The people cannot look to legislation generally for success. Industry, thrift, character, are not conferred by act or resolve. Government cannot relieve from toil. It can provide no substitute for the rewards of service. It can, of course, care for the defective and recognize distinguished merit. The normal must care for themselves. Self-government means self-support.
-Calvin Coolidge
I will have plenty of time to evaluate Obama's proposed policies as they unfold, but I want to comment on the perceived and actual significance of the occasion. Likely because I am too young to have lived through segregation and grew up in too liberal of a neighborhood to have witnessed real racism, I have trouble seeing the historic first as a particularly important thread in the narrative. As I listened to CNN pundits point out that it was a monumental event and that
we have transcended race and then proceed to discuss the event without reference to his politics,
or any other substantive point, but instead focus on his race (or
half of it), I couldn't help but remember a conversation I had with my mom when I first learned what affirmative action was. I was in 5th or 6th grade but the thrust of my question remains pretty clear in my memory: "I thought what race people are isn't supposed to matter?" Commenter Cynical in CA on The Agitator put it nicely into libertarian terms:
Race is among the most pernicious forms of collectivism. Identification
with race, whether as a member of or a detractor of, negates the
individual. That is the essence of racism, of all collectivism — the
negation of the individual. I heard A LOT of collectivist speech last
night, qu’elle surprise.
The fact is, the variation within a given group is far larger than the variation between groups. To say that his election represents a great leap forward for the African American community while many African
Americans' face difficult circumstances they will find little improved today is frustrating.It’s more frustrating still that 95% of African Americans voted for him
despite his seeming willingness to continue rewarding a broken
public education monopoly which limits their opportunities and to increase funding for a drug war which is
incarcerating them for consensual crimes at draconian rates.
On a somewhat unrelated note, how is this for an unintended consequence?
Daisy (my girlfriend) has informed me that many of her friends, most of them Smith graduates, believe me to be a "radical republican" based on my outspoken views on the election. Given my vocal opposition to the expansion of government, our large military, non-defensive wars, the war on drugs, legislating morality, protectionism, nationalism, anti-immigration sentiment, . . . the list goes on; this is incredibly comical to me. Then again, because I consider the vast majority of my acquaintances intelligent, yet find that the vast majority of them seem to be completely enamored with Barack Obama, a politician so vile and self serving I would hesitate to allow him near my children or relatives let alone vote him into a position of power over me; I do tend to harp more on the failings of the left than the failings of the right. Recognizing this necessary bias, here is some more evidence of my radical republicanism: I agree with Todd Zywicki's defense of Sarah Palin's intelligence. His central point:
Some thoughtful people simply have a tendency to confuse intelligence
with the ability to be glib, or more precisely, to bs. And I think that
is much of what it comes down to--if Palin doesn't know the answer to a
question, she just isn't that good at making something up.
I think this can be fleshed out a little more. Many on the left went to colleges and universities dominated by leftist professors. They learned to parrot the views of their professors without thinking deeply about the views they had adopted. At the same time they came to the conclusion that their view were a result of this education. That they believed the same things as their professors, and their professors were really thoughtful, even if their understanding of the arguments involved were only sufficiently developed to return an A-/B+ on the final exam, was evidence that their views were the intelligent ones. The corollary is that those with whom they disagreed, weren't as much in opposition as ignorant. That if only those in the flyover states had read the books they have read, or had received the education they had received, there would be no disagreement.
If this is the position from which one approaches politics, the glib BS artist will sound more intelligent. By forming academic sounding sentences, using adverbs, and uttering vaguely progressive sounding words, the BS artist is able to bring the thoughtless leftist back to his or her college days. "Ah, this is the person I should parrot, they have thought about their views and sound intelligent, this is the right point of view to adopt and pass off as my own." One moment from last weeks debate struck me as particularly illustrative of this point. In response to a question about appointing judges in the context of Roe v. Wade, Obama uttered the following nonsense:
I am somebody who believes that Roe versus Wade was rightly decided. I
think that abortion is a very difficult issue and it is a moral issue
To be clear, Roe v. Wade was NOT decided on moral grounds. It was not decided that the unborn were not rights-bearers in the moral sense. The court in fact decided not to answer the moral question at all and instead decided to rule on privacy grounds. If one believes that abortion is a moral issue, and that abortion is morally permissible, the emanations and penumbras from which the court fashioned the right to privacy would be the WRONG way to decide the case. For a constitutional law professor, the inability to answer this one without mixing up the facts of one of the most important cases of the last century is damning evidence of incompetence or agenda.
Then again, if you are the type of coastal elite leftist who I describe above, the answer would be great comfort. "He holds similar views to my own on abortion, he speaks confidently, and uses words like 'referendum', he is intelligent and his views are the ones I will adopt." Unfortunately, for those who can see through the BS, in this case those who might have actually read Roe v. Wade, his willingness to spout nonsense is evidence not of his intelligence, but an impeachment thereof.
Update:
So, now that the election is over, more stories come out. I still think Zywicki's points regarding the difference between being smart and being glib apply to Biden and to a lesser extent Obama. Also, I think we need to take these charges from the staffers of a recently routed campaign with a grain of salt (I can't believe she didn't know whether Africa was a country or a continent). Notwithstanding all of that, to the extent this is true it says very little of whoever was managing McCain's campaign.
I am exhausted by my rage, both over the last post, and the debate. Here are my initial reactions:
McCain He knew the notes (tax cuts, free trade) but when it comes to defending freedom, the music isn't that beautiful. This is not surprising considering, with the exception of his support for free trade, he hasn't demonstrated any deep affinity for freedom.
Obama I really believe he is a socialist. There is just no way he is pandering, because there is no way the body politic has shifted this far to the left. He demonstrated an enthusiasm for: - Supporting dieing inefficient industries and engaging in trade wars with countries which can provide to us for less the goods those industries produce - Choosing which industry "should be the driver of our economy for the next century" and using taxpayer dollars to support that industry - Denying domestic consumers access to cheaper foreign goods to protect uncompetitive domestic labor - Requiring national service from all children aged 11 to 18 - Increasing taxes on the most productive 5% while reducing taxes on the rest in order to facilitate "spreading the wealth"
Considering that he is as far in the lead as he has been, and his rhetoric is as hostile to freedom as ever, I am pretty scared for what he might do without opposition in congress.
I hope to blog a lot more this weekend about Palin (who I think was an inspired pick), McCain's speech and perhaps more about what was an otherwise boring convention. However, I am still in Hammond on what I thought would be a short engagement but now looks more open ended.
I do, however, want to point out what stood out to me as I read McCain's speech this evening. Assume for a moment that politicians will do nothing they say they will, or at least, that what they say is totally uncorrelated with what the will do. What do the lies a person chooses to tell say about that person? I fall in to the trap of taking politicians at their word more than someone who follows politics as much as I do should. It is totally infuriating that when discussing the current race, my friends who support Obama have no problem refuting my quotations of his word by claiming he is merely pandering. So, when I heard the following passages I had to stop and remind myself it is political speech.
We believe everyone has something to contribute and deserves the
opportunity to reach their God-given potential from the boy whose
descendants arrived on the Mayflower to the Latina daughter of migrant
workers. We’re all God’s children and we’re all Americans. We believe
in low taxes; spending discipline, and open markets. We believe in rewarding hard work and risk takers and letting people keep the fruits of their labor.
-----
We believe in a government that unleashes the creativity and initiative
of Americans. Government that doesn’t make your choices for you, but
works to make sure you have more choices to make for yourself.
-----
Reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs will
let you keep more of your own money to save, spend and invest as you
see fit.
-----
When a public school fails to meet its obligations to
students, parents deserve a choice in the education of their children.
And I intend to give it to them. Some may choose a better public
school. Some may choose a private one. Many will choose a charter
school. But they will have that choice and their children will have
that opportunity.
Now, I understand that to the extent this is pandering, I am the one at whom it is directed. But still; what does the way someone panders say about them and their views? Obama's promises to save, fix, invest and give belie two such beliefs. First, that we are a nation of beggars, incompetents and fools. Second, that he is sufficiently close to perfect in all respects that he is capable of saving us from ourselves and delivering us a new brighter day.
I have no reason to believe McCain's speech was any more than pandering. Nonetheless, I like that he believes appealing to liberty and individual strength will be more effective than appealing to our individual weakness and collectivist desire to live of the efforts of others.
Perhaps the most disappointing part of the presidential campaign season is the Democrats' need to convince everyone that things could not possibly get any worse. In this morning's WSJ, Peggy Noonan hits the nail on the head in her critique of Ms. Obama's speech:
In order to paint both her professional life and her husband's, and in
order to communicate what she feels is his singular compassion, she had
to paint an America that is darker, sadder, grimmer, than most
Americans experience their country to be. And this of course is an
incomplete picture, an incorrectly weighted picture. Sadness and
struggle are part of life, but so are guts and verve and achievement
and success and hardiness and…triumph. Democrats always get this wrong.
Republicans get it wrong too, but in a different way.
Democrats in the end speak most of, and seem to hold
the most sympathy for, the beset-upon single mother without medical
coverage for her children, and the soldier back from the war who needs
more help with post-traumatic stress disorder. They express the most
sympathy for the needy, the yearning, the marginalized and unwell. For
those, in short, who need more help from the government, meaning from
the government's treasury, meaning the money got from taxpayers.
Who happen, also, to be a generally beset-upon group.
Democrats show little expressed sympathy for those who
work to make the money the government taxes to help the beset-upon
mother and the soldier and the kids. They express little sympathy for
the middle-aged woman who owns a small dry cleaner and employs six
people and is, actually, day to day, stressed and depressed from the
burden of state, local and federal taxes, and regulations, and
lawsuits, and meetings with the accountant, and complaints as to
insufficient or incorrect efforts to meet guidelines regarding various
employee/employer rules and regulations.
More than rhetorically distasteful, this practice is probably harmful because it biases expectation creating real contractionary changes. I understand to accuse the perpetrator of such a misrepresentation invites the charge that one is out of touch. However, I can't help but think that if a candidate could make the consequences clear and understandable, the real harm done the economy would be worse than merely perceived lack of awareness. Maybe since McCain pretty much bit the out of touch bullet on the 7 homes gaffe he could give it a try.
Obama promised to end our dependence on Middle Eastern oil in ten years. While not as genocidal as Huckabee's declaration that "we ought to declare that we will be free of energy consumption in this country within a decade, bold as that is," it is just as silly.
It doesn't matter what we do: drill, research alternative energy,
raise CAFE standards . . . in 2018, we'll still be using oil. Even if
we discovered a magic source of clean renewable energy tomorrow, we'd
still be using a lot of oil, because transitions of that magnitude take
time. A lot of time. If a price competitive solar heating system came
out tomorrow, would you run out and buy one? Or would you wait until
the oil heater broke?
Moreover, cutting our consumption of oil
will not do anything to reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle
East. First, because other countries--countries we trade with--will
still be using the stuff, so changes in oil prices will continue to
whipsaw our economy. And second, because the price of oil is set on
the world market. If we cut world consumption back to 20 million
barrels a day, we would be totally dependent on Middle Eastern
oil, because they're the low-cost producers--it takes, if I recall
correctly, less than $5 a barrel to pull oil out of the ground in
Saudi. The Middle East will be the last place to close the
taps. The more we cut world consumption, the more dependent we'll be
on crazy Middle Eastern governments. Those governments might not be as
rich. But we'll still need them just as much, as long as oil remains
critical.
And it will remain critical. Not just because our battery technology is not up to
a thoroughgoing changeover in our transportation system. But also
because we use oil for other things. Plastics--you may have noticed
there's quite a lot of that stuff around, in a lot of important
consumer goods. Avgas--we won't get battery powered planes any time
soon. Fertilizer, upon which the green revolution depends; without
petrochemicals and natural gas derivatives, Soylent Green would look
prescient instead of silly.
Needless to say, since we do not, in
fact, have any technology that looks likely to replace hydrocarbons in
the immediate future, this statement is even more mendacious ludicrous
While Megan has set out the insurmountable hurdles in such a goal more thoroughly than I ever could, I can't understand why we would want to. To all but the most committed violators of the broken window fallacy (of which Obama is certainly one), it is clear the cost of the immense replacement of capital would be crippling.
I don't mean to pick on Austan, but as an economic adviser he has failed to pass along things every freshman would learn in an introduction to economics class. To wit:
Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when . . . an employer undercuts
American wages by hiring illegal workers.
Oh, I can think of a few. How about the employer, the illegal worker, and every person who buys goods or services from the employer?
For part of what has been lost these past eight years can't just be measured by . . . bigger trade deficits.
What is this guy, a mercantilist? Trade deficits measure gains - they grow when we trade worthless pieces of paper for real goods produced abroad and those producers don't make us take those same pieces of paper back in exchange for some of our goods.
[McCain] said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one
of his chief advisors -- the man who wrote his economic plan -- was
talking about the anxiety Americans are feeling, he said that we were
just suffering from a "mental recession," and that we've become, and I
quote, "a nation of whiners."
I guess positive real GDP in 5 of the last 6 quarters isn't as good as if our economy had grown in all 6, and while unemployment below 6% would be the envy of Europe, it has been better. However, in light of his failure to grasp some pretty basic economics, I think Obama may be the one suffering from a "mental recession".
government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves . . .
Sounds like he is talking about public goods - on most days I'm a minarchist as opposed to an anarchist. However, Obama just has a lot less faith in America than I do:
. . . protect us from harm . . .
OK, as long as he means harm by others, I'm still with him.
. . . provide every child a decent education . . .
Well, perhaps we can talk about some subsidy, but Obama has never attended a pubic school in the United States. Surely if private institutions were good enough when he was at Punahou School, and at Occidental, and at Columbia, and at Harvard Law; education is something we can do for ourselves.
. . . keep
our water clean . . .
I know, thankfully he had the courage to "stand up to the special interests" and pass a farm bill which gives away millions to encourage the overuse of fertilizers and pesticides to grow otherwise unviable crops on marginal land which could otherwise be conserved.
. . . and our toys safe . . .
Taking "nanny state" a little to seriously, no?
. . . invest in new schools and new roads
and new science and technology.
The government needs to invest, because we can't do it for ourselves? Not dignifying that with a response.
So, you heard it from the horse's mouth: Obama doesn't want a bigger more intrusive government than ever before because has a giant ego and craves power. It's because he's confident that without a brilliant leader like him telling us what to do at every turn, we could barely make it out of the house with matching socks
Guess I missed this when it ran a few weeks ago, but I figure it is pretty topical given this week's events. I actually am not as interested in whats being said, but who is saying it. Austan Goolsbee is a professor at the University of Chicago - his commitment to advancing knowledge should be second to none. Unless of course it means a chance at a role in the Obama administration. For example:
Sen. Obama also recognizes that small businesses are the engine of job growth in the economy.
Well, small businesses are also the engine of job loss - there is just more variance. I'm all for cutting taxes on small businesses, my beef is that a man who should hold truth and knowledge above all is bending it to try and steal votes. I know that the lies and half-truths are a dime a dozen this season, but while they are to be expected from politicians, they are insidious coming from someone whose job is knowledge (and has earned a level of trust and respect because of it). I guess its the difference between a child molester, and a child molester who first takes a position working closely with children to build a reputation for his integrity around children, then takes advantage when the getting is good.
