Archive for September, 2012

On Politicizing… Everything

September 12, 2012 Leave a comment

I like to write with reason and evidence and facts as often as I can, but on rare occasions I’m just angry. Today is one of those occasions. As you have probably read, there were attacks on embassies in Egypt and Lybia over the past 24 hours with 3 Americans killed, including the Ambassador, J. Christopher Stephens, in Lybia. (Sean Smith is another victim; two others have not been named as of this writing.) This, in and of itself, is worthy of both sadness and anger.

But if you want to be even more upset, turn on the news and listen for a bit. The Romney camp criticized the Obama camp for its perceived response. The Obama camp then criticized the Romney camp for playing politics. Of course, as soon as you suggest that the opposite side is playing politics, you necessarily are also playing politics by even bringing it up. I’m beginning to think that if 9/11 had occurred during an election, it would have been as divisive an issue as it was unifying in a non-election year. Is there nothing that rises above the cause of political gain!?

This whole campaign has been a disgrace to America. The media coverage of campaigns is a disgrace; satisfied to cover the horse race instead of the horses; satisfied to stoop to the level of common discourse rather than attempt to raise the bar. I’m tired of the whole process. Do me two favors, handful of readers:

First, take a look at your local ballots. Find anyone on it without a D or an R next to their name. Google that person and check to see if they have real-world qualifications that would prepare them for an important job. If they do, vote for them.

Second, turn off cable news. All channels. I’ll do my best to do it, too. Maybe even boycott their advertisers or something. But do SOMETHING. The two political parties and the preeminence of cable news are horrible for this country. I’d like to do more, but this is all I can think of and accomplish right now.


On Lybia and Egypt and the Arab Spring

September 12, 2012 Leave a comment

Ahh, the Arab Spring: A regional revelation; oppressed and discontented people utilizing social media to organize hasty but massive protests; rebel forces ousting dictatorial regimes in the name of free expression and representation. Go Democracy! Go America!

It didn’t take a genius, though, to see where this might go. An unstable, under-educated, fervently anti-American region of the world rising up at once to have their voices heard and take control of their own destinies. What might those voices say? When social media is utilized to spread an anti-Islamic video, blame America, and organize hasty but deadly attacks on U.S. embassies are we still so excited about freedom of expression in the Middle East?

When I arrived in Haiti two weeks after the earthquake, aid distribution was in a sorry state. Despite security provided by Marines and the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, aid organizations were confronted with disorganized mobs whenever they arrived with handouts. Fearing for their safety and unsure of what to do to improve the situation, these organizations just pushed all of the aid supplies out of the backs of their trucks and drove off. The predictable result was that the whoever was strongest or best-armed–the gangs in this case–would hoard the supplies and leverage them against the people to enhance their power. While this situation was quickly and easily corrected through an information campaign and proper use of peaceful reward and punishment techniques (no aid if you’re disorderly; aid if you’re orderly), it was an excellent demonstration as to what can occur when a power vacuum is created at the top and people are left to fend for themselves.

American foreign policy seems to look a lot like the initial Haiti scenario. We are completely in support of creating power vacuums when dictators fall, but there is no plan or discipline implemented into filling those vacuums. Thus, the strongest, loudest, best-armed factions are in the best position to seize control and set the direction of new regimes. When this takes place in a region with interests and values vastly different from our own, the results can be detrimental. While we were quick to celebrate the spread of self-expression and the road to democracy in the Middle East, few brought up to downsides. After all, what do you get when you have a democracy without a well-educated populace and the rule of law? You get mob rule.

On What I Wanted to Hear from Obama

September 7, 2012 Leave a comment

President Obama gave his official acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention last night, and it was by normal standards, a good speech. It was a good speech in the same way that candidate Obama was known for giving good speeches. It was full of hope and optimism; it was level-headed and mostly fair-minded; it provided a laundry list of goals. But it was not an effective speech. In my mind, the convention speeches exist not just to rally the political base, but also to grab onto what few undecided or loosely-committed voters are left in the process who may be tuning in for the first time–or who at the very least will be hearing about politics somewhat more than during non-convention weeks. In this regard, I think Barack Obama failed.

As I noted about the Republican National Convention last week, there are always certain goals in terms of themes to hit and arguments to be made during the course of a convention. In my unprofessional opinion, the goals for the president this week should have been to 1) cast a positive light on his record and 2) explain how his next four years would be better for the American people than Mitt Romney’s next four years. This approach would still allow him to attack the policies of his opponent, but would also fight back against two key arguments made by his detractors: that he is avoiding his record because he has nothing to brag about and that he lacks a clear vision for America’s future or the ability to deliver on that vision. Embedded in that task, though, is to also make a case for his vision.

Seen through that light, I can’t say that I was overly impressed. The speech started out very strong, with a simple reminder that campaigns can wear on all of us as minor issues become major distractions from the real job at hand. He also did an excellent job of subtly highlighting his vision for the role of government (though I thought it should have been far less subtle). In fighting the notion that he is nothing but a big government quasi-socialist, Obama stated that “not every problem can be remedied with another government program or dictate from Washington.” He clarified that government “has a role” in preparing the American workforce for the jobs that are available at home, but added that “teachers must inspire; principals must lead; parents must instill a thirst for learning, and students, you’ve gotta do the work.”

However, it wasn’t all shying away from government. Obama also stated that “those of us who believe government can be a force for good should work harder than anyone to reform it, so that it’s leaner, and more efficient, and more responsive to the American people.” (emphasis added). Meanwhile he called on the notion of citizenship and working together to push back against the idea that he attributes to his opponents: “that bigger tax cuts and fewer regulations are the only way; that since government can’t do everything, it should do almost nothing.” These lines were probably pretty good and should probably have been included in any version of his speech.

But enough about what he did say. Let’s talk about what Obama should have said. If I were Barack Obama, early into the speech I would have addressed my opponents’ biggest criticism head on. I would have stated that “my opponent claims that I have no record on which to run. My opponent says I’m running away from my record instead of running on my record. So let’s address my record as president.” Then, issue by issue, I would follow format of 1) What I’ve done; 2) The positive effects of that action; 3) What still needs to be done; 4) My plan to accomplish part three.

For instance, Obama could have said of health care that he signed into legislation the largest health care reform bill in modern American history which will extend coverage to X number of people, end denial based on pre-existing conditions, set up transparent insurance exchanges in each state. However, more must be done to slow the rising costs of health care and to ensure that Medicaid and Medicare become financially viable. My plan to do so is ______.

On the military, Obama could have said that he ended the war in Iraq and ordered the successful mission to kill Osama bin Laden, but we still have troops in Afghanistan and terror remains a force against which we must be vigilant. With the input from my military advisers, I have a plan to wind down the fight in Afghanistan and on the home front, [insert security plan here].

On the financial collapse, he could have outlined the purpose and intent of the Dodd-Frank Act, the mortgage relief plans and settlement, and how they helped… but also what they failed to accomplish. And then he could have laid out an idea for how to accomplish more on those fronts (especially the home markets).

On jobs, he could highlight the reversal from job loss to job gains and the declining trend of the unemployment rate, but stated the obvious that too many Americans are still without work. Instead of using this as an opportunity to mention that his jobs bill is still stalled in Congress, he could have re-stated or re-packaged some of the more popular ideas from the bill as a means to move forward.

By now you get the idea. The point I’m making by dragging this exercise out for so long is two-fold. First, you’ll notice that I left a lot of blanks in there. That’s because even after beginning his speech by criticizing his opponents for stating what they want to do without how they want to do it, Obama’s speech mostly went on to do the same. That is a very basic mistake that was picked up on immediately by Fox News and several others.

Secondly, though, is to highlight that on virtually every single issue facing the country right now, a plan has been hatched, action taken, progress made, and more is left to be done. I have yet to get around to writing my blog about what I don’t like about Obama and his presidency, so for now you’ll have to take my word that I think he’s solidly mediocre. I think he has made mistakes. I think the recovery could have and should have gone better. But I also do not think he is moving the country backward because all observable data save the national debt tells me that isn’t the case. On every single issue, work is being done. I didn’t even mention energy (higher domestic oil production, lower foreign reliance), women’s rights (I’m talking Lilly Ledbetter, not contraception), gay rights (repealed don’t ask, don’t tell), and a host of other issues.

If I was Obama (or even his speechwriter), I even would have stepped into the debt conversation last night. I would have said that I hate debt and deficit as much as anyone, but that our country was in a crisis and it needed help; that George W. Bush, John McCain and Barack Obama all saw that reality–and there’s not much on which all three of those men agree. I would have acknowledged that debt caused more challenges for the future, and that now that we are on the road to recovery, the debt issue has to be tackled. On that note, I would have been certain to point out that no tax cut (to my knowledge) has ever reduced a deficit. Even when accelerated growth occurs, it is not enough to supplant the lost revenue. But I would have focused on making it known that skyrocketing debt was a function of the crisis and that since the initial bailouts, government spending has grown at only a snail’s pace.

Such a speech would have made clear to the American people that 1) Obama has a record and cares about the issues important to you, 2) Obama has moved in the right direction toward mutually-agreed-upon goals, 3) Obama is not so out of touch that he doesn’t understand the shortcomings of the past three years, and 4) he has substantive plans to make the next four years better than the past three years. If I felt those four things were true, it would be pretty easy to vote to give this man more time. Absent those things–which is the reality of his speech–you have to wonder if maybe he is a bit out of touch (like his opponent). Absent them, if you were on the fence going into the night, you might still vote against his opponent, but you probably won’t vote for your president.

On What I Don’t Want To Hear at the DNC…

September 3, 2012 2 comments

… but probably will.


I don’t want to hear the words “War on Women.”

I understand that there is a seemingly endless list of issues through which Republicans appear hostile to the fairer sex. The degree to which that is true depends on who you talk to (for instance, Todd Akin and Rick Santorum are likely more hostile than Mitt Romney). I don’t have a problem bringing up issues such as planned parenthood, abortion rights, contraception, and equal pay. I expect those issues to be discussed, and I hope that it is done honestly rather than through pandering hyperbole (probably not). But the tired phrase “war on” anything needs to be put to bed.


I don’t want to hear about Mitt Romney’s tax returns.

I really just can’t get myself to care about this issue. Might Mitt Romney be hiding something? Sure. But is it definitely true that every tax return he publishes, even if perfectly legal and not embarrassing, will be picked through and exploited for political gain? Yes, it absolutely will. I don’t need any more evidence that Mitt Romney is richer than most of us. I don’t need any more evidence that he pays a very low effective tax rate. And I don’t need the home stretch of the campaign to focus on anything other than the varying paths forward proposed by the opposing sides.


I don’t want to hear lies.

I think I’ve been pretty consistent here in saying that if you have a strong case then you shouldn’t need to lie to make your point. It is no coincidence that “hard truths” became a catchphrase for the Republicans when Paul Ryan was named as Romney’s running mate just after fact check organizations had slammed some pro-Obama ads including the one linking the death of a woman to Bain Capital; and after Harry Reid had made unsubstantiated claims about Mitt Romney’s taxes. After Paul Ryan was hit with heavy criticism for playing fast and loose with the facts in his convention speech, the Democrats have raised the bar for themselves in terms of factual accuracy this week. You don’t get to cry wolf and then attack the sheep yourself. So I hope to hear an honest week.


I don’t want to hear blame without accountability.

There is enough blame to go around. Yes, I blame the Bush administration, Congress, the Federal Reserve, and failed regulators from around 2003-2006 (the time frame that in my opinion, the emerging problem was there to be recognized through when there was still enough time to dodge the economic consequences) for the recession. Yes, I blame filibusters in the Senate and obstructionist House Republicans for much of what has not gotten done in the past three years.

However, I also blame the Obama administration and Democratic congresspeople for making their first major piece of legislation a health care bill rather than the jobs bill that now sits blocked in Congress. I blame the stimulus and bailout plans for being so full of pork and less effective than they could have been (while recognizing that they were essential to avoid further damage). I want to hear this week that mistakes have been made. I want to hear that Obama and Democrats could have done better, should have done better, have learned from any mistakes, vow to do better, and tell us how they intend to do so.