apartment than at the normal equilibrium price—the kind of people who can get apartments often have special connections or some other insider ties. This means that they people who want to rent an apartment the most, those would be willing to pay the most money for one, are often the people who are shirked out of available housing. Rent control also causes consumers to waste resources, namely time, looking for apartments because there is such high demand and resultant shortages. The New York Times reports that some in San Francisco literally must look for months to find available housing. In addition, artificially controlling prices has the effect of making the apartments that are rented of inefficiently low quality. This is due to the fact that because demand is so high, and renters are so fortunate to be able to rent a home for less than it is actually worth, the landlords—partially to make a greater profit and partially to make up for the fact that they are receiving unfairly low levels of rent—will make the quality of the homes overly poor. This translates into, for example, old and unsafe elevators in apartment buildings, or unpainted and dirty hallways. Basically, landlords have no incentive to improve the quality of the housing units, as consumers, due to the high demand, will rent them anyway. Finally, rent control has the unintended consequence of providing tremendous incentives for the creation of black markets, or illegal market transactions. For example, this can happen if, because a consumer truly desires to live in a rent-controlled apartment, and has the means, she will agree, contractually, to pay the rent-controlled price, but then slip the landlord some money on the side. Renters also have an incentive to illegally sublet their apartments for more than the market price. In sum, though rent control may cause those who are lucky enough to find apartments to pay lower prices, this comes at the price of a host of other inefficiencies.
Apart from economic arguments, one must ask whether rent control is even theoretically justified, approached from a rights perspective. Certainly Nozick, but possibly other political philosophers that we have read, have argued for the importance of rights, specifically property rights. For the government (or any other source of power) to artificially cheapen the value of one’s property through rent control is to in effect rob that person of their wealth, a clear violation of rights. If we reflect, is this an acceptable equilibrium?
Finally, due to the myriad problems with rent control, others have proposed solutions that accomplish the same goals—but without the problems. These goals are to find affordable housing for lower and middle class citizens. An effective solution would be housing subsidies, or providing money or a credit to individuals who cannot afford housing themselves. Other, though possibly more indirect solutions relate to the earned income tax credit, another way for the government to provide transfer payments that people can choose to use for housing. Both of these solutions bypass the economic inefficiencies that are associated with rent control.
Paul Krugman, in 2000, wrote an editorial in the New York Times harshly critical of New York’s rent control laws. In it, he alludes to the so-called Murphy’s Law of Economic Policy, namely that which is agreed upon most the most economists will be followed the least. Indeed, Krugman states, 93% of economists agree that rent control reduces both the quality and quantity of housing. Still, I’m optimistic that rent control will soon be a political issue of the past. Until then, it won’t be just Murphy’s Law that causes my toilet to overflow.
Sources:
Krugman, Paul, and Robin Wells. Economics. New York: Worth Publisher, 2006. 87-88.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/10/AR2008101000049_pf.html
http://www.tenant.net/Oversight/50yrRentReg/history.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E3D61438F936A25755C0A9659C8B63
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E4DF153FF934A35755C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Inequality of Public Defender Income
Everybody hates lawyers. That was the impression I got as a kid whenever my parents derided them or whenever I heard any lawyer jokes (quite a few). Eventually I came to realize that the biggest reason that lawyers are widely hated is that they make a ton of money. I concluded that to people who are not lawyers – like my parents – the vast sums of money they earn seem undeserved. This perception surely is not true for public defenders.
Public defenders generally get a good rep. People view public defenders like they view district attorneys, as hardworking lawyers working for a good cause. They argue just like the lawyers of top law-firms, but they do not get as much compensation, to say the least. To citizens who do not understand the significance of Gideon v. Wainright, however, public defenders are seen to be on the “wrong” side: the side of the criminals. Unlike district attorneys who are working to clean up the streets and crack down on crime, public defenders are straining to defend, among others, the very people who committed the crimes. So public defenders are the class of lawyers that are treated the worst: they earn neither the income of their private-practice counterparts, nor the moral support of most citizens. Recently, moreover, public defenders have been hurting even more heavily.
With the recent economic downturn, states have intensified their budget cuts. One resulting group of victims is the public defenders. Their workloads have increased drastically while their income has not; Miami-Dade Country lawyers have seen the number of felony cases per year per lawyer increase from 367 to 500 in just the last three years. Defenders are now strained to the point where they have begun to refuse new cases assigned by the state or have sued to refuse them. Some Florida officials have responded that the justice department simply has to bear the pain of a smaller budget just like any other department in the state. In response to this “take one for the team” mentality, once could argue that certain outcomes of inadequate public defender compensation, explored later on, violate the Constitution whereas inadequate budgets for the state agriculture department, for example, would not be as serious. Even if the above point is not true, however, the fact still stands that public defenders are not compensated enough when the economy did flourish. States should drastically increase compensation for its public defenders.
When the state increases the burden on public defenders double-fold, by lowering incomes and increasing caseloads, everyone gets hurt: public defenders, poor defendants, and the state all suffer. Public defenders suffer because they are incentivized to leave their position and find more lucrative jobs in the private sector. Sure, they will earn more money in the private sector, but they must take into account the opportunity cost of finding another job, undergoing the interview process, potentially moving to another city and settling down all over again, producing additional strains on themselves and their families. Public defenders are not compensated for what they deserve. If the nation places such a high importance on the jobs of public defenders that the very nature of their job is referenced in the Sixth Amendment and further reaffirmed in a Supreme Court case, then public defenders deserve to be compensated more. One can argue that the reasons why a public defender suffers are trivial because most of them end up earning more money by switching to private practice, thereby solving their own problems. But let us examine the problems of the defendants, which cannot be solved so easily.
When the state increases the burden on public defenders, the defendants suffer. Public defenders who are under immense stress from having to deal with so many cases simply cannot defend the accused successfully. Many public defenders only have time to review the general details of a defendant’s case. They have to accept and argue based on the police version of events because they do not have the time or funds to do more investigation into the minute details of a particular case. Because many petty crime cases share the same general details, and because public defenders must group cases by general details to be able to attend to all of their required cases, then the defendants are, in a sense, getting a cookiecutter defense; public defenders are unable to tailor each case to the specific circumstances of the crime, which would be more effective in gaining a verdict of innocent. Cookiecutter defenses are not equal to the defenses of richer defendants, so the poorer defendants suffer.
In addition, public defenders who are short on time are much more eager to convince their defendants to accept guilty pleas, thereby pressuring defendants to take a particular course of action that, unpressured, they might not take. A public defendant can easily use his position of authority to make it seem as if a guilty plea is the surest bet for a defendant and the safest path for him to take, when in fact the public defendant might only be saying so to help himself catch up with other cases. These examples are not uncommon and would mean that a public defender is not working purely on behalf of the defendant.
Finally, the state suffers when its public defenders do not receive adequate pay. The high turnover rate of public defenders means that after a certain point, the most experienced public defenders end up switching to private practice or alternative careers because they cannot handle the stress anymore and because they have to care for their families. As a result, the most experienced public defenders are continuously replaced by the inexperienced novices. On the whole, then, states suffer because they cannot do as good a job of defending the indigent accused because their best lawyers are always headed out the door. So although the state has twin paradoxical duties of prosecuting the indigent accused and also defending the indigent accused, the exit rate of the most experienced public defenders means that the state is not fulfilling at least one of those two duties.
A further implication of the high turnover rate is the state’s recurrent loss of money. When the experienced public defenders leave, the state must pay to train their less experienced replacements. Training costs both money and time. The time spent on training is intensified because those who train the novices are not the most experienced public defenders—they have already left! So public defenders with moderate experience do the training, which takes a longer time than if the most experience defenders did the training. But then the added stress on the moderately experience defenders increases: they have to train the novices and also worry about their own cases, thereby furthering the pressure on them to eventually quit the public service. Additionally, the money spent by the state on training would decrease its funds even more, leading to more budget cuts for the justice department in the future, which in turn leads to lower incomes for the defenders, leading to a higher turnover rate and more training for replacements, which causes more money. The state is then caught in a devastating positive feedback loop in which it must pay more and more money. A possible caveat is if the state increases the income of defenders with more experience, so that if a defender with ample experience leaves, the state can used the saved money to hire a cheaper replacement. But the increase in income for more experienced public defenders does not seem significantly high, or else they probably would not complain and quit.
Finally, perhaps the worst drawback for the state of low incomes is the fact that public defenders are persuaded not to do what they love. Public defenders love their jobs, which is why many of them have endured the piling on of cases for many years. But there comes a point where staying with the occupation one loves is not practical anymore—one has to think about the family. Many idealistic people start out as public defenders with a certain dream of doing what is right – providing counsel for the indigent so they are not taken advantaged of in the court system – regardless of pay. But sooner or later this idealism is destroyed, after which point public defenders then switch jobs. The destruction for this idealism is dangerous for any state because people lose their love for doing what is right, leading to less enthusiastic, and therefore less effective, public defenders. If these formerly idealistic, now cynical defenders pass their lessons on to the next generation, this loss of idealism could potentially be severe enough to be recognized, but by that time it will have been too late for the state. Maybe one day there will not even be enough public defenders who are initially idealistic and believe in the moral righteousness of providing counsel for those too poor to otherwise have it.
Everyone loses when states do not compensate public defenders enough. It is not that states should increase their incomes even in desperate times of financial woe; rather, it is that states should definitely increase their incomes in times of prosperity. As Rawls argued, inequalities should only exist when they help the least advantaged. The very essence of public defenders is helping the least advantaged. Their important role deserves to be recognized with higher incomes. If the compensation for public defenders were unequal compared to that of others, then those who originally did not consider this occupation would be drawn in, leading to more effective representation for underprivileged dependents, and those who originally were involved in this occupation would not lose their sense of right and wrong. So states should make the compensation for public defenders unequal—by paying them much more, not by paying them much less.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/us/09defender.html?pagewanted=2&em
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_155/
Public defenders generally get a good rep. People view public defenders like they view district attorneys, as hardworking lawyers working for a good cause. They argue just like the lawyers of top law-firms, but they do not get as much compensation, to say the least. To citizens who do not understand the significance of Gideon v. Wainright, however, public defenders are seen to be on the “wrong” side: the side of the criminals. Unlike district attorneys who are working to clean up the streets and crack down on crime, public defenders are straining to defend, among others, the very people who committed the crimes. So public defenders are the class of lawyers that are treated the worst: they earn neither the income of their private-practice counterparts, nor the moral support of most citizens. Recently, moreover, public defenders have been hurting even more heavily.
With the recent economic downturn, states have intensified their budget cuts. One resulting group of victims is the public defenders. Their workloads have increased drastically while their income has not; Miami-Dade Country lawyers have seen the number of felony cases per year per lawyer increase from 367 to 500 in just the last three years. Defenders are now strained to the point where they have begun to refuse new cases assigned by the state or have sued to refuse them. Some Florida officials have responded that the justice department simply has to bear the pain of a smaller budget just like any other department in the state. In response to this “take one for the team” mentality, once could argue that certain outcomes of inadequate public defender compensation, explored later on, violate the Constitution whereas inadequate budgets for the state agriculture department, for example, would not be as serious. Even if the above point is not true, however, the fact still stands that public defenders are not compensated enough when the economy did flourish. States should drastically increase compensation for its public defenders.
When the state increases the burden on public defenders double-fold, by lowering incomes and increasing caseloads, everyone gets hurt: public defenders, poor defendants, and the state all suffer. Public defenders suffer because they are incentivized to leave their position and find more lucrative jobs in the private sector. Sure, they will earn more money in the private sector, but they must take into account the opportunity cost of finding another job, undergoing the interview process, potentially moving to another city and settling down all over again, producing additional strains on themselves and their families. Public defenders are not compensated for what they deserve. If the nation places such a high importance on the jobs of public defenders that the very nature of their job is referenced in the Sixth Amendment and further reaffirmed in a Supreme Court case, then public defenders deserve to be compensated more. One can argue that the reasons why a public defender suffers are trivial because most of them end up earning more money by switching to private practice, thereby solving their own problems. But let us examine the problems of the defendants, which cannot be solved so easily.
When the state increases the burden on public defenders, the defendants suffer. Public defenders who are under immense stress from having to deal with so many cases simply cannot defend the accused successfully. Many public defenders only have time to review the general details of a defendant’s case. They have to accept and argue based on the police version of events because they do not have the time or funds to do more investigation into the minute details of a particular case. Because many petty crime cases share the same general details, and because public defenders must group cases by general details to be able to attend to all of their required cases, then the defendants are, in a sense, getting a cookiecutter defense; public defenders are unable to tailor each case to the specific circumstances of the crime, which would be more effective in gaining a verdict of innocent. Cookiecutter defenses are not equal to the defenses of richer defendants, so the poorer defendants suffer.
In addition, public defenders who are short on time are much more eager to convince their defendants to accept guilty pleas, thereby pressuring defendants to take a particular course of action that, unpressured, they might not take. A public defendant can easily use his position of authority to make it seem as if a guilty plea is the surest bet for a defendant and the safest path for him to take, when in fact the public defendant might only be saying so to help himself catch up with other cases. These examples are not uncommon and would mean that a public defender is not working purely on behalf of the defendant.
Finally, the state suffers when its public defenders do not receive adequate pay. The high turnover rate of public defenders means that after a certain point, the most experienced public defenders end up switching to private practice or alternative careers because they cannot handle the stress anymore and because they have to care for their families. As a result, the most experienced public defenders are continuously replaced by the inexperienced novices. On the whole, then, states suffer because they cannot do as good a job of defending the indigent accused because their best lawyers are always headed out the door. So although the state has twin paradoxical duties of prosecuting the indigent accused and also defending the indigent accused, the exit rate of the most experienced public defenders means that the state is not fulfilling at least one of those two duties.
A further implication of the high turnover rate is the state’s recurrent loss of money. When the experienced public defenders leave, the state must pay to train their less experienced replacements. Training costs both money and time. The time spent on training is intensified because those who train the novices are not the most experienced public defenders—they have already left! So public defenders with moderate experience do the training, which takes a longer time than if the most experience defenders did the training. But then the added stress on the moderately experience defenders increases: they have to train the novices and also worry about their own cases, thereby furthering the pressure on them to eventually quit the public service. Additionally, the money spent by the state on training would decrease its funds even more, leading to more budget cuts for the justice department in the future, which in turn leads to lower incomes for the defenders, leading to a higher turnover rate and more training for replacements, which causes more money. The state is then caught in a devastating positive feedback loop in which it must pay more and more money. A possible caveat is if the state increases the income of defenders with more experience, so that if a defender with ample experience leaves, the state can used the saved money to hire a cheaper replacement. But the increase in income for more experienced public defenders does not seem significantly high, or else they probably would not complain and quit.
Finally, perhaps the worst drawback for the state of low incomes is the fact that public defenders are persuaded not to do what they love. Public defenders love their jobs, which is why many of them have endured the piling on of cases for many years. But there comes a point where staying with the occupation one loves is not practical anymore—one has to think about the family. Many idealistic people start out as public defenders with a certain dream of doing what is right – providing counsel for the indigent so they are not taken advantaged of in the court system – regardless of pay. But sooner or later this idealism is destroyed, after which point public defenders then switch jobs. The destruction for this idealism is dangerous for any state because people lose their love for doing what is right, leading to less enthusiastic, and therefore less effective, public defenders. If these formerly idealistic, now cynical defenders pass their lessons on to the next generation, this loss of idealism could potentially be severe enough to be recognized, but by that time it will have been too late for the state. Maybe one day there will not even be enough public defenders who are initially idealistic and believe in the moral righteousness of providing counsel for those too poor to otherwise have it.
Everyone loses when states do not compensate public defenders enough. It is not that states should increase their incomes even in desperate times of financial woe; rather, it is that states should definitely increase their incomes in times of prosperity. As Rawls argued, inequalities should only exist when they help the least advantaged. The very essence of public defenders is helping the least advantaged. Their important role deserves to be recognized with higher incomes. If the compensation for public defenders were unequal compared to that of others, then those who originally did not consider this occupation would be drawn in, leading to more effective representation for underprivileged dependents, and those who originally were involved in this occupation would not lose their sense of right and wrong. So states should make the compensation for public defenders unequal—by paying them much more, not by paying them much less.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/us/09defender.html?pagewanted=2&em
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_155/
Saturday, November 8, 2008
The Bane of "Hussein"
It is no secret that America is unpopular with the rest of the world. In addition to a long history of international interference (see: Vietnam War), after launching two costly and perhaps unsanctioned wars that harmed innocent civilians and led to innumerable human rights violations, the United States has tarnished its name, lending itself to global resentment. After the events of the past Tuesday, however, America may be poised to improve its reputation. "From the front lines of Iraq to...Paris," Alan Cowell writes in The New York Times, "the election of Barack Obama unlocked a floodgate of hope that a new American leader will redeem promises of change, rewrite the political script and, perhaps as important as anything else, provide a kind of leadership that will erase the bitterness of the Bush years."
It is also no secret that Barack Hussein Obama shares one of his names with the infamous dictator Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti. Though, amid the unfortunate anti-Muslim sentiment in America, the McCain-Palin campaign attempted to use this to their advantage by drawing tenuous links between Obama and terrorism - Palin, for instance, has accused him of "palling around with terrorists" - the identical name did not prevent the Democratic candidate from winning Tuesday. In fact, it may have held an advantage for Obama and for America; that is, it may help the Middle East view America in a new light.
As Moroccan Ahmed R. Benchemsi writes in Newsweek, America has garnered plenty of hate. "Under the George W. Bush presidency, an Arab-Islamic country was attacked for no valid reason," he said, adding: "American citizens didn't see many of the unbearable images of wailing mothers and angry mobs that have been broadcast every day for the past five years on Al-Jazeera and other pan-Arab channels. We did. How could we not be hypnotized by them? How could we not sympathize with them?" For this reason, the US needs a radical shift in leadership. It needs someone who will remove troops (as Obama promises to do) and ease tension, someone with whom the international community can relate and like. "It would be far tougher for the Islamists to point the finger at America if it were led by a man whose middle name is Hussein," Benchesmi concludes.
"Hussein" tells the world that the leadership is not just in the hands of "conservative WASP upper-class folks," as Benchesmi calls the tradition of American leaders. Now, the eyes of the entire world are on Obama, waiting for the changes he promises to bring.
It is also no secret that Barack Hussein Obama shares one of his names with the infamous dictator Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti. Though, amid the unfortunate anti-Muslim sentiment in America, the McCain-Palin campaign attempted to use this to their advantage by drawing tenuous links between Obama and terrorism - Palin, for instance, has accused him of "palling around with terrorists" - the identical name did not prevent the Democratic candidate from winning Tuesday. In fact, it may have held an advantage for Obama and for America; that is, it may help the Middle East view America in a new light.
As Moroccan Ahmed R. Benchemsi writes in Newsweek, America has garnered plenty of hate. "Under the George W. Bush presidency, an Arab-Islamic country was attacked for no valid reason," he said, adding: "American citizens didn't see many of the unbearable images of wailing mothers and angry mobs that have been broadcast every day for the past five years on Al-Jazeera and other pan-Arab channels. We did. How could we not be hypnotized by them? How could we not sympathize with them?" For this reason, the US needs a radical shift in leadership. It needs someone who will remove troops (as Obama promises to do) and ease tension, someone with whom the international community can relate and like. "It would be far tougher for the Islamists to point the finger at America if it were led by a man whose middle name is Hussein," Benchesmi concludes.
"Hussein" tells the world that the leadership is not just in the hands of "conservative WASP upper-class folks," as Benchesmi calls the tradition of American leaders. Now, the eyes of the entire world are on Obama, waiting for the changes he promises to bring.
Friday, November 7, 2008
My Post-Election Hangover
Since I obviously missed the deadline for me to post this comment (sorry about that by the way) I have the advantage of posting after the 2008 presidential election. Here is the story of my experience.
All the freshmen in my building congregated in one room, filling the three available couches, all four desk chairs, and most of the floor space. With the exception of one friendly Texan, every one of us was rooting for Obama. Needless to say, spirits were pretty high as state after state turned blue on MSNBC’s map. Cheers broke out when the election was called at 11:00 p.m. We even got a “Yes We Can!” chant going that seemed to shake the floor a bit. McCain’s concession was well received, but some side-conversations and celebrations continued. When Obama came to the podium, however, all was silent; all eyes were on the TV. I’ll admit I got chills a few times, considering the profound nature of that moment and listening to our President-Elect speak.
I went to sleep feeling hopeful for America.
Wednesday morning I woke up and idly checked my Facebook (I promise this post is going somewhere). I was expecting the standard fare: a wall post or two, extraneous invites from people I barely know, maybe something in my inbox. What I found was far more interesting, and disturbing.
Dozens of people had updated their statuses. But these were not mundane details or unintelligible song lyrics. Each was a political statement, all variations on the same theme: Obama is not my President.
A few examples:
David is time to move to canada or something.
Mark says don't vote for OSAMA!
Christopher is Lord Jesus, please remain with us these next years and allow your plan to unfold. Help the people of our country follow you next time. Amen.
Laura. . . well, we might as well move to china.
Morgan feels sick... God put your hands over us.
Now, these are all people from my high school, which was (if you hadn’t noticed) very conservative. And most were conservative in that juvenile “I don’t care about politics, but just trust my parents” way, so at first I didn’t give it too much thought. But when I realized how many of the smart kids, people I really respected, had taken similar steps, then I got worried.
Here’s the best example: one of the smartest girls in our class had joined a group entitled, “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted For McCain.” The group picture is a flag a half-mast. The description begins, “First let me say, let's pat ourselves on the back. We did what we could and it's time to point fingers at irresponsible citizens known as liberals.”
Now you can probably see why my hopeful enthusiasm of the night before began to fade. Do people really feel this way? I was unhappy when Bush won elections, but never would call those who voted for him “irresponsible citizens.” The sort of rhetoric I’ve just shown you makes me fear what democracy has come to mean for so many young people. Is it just about who can come up with the best one-liner? The best sarcastic put-down? So many are not even willing to give Obama a chance, it seems. Even though a majority of Americans support him, many clearly hate him. They hate him two months before he even takes office.
The next four years are going to be tough. As glad I am Obama won the election, he’s going to be faced with major challenges, and I fear that he could fail. Now, more than ever, we need a united America – e pluribus unum. We need the new politics Obama has been talking about for so long – concern for the best policy, not just scoring political points. I hope he can win over some of these people, but, in this case, I don’t see much hope for change.
Sorry for the wall of text.
All the freshmen in my building congregated in one room, filling the three available couches, all four desk chairs, and most of the floor space. With the exception of one friendly Texan, every one of us was rooting for Obama. Needless to say, spirits were pretty high as state after state turned blue on MSNBC’s map. Cheers broke out when the election was called at 11:00 p.m. We even got a “Yes We Can!” chant going that seemed to shake the floor a bit. McCain’s concession was well received, but some side-conversations and celebrations continued. When Obama came to the podium, however, all was silent; all eyes were on the TV. I’ll admit I got chills a few times, considering the profound nature of that moment and listening to our President-Elect speak.
I went to sleep feeling hopeful for America.
Wednesday morning I woke up and idly checked my Facebook (I promise this post is going somewhere). I was expecting the standard fare: a wall post or two, extraneous invites from people I barely know, maybe something in my inbox. What I found was far more interesting, and disturbing.
Dozens of people had updated their statuses. But these were not mundane details or unintelligible song lyrics. Each was a political statement, all variations on the same theme: Obama is not my President.
A few examples:
David is time to move to canada or something.
Mark says don't vote for OSAMA!
Christopher is Lord Jesus, please remain with us these next years and allow your plan to unfold. Help the people of our country follow you next time. Amen.
Laura. . . well, we might as well move to china.
Morgan feels sick... God put your hands over us.
Now, these are all people from my high school, which was (if you hadn’t noticed) very conservative. And most were conservative in that juvenile “I don’t care about politics, but just trust my parents” way, so at first I didn’t give it too much thought. But when I realized how many of the smart kids, people I really respected, had taken similar steps, then I got worried.
Here’s the best example: one of the smartest girls in our class had joined a group entitled, “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted For McCain.” The group picture is a flag a half-mast. The description begins, “First let me say, let's pat ourselves on the back. We did what we could and it's time to point fingers at irresponsible citizens known as liberals.”
Now you can probably see why my hopeful enthusiasm of the night before began to fade. Do people really feel this way? I was unhappy when Bush won elections, but never would call those who voted for him “irresponsible citizens.” The sort of rhetoric I’ve just shown you makes me fear what democracy has come to mean for so many young people. Is it just about who can come up with the best one-liner? The best sarcastic put-down? So many are not even willing to give Obama a chance, it seems. Even though a majority of Americans support him, many clearly hate him. They hate him two months before he even takes office.
The next four years are going to be tough. As glad I am Obama won the election, he’s going to be faced with major challenges, and I fear that he could fail. Now, more than ever, we need a united America – e pluribus unum. We need the new politics Obama has been talking about for so long – concern for the best policy, not just scoring political points. I hope he can win over some of these people, but, in this case, I don’t see much hope for change.
Sorry for the wall of text.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Party Backlash
Assuming Obama wins tomorrow (although I will still watch election coverage while nervously biting fingernails), there is still one question I have not heard much discussion of: how will our two parties change? It seems probable to me that Obama’s victory will actually have more of a bipartisan impact on our countries dual-party political system than if John McCain were to win.
Consider the options each party had for their presidential candidate. The Democrats went with Obama. And the Republicans chose McCain, who was the most moderate of the bunch in the running (Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, etc.). As a Democrat, I remember thinking on the day McCain won, that “well, at least my worst nightmares can’t come true now.” What worries me now, though, is that if McCain loses the Republican base will see this as a failing of their efforts to reach towards the middle. And consequently snap back to the right.
These ideas are implied in the recent slew of articles on Palin going “rogue.” Op-ed contributors certainly see in her a desire to climb as high as possible, building upon her easy popularity with certain sections of the Republican base. If Republicans leave this election unhappy with the direction McCain tried to lead them in, who will they look too? Like it or not, Palin is now the second most visible Republican on the national stage, and, by playing things right, she can still come away from this election looking like "McCain should have listened to me." Such a position could give her an even stronger sway on Republican politics, by influencing the public that will listen to her, rather than by exercising legislative political influence.
It is inevitable that this election will cause the losing party to question their identity. Should Obama win, I think he has (yet another) responsibility to quickly reach out to Republicans, and ensure that his dream of “Change” will include the entire country.
Consider the options each party had for their presidential candidate. The Democrats went with Obama. And the Republicans chose McCain, who was the most moderate of the bunch in the running (Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, etc.). As a Democrat, I remember thinking on the day McCain won, that “well, at least my worst nightmares can’t come true now.” What worries me now, though, is that if McCain loses the Republican base will see this as a failing of their efforts to reach towards the middle. And consequently snap back to the right.
These ideas are implied in the recent slew of articles on Palin going “rogue.” Op-ed contributors certainly see in her a desire to climb as high as possible, building upon her easy popularity with certain sections of the Republican base. If Republicans leave this election unhappy with the direction McCain tried to lead them in, who will they look too? Like it or not, Palin is now the second most visible Republican on the national stage, and, by playing things right, she can still come away from this election looking like "McCain should have listened to me." Such a position could give her an even stronger sway on Republican politics, by influencing the public that will listen to her, rather than by exercising legislative political influence.
It is inevitable that this election will cause the losing party to question their identity. Should Obama win, I think he has (yet another) responsibility to quickly reach out to Republicans, and ensure that his dream of “Change” will include the entire country.
Media, Propaganda, and Public Opinion: Election 2008
Amidst the hoopla of the recent election season, the new and politics-based media has become an absolute circus. Of course, there have been very positive events- nominations for the first Republican female vice president and the first minority candidate for president in a major party are huge landmarks in our history. However, there have been stumbling blocks as well, wedges dividing an already polarizing nation.
In the course of the past twenty months, the media has propagated a slew of generalizations and misconception, spanning across the social spectrum. Even worse, many of these remarks have come from the candidates themselves, bringing our country a step back from the ideal of social cooperation.
Some may remark that such a thing is typical, that politicians need not be held accountable for how their audiences may interpret their propaganda. However, when America is seen as divided between Real and Other, when corruption in our highest offices is widely accepted to be inevitable, when one’s moral fiber is dictated by their loose affiliations or political party, when ethnic and religious descriptors such as “Muslim” and “Arab” are deemed undercutting insults, I cannot help but believe that something is seriously amiss.
Who’s to be held accountable for the new character of public opinion? The candidates who provoked the ideology? The media for over-analysis and biased commentary, essentially prolonging the discussion and legitimizing such views? Or is this bitter division just part of our political ritual, when potential voters are excited as if screaming sports fans, invariably waving their team’s flag solely for loyalty and tradition? For the sake of our continued social progress, I hope November 5th brings us back to reality.
In the course of the past twenty months, the media has propagated a slew of generalizations and misconception, spanning across the social spectrum. Even worse, many of these remarks have come from the candidates themselves, bringing our country a step back from the ideal of social cooperation.
Some may remark that such a thing is typical, that politicians need not be held accountable for how their audiences may interpret their propaganda. However, when America is seen as divided between Real and Other, when corruption in our highest offices is widely accepted to be inevitable, when one’s moral fiber is dictated by their loose affiliations or political party, when ethnic and religious descriptors such as “Muslim” and “Arab” are deemed undercutting insults, I cannot help but believe that something is seriously amiss.
Who’s to be held accountable for the new character of public opinion? The candidates who provoked the ideology? The media for over-analysis and biased commentary, essentially prolonging the discussion and legitimizing such views? Or is this bitter division just part of our political ritual, when potential voters are excited as if screaming sports fans, invariably waving their team’s flag solely for loyalty and tradition? For the sake of our continued social progress, I hope November 5th brings us back to reality.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Obama's Spending Plans Simply Don't Add Up
Barack Obama, whom at this point seems to be a shoo-in for the White House, certainly has high hopes. He has plans for multiple new government projects, totaling around $200 billion each year. Barack claims to have carefully calculated exactly where all the money to fund these projects will come from; which is primarily from ending the war in Iraq and increasing taxes on the wealthiest two percent of Americans. The problem is, however, that there is simply no way that this plan can add up to still include tax cuts for the majority of middle class Americans.
Some of the highlights from Obama’s plan, quoted from the Washington Times, include a $65 billion-a-year health plan, $15 billion in green energy spending, $85 billion in tax cuts and credits, a $25 billion-a-year increase in foreign aid, and $18 billion a year in education spending. This American government- plagued by overspending for the past 8 years under George Bush- would now have Barack Obama at the helm of government overspending. To quote Joe Biden, “That’s not change! That’s more of the same!”
Unfortunately for Obama, there simply is no money to spend. Raising taxes during this sort of recession, even if it is only on the upper strata of Americans, is a dangerous move. Obama has set his goals much too high, especially with America’s current economic crisis. If Obama does happen to get his way with these spending plans, the brunt of the tax burden will ultimately be shifted off to the middle class, as it always is. The wealthiest simply do not have enough to give, no matter how much Obama plans on taxing them.
The problem with the American voter is that no one is asking these questions. Everyone just seems to be willing to believe Barack Obama when he claims that he will come up with the money to fund these grand programs and cut their taxes. Unfortunately for them, Barack Obama’s big plans simply do not add up.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/22/obamas-spending-plan/
Some of the highlights from Obama’s plan, quoted from the Washington Times, include a $65 billion-a-year health plan, $15 billion in green energy spending, $85 billion in tax cuts and credits, a $25 billion-a-year increase in foreign aid, and $18 billion a year in education spending. This American government- plagued by overspending for the past 8 years under George Bush- would now have Barack Obama at the helm of government overspending. To quote Joe Biden, “That’s not change! That’s more of the same!”
Unfortunately for Obama, there simply is no money to spend. Raising taxes during this sort of recession, even if it is only on the upper strata of Americans, is a dangerous move. Obama has set his goals much too high, especially with America’s current economic crisis. If Obama does happen to get his way with these spending plans, the brunt of the tax burden will ultimately be shifted off to the middle class, as it always is. The wealthiest simply do not have enough to give, no matter how much Obama plans on taxing them.
The problem with the American voter is that no one is asking these questions. Everyone just seems to be willing to believe Barack Obama when he claims that he will come up with the money to fund these grand programs and cut their taxes. Unfortunately for them, Barack Obama’s big plans simply do not add up.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/22/obamas-spending-plan/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
