There were at least five Senate seats in this election cycle that might have been occupied by a Republican come January had not the invincible stupidity of the candidate stood in the way.We know who he means, too. I really like his phrase "invincible stupidity."
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Quote of the Day
Bret Stephens, who writes for The Wall Street Journal, musing about the recent, regrettable election results and calling for an IQ test and a test of basic knowledge for GOP candidates:
Spengler: Tour d'Horizon
David P. Goldman, aka Spengler, writes on world political and economic affairs for the Asia Times Online. The column I just read does a tour d'horizon and finds the U.S. becoming disengaged, moving in the direction of isolationism.
'Spengler' writes of Petraeus and his supposed successes, by which the author is not impressed. He describes Petraeus as a sort of illusionist who created the impression that good things were happening, when they in fact were not. Others have made this point as well.
Goldman makes several predictions of things lesser nations will do in the absence of U.S. influence. These are often things not in the best interests of the U.S.
'Spengler' writes of Petraeus and his supposed successes, by which the author is not impressed. He describes Petraeus as a sort of illusionist who created the impression that good things were happening, when they in fact were not. Others have made this point as well.
Goldman makes several predictions of things lesser nations will do in the absence of U.S. influence. These are often things not in the best interests of the U.S.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Who Is Sleeping With Whom
Have some fun ... take a look at Andrew Malcolm's column for Investor's Business Daily in which he lays out (pun intended) who is sleeping with whom, who is sending "inappropriate" emails (whatever that means) to whom, who may have known what about Benghazi-gate, etc.
It's so wonderful it came out after the election, when the tackiness can't influence who leads the world's only superpower.
It's so wonderful it came out after the election, when the tackiness can't influence who leads the world's only superpower.
When "Commission" Refers To a Crime
If you think General Petraeus' admitted marital infidelity is very strange, take a look at this article in The Atlantic which summarizes literally dozens of cases of misbehavior among the officer class.
It doesn't include a new case that emerged today in conjunction with le affaire Petraeus, this dealing with the C.O. in Afghanistan. The article concludes:
It doesn't include a new case that emerged today in conjunction with le affaire Petraeus, this dealing with the C.O. in Afghanistan. The article concludes:
A growing roster of military leaders are gambling with our nation's trust in them.For an unflattering view of Gen. Petraeus' massaging of the press, see this Buzzfeed article by Michael Hastings.
Conspiracy Theories
Back in the day, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was believed to keep extensive files on the peccadilloes of various senators and other government officials, including presidents. It is alleged these files were used by Hoover to influence official decisions.
One wonders if early FBI knowledge of the Petraeus affair was being used in the same way, as this Investors' Business Daily article hints. Questions about the CIA's role in the Benghazi consulate attack still pend.
Petraeus may have gone public about the affair and resigned in order to eliminate leverage against him prior to testifying to Congress. Or to make his testimony not useful.
Perhaps it was a bureaucrat's version of "falling on a grenade" - taking one for his Agency. For another view, see this political/analytical article from The New Yorker.
One wonders if early FBI knowledge of the Petraeus affair was being used in the same way, as this Investors' Business Daily article hints. Questions about the CIA's role in the Benghazi consulate attack still pend.
Petraeus may have gone public about the affair and resigned in order to eliminate leverage against him prior to testifying to Congress. Or to make his testimony not useful.
Perhaps it was a bureaucrat's version of "falling on a grenade" - taking one for his Agency. For another view, see this political/analytical article from The New Yorker.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Samuelson: The Welfare State
Take a look at this RealClearPolitics article by the Washington Post's Robert Samuelson. He's very good on topics where economics and politics intersect - in this case entitlements, aka "the welfare state."
Samuelson says entitlements have gotten out of hand, and need to be reeled in. He makes the point that a number of people who don't need Social Security and Medicare are getting them; he's probably right. On the other hand, if the comfortable-to-affluent get nothing back, they'll cease supporting the program as it becomes unadulterated welfare.
My understanding is that now most of us get back from Social Security considerably more than we paid in, plus interest. Perhaps the poor should get that much, many who are far from poor need not.
My proposal: what if people whose income was above some comfort level merely received back from Social Security what they'd paid in plus a decent interest return on their money, actuarially paid out over the expected lifespan of the individual like an annuity.
Samuelson says entitlements have gotten out of hand, and need to be reeled in. He makes the point that a number of people who don't need Social Security and Medicare are getting them; he's probably right. On the other hand, if the comfortable-to-affluent get nothing back, they'll cease supporting the program as it becomes unadulterated welfare.
My understanding is that now most of us get back from Social Security considerably more than we paid in, plus interest. Perhaps the poor should get that much, many who are far from poor need not.
My proposal: what if people whose income was above some comfort level merely received back from Social Security what they'd paid in plus a decent interest return on their money, actuarially paid out over the expected lifespan of the individual like an annuity.
Unintended Consequences
Most people who work prefer full-time jobs to part-time jobs. This is particularly true since full-time jobs normally come with benefits that part-time jobs lack.
Obamacare requires all employers of 50 or more employees to provide health care to those working 30 or more hours a week. See this Chicago Sun-Times article for more. Hat tip to Lucianne.com for the link.
Talk about a disincentive to large-scale, full-time employment. Many smallish companies which would otherwise have 55 or 65 employees, will instead have 49 or fewer. Such firms will also assign to outside contractors work which might otherwise be done by their own employees.
ACA also creates a serious incentive for firms to use wholesale volumes of part-time employees as the retail and fast food industries now do. Imagine a future in which many people hold down 2-4 part time jobs in order to create enough income to live while having few or no benefits from any of them. In which the only full-time employees are managers.
Obamacare requires all employers of 50 or more employees to provide health care to those working 30 or more hours a week. See this Chicago Sun-Times article for more. Hat tip to Lucianne.com for the link.
Talk about a disincentive to large-scale, full-time employment. Many smallish companies which would otherwise have 55 or 65 employees, will instead have 49 or fewer. Such firms will also assign to outside contractors work which might otherwise be done by their own employees.
ACA also creates a serious incentive for firms to use wholesale volumes of part-time employees as the retail and fast food industries now do. Imagine a future in which many people hold down 2-4 part time jobs in order to create enough income to live while having few or no benefits from any of them. In which the only full-time employees are managers.
Tax the Rich
Bill Kristol has suggested that it won't hurt to let Obama and the Dems raise taxes on the wealthy; I agree. Too many of them vote Dem anyway.
For example, the wealthiest county in Wyoming is Teton County. During the boom years, Teton County realtors joked that billionaires were buying out the millionaires.
Teton County is the only county in the state Obama carried. Romney carried every other county in Wyoming, all 22 of them.
During the Bush years Vice President Cheney claimed Wyoming as his home. His residence was (and still is) in Teton County. Cheney carried his home state for Bush, but not his home county - too many wealthy residents.
For example, the wealthiest county in Wyoming is Teton County. During the boom years, Teton County realtors joked that billionaires were buying out the millionaires.
Teton County is the only county in the state Obama carried. Romney carried every other county in Wyoming, all 22 of them.
During the Bush years Vice President Cheney claimed Wyoming as his home. His residence was (and still is) in Teton County. Cheney carried his home state for Bush, but not his home county - too many wealthy residents.
The Red and the Blue
The results of the 2012 election didn't much please me (or, I'd guess, most of you). On the Wednesday after that election, I wrote a COTTonLINE column entitled "Reactions to the 2012 Election" in which I mused about the red and blue states going their separate ways.
Unsurprisingly, it appears I wasn't the only one with that notion. This Yahoo News article reports that thousands of people have signed petitions asking for their states to be allowed to peacefully separate from the Union.
I don't see separation happening, but if enough people feel that way, it could lead to states being given more autonomy. More state autonomy (and fewer federal diktats) would be a plus.
Unsurprisingly, it appears I wasn't the only one with that notion. This Yahoo News article reports that thousands of people have signed petitions asking for their states to be allowed to peacefully separate from the Union.
I don't see separation happening, but if enough people feel that way, it could lead to states being given more autonomy. More state autonomy (and fewer federal diktats) would be a plus.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Political Humor Alert
General David Petraeus apparently met the woman with whom he had an extramarital affair in Afghanistan. Paula Broadwell was an embedded journalist.
His biographer as well as his mistress, Broadwell gives an entirely new meaning to the term "embedded." Will any future war correspondent be able to use that term with a straight face?
His biographer as well as his mistress, Broadwell gives an entirely new meaning to the term "embedded." Will any future war correspondent be able to use that term with a straight face?
The Hawthorne Effect in Voting
In 2012, heavy electioneering only occurred in the 12-15 battleground or swing states. In the other 35+ states we hardly saw a billboard, TV ad, or even bumper sticker concerning the presidential race.
To be sure, the local races put up billboards, yard signs, and ran a few TV ads. Still, unless you're a friend of one of the local candidates, these probably do not move you.
I live in Wyoming - heavily Republican - and California - heavily Democratic. Neither was a swing or battleground state in 2012. Therefore we saw no presidential candidate visits, none of their attack ads, got none of the mailers, weren't contacted by their "ground games," yada, yada, yada.
In many ways it was pleasant not being bombarded with all the campaign lies but nobody much cared whether or not we voted or for whom. If we were people who took little interest in politics, it would have been much too easy to blow off voting.
I'd like to see studies of whether or not much higher proportions of eligible voters in swing states got registered and voted. My hypothesis would be that the difference between voting levels in swing and non-swing states would be significant and enough to affect the total popular vote outcomes in meaningful ways.
I base this hypothesis on the 1930s Hawthorne studies which showed that workers produce more when someone pays attention to them and their efforts. It logically follows that potential voters are more likely to vote when someone is pestering them to do so, paying attention to their voting behavior.
To be sure, the local races put up billboards, yard signs, and ran a few TV ads. Still, unless you're a friend of one of the local candidates, these probably do not move you.
I live in Wyoming - heavily Republican - and California - heavily Democratic. Neither was a swing or battleground state in 2012. Therefore we saw no presidential candidate visits, none of their attack ads, got none of the mailers, weren't contacted by their "ground games," yada, yada, yada.
In many ways it was pleasant not being bombarded with all the campaign lies but nobody much cared whether or not we voted or for whom. If we were people who took little interest in politics, it would have been much too easy to blow off voting.
I'd like to see studies of whether or not much higher proportions of eligible voters in swing states got registered and voted. My hypothesis would be that the difference between voting levels in swing and non-swing states would be significant and enough to affect the total popular vote outcomes in meaningful ways.
I base this hypothesis on the 1930s Hawthorne studies which showed that workers produce more when someone pays attention to them and their efforts. It logically follows that potential voters are more likely to vote when someone is pestering them to do so, paying attention to their voting behavior.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Missing Voters
Mitt Romney attracted fewer voters than did John McCain in 2008, or W. in 2004. Similarly, Barack Obama attracted fewer voters than he did in 2008. In other words, many potential voters stayed home.
It was a negative campaign. Team Obama said Romney was a wealthy corporate raider who didn't want to bail out GM and Chrysler and opposed abortion. Their negative ads were mostly correct.
Team Romney said Obama was a failure as a president, did essentially nothing to reverse unemployment, and, with the exception of killing Osama ben Laden, most of his 'accomplishments' were disliked by the public. Team Romney's criticisms were mostly correct.
You have to wonder how many potential voters found the negative ads of both campaigns convincing and were not motivated to vote for either? Apparently the numbers were quite large.
I saw one analysis which put the number of potential Romney voters who stayed home at 10 million. If a third of these had voted we'd be talking about President-elect Romney.
The GOP needs to discover who stayed home, why, and what it can do differently to get these people to vote GOP.
It was a negative campaign. Team Obama said Romney was a wealthy corporate raider who didn't want to bail out GM and Chrysler and opposed abortion. Their negative ads were mostly correct.
Team Romney said Obama was a failure as a president, did essentially nothing to reverse unemployment, and, with the exception of killing Osama ben Laden, most of his 'accomplishments' were disliked by the public. Team Romney's criticisms were mostly correct.
You have to wonder how many potential voters found the negative ads of both campaigns convincing and were not motivated to vote for either? Apparently the numbers were quite large.
I saw one analysis which put the number of potential Romney voters who stayed home at 10 million. If a third of these had voted we'd be talking about President-elect Romney.
The GOP needs to discover who stayed home, why, and what it can do differently to get these people to vote GOP.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Fool Me Twice
My brief reaction to the results of the 2012 presidential election:
Fool me once, shame on you, Barack Obama.Of course the "me" in that couplet is the American voting public. They were fooled once, and went back for more. Shame on this year's voting public, or at least a narrow majority thereof.
Fool me twice, shame on the American voters.
Enlarging the Tent
When I wrote "Low Hanging Fruit" I had the right idea, but gave it the wrong name. I should have called it "Enlarging the Tent."
What makes a two party democracy work is the proverbial big tent system. Each party, if it is serious about winning elections, must make its "tent" big enough to include a majority of the voters, at least some of the time.
At least some of the time, a majority of the voters need to find its arguments more persuasive and its candidates more attractive than those of the other party.
During the second half of the twentieth century the Republican Party did this by cobbling together three or four major groups: foreign policy/defense hawks, small government/low taxes fiscal conservatives, evangelical Christians, and perhaps whites rooting for the home team, aka racists. No one wants to admit the inclusion of this fourth group.
During that same period, the Democratic Party filled their tent with unionists, racial and lifestyle minorities, foreign policy/defense anti-hawks, public employees including teachers, those who do not attend church, and ecological liberals. Also included, those others who felt excluded, not accepted, or victimized in one way or another.
By the end of the century Republicans came to be the party of the married and the churched, Democrats the party of the unmarried and the unchurched.
Coalition theory suggests adding to your coalition the smallest possible additional unit which will make it a majority. The reasoning behind this strategy has to do with not diluting the strength of the large elements of the coalition any more than necessary.
Demographers have been warning that the size of the Republicans' coalition isn't keeping up with that of the Democrats. The outcome of the election of 2012 may be the result of reaching the demographic tipping point, I'm sure many will so argue. The numbers of so-called "minorities" and the unwed have increased dramatically, as have the unchurched.
What makes a two party democracy work is the proverbial big tent system. Each party, if it is serious about winning elections, must make its "tent" big enough to include a majority of the voters, at least some of the time.
At least some of the time, a majority of the voters need to find its arguments more persuasive and its candidates more attractive than those of the other party.
During the second half of the twentieth century the Republican Party did this by cobbling together three or four major groups: foreign policy/defense hawks, small government/low taxes fiscal conservatives, evangelical Christians, and perhaps whites rooting for the home team, aka racists. No one wants to admit the inclusion of this fourth group.
During that same period, the Democratic Party filled their tent with unionists, racial and lifestyle minorities, foreign policy/defense anti-hawks, public employees including teachers, those who do not attend church, and ecological liberals. Also included, those others who felt excluded, not accepted, or victimized in one way or another.
By the end of the century Republicans came to be the party of the married and the churched, Democrats the party of the unmarried and the unchurched.
Coalition theory suggests adding to your coalition the smallest possible additional unit which will make it a majority. The reasoning behind this strategy has to do with not diluting the strength of the large elements of the coalition any more than necessary.
Demographers have been warning that the size of the Republicans' coalition isn't keeping up with that of the Democrats. The outcome of the election of 2012 may be the result of reaching the demographic tipping point, I'm sure many will so argue. The numbers of so-called "minorities" and the unwed have increased dramatically, as have the unchurched.
Two Years Later
Two years ago Republicans were excited about the GOP wave that gave us a majority in the House of Representatives, and replaced the dreaded Nancy Pelosi with John Boehner as Speaker. Now, two years later, we're down because we've just had a bad election, at the Presidential and senatorial levels, if not at the House or Gubernatorial levels.
I don't believe the demographics of the electorate changed much in two years. The difference this time was an enormously expensive effort to identify and chivvy to the polls every last Dem voter. Probably anytime such efforts are made, Dems are likely to win because there are more of 'em.
What a difference two years can make.
I don't believe the demographics of the electorate changed much in two years. The difference this time was an enormously expensive effort to identify and chivvy to the polls every last Dem voter. Probably anytime such efforts are made, Dems are likely to win because there are more of 'em.
What a difference two years can make.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Low-Hanging Fruit
Susan Page writes politics for USA Today and she's good. Read her analysis of the election just ended, it really covers the various issues and sub-groups.
After reading Page's reasonably even-handed summation, I come up with the following question which confronts the leaders of the Republican Party: Where is the low-hanging fruit? That is, which group that didn't much vote for us in 2012 can we reasonably talk into voting for us in 2014 and beyond?
It is an interesting dilemma. Should the GOP, which does a great job of getting white men to vote for it, likewise try to get non-white men to also vote Republican? In other words, should it try to become the Men's Party?
Alternatively, should a party which gets most of the votes of married white women try to get the votes of non-married women too? Or at least the votes of non-married white women? In other words, becoming the White People's Party. That gives off ugly vibes, but could work.
Depending on which of these was chosen, quite different policy prescriptions would follow. One thing working in the GOP's favor is that older voters tend to vote Republican, and the Baby Boomers population bulge is getting to the "older" phase of life.
Here's a thought experiment: how many GOP voters would be lost to the Dems. if the party no longer had planks in its platform opposing abortion and same-sex marriage? In other words, how many people would like to vote Dem but now vote GOP because it opposes these lifestyle issues? How many would switch simply out of pique?
Put another way, to what extent are evangelical Christians attracted to the GOP by its emphasis on smaller, less intrusive government, lower taxes, strong defense, support for Israel - other-than-lifestyle issues? There should be a way to measure this via social research.
While measuring, why not try to determine how many votes we lose by opposing same sex marriage and abortion? How many would vote GOP were it not for our opposition?
I'm just asking....
After reading Page's reasonably even-handed summation, I come up with the following question which confronts the leaders of the Republican Party: Where is the low-hanging fruit? That is, which group that didn't much vote for us in 2012 can we reasonably talk into voting for us in 2014 and beyond?
It is an interesting dilemma. Should the GOP, which does a great job of getting white men to vote for it, likewise try to get non-white men to also vote Republican? In other words, should it try to become the Men's Party?
Alternatively, should a party which gets most of the votes of married white women try to get the votes of non-married women too? Or at least the votes of non-married white women? In other words, becoming the White People's Party. That gives off ugly vibes, but could work.
Depending on which of these was chosen, quite different policy prescriptions would follow. One thing working in the GOP's favor is that older voters tend to vote Republican, and the Baby Boomers population bulge is getting to the "older" phase of life.
Here's a thought experiment: how many GOP voters would be lost to the Dems. if the party no longer had planks in its platform opposing abortion and same-sex marriage? In other words, how many people would like to vote Dem but now vote GOP because it opposes these lifestyle issues? How many would switch simply out of pique?
Put another way, to what extent are evangelical Christians attracted to the GOP by its emphasis on smaller, less intrusive government, lower taxes, strong defense, support for Israel - other-than-lifestyle issues? There should be a way to measure this via social research.
While measuring, why not try to determine how many votes we lose by opposing same sex marriage and abortion? How many would vote GOP were it not for our opposition?
I'm just asking....
Problem Diagnosis
Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel have a very good column for The Daily Caller about why the GOP took such a drubbing in the election just completed. Their emphasis is twofold: the ideological flaccidity of the Republican establishment, and the political naiveté of the Tea Party activists.
The Republican establishment, in these authors' eyes, is largely RINO, Republican In Name Only. Their record is one of big spending, big borrowing, and failure to solve problems, so say Carlson and Patel.
On the other hand, the Tea Party activists are ideologically pure, but politically inept. They've a record of nominating candidates who are unable to run smooth, professional campaigns, causing the loss of senate seats which should otherwise have been won.
The authors' solution to the party's problems would be serious conservatives who also have political skills.
It's a start.
The Republican establishment, in these authors' eyes, is largely RINO, Republican In Name Only. Their record is one of big spending, big borrowing, and failure to solve problems, so say Carlson and Patel.
On the other hand, the Tea Party activists are ideologically pure, but politically inept. They've a record of nominating candidates who are unable to run smooth, professional campaigns, causing the loss of senate seats which should otherwise have been won.
The authors' solution to the party's problems would be serious conservatives who also have political skills.
It's a start.
Reactions to the 2012 Election
I look at the electoral map of the U.S. and see two different "nations," red and blue. Demographers tell us it is becoming more so. Logically, each of these should be able to govern itself as it chooses.
The West Coast and the Northeast should be able to become more like semi-socialized Europe, if that pleases them. The rest of us, here in the Great Flyover, should be able to evolve in the opposite direction, to have smaller government and more individuality, if that pleases us.
The question is, how do we get to there from here? How does one relatively unified nation become two loosely connected "nations" without nastiness, bloodshed, and grief? A referendum? A constitutional convention? A "velvet revolution?" Perhaps the sort of devolution that made Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia?
Might the U.S. become more like the E.U., with localized cultures and economies, and yet some overarching coordination? Washington as Brussels? Right now the E.U. doesn't look like much of a model.
The GOP represents the thinking of millions of Americans, but probably not a national majority. I'm beginning to wonder if the Republican Party, as we now know it, might become a regional party. As such, it would be elect Governors and state legislators but no longer compete at the national level.
Do these ideas make any sense? Hey, I'm just spitballing here.
Hispanic Motivations
Heather Mac Donald writes for National Review that the major reason most Hispanics didn't vote for Republicans is that they (a) are poor, and (b) therefore want and expect a lot of government help.
Mac Donald debunks the concept of the "social values Hispanic voter," a mistaken notion popular among Republicans who seek their votes. It is certainly true that Hispanic culture is much less individualistic than U.S. culture. It will be tough for the GOP to land Hispanic votes.
Mac Donald debunks the concept of the "social values Hispanic voter," a mistaken notion popular among Republicans who seek their votes. It is certainly true that Hispanic culture is much less individualistic than U.S. culture. It will be tough for the GOP to land Hispanic votes.
Quote of the Day
Rush Limbaugh, on today's radio show about yesterday's election results, as quoted on Mediaite:
At some point, our slide down that slippery slope becomes irreversible. Did we reach the point of no return yesterday? Unfortunately, we won't know until it is too late.
When we look around and discover we've become another Argentina, we're screwed. Peronism, or its equivalent, appears to be a political condition from which there is no easy route back, perhaps no route back whatsoever.
I went to bed last night thinking we’ve lost the country.Perhaps overly apocalyptic, but Rush tends to dramatize, it is his style. My view: the election represents another risky step down a slippery slope, back up which it is ever harder to climb.
At some point, our slide down that slippery slope becomes irreversible. Did we reach the point of no return yesterday? Unfortunately, we won't know until it is too late.
When we look around and discover we've become another Argentina, we're screwed. Peronism, or its equivalent, appears to be a political condition from which there is no easy route back, perhaps no route back whatsoever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)