Following yesterday's budget release and press conference The Washington Post has called Obama "The Punter-in-Chief". The Washington Post!
Without doubt, there was little in his budget or his conference to create optimism. There seems to be a distance between what is perceived as a problem and the White House' response. In fairness neither this problem nor our passivity towards it are new. The notion of over promising is deeply ingrained in the political system in this country and has been so for a long time. Nor are the programs what they were started as; everything has evolved. (Income insurance is twice the size of social security.)
And the solutions will not be easy; moreover, they will cause pain. Unfortunately, that's what happens when you sign up for the big state dinners and the motor escorts: You have to make hard decisions. The problem here looks to be that Obama is deferring the decision making to the republicans who, historically, could not lead a wolf to a fresh kill. The republicans will look foolish and, as long opposed to the programs, political and cruel.
It may be politically wise to keep a low profile during hard times but leadership allows no conscientious objectors, no agnostics. At some point the problems must be confronted and resolved in an orderly, planned way otherwise they will solve themselves in chaos. Obama, like a timid and fearful physician, seems to be watching a disease run its course rather than accept the responsibility of the side effects of intervention.
Two interesting sites on the budget and the deficit:
http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The Democrats' Nixon Moment
Missionaries, Christian Colleges, the Peking Union Medical College and America's war against Japan that benefited China so much were all American efforts that promised reasonable relations between the U.S. and China until Mao won the war with Chiang Kai-shek, Chiang fled to Taiwan and Mao created the Peoples' Republic of China. Mao began to harass everything not Chinese--especially Americans, the Korean War broke out eventually pitting Chinese troops against Americans (where Mao's son was killed) and any hope for a relationship was lost. The Americans signing a defense treaty with Taiwan in 1954 made things worse.
Nixon became president with anti-communist credentials from Helen Douglas to Hiss to the Kennedy Taiwan debates. But close on the heels of the inane "ping-pong diplomacy" Kissinger went to China secretly in 1971 and arranged to provide China with American intelligence on Russia. Nixon followed in 1972. The China door was open.
A democrat could not have done that; only someone with a history of being part of the process can reverse it. That time has come for entitlements and the republicans can not do it. The democrats must. This will be ugly but these programs are democrat programs and must be curtailed in some thoughtful, sensitive but meaningful way.
On the assumption that the Congress can not be as foolish as they appear, this will be more than an intelligence or parliamentary test; it will be a test of integrity.
Nixon became president with anti-communist credentials from Helen Douglas to Hiss to the Kennedy Taiwan debates. But close on the heels of the inane "ping-pong diplomacy" Kissinger went to China secretly in 1971 and arranged to provide China with American intelligence on Russia. Nixon followed in 1972. The China door was open.
A democrat could not have done that; only someone with a history of being part of the process can reverse it. That time has come for entitlements and the republicans can not do it. The democrats must. This will be ugly but these programs are democrat programs and must be curtailed in some thoughtful, sensitive but meaningful way.
On the assumption that the Congress can not be as foolish as they appear, this will be more than an intelligence or parliamentary test; it will be a test of integrity.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Anyone Can Grow Up and Become President
It appears that the land is abuzz with the likelihood that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords will run for the Senate in Arizona. The early polls say she will win handily. That no one has actually seen the unfortunate candidate since the assassination attempt has deterred no one.
One wonders what, if anything, the media is thinking. And in answering the absurd question of her candidacy is the public being anything more than polite? Here a terribly injured woman is in the early phases of a long recovery, recovery that often culminates in miserable compromise. That she was an attractive and enjoyable woman seems certain; her life seems to have been filled with a number of successes. But she is now a different woman; she has been shot through and through the left cerebral hemisphere with a 9 mm. bullet.
The American democracy is nothing if not forgiving. How in this difficult period of our history, with the nation desperate for quality leadership, anyone could take seriously the question of the candidacy of a woman with a serious brain injury whose recovery is in evolution raises questions of the competence of both the questioner and the answerer. Worse yet, perhaps the Senate is viewed so that such a candidate would not be much off the mean.
One wonders what, if anything, the media is thinking. And in answering the absurd question of her candidacy is the public being anything more than polite? Here a terribly injured woman is in the early phases of a long recovery, recovery that often culminates in miserable compromise. That she was an attractive and enjoyable woman seems certain; her life seems to have been filled with a number of successes. But she is now a different woman; she has been shot through and through the left cerebral hemisphere with a 9 mm. bullet.
The American democracy is nothing if not forgiving. How in this difficult period of our history, with the nation desperate for quality leadership, anyone could take seriously the question of the candidacy of a woman with a serious brain injury whose recovery is in evolution raises questions of the competence of both the questioner and the answerer. Worse yet, perhaps the Senate is viewed so that such a candidate would not be much off the mean.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Lincoln
Today is Abraham Lincoln's birthday. There is something transcendent about his life--all of his life--his background, the death of his child, his strange marriage and wife, his appearance and leadership at the time of rupture in the American history, his weighty mind, his death. There is something chilling about the photo of his second inauguration, the first inauguration photo ever, where Booth, his future assassin, is so uniquely and prominently seen. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Second_Lincoln_Inaugural.JPG
There is a reassessment of Lincoln now, particularly from the libertarian camp. They say he violated the founding notions of liberty in his use of the federal power against the recalcitrant states. I was going to discuss this accusation today but instead have excerpted a wonderful scene from Goodwin's book Team of Rivals:
In 1908, in a wild and remote area of the North Caucasus, Leo Tolstoy, the greatest writer of the age, was the guest of a tribal chief “living far away from civilized life in the mountains.”
Gathering his family and neighbors, the chief asked Tolstoy to tell stories about the famous men of history. Tolstoy told how he entertained the eager crowd for hours with tales of Alexander, Caesar, Frederick the Great, and Napoleon.
When he was winding to a close, the chief stood and said, “But you have not told us a syllable about the greatest general and greatest ruler of the world. We want to know something about him. He was a hero. He spoke with a voice of thunder; he laughed like the sunrise and his deeds were strong as the rock…His name was Lincoln and the country in which he lived is called America, which is so far away that if a youth should journey to reach it he would be an old man when he arrived. Tell us of that man.”
“I looked at them,” Tolstoy recalled, “and saw their faces all aglow, while their eyes were burning. I saw that those rude barbarians were really interested in a man whose name and deeds had already become a legend.” He told them everything he knew about Lincoln’s “home life and youth…his habits, his influence upon the people and his physical strength.” When he finished, they were so grateful for the story that they presented him with “a wonderful Arabian horse.”
The next morning, as Tolstoy prepared to leave, they asked if he could possibly acquire for them a picture of Lincoln. Thinking that he might find one at a friend’s house in the neighboring town, Tolstoy asked one of the riders to accompany him. “I was successful in getting a large photograph from my friend,” recalled Tolstoy. As he handed it to the rider, he noted that the man’s hand trembled as he took it. “He gazed for several minutes silently, like one in a reverent prayer, his eyes filled with tears.”
Tolstoy went on to observe, “This little incident proves how largely the name of Lincoln is worshipped throughout the world and how legendary his personality has become. Now why was Lincoln so great that he overshadows all other national heroes? He really was not a great general like Napoleon or Washington; he was not such a skilful statesman as Gladstone or Frederick the Great; but his supremacy expresses itself altogether in his peculiar moral power and in the greatness of his character.
“Washington was a typical American. Napoleon was a typical Frenchman, but Lincoln was a humanitarian as broad as the world. He was bigger than his country — bigger than all the Presidents together.
“We are still too near to his greatness,” Tolstoy concluded, “but after a few centuries more our posterity will find him considerably bigger than we do.
“His genius is still too strong and too powerful for the common understanding, just as the sun is too hot when its light beams directly on us.”
There is a reassessment of Lincoln now, particularly from the libertarian camp. They say he violated the founding notions of liberty in his use of the federal power against the recalcitrant states. I was going to discuss this accusation today but instead have excerpted a wonderful scene from Goodwin's book Team of Rivals:
In 1908, in a wild and remote area of the North Caucasus, Leo Tolstoy, the greatest writer of the age, was the guest of a tribal chief “living far away from civilized life in the mountains.”
Gathering his family and neighbors, the chief asked Tolstoy to tell stories about the famous men of history. Tolstoy told how he entertained the eager crowd for hours with tales of Alexander, Caesar, Frederick the Great, and Napoleon.
When he was winding to a close, the chief stood and said, “But you have not told us a syllable about the greatest general and greatest ruler of the world. We want to know something about him. He was a hero. He spoke with a voice of thunder; he laughed like the sunrise and his deeds were strong as the rock…His name was Lincoln and the country in which he lived is called America, which is so far away that if a youth should journey to reach it he would be an old man when he arrived. Tell us of that man.”
“I looked at them,” Tolstoy recalled, “and saw their faces all aglow, while their eyes were burning. I saw that those rude barbarians were really interested in a man whose name and deeds had already become a legend.” He told them everything he knew about Lincoln’s “home life and youth…his habits, his influence upon the people and his physical strength.” When he finished, they were so grateful for the story that they presented him with “a wonderful Arabian horse.”
The next morning, as Tolstoy prepared to leave, they asked if he could possibly acquire for them a picture of Lincoln. Thinking that he might find one at a friend’s house in the neighboring town, Tolstoy asked one of the riders to accompany him. “I was successful in getting a large photograph from my friend,” recalled Tolstoy. As he handed it to the rider, he noted that the man’s hand trembled as he took it. “He gazed for several minutes silently, like one in a reverent prayer, his eyes filled with tears.”
Tolstoy went on to observe, “This little incident proves how largely the name of Lincoln is worshipped throughout the world and how legendary his personality has become. Now why was Lincoln so great that he overshadows all other national heroes? He really was not a great general like Napoleon or Washington; he was not such a skilful statesman as Gladstone or Frederick the Great; but his supremacy expresses itself altogether in his peculiar moral power and in the greatness of his character.
“Washington was a typical American. Napoleon was a typical Frenchman, but Lincoln was a humanitarian as broad as the world. He was bigger than his country — bigger than all the Presidents together.
“We are still too near to his greatness,” Tolstoy concluded, “but after a few centuries more our posterity will find him considerably bigger than we do.
“His genius is still too strong and too powerful for the common understanding, just as the sun is too hot when its light beams directly on us.”
Friday, February 11, 2011
A Great Day for Madison and Jefferson
So now Mubarak has resigned. Likely it will be seen as a great victory for "the people" rather than the loss of his chair when the music stopped.
There is a great distinction between being overthrown and becoming inconvenient.
There is a great distinction between being overthrown and becoming inconvenient.
Optimism as Old as the Pharaohs
The football player Ben Roethlisberger is said to go out frequently to dine locally and not pay his bill. This became such a problem for restaurant owners that most banned him. Apparently he never caused a fuss, was not overserved and often was alone. He never argued; he just left. Certainly this was not because he was under economic pressure or that he habitually forgot. My bet is he thought it his due. Like the travelling kings of yore who would visit their vassals, the rich, the famous and the powerful assume their own type of "entitlement" where they live by different rules and deserve what we working stiffs do not. It should be our pleasure to serve them and that, in itself, is reward enough. So rock stars destroy hotels, producers seduce children and movie stars live as they live, all without consequences.
So why is anyone shocked at Mubarak's decision to stay in power? It is said he is "out of touch" with his people. Out of touch? A man who lives like a pharaoh? A man who takes what he want, who he wants, when he wants? A man who has been the absolute ruler of 85 million people for thirty years? Out of touch?
Mubarak's non-concession speech revealed only one thing: He is not a politician, he is a warlord. A politician would have made the optimistic and insincere platitudes sound believable. A politician would have made it sound that his continuation in office was exactly what everyone wanted. A politician has learned, as his popularity requirements for office is broader than just the military, to convince the public that his self serving and incompetent reign is just what the electorate needs.
In Iraq, under Hussein, the women would flee the streets when the ruler's sons appeared; the princes would take what they wanted.
Rather than being "in touch" with their "leaders", most people just want to be beyond their reach.
So why is anyone shocked at Mubarak's decision to stay in power? It is said he is "out of touch" with his people. Out of touch? A man who lives like a pharaoh? A man who takes what he want, who he wants, when he wants? A man who has been the absolute ruler of 85 million people for thirty years? Out of touch?
Mubarak's non-concession speech revealed only one thing: He is not a politician, he is a warlord. A politician would have made the optimistic and insincere platitudes sound believable. A politician would have made it sound that his continuation in office was exactly what everyone wanted. A politician has learned, as his popularity requirements for office is broader than just the military, to convince the public that his self serving and incompetent reign is just what the electorate needs.
In Iraq, under Hussein, the women would flee the streets when the ruler's sons appeared; the princes would take what they wanted.
Rather than being "in touch" with their "leaders", most people just want to be beyond their reach.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
The Bathoes Show an Ugly Face
Anyone seeking insight into the workings of contemporary democracies should study the crisis in Egypt. Not that they are a democracy in any way other than parody; most democracies seem to be moving towards Egypt, not Egypt towards them.
A small number of people, 250,000--not small for a ball game but small in a city, city, of eighteen million--have gathered in a square and chanted for the removal of the current president-for-life. Their motives are unclear, certainly disparate, and apparently conflicting. Drawn to the chaos, groups without colors or flags move through the crowd fighting, intimidating and killing. A sniper sets up somewhere. The American press is frightened and several are roughed up.
Editorialists discuss and debate. "Democracy" is apparently in the air, in the air of a country where a candidate for president must have two-thirds approval from the parliament, a country whose current president has been in power for thirty years, a country in which the only nonreligious institution is the military. Somehow this event is seen as optimistic, democratic and hopeful. Somehow this is change, and change in the dialectic view is by definition positive. A vacuum is just the intermediary of progress, chaos the stew before the meal.
No thinking person would defend the Mubarak regime. But the Muslim Brotherhood is not a secular group regardless of what the American government says, "change" in itself has no inherent value regardless of what the President says and destabilization of the Middle East would be a nightmare beyond anything the military thugs in Egypt could imagine to wish upon their enemies.
The government has changed positions so many times they seem to be waterboarded. But they, like Mubarak, always come up pompous and idealistic, full of absurd pronouncements. This is a microcosm of our future: Stupidity, violence and insincerity presented by the idealistic, the incompetent and the homicidal.
A small number of people, 250,000--not small for a ball game but small in a city, city, of eighteen million--have gathered in a square and chanted for the removal of the current president-for-life. Their motives are unclear, certainly disparate, and apparently conflicting. Drawn to the chaos, groups without colors or flags move through the crowd fighting, intimidating and killing. A sniper sets up somewhere. The American press is frightened and several are roughed up.
Editorialists discuss and debate. "Democracy" is apparently in the air, in the air of a country where a candidate for president must have two-thirds approval from the parliament, a country whose current president has been in power for thirty years, a country in which the only nonreligious institution is the military. Somehow this event is seen as optimistic, democratic and hopeful. Somehow this is change, and change in the dialectic view is by definition positive. A vacuum is just the intermediary of progress, chaos the stew before the meal.
No thinking person would defend the Mubarak regime. But the Muslim Brotherhood is not a secular group regardless of what the American government says, "change" in itself has no inherent value regardless of what the President says and destabilization of the Middle East would be a nightmare beyond anything the military thugs in Egypt could imagine to wish upon their enemies.
The government has changed positions so many times they seem to be waterboarded. But they, like Mubarak, always come up pompous and idealistic, full of absurd pronouncements. This is a microcosm of our future: Stupidity, violence and insincerity presented by the idealistic, the incompetent and the homicidal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)