[As usual, this article can be found here at timetokeepscore.com]
This article from the WSJ raised a different critique of how the President is handling the stimulus, and it begs the question: where are the politics of hope?
The President's ability, unique among all other political leaders in the nation, to be a lone voice of policy and to so capture the public attention gives the office an enormous power to frame the issues and the debate. The article points to how the President's rhetoric in pushing for Congressional support of the stimulus paints the current economic crisis as the worst since the Great Depression.
The basic formula for President Obama's pleas is, "If we don't pass this stimulus right now, the next Great Depression will come."
I'm not a fan, especially since the average consumer's ability to spend hasn't changed too much, and his or her desire to do so is based largely on their outlook for the future. Barack ran a masterful campaign full of positive imagery and inspiring messages.
Although they were a bit lofty and dangerously vague and misleading for my taste, I can't deny the man's ability to move a room, though he does tend to fare better in a room already prone to love him. I'd love to see him change his tone from "If we don't pass this stimulus now, the Greater Depression will come," to:
"We can get out of this. We will get out of this. Hang in there. Have faith in America's innovation, its ability to push beyond temporary difficulties. Though for many of us these times have brought and will continue to bring hardship that seems impossible to bear. The rest of us need to pick up the slack and find ways to support those in need. In the meantime, we feel that this stimulus package is the best shot we have to help right the economic ship while leaving behind a footprint of valuable programs [aside: I personally argue with that notion, but that's at least what he's trying to argue] to benefit an America struggling and an America prosperous."
Anyway, I call on the President to see through his campaign of inspiration. I didn't vote for you, Barack, but I'm waiting to be inspired.
[Read the article for some of the key facts around which the President may be slightly guilty of hyperbole, and the economic reasons why this is counterproductive though there may be a political upside. Okay, really guilty of hyperbole. Also, I caught an article last week but can't find it that discussed how, in one of many instances where Dubya just couldn't win, he attempted early in his presidency to paint how much trouble our economy was in post-9/11 and was accused of fear-mongering, and while afterward when he responded with unrelenting optimism he was accused of ignoring the 'horrible truth,' but I can't find it. Anyone catch that article and can post a link to it?]
Monday, February 16, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Bipartisanship Under Obama
(As always, this post can also be found at www.timetokeepscore.com. You're invited to post your comments there as well as you'll probably get a bit more feedback and interplay there.)
I've been vexed of late as to whether GOP leadership will merely slide into the role that the Dems held under Bush, whether they will sell out their conservative heritage and just be "softly" liberal, or whether they will push conservative solutions that are viable alternatives to some of Obama's more frighteningly liberal agenda.
Mickey Edwards, a player in the Reagan administration and co-founded the Heritage Foundation (conservative think-tank), wrote a very interesting op-ed piece in the L.A. Times this week in which he stated:
If proposals seem unworkable or unwise (if they do not contain provisions for taxpayers to recoup their investment; if they do not allow for taxpayers, as de facto shareholders, to insist on sound management practices; if they would allow government officials to make production and pricing decisions), conservatives have a responsibility to resist. But they also have an obligation to propose alternative solutions. It is government's job -- Reagan again -- to provide opportunity and foster productivity. With the nation in financial collapse, nothing is more imprudent -- more antithetical to true conservatism -- than to do nothing.
I maintain that "doing nothing" is exactly what the Dems did as a minority and then a majority during the problems of the Bush era. If the GOP wants to be a relevant player, it needs to eschew that tendency. And President Obama, with all his talk of unity and inclusion, needs to publicly and quickly take Dem leaders to the woodshed for any inkling of taunting, exclusion, and pettiness.
Republicans would be wise to distance themselves from platforms that are,
anti-intellectual, nativist, populist (in populism's worst sense) and prepared to send Joe the Plumber to Washington to manage the nation's public affairs.
Further,
They [must cease] to worship small government and [turn] their backs on limited government. They have turned to a politics of exclusion, division and nastiness. Today, they wonder what went wrong, why Americans have turned on them, why they lose, or barely win, even in places such as Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina.
The fact is, President Obama has as much potential to support conservative solutions as he does liberal ones. He's a family man, he's religious, he's a self-made man, he has stated that he opposes same-sex marriages (though he's been a bit confusing on that one), and the liberal voting base of the poor, the minorities, etc. will be just as likely to embrace conservative solutions as they are liberal ones, as long as they are solutions.
I believe that those solutions exist. What I'm frustrated with is GOP leadership's lack of ability to push those forward.
I've been vexed of late as to whether GOP leadership will merely slide into the role that the Dems held under Bush, whether they will sell out their conservative heritage and just be "softly" liberal, or whether they will push conservative solutions that are viable alternatives to some of Obama's more frighteningly liberal agenda.
Mickey Edwards, a player in the Reagan administration and co-founded the Heritage Foundation (conservative think-tank), wrote a very interesting op-ed piece in the L.A. Times this week in which he stated:
If proposals seem unworkable or unwise (if they do not contain provisions for taxpayers to recoup their investment; if they do not allow for taxpayers, as de facto shareholders, to insist on sound management practices; if they would allow government officials to make production and pricing decisions), conservatives have a responsibility to resist. But they also have an obligation to propose alternative solutions. It is government's job -- Reagan again -- to provide opportunity and foster productivity. With the nation in financial collapse, nothing is more imprudent -- more antithetical to true conservatism -- than to do nothing.
I maintain that "doing nothing" is exactly what the Dems did as a minority and then a majority during the problems of the Bush era. If the GOP wants to be a relevant player, it needs to eschew that tendency. And President Obama, with all his talk of unity and inclusion, needs to publicly and quickly take Dem leaders to the woodshed for any inkling of taunting, exclusion, and pettiness.
Republicans would be wise to distance themselves from platforms that are,
anti-intellectual, nativist, populist (in populism's worst sense) and prepared to send Joe the Plumber to Washington to manage the nation's public affairs.
Further,
They [must cease] to worship small government and [turn] their backs on limited government. They have turned to a politics of exclusion, division and nastiness. Today, they wonder what went wrong, why Americans have turned on them, why they lose, or barely win, even in places such as Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina.
The fact is, President Obama has as much potential to support conservative solutions as he does liberal ones. He's a family man, he's religious, he's a self-made man, he has stated that he opposes same-sex marriages (though he's been a bit confusing on that one), and the liberal voting base of the poor, the minorities, etc. will be just as likely to embrace conservative solutions as they are liberal ones, as long as they are solutions.
I believe that those solutions exist. What I'm frustrated with is GOP leadership's lack of ability to push those forward.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Rise Up, O Legislative Branch
So Ms. Pelosi is excited to finally be able to get to work now that the "10 pound anvil" of Bush's presidency was removed from her head via Marine One.
Well good for her. I'm relieved too, the poor thing. She's been saddled with one of the most unpopular presidents in history, nothing but battles to win, and a friendly majority in both houses with which to win them and potential to expand that majority for the past two Congressional terms. What a tough environment in which "arguably the second most powerful person in Washington" can effectively shape the course of what should be the most influential policy-making governmental branch out of the three. Please.
A significant-yet-oft overlooked danger to good governance is the tyranny of the executive over the legislative. Presidential power (and by extension that of the executive generally) has quietly expanded steadily, most notably since the New Deal. And yet, in Congress there is opportunity for strong leadership to check that executive**, even when the parties are friendly to each other.
When Congress merely waits for a friendly President to aggressively push an agenda, the legislature becomes a mere extension of the administrative state, a means to an end, and fails to truly be the representative branch of government that it ought to be. Even from within the same party, the two branches are designed to have fundamentally different agendas, and the pursuit of those agendas and the resulting conflict should theoretically provide for some of the best policy allowed for under the Constitution.
I submit that President Bush's 'failed policies' should be attributed no less to an acquiescent friendly Congress during the earlier years of his presidency and a spineless, whiny, complaining Congress during the later years. I shudder to think of what kinds of trouble a majority of yes men (and yes women) will get us into during the first two years of Obama's presidency.
**Democrats held a majority in Congress during much of the Republican-dominated presidencies of the 70s and 80s, with House Speakers Carl Albert and Tip O'Neill serving opposite Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. Republican Newt Gingrich was a powerful opponent of Bill Clinton during the 90s. In the Senate, Senator LBJ was notably a very strong driver of policy which made him a logical second to JFK.
Please check out what my fellow participants at www.timetokeepscore.com may have to say about this and other issues.
Well good for her. I'm relieved too, the poor thing. She's been saddled with one of the most unpopular presidents in history, nothing but battles to win, and a friendly majority in both houses with which to win them and potential to expand that majority for the past two Congressional terms. What a tough environment in which "arguably the second most powerful person in Washington" can effectively shape the course of what should be the most influential policy-making governmental branch out of the three. Please.
A significant-yet-oft overlooked danger to good governance is the tyranny of the executive over the legislative. Presidential power (and by extension that of the executive generally) has quietly expanded steadily, most notably since the New Deal. And yet, in Congress there is opportunity for strong leadership to check that executive**, even when the parties are friendly to each other.
When Congress merely waits for a friendly President to aggressively push an agenda, the legislature becomes a mere extension of the administrative state, a means to an end, and fails to truly be the representative branch of government that it ought to be. Even from within the same party, the two branches are designed to have fundamentally different agendas, and the pursuit of those agendas and the resulting conflict should theoretically provide for some of the best policy allowed for under the Constitution.
I submit that President Bush's 'failed policies' should be attributed no less to an acquiescent friendly Congress during the earlier years of his presidency and a spineless, whiny, complaining Congress during the later years. I shudder to think of what kinds of trouble a majority of yes men (and yes women) will get us into during the first two years of Obama's presidency.
**Democrats held a majority in Congress during much of the Republican-dominated presidencies of the 70s and 80s, with House Speakers Carl Albert and Tip O'Neill serving opposite Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. Republican Newt Gingrich was a powerful opponent of Bill Clinton during the 90s. In the Senate, Senator LBJ was notably a very strong driver of policy which made him a logical second to JFK.
Please check out what my fellow participants at www.timetokeepscore.com may have to say about this and other issues.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
God Bless OUr President
He needs it. Look at the toll a presidency can take on a man.
Dubya, 2000
Dubya, 2008
Slick Willy, 1992
Slick Willy, 2000
Bush Senior, 1988
Bush Senior, 1992
Ronnie, 1980
Ronnie, 1988 (granted, he started out pretty old and has the benefit of quite a bit of hair dye, but still...)
Mr. Lincoln, circa 1860
Mr. Lincoln, 1864 (tough to tell with the black and white, but he aged significantly during his four years)
Dubya, 2000
Dubya, 2008
Slick Willy, 1992
Slick Willy, 2000
Bush Senior, 1988
Bush Senior, 1992
Ronnie, 1980
Ronnie, 1988 (granted, he started out pretty old and has the benefit of quite a bit of hair dye, but still...)
Mr. Lincoln, circa 1860
Mr. Lincoln, 1864 (tough to tell with the black and white, but he aged significantly during his four years)
Post-Racist America?
It recently came to my attention that I may have a reader or two out there. Thank you. :) I've been quiet of late mostly because of finals and travel, but also because I've been invited to contribute to another blog, www.timetokeepscore.com.
So, I'll post to both blogs concurrently until I figure out how else to handle these things.
Here's my most recent post from Time to Keep Score:
I'd like to ask the question, what is the true current state of racial affairs in America today? The question isn't a particularly easy one as metrics are difficult to come by, but I was intrigued by both a recent L.A. Times article (from the left) and your usual brand of right-wing-radio crackpot suggesting that the State of Race Relations in the Union is much stronger than is commonly believed.
It took moving to Texas as a kid to gain some level of understanding of how "the rest of the country" operates racially. Growing up in a fairly diverse yet economically strong area in Southern California, my racial viewpoint was shaped by a school experience with no strong racial majority and few socio-economic divisions. Even witnessing some of what the South has to offer to the racial outlook of the country, I've always had a skepticism towards the state of racial relations.
President Obama's election certainly has shown to the world that an individual who is not a WASP can be elected to one of the highest seats of power in the world. I've heard of polling data (sorry for no citation, I'll work on that) suggesting that 95% of Republicans would have gladly voted for a black person to be President if that person happened to have been a Republican also.
So are we living in a Post-Racist America? Are the problems related to race largely perpetuated and exaggerated by those with an agenda for doing so? (I'm talking to you, Jesse and Al.) I honestly can't say, but I suspect that, for the most part, White America on the racial side and Prosperous America on the economic side are more than happy to leave the door open for Minority or Poor America to enter in. And I hope they do.
So, I'll post to both blogs concurrently until I figure out how else to handle these things.
Here's my most recent post from Time to Keep Score:
I'd like to ask the question, what is the true current state of racial affairs in America today? The question isn't a particularly easy one as metrics are difficult to come by, but I was intrigued by both a recent L.A. Times article (from the left) and your usual brand of right-wing-radio crackpot suggesting that the State of Race Relations in the Union is much stronger than is commonly believed.
It took moving to Texas as a kid to gain some level of understanding of how "the rest of the country" operates racially. Growing up in a fairly diverse yet economically strong area in Southern California, my racial viewpoint was shaped by a school experience with no strong racial majority and few socio-economic divisions. Even witnessing some of what the South has to offer to the racial outlook of the country, I've always had a skepticism towards the state of racial relations.
President Obama's election certainly has shown to the world that an individual who is not a WASP can be elected to one of the highest seats of power in the world. I've heard of polling data (sorry for no citation, I'll work on that) suggesting that 95% of Republicans would have gladly voted for a black person to be President if that person happened to have been a Republican also.
So are we living in a Post-Racist America? Are the problems related to race largely perpetuated and exaggerated by those with an agenda for doing so? (I'm talking to you, Jesse and Al.) I honestly can't say, but I suspect that, for the most part, White America on the racial side and Prosperous America on the economic side are more than happy to leave the door open for Minority or Poor America to enter in. And I hope they do.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Education and Barriers to Entry
NOTE: This post also appears here at Time To Keep Score, a blog to which I'm grateful to have been invited to contribute. There's a good group of writers over there. It's a good read and I recommend it highly. Now to the post...
As I'm neck deep in finals and my eyes are growing dark and hollow in a Gollum-like manner as I've confined myself to the indoors to study, this topic is particularly near and dear to my heart. As I interact more and more with attorneys, it's become clearer and clearer that law school serves two essential purposes to the profession it supposedly prepares students for: 1) give law firms some sort of cheap and easy way of rating applicants by looking at alma mater and GPA therein, and 2) big, fat, yet-sometimes-porous barrier to entry (I saw porous because I don't think I've heard any breaking news lately about the dearth of attorneys).
Almost every attorney I speak with either can't remember much of what they learned, and certainly can't remember the last time they used something they learned, yet we all must go through it. I've heard similar complaints of the medical profession and others, though I get the impression that it's a bit different for you MBA students and the like who pursue advanced education while working.
Certainly, 3 years and countless thousands of dollars is something of a barrier, but I think the largest barrier to entry in any profession is our country's overall education system. Add to those three years the 4 (or 5 for those like me who took their time) years of undergraduate study and to those the years of secondary education that did very little to prepare or motivate me towards my career choice, and we have a system that, in the name of general education (read "liberal arts"), does little to help young people funnel their way into fulfilling and meaningful careers and mostly just prolongs that moment, that very real and frightening moment, when you have to decide what you're going to do with your life.
If you're lucky, you get to have that moment. For many young people, that moment passes them by as they end up working ten years at a job they took after high school, "just to make some money before they figured out what else to do," with a very low ceiling and very few options. Can't we figure out a way to move the process along some?
I'll be 30 when I enter, as I said, the lowest rung of my professional ladder. Couldn't I have been working in a law office during high school summers, reviewing documents, learning the basics of Internet research and the nitty gritty of filing court papers? Couldn't I have bypassed all of that liberal arts education during my undergraduate years that was really just there to hold me over until law school?
Just a thought. And really, it has nothing to do with how sick of my finals I am. I promise.
As I'm neck deep in finals and my eyes are growing dark and hollow in a Gollum-like manner as I've confined myself to the indoors to study, this topic is particularly near and dear to my heart. As I interact more and more with attorneys, it's become clearer and clearer that law school serves two essential purposes to the profession it supposedly prepares students for: 1) give law firms some sort of cheap and easy way of rating applicants by looking at alma mater and GPA therein, and 2) big, fat, yet-sometimes-porous barrier to entry (I saw porous because I don't think I've heard any breaking news lately about the dearth of attorneys).
Almost every attorney I speak with either can't remember much of what they learned, and certainly can't remember the last time they used something they learned, yet we all must go through it. I've heard similar complaints of the medical profession and others, though I get the impression that it's a bit different for you MBA students and the like who pursue advanced education while working.
Certainly, 3 years and countless thousands of dollars is something of a barrier, but I think the largest barrier to entry in any profession is our country's overall education system. Add to those three years the 4 (or 5 for those like me who took their time) years of undergraduate study and to those the years of secondary education that did very little to prepare or motivate me towards my career choice, and we have a system that, in the name of general education (read "liberal arts"), does little to help young people funnel their way into fulfilling and meaningful careers and mostly just prolongs that moment, that very real and frightening moment, when you have to decide what you're going to do with your life.
If you're lucky, you get to have that moment. For many young people, that moment passes them by as they end up working ten years at a job they took after high school, "just to make some money before they figured out what else to do," with a very low ceiling and very few options. Can't we figure out a way to move the process along some?
I'll be 30 when I enter, as I said, the lowest rung of my professional ladder. Couldn't I have been working in a law office during high school summers, reviewing documents, learning the basics of Internet research and the nitty gritty of filing court papers? Couldn't I have bypassed all of that liberal arts education during my undergraduate years that was really just there to hold me over until law school?
Just a thought. And really, it has nothing to do with how sick of my finals I am. I promise.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Good Clip Explaining a Mormon's Experience
Thanks to my friends at timetokeepscore.blogspot.com for bringing this to my attention.
The following video is of a Harvard undergrad from Blackfoot, ID, who was given the opportunity to share her perspectives as a Latter-Day Saint as part of a larger panel discussion series on religion at Harvard.
It's very well done and she's asked some tough questions. She's not speaking officially for the Church in any way, but I feel that she does a very nice job of representing the Church's viewpoints and that her personal take can be useful for anyone who's curious. Enjoy and let me know if you have any questions.
Day of Faith: Personal Quests for a Purpose - 3. Rachel Esplin from Harvard Hillel on Vimeo.
The following video is of a Harvard undergrad from Blackfoot, ID, who was given the opportunity to share her perspectives as a Latter-Day Saint as part of a larger panel discussion series on religion at Harvard.
It's very well done and she's asked some tough questions. She's not speaking officially for the Church in any way, but I feel that she does a very nice job of representing the Church's viewpoints and that her personal take can be useful for anyone who's curious. Enjoy and let me know if you have any questions.
Day of Faith: Personal Quests for a Purpose - 3. Rachel Esplin from Harvard Hillel on Vimeo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
