TORONTO, ONTARIO - One of the most significant arguments used by supporters of candidate Barack Obama as he ran for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008 against Hillary Clinton was his embodiment of the modern United States. Rather than nominating someone from the political elite (a former first lady, even if she would have been the first female president), the Democratic party could nominate someone who had risen from community organizing to become a senator and who, simply by being born as the child of a white mother and African father, was symbolic of the multi-racial reality of the nation. By emphasizing "one America" rhetoric in his speeches, Obama reinforced this aspect of his being and created hope that he could bring to an end what had been the most divisive and partisan era in the nation's modern history.
So much for that. Those that feared heightened fierce partisanship if Hillary Clinton were elected President have watched as the election of the greatest potential healer in the nation's history has instead led to unprecedented levels of division. Rather than ending the great partisan divide of the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush years, Obama has presided over new heights of partisanship. It is hard to imagine that it could have been any worse had Hillary Clinton been elected.
However, just as Hillary Clinton remains as a possible future Democratic candidate for president today, Obama would have remained had Clinton won the nomination. The partisanship that exists today would have been viewed as a result of her victory and the history of the Bill Clinton administration, and it would appear that the healing Barack Obama could still transcend the poison in the future and usher in a new era.
Instead, we know no one leader will ever accomplish what some hoped Obama would help do. George W. Bush came in talking about being a "uniter, not a divider" and that didn't happen. Barack Obama wanted there to be "no red America and no blue America" and instead the red have gotten redder and the blue have gotten bluer. Leaders cannot go where the people they are leading do not want to go.
There is no incentive for either political party to compromise--and while the system may be distorted and manipulated to exaggerate and reinforce those incentives, in the end it comes down to a fundamental reality: The people don't want the nation to heal. Until that changes, the United States will not be one nation. It will continue to be divided, and the hyper-partisanship will continue. Don't look for an super-Obama--it has to come from below, and I don't even hear a remote scent of such a movement.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Friday, September 10, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Politics: No Body, No Drama
TORONTO, ONTARIO - The current oil spill crisis in the United States has led to a substantial amount of criticism of President Barack Obama for not showing enough emotion. This lack of emotion has been a hallmark of the President throughout his life; he has long been known as "No Drama Obama." Yet, in an earlier post, I classified Obama as a "central" or "sexual" personality type, which is in the so-called "emotional" world. How can this be?
Personality expert Bob Cooley has long contended that the ability to feel emotions is directly related to body size. A skinny person has no body to hold emotions, and thus tends not only not to express emotions, but not even feel them. In contrast, people with much more mass can feel deep emotions. Think of public features known for emotion, say Oprah Winfrey or Bill Clinton, and one won't find a stick figure.
Whether there is a cause and effect relationship or merely correlation is not clear. Certainly, science has not provided a ready explanation for how body mass would lead to increased emotion. Could it be that the hormonal manifestations of emotion are reinforced by more body tissue?
In any event, I have mentioned that Obama does not look like a typical person of his type; they tend to have a larger build. His build is such an anomaly for the type that it caused me to not believe it for a time. So, if Cooley is right and skinnier people show fewer emotions, it should not be surprising that the President does not show much emotion.
This whole "show emotion" controversy reached a new level in Obama's recent appearance on the NBC Today show. When asked by Matt Lauer whether he should "kick butt," he responded: "I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar; we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick." It still sounds he's giving a college seminar to me, even if he's swearing.
Maybe what he really needs to do is gain weight.
Personality expert Bob Cooley has long contended that the ability to feel emotions is directly related to body size. A skinny person has no body to hold emotions, and thus tends not only not to express emotions, but not even feel them. In contrast, people with much more mass can feel deep emotions. Think of public features known for emotion, say Oprah Winfrey or Bill Clinton, and one won't find a stick figure.
Whether there is a cause and effect relationship or merely correlation is not clear. Certainly, science has not provided a ready explanation for how body mass would lead to increased emotion. Could it be that the hormonal manifestations of emotion are reinforced by more body tissue?
In any event, I have mentioned that Obama does not look like a typical person of his type; they tend to have a larger build. His build is such an anomaly for the type that it caused me to not believe it for a time. So, if Cooley is right and skinnier people show fewer emotions, it should not be surprising that the President does not show much emotion.
This whole "show emotion" controversy reached a new level in Obama's recent appearance on the NBC Today show. When asked by Matt Lauer whether he should "kick butt," he responded: "I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar; we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick." It still sounds he's giving a college seminar to me, even if he's swearing.
Maybe what he really needs to do is gain weight.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Margin Notes: Winter, Phrases, Generations
Late afternoon shadows helped maintain the thin snow pack in the Lambton Woods of Toronto, Ontario on 11-February-2010
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Snow flurries came down for most of the day on Wednesday, so I thought I'd go out and take some legitimate snow shots on Thursday. Nature was still laughing at me, as most snow cover had sublimed or melted before I went out to take photographs; the only passable winter scene I could find was in the Lambton Woods, which had been mostly shaded. It's cold, but not white, this winter in Toronto.
* * * * * *
While taking walks lately, I've noted that even postings outside restaurants looking for waiters now universally say "Experience Required" without exception. There is no such thing as a entry-level job in the current economy.
* * * * * *
US President Barack Obama continues to mention the economy in virtually all of his weekly radio and YouTube addresses. I'm surprised that conservatives haven't jumped on him for how he ends those addresses. The boilerplate "thank you and God bless America" has been replaced with a simple "thanks." For that matter, the progressives don't seem to have noticed, either.
* * * * * *
Words and phrasing can be interesting. My US tax forms arrived with a label stating "International Surface Airlift." Surface Airlift? This seems like an oxymoron, though perhaps it designates that trans-oceanic shipments are "lifted" by air over the ocean rather than going on a ship, but are otherwise moved on the ground.
* * * * * *
Another phrase I found entertaining recently was the latest title for an automatic software update--"iLife Support". I guess it's not enough to have life support anymore, we need to have iLife Support to keep our digital lives going.
* * * * * *
I guess I must be in the iLife generation, since when I heard "Behind Blue Eyes" performed for the Superbowl (in news coverage), I was somewhat surprised that it was a song from The Who. I was only familiar with the 2003 Limp Bizkit version, which I had known was a remake, but I had never investigated what was being re-made. Somehow, I suspect promoters wanted The Who to play that Pete Townshend song precisely because it had been widely covered and would be known to younger audiences.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Politics: Elections Have Consequences, Eh?
TORONTO, ONTARIO - I stayed out of the "one year evaluations" of United States President Barack Obama that ran on the anniversary of his inauguration earlier this week because everybody seemed to be doing various takes on the theme and the concept is entirely arbitrary. However, I was amazed to find in the media that I normally peruse that nobody did the obvious--tracing the consequences of the election in terms of what was different in the country as a result of the election of Barack Obama instead of John McCain. Perhaps they were too astounded at what they found--near as I can tell, the election had little consequence to the average person. John McCain would have accomplished very similar things in his first year in office as Barack Obama has accomplished.
It's true that John McCain's first act in the White House would not have been to announce the closing of the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In fact, he was rather public about the measures he would have taken with respect to the detainees there, which would have focused on completing prosecutions and figuring out where detainees could go before making a closure announcement. John McCain, as a torture victim, had spoken out vociferously against the torture practices under the Bush administration and would have taken actions to change policies that, in the end, would likely have resembled what Obama has actually done. He even called Obama's closure decision "wise," implying that he would have done it, just not as quickly. Obama's promise to close the facility by the end of the year did not come true thanks to a variety of factors. So, it's hard to find profound differences in outcome between the Obama administration and a hypothetical McCain administration on Guantanamo.
The biggest problem facing the country when Obama took office was the economy. Considering that the Obama administration has largely acted to stabilize the financial system and increase investor confidence along the lines of what the late Bush administration had already done, it's hard to imagine that McCain would have done much differently. The first major legislation to come out of Congress in 2009 was the stimulus package. Considering John McCain's anti-pork, balanced-budget stance over the years, it is clear that negotiations between congressional leaders and the president would have been different under McCain. However, the final stimulus package actually passed contained quite a number of temporary tax incentives as well as what many considered special-interest spending. It's unlikely that McCain would have opposed a stimulus package in concept, and it's unlikely that Congress--assuming the same Democratic-controlled chambers--would have accepted a substantially smaller package, so while the exact contents of the package may have been different and likely more focused on traditional infrastructure projects, I don't think the average citizen would have noted much difference. Like Obama, McCain would not have broken up big banks and would have re-nominated Ben Bernanke as Fed Chairman.
The war in Iraq? John McCain would have put a different spin on it, but it seems likely that he also would have drawn down troops there so they could be used elsewhere, including Afghanistan, as circumstances permitted. The war in Afghanistan? John McCain was a major advocate of the surge in Iraq, so it seems likely that he would have supported a similar policy in Afghanistan. Again, the spin would have been different, and he probably would have found a different way to put pressure on the Afghans to take more responsibility than to set a withdrawal deadline, but it's hard to see much difference there.
McCain's domestic priorities would clearly have been different than Obama's, but as of this juncture, no major legislation from the Obama agenda has been passed, and the landmark health care bill is in serious jeopardy. With a Democrat-controlled Congress, it would probably have been hard for McCain to advance a domestic agenda as well, so again, it's probably a wash--no major domestic legislation.
That leaves the symbolic weight of having the first African-American president. No matter how much he spoke against torture and about returning to "true American principles" on the world stage, John McCain could not have possibly changed perceptions of the United States in the rest of the world the way Obama has done. I think it's safe to say that John McCain would not have received the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet, foreign perceptions have little practical consequence to the average US citizen, and Al-Qaeda continued its campaigns against the United States anyway.
There's a lot of time left in the Obama presidency, at least three years. But, six months ago, I questioned whether there would be an Obama legacy. At the one year mark, I could have published virtually that same blog entry again. By 2012, it may be very obvious how the 2008 election was consequential by electing Barack Obama instead of John McCain. Right now, though, I'm having trouble seeing that the consequences were the least bit profound to the average person.
It's true that John McCain's first act in the White House would not have been to announce the closing of the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In fact, he was rather public about the measures he would have taken with respect to the detainees there, which would have focused on completing prosecutions and figuring out where detainees could go before making a closure announcement. John McCain, as a torture victim, had spoken out vociferously against the torture practices under the Bush administration and would have taken actions to change policies that, in the end, would likely have resembled what Obama has actually done. He even called Obama's closure decision "wise," implying that he would have done it, just not as quickly. Obama's promise to close the facility by the end of the year did not come true thanks to a variety of factors. So, it's hard to find profound differences in outcome between the Obama administration and a hypothetical McCain administration on Guantanamo.
The biggest problem facing the country when Obama took office was the economy. Considering that the Obama administration has largely acted to stabilize the financial system and increase investor confidence along the lines of what the late Bush administration had already done, it's hard to imagine that McCain would have done much differently. The first major legislation to come out of Congress in 2009 was the stimulus package. Considering John McCain's anti-pork, balanced-budget stance over the years, it is clear that negotiations between congressional leaders and the president would have been different under McCain. However, the final stimulus package actually passed contained quite a number of temporary tax incentives as well as what many considered special-interest spending. It's unlikely that McCain would have opposed a stimulus package in concept, and it's unlikely that Congress--assuming the same Democratic-controlled chambers--would have accepted a substantially smaller package, so while the exact contents of the package may have been different and likely more focused on traditional infrastructure projects, I don't think the average citizen would have noted much difference. Like Obama, McCain would not have broken up big banks and would have re-nominated Ben Bernanke as Fed Chairman.
The war in Iraq? John McCain would have put a different spin on it, but it seems likely that he also would have drawn down troops there so they could be used elsewhere, including Afghanistan, as circumstances permitted. The war in Afghanistan? John McCain was a major advocate of the surge in Iraq, so it seems likely that he would have supported a similar policy in Afghanistan. Again, the spin would have been different, and he probably would have found a different way to put pressure on the Afghans to take more responsibility than to set a withdrawal deadline, but it's hard to see much difference there.
McCain's domestic priorities would clearly have been different than Obama's, but as of this juncture, no major legislation from the Obama agenda has been passed, and the landmark health care bill is in serious jeopardy. With a Democrat-controlled Congress, it would probably have been hard for McCain to advance a domestic agenda as well, so again, it's probably a wash--no major domestic legislation.
That leaves the symbolic weight of having the first African-American president. No matter how much he spoke against torture and about returning to "true American principles" on the world stage, John McCain could not have possibly changed perceptions of the United States in the rest of the world the way Obama has done. I think it's safe to say that John McCain would not have received the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet, foreign perceptions have little practical consequence to the average US citizen, and Al-Qaeda continued its campaigns against the United States anyway.
There's a lot of time left in the Obama presidency, at least three years. But, six months ago, I questioned whether there would be an Obama legacy. At the one year mark, I could have published virtually that same blog entry again. By 2012, it may be very obvious how the 2008 election was consequential by electing Barack Obama instead of John McCain. Right now, though, I'm having trouble seeing that the consequences were the least bit profound to the average person.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Politics: What Has Harper Done?
TORONTO, ONTARIO - In the United States, President Obama has gotten a lot of negative press lately for a lack of accomplishments in the office. The epitome of the criticism came nearly two months ago on Saturday Night Live skit, featured in this Fox news report. Fred Armisen as Obama describes his successes as two--jack and squat. However, while Obama may have little to show for his administration to this point, even his opponents would never say that he has been lazy and not trying to advance his agenda. Between the economic collapse, two wars, health care reform, climate change initiatives, and other measures, there is no question what Obama has been trying to do, whether he has accomplished it or not.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been in office far longer than Obama and in fact has been elected twice, in 2006 and 2008. Yet, I cannot think of single significant accomplishment of his government since the 2008 election. A stimulus package was passed, but based on what was happening a year ago (refresh your memory if needed), that only occurred because otherwise the opposition would have toppled his government, not by the government's own initiative. What else? Nothing comes to mind. Go back to the 2006-2008 government, and there are some symbolic domestic measures (declaring Quebec a "nation" and the apology for the native residential schools), but no other notable legislation. It seems to me that far more so than Obama, it is the Harper government that has exactly two accomplishments--jack and squat.
Furthermore, I can't point to what significant legislation the government has even been trying to get through parliament. There's no climate change legislation, or energy policy. There's no change in tax policy. What exactly is this government trying to do? Based on the last publication from my local Member of Parliament, just about everything on the legislative docket is a crime bill of some kind. Liberals claim this is to "scare the public before the next election," but whatever it is, the government itself isn't talking much about it.
It is a major indictment of the opposition Liberals that they have not been able to articulate a vision of doing ANYTHING that might be more popular than the apparent do-nothing stance of the government. It should be easy to build opposition to a government without obvious accomplishments, but they haven't yet done it. Considering how pathetic that is, it is little wonder that the public continues to favor the ruling Conservatives.
For Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, though, the record should be ominous. A government without significant legislation to point to, and no clear articulated vision to advance in the future, can only run on a record of competence and fear of the unknown competence of the opposition. Inevitably, all governments make mistakes and seem incompetent--when that moment comes, the fear seems insignificant. If it continues on its current course, the Harper Conservatives will face such a moment someday--and they will have nobody to blame but themselves.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been in office far longer than Obama and in fact has been elected twice, in 2006 and 2008. Yet, I cannot think of single significant accomplishment of his government since the 2008 election. A stimulus package was passed, but based on what was happening a year ago (refresh your memory if needed), that only occurred because otherwise the opposition would have toppled his government, not by the government's own initiative. What else? Nothing comes to mind. Go back to the 2006-2008 government, and there are some symbolic domestic measures (declaring Quebec a "nation" and the apology for the native residential schools), but no other notable legislation. It seems to me that far more so than Obama, it is the Harper government that has exactly two accomplishments--jack and squat.
Furthermore, I can't point to what significant legislation the government has even been trying to get through parliament. There's no climate change legislation, or energy policy. There's no change in tax policy. What exactly is this government trying to do? Based on the last publication from my local Member of Parliament, just about everything on the legislative docket is a crime bill of some kind. Liberals claim this is to "scare the public before the next election," but whatever it is, the government itself isn't talking much about it.
It is a major indictment of the opposition Liberals that they have not been able to articulate a vision of doing ANYTHING that might be more popular than the apparent do-nothing stance of the government. It should be easy to build opposition to a government without obvious accomplishments, but they haven't yet done it. Considering how pathetic that is, it is little wonder that the public continues to favor the ruling Conservatives.
For Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, though, the record should be ominous. A government without significant legislation to point to, and no clear articulated vision to advance in the future, can only run on a record of competence and fear of the unknown competence of the opposition. Inevitably, all governments make mistakes and seem incompetent--when that moment comes, the fear seems insignificant. If it continues on its current course, the Harper Conservatives will face such a moment someday--and they will have nobody to blame but themselves.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Personality: Obama in the Emotional World
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Back during the 2008 presidential election in the United States, readers of this blog may have found it strange that I chose to weigh in about the personality of Republican nominee John McCain, but not the personality of Democratic nominee--and now President--Barack Obama. This wasn't because of any political bias on my part, but simply because McCain's personality was clear to me, while Obama's was not. About a year later, I think I've seen enough evidence to be confident in classifying Obama as a "central" or "sexual" type within the emotional world.
This topic came up recently because of Ralph Nader's comments about Obama's personality during an appearance on the Open Source podcast. Nader described Obama as having a "harmony ideology personality. He's conflict-averse... He loves to be loved." When I heard that, I realized that Nader was basically describing a "sexual" type. While "harmony ideology" can be found in just about any world besides the physical world, the idea of "loving to be loved" is central to the "sexual" type. They are the "stars" of the world, used to being the center of attention and affection, and will take actions to further that kind of position. When one "sexual" type once had a conflict with an unhealthy person, she complained to me: "I don't understand. Everybody is supposed to like me!"
Obama's legislative technique seems to back up this assessment. Rather than take principled positions, his tendency has been to set a broadly-agreed upon goal and try to get everyone on board to achieve it. In the health care debate, the White House cut deals with stakeholder groups, then has let Congress work out the unpopular details. During the legislative phase, there has been an emphasis to try to get support from Republicans. There may have been good political reasons to do these things, but it's happened often enough now that that I take it as a pattern consistent with a "everyone should love me" (and my ideas), "sexual"-type perspective.
The expert who developed the personality theory that I use, Olympic trainer Bob Cooley, was willing to make the categorization of Obama as a "sexual" type long ago. Amongst other things, Cooley reflected on how Obama appeared as different things to different people during the campaign, which is often the sign of a "sexual" type finding ways to be attractive to a wide range of people.
So why didn't I follow along? The main problem was that Obama really doesn't look like a "sexual" type. "Sexual" types tend to be very round people--both men and women. Bill Clinton, deep in the emotional world in terms of type, would be believable as a "sexual" type based on appearance. Obama doesn't look anything like Clinton. There were other things, but most of those could be explained away. Appearance was the sticking point. The fact that Obama smokes could be a partial explanation of his physical stature, as smoking can lead to a more slender figure, and certainly the fact that he stays in shape would partially explain it as well. Yet, I've still never met another "sexual" that looked like Obama, including those that smoked.
That may be the point. I've never met a "sexual" type who is as successful as Obama (who is?), and it is a well-documented phenomenon that more successful people tend to take on more traits of their balancing type, including physical appearance. Some of us have argued that Obama looks like a "brain" type, and that is the balancing type of the "sexual" type.
So, in light of a long string of behavior that appears to be "sexual" type in nature and with counter-evidence seemingly all explained away, I give in. I agree that Barack Obama is most likely a "sexual" type, an appropriate type to be president of a country that shares his emotional world.
This topic came up recently because of Ralph Nader's comments about Obama's personality during an appearance on the Open Source podcast. Nader described Obama as having a "harmony ideology personality. He's conflict-averse... He loves to be loved." When I heard that, I realized that Nader was basically describing a "sexual" type. While "harmony ideology" can be found in just about any world besides the physical world, the idea of "loving to be loved" is central to the "sexual" type. They are the "stars" of the world, used to being the center of attention and affection, and will take actions to further that kind of position. When one "sexual" type once had a conflict with an unhealthy person, she complained to me: "I don't understand. Everybody is supposed to like me!"
Obama's legislative technique seems to back up this assessment. Rather than take principled positions, his tendency has been to set a broadly-agreed upon goal and try to get everyone on board to achieve it. In the health care debate, the White House cut deals with stakeholder groups, then has let Congress work out the unpopular details. During the legislative phase, there has been an emphasis to try to get support from Republicans. There may have been good political reasons to do these things, but it's happened often enough now that that I take it as a pattern consistent with a "everyone should love me" (and my ideas), "sexual"-type perspective.
The expert who developed the personality theory that I use, Olympic trainer Bob Cooley, was willing to make the categorization of Obama as a "sexual" type long ago. Amongst other things, Cooley reflected on how Obama appeared as different things to different people during the campaign, which is often the sign of a "sexual" type finding ways to be attractive to a wide range of people.
So why didn't I follow along? The main problem was that Obama really doesn't look like a "sexual" type. "Sexual" types tend to be very round people--both men and women. Bill Clinton, deep in the emotional world in terms of type, would be believable as a "sexual" type based on appearance. Obama doesn't look anything like Clinton. There were other things, but most of those could be explained away. Appearance was the sticking point. The fact that Obama smokes could be a partial explanation of his physical stature, as smoking can lead to a more slender figure, and certainly the fact that he stays in shape would partially explain it as well. Yet, I've still never met another "sexual" that looked like Obama, including those that smoked.
That may be the point. I've never met a "sexual" type who is as successful as Obama (who is?), and it is a well-documented phenomenon that more successful people tend to take on more traits of their balancing type, including physical appearance. Some of us have argued that Obama looks like a "brain" type, and that is the balancing type of the "sexual" type.
So, in light of a long string of behavior that appears to be "sexual" type in nature and with counter-evidence seemingly all explained away, I give in. I agree that Barack Obama is most likely a "sexual" type, an appropriate type to be president of a country that shares his emotional world.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Politics: Campaign Finance First
TORONTO, ONTARIO - While we STILL don't know the full contents of what health care reform bill will (or will not) pass Congress this year, some elements seem to be showing up in most "viable" proposals. Unfortunately, some of these provisions are, as Newt Gingrich would say, "singularly bizarre."
Take the idea for enforcement of the concept that all United States residents will be required to purchase health insurance. It appears that all "viable" proposals have this being done through the income tax system--if a person doesn't buy insurance, he or she is "fined" (exactly how that is distinct from a "tax" on an income tax form is unclear) based on income, and can go to jail for not paying just like for any amount owed to the Internal Revenue Service. To a Canadian, this is absolutely absurd. We have lines on our provincial income tax returns that, in the case of Ontario, are a very simple tax based on one's income that goes to pay for the health care system. The United States is going to great lengths to make health insurance not look like a tax, when the net effect is little different.
Of course, the United States is not heading toward a single-payer system like the one in Canada. Yet, if the most dire predictions of Republicans are correct, it might as well be. If the Federal government has to approve all these health plans--an element of the "viable" plans--then they argue that it will de facto define what a national health plan will be, inhibiting competition in the marketplace. At some level, this is a rather strange argument--isn't the whole problem that too many people don't have adequate health care plans, or there would only be talk about cost control, not about how many people are uninsured? A Canadian would say that that's rather amusing--a single-payer system could solve both those problems by covering everyone and mandating cost levels.
So why isn't a single-payer system even on the table in the United States? Or, better yet, a managed competition system resembling the Swiss system or the Enthoven proposal in 1993, which would still be market-based but not hold all the questions and strange aspects that seem to be infecting the "viable" proposals? It seems pretty simple--health insurance lobbyists want to ensure the viability of their industry, which would disappear entirely under single-payer and would have its profits effectively limited under a Swiss or Enthoven-type regulated model.
If the health care system is still a mess when this is all over, people will be looking for when the mistake was made. I go back to the argument I first heard from David Brooks that I've written about before--Barack Obama needed to do campaign finance reform first before any major initiative like health care reform. Brooks' predicted result of Obama favoring "legislative pragmatism" over "policy pragmatism" seems to be reflected in the "viable" proposals being quite sub-optimal from a policy perspective. It didn't have to be this way. The mistake was not doing campaign finance reform first.
Take the idea for enforcement of the concept that all United States residents will be required to purchase health insurance. It appears that all "viable" proposals have this being done through the income tax system--if a person doesn't buy insurance, he or she is "fined" (exactly how that is distinct from a "tax" on an income tax form is unclear) based on income, and can go to jail for not paying just like for any amount owed to the Internal Revenue Service. To a Canadian, this is absolutely absurd. We have lines on our provincial income tax returns that, in the case of Ontario, are a very simple tax based on one's income that goes to pay for the health care system. The United States is going to great lengths to make health insurance not look like a tax, when the net effect is little different.
Of course, the United States is not heading toward a single-payer system like the one in Canada. Yet, if the most dire predictions of Republicans are correct, it might as well be. If the Federal government has to approve all these health plans--an element of the "viable" plans--then they argue that it will de facto define what a national health plan will be, inhibiting competition in the marketplace. At some level, this is a rather strange argument--isn't the whole problem that too many people don't have adequate health care plans, or there would only be talk about cost control, not about how many people are uninsured? A Canadian would say that that's rather amusing--a single-payer system could solve both those problems by covering everyone and mandating cost levels.
So why isn't a single-payer system even on the table in the United States? Or, better yet, a managed competition system resembling the Swiss system or the Enthoven proposal in 1993, which would still be market-based but not hold all the questions and strange aspects that seem to be infecting the "viable" proposals? It seems pretty simple--health insurance lobbyists want to ensure the viability of their industry, which would disappear entirely under single-payer and would have its profits effectively limited under a Swiss or Enthoven-type regulated model.
If the health care system is still a mess when this is all over, people will be looking for when the mistake was made. I go back to the argument I first heard from David Brooks that I've written about before--Barack Obama needed to do campaign finance reform first before any major initiative like health care reform. Brooks' predicted result of Obama favoring "legislative pragmatism" over "policy pragmatism" seems to be reflected in the "viable" proposals being quite sub-optimal from a policy perspective. It didn't have to be this way. The mistake was not doing campaign finance reform first.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Politics: Where's the New Media?
TORONTO, ONTARIO - A year ago, the mainstream media stood in awe of how then-Senator Barack Obama was using social media on the Internet to move his presidential campaign forward. Even the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's magazine, Technology Review, came out with a feature article explaining how Obama's campaign had set up its infrastructure and how its use of social media had been different than that of his rivals. That article speculated how "MyBO," Obama's analog of MySpace, and other resources might be used if he won the presidency to create a new level of citizen engagement in presidential initiatives. Obama may have become the 44th president of the United States, but eight months into his presidency there is no sign of any effective use of social media, and arguably right-wing opposition has been much more effective in its use of modern technology.
What happened? There's no surprise in the reality that governing is different--and much harder--than campaigning. A key aspect of Obama's effective use of social media was calling people to action--tweets and other text messages from the campaign told their supporters what to do to help support Obama. When it was time to unite the party after Hillary Clinton suspended the campaign, word went out to invite Clinton supporters to unity parties. When it was time to counteract specific Republican disinformation, accurate information was sent out with instructions in how to spread it. People are willing to take such actions in a time-limited campaign, but not so willing to do so in their daily lives. So, it was clear that less advantage could be taken of the social networks built by the campaign during the administration--but using it less often is different than barely using it at all, which is what has seemed to happen. Practically the only outward change over previous administrations has been that the weekly radio address has appeared on YouTube.
The biggest factor seems to have been the strategy taken by the administration for passing legislation. Most prominently on the issue of health care, but really for every legislative initiative except some of the early, emergency economic measures, the Obama administration has made the decision to let legislators hash out the details of the legislation into a form that could actually pass Congress. Where many presidents would have proposed legislation and then let Congress change it, Obama has acquiesced to the reality that most details are hashed out by Congress anyway and let them do it from the start under the apparent idea that it would cost the President less political capital and that it would make the legislation more likely to pass. This may yet prove to be an effective legislative strategy (or perhaps a failure), but in taking the initiative away from the administration, the onus for building support for legislative specifics is also taken away, and thus there is no reason to exercise the citizen's network utilizing social media.
However, one of the most effective things about the Obama campaign's social media was that there was centralized messaging emanating from the strategists (through text messages and the web site), but the implementation of citizen action was largely taken care of by the people out in the field deciding on their own how to take the supportive actions. The campaign would say to contact five friends and inform them about Obama's economic plan, say, but it wouldn't specify how to contact them or exactly what to say. Without the centralized messaging, the network isn't empowered to do anything. Without specific legislative initiatives, there is no centralized messaging.
Most dramatically in the health care debate, this has left the door wide open for opponents to activate their own networks, whether social media-based or very old-fashioned. When the opposition started gaining traction with their points, Obama's network was left to sit on its hands with no message to spread in response. The result has been that the Obama "magic" has been seemingly completely absent.
There seem to be two obvious ways for the Democrats to re-capture the buzz of the campaign. If all the initiative is to be left to Congress, then the Congressional leadership needs to develop its own social media networks to help it pressure its own members and take advantage of the activism and concern that does exist in the country, even if it will be less intense than during a quadrennial campaign. Considering that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi can't seem to agree on anything, this doesn't seem to be a realistic possibility.
The other option is for the President to get back involved in the process directly, start fighting for specifics in the legislation, and activate his network to pressure Congress to back up his positions. Arguably, the President may have been waiting for the right moment when the legislation was well enough formed to proceed with strategy. The trade-off is that every day of waiting allows the opposition to keep spreading its message.
One big story in the wake of Obama's election was whether or not he could keep his BlackBerry mobile device. The Secret Service did not find it secure enough, but Obama wanted it to avoid being in a media bubble. In the end, a compromise was reached in which the President was able to use a specially-secured mobile device, but the upshot seemed to be that something had been lost in the battle and the modifications. If the President does not want that story to become symbolic of his use of social media, he needs to start activating social networks before his legislative initiatives suffer any more than they already have from the networks' absence.
What happened? There's no surprise in the reality that governing is different--and much harder--than campaigning. A key aspect of Obama's effective use of social media was calling people to action--tweets and other text messages from the campaign told their supporters what to do to help support Obama. When it was time to unite the party after Hillary Clinton suspended the campaign, word went out to invite Clinton supporters to unity parties. When it was time to counteract specific Republican disinformation, accurate information was sent out with instructions in how to spread it. People are willing to take such actions in a time-limited campaign, but not so willing to do so in their daily lives. So, it was clear that less advantage could be taken of the social networks built by the campaign during the administration--but using it less often is different than barely using it at all, which is what has seemed to happen. Practically the only outward change over previous administrations has been that the weekly radio address has appeared on YouTube.
The biggest factor seems to have been the strategy taken by the administration for passing legislation. Most prominently on the issue of health care, but really for every legislative initiative except some of the early, emergency economic measures, the Obama administration has made the decision to let legislators hash out the details of the legislation into a form that could actually pass Congress. Where many presidents would have proposed legislation and then let Congress change it, Obama has acquiesced to the reality that most details are hashed out by Congress anyway and let them do it from the start under the apparent idea that it would cost the President less political capital and that it would make the legislation more likely to pass. This may yet prove to be an effective legislative strategy (or perhaps a failure), but in taking the initiative away from the administration, the onus for building support for legislative specifics is also taken away, and thus there is no reason to exercise the citizen's network utilizing social media.
However, one of the most effective things about the Obama campaign's social media was that there was centralized messaging emanating from the strategists (through text messages and the web site), but the implementation of citizen action was largely taken care of by the people out in the field deciding on their own how to take the supportive actions. The campaign would say to contact five friends and inform them about Obama's economic plan, say, but it wouldn't specify how to contact them or exactly what to say. Without the centralized messaging, the network isn't empowered to do anything. Without specific legislative initiatives, there is no centralized messaging.
Most dramatically in the health care debate, this has left the door wide open for opponents to activate their own networks, whether social media-based or very old-fashioned. When the opposition started gaining traction with their points, Obama's network was left to sit on its hands with no message to spread in response. The result has been that the Obama "magic" has been seemingly completely absent.
There seem to be two obvious ways for the Democrats to re-capture the buzz of the campaign. If all the initiative is to be left to Congress, then the Congressional leadership needs to develop its own social media networks to help it pressure its own members and take advantage of the activism and concern that does exist in the country, even if it will be less intense than during a quadrennial campaign. Considering that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi can't seem to agree on anything, this doesn't seem to be a realistic possibility.
The other option is for the President to get back involved in the process directly, start fighting for specifics in the legislation, and activate his network to pressure Congress to back up his positions. Arguably, the President may have been waiting for the right moment when the legislation was well enough formed to proceed with strategy. The trade-off is that every day of waiting allows the opposition to keep spreading its message.
One big story in the wake of Obama's election was whether or not he could keep his BlackBerry mobile device. The Secret Service did not find it secure enough, but Obama wanted it to avoid being in a media bubble. In the end, a compromise was reached in which the President was able to use a specially-secured mobile device, but the upshot seemed to be that something had been lost in the battle and the modifications. If the President does not want that story to become symbolic of his use of social media, he needs to start activating social networks before his legislative initiatives suffer any more than they already have from the networks' absence.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Politics: Will There Be an Obama Legacy?
TORONTO, ONTARIO - It is still quite early in the Obama administration--barely six months have passed since he was sworn in to office as President of the United States--but one thing has become increasingly clear to me. So far, no lasting legislation that will lead to an "Obama legacy" has been passed, and with his legislative priorities conceivably to be thwarted by Republicans and "blue dog" conservative Democrats, a distinct possibility seems to be emerging that there might not be one.
For good reason, most of President Barack Obama's attention has been focused in the early days of his presidency on economic matters. His landmark achievement to date has been the passage of a substantial stimulus package. However, this stimulus package will not have a long-term legacy, since most of its spending takes place in 2010 and then ends. In fact, the only way it will have a long-term legacy is if Republican spinmeisters succeed in pinning the entire national debt on the Obama stimulus. Republicans have for years tried to dodge the reality that the national debt ballooned under the Reagan administration and that the Clinton administration had been the most fiscally prudent in my lifetime, but Obama has now given them the opportunity to place all fiscal blame on the Democrats.
The president's foremost other domestic initiative, health insurance reform (I actually find the administration's re-phrasing from "health care reform" to accurately reflect what they are trying to do, whether it was crafted as spin or not) did not appear to be headed for a passable consensus before the summer recess started. A distinct possibility exists that nothing will pass, or that reforms that do pass will not have a significant impact on the functioning of the health care system for those who are currently not well-served by it. (See Nate Silver's analysis for details.)
Meanwhile, the nation's foreign policy has changed little since the previous administration. Grumblings in the editorial pages throughout Latin America are complaining that Barack Obama hasn't changed their realities, that the United States continues to be a cultural beacon, but not helpful to them politically, and the war in Afghanistan has intensified.
In his early days with a Democrat-controlled house and senate, President Clinton passed the Family and Medical Leave Act. The North American Free Trade Agreement, the Brady Bill, and later welfare reform were all elements that clearly help to create a positive legislative legacy for Clinton. President George H.W. Bush left the Americans with Disabilities Act and the re-authorization of the Clean Air Act as positive parts of his legacy. Most presidents have been able to start their legacies in a first or single term.
The very election of a multi-racial individual as President of the United States, and Barack Obama's demeanor in office (admitting mistakes, emphasizing consensus) will of course be legacies in themselves. It matters to the rest of the world that someone other than a white person could be elected to the presidency, and that the US president uses a rhetoric of respect in dealing with other nations instead of arrogance. However, in my opinion, it would be a shame if that proves to be the only legacy of the Obama administration, and I'm starting to wonder if it will be.
For good reason, most of President Barack Obama's attention has been focused in the early days of his presidency on economic matters. His landmark achievement to date has been the passage of a substantial stimulus package. However, this stimulus package will not have a long-term legacy, since most of its spending takes place in 2010 and then ends. In fact, the only way it will have a long-term legacy is if Republican spinmeisters succeed in pinning the entire national debt on the Obama stimulus. Republicans have for years tried to dodge the reality that the national debt ballooned under the Reagan administration and that the Clinton administration had been the most fiscally prudent in my lifetime, but Obama has now given them the opportunity to place all fiscal blame on the Democrats.
The president's foremost other domestic initiative, health insurance reform (I actually find the administration's re-phrasing from "health care reform" to accurately reflect what they are trying to do, whether it was crafted as spin or not) did not appear to be headed for a passable consensus before the summer recess started. A distinct possibility exists that nothing will pass, or that reforms that do pass will not have a significant impact on the functioning of the health care system for those who are currently not well-served by it. (See Nate Silver's analysis for details.)
Meanwhile, the nation's foreign policy has changed little since the previous administration. Grumblings in the editorial pages throughout Latin America are complaining that Barack Obama hasn't changed their realities, that the United States continues to be a cultural beacon, but not helpful to them politically, and the war in Afghanistan has intensified.
In his early days with a Democrat-controlled house and senate, President Clinton passed the Family and Medical Leave Act. The North American Free Trade Agreement, the Brady Bill, and later welfare reform were all elements that clearly help to create a positive legislative legacy for Clinton. President George H.W. Bush left the Americans with Disabilities Act and the re-authorization of the Clean Air Act as positive parts of his legacy. Most presidents have been able to start their legacies in a first or single term.
The very election of a multi-racial individual as President of the United States, and Barack Obama's demeanor in office (admitting mistakes, emphasizing consensus) will of course be legacies in themselves. It matters to the rest of the world that someone other than a white person could be elected to the presidency, and that the US president uses a rhetoric of respect in dealing with other nations instead of arrogance. However, in my opinion, it would be a shame if that proves to be the only legacy of the Obama administration, and I'm starting to wonder if it will be.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Politics: Obama Can Elbow
TORONTO, ONTARIO - The recent inclusion of President Barack Obama in Esquire magazine's "List of Men" as part of its recent "how to be a man" issue, juxtaposed with the question of how he would respond to the pirate hostage crisis, has resulted in an inordinate amount of discussion in recent days about whether Obama is masculine enough. With Obama having authorized lethal force against the pirates and even libertarians like Jon Keller praising his actions, I expect that the debate is over.
Why there was ever a debate is completely beyond me. Sure, his rhetoric usually lacks bravado and is often humble and realistic, which some view as weak. Those that seem to still want a cowboy leading their nation don't seem to understand the basic playground wisdom that the truly self-confident, particularly those with power to wield, don't need to use bravado. They can behave exactly the way Obama tends to behave and gain a lot more influence than if they went around threatening all the rival males around them.
The silliness of it all reminded me of a past politician in a similar mold, former Senator Bill Bradley. When he ran for President in 2000, his then-wife Ernestine was very active in the campaign, and it didn't take much effort now to find the story she liked to tell in a Boston Globe article:
I probably don't need to point out that Barack Obama is also a pretty decent basketball player (and, in fact, Michelle Obama has been quoted as saying that she had her brother play basketball with him as a sort of evaluation technique when they were dating). He knows when to use his elbows. The situation with the pirates was one such example, and out they came. Anyone that has been paying attention should not have been surprised.
Why there was ever a debate is completely beyond me. Sure, his rhetoric usually lacks bravado and is often humble and realistic, which some view as weak. Those that seem to still want a cowboy leading their nation don't seem to understand the basic playground wisdom that the truly self-confident, particularly those with power to wield, don't need to use bravado. They can behave exactly the way Obama tends to behave and gain a lot more influence than if they went around threatening all the rival males around them.
The silliness of it all reminded me of a past politician in a similar mold, former Senator Bill Bradley. When he ran for President in 2000, his then-wife Ernestine was very active in the campaign, and it didn't take much effort now to find the story she liked to tell in a Boston Globe article:
As a person, Bill was always gentle and kind and soft-spoken, always considerate, and I would say to myself, "My gosh, I hope they are not going to push him over." Then when I saw him playing basketball, using these elbows and everything else, I felt very good and thought, "That man is OK!"Bradley didn't need to show to bravado, he just got the job done, including throwing a few elbows when playing basketball.
I probably don't need to point out that Barack Obama is also a pretty decent basketball player (and, in fact, Michelle Obama has been quoted as saying that she had her brother play basketball with him as a sort of evaluation technique when they were dating). He knows when to use his elbows. The situation with the pirates was one such example, and out they came. Anyone that has been paying attention should not have been surprised.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Politics: No Such Thing as "New Politics"
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Anyone remember all that discussion about "new politics" that people were talking about around the election of Barack Obama as the President of the United States? What happened to that fundamental change in the way that politics was practiced in the United States, the "no more red and blue Americas, just a purple America"? It's hardly surprising that it seems to have gone by the wayside. Probably since ancient Greece, and certainly in my lifetime, there has never been any such thing as "new politics," only varying degrees of skill in practicing classic politics.
Some tried to paint the very election of Barack Obama as representative of "new politics" for its use of technology to reach new voters, especially younger voters, but to me it was just a classic get-out-the-vote campaign. Twitter, generic cell phone messaging, and the extensive use of the world wide web may have been new, but it wasn't conceptually any different than the first phone banks used more than a generation ago, or the first application of customer relations management software to politics. While the number of new voters registered may make a significant difference in a number of (at least formerly) swing states like Virginia and Nevada going forward, that doesn't represent new politics--it represents very efficient execution of a classic political strategy.
In the end, it probably wasn't even Obama's impressive "ground game" that won the election. Just as in 1992, when the Clinton campaign "focused on the economy like a laser beam," the collapsing economy in the United States so damaged the Republican brand that even a perceived "maverick" within its ranks could not stand against the news. With a 4% margin of victory in the popular vote and a structural advantage in the electoral college, the approximately 2% that the highly successful "get-out-the-vote" campaign probably gained turned out to be superfluous. The oldest factor in the book--the state of the economy--was the single most important factor in the election.
Yet, the "new politics" was not supposed to be about the election, but about how Obama governed after the election. He went out of his way to try to open dialogue with the Republicans, inviting them to the White House, and speaking of bi-partisanship from the day he was elected right through the first few weeks of the the administration. In return, there were zero Republican votes for the stimulus package in the House and only a handful in the Senate. What happened? There was no "new politics"; the Republicans were still operating in a classic political space. There was no political advantage to be gained by voting for the package in the House, as they could not stop its passage there. If it works, the Republicans could claim they were trying to improve it; if it fails, they could say they were opposed the whole time. In the Senate, there was only an advantage to voting for it if something was gained in return, in this case the reduction in the size of the package by about 20%. If it works, the Republicans could say they improved it, and if it fails, they can say they were substantially opposed.
Even Obama's attempts at bi-partisanship weren't really "new politics" but just very shrewd classic politics. By reaching out, he appeared less ideological at a time when voters were tired of ideology. As a popular president, he conceivably could leverage that popularity and pressure the opposition somewhat toward compromise. He had very little to lose--if the Republicans refused to even talk, they would definitely look bad. In the end, though, it was all about what basic political advantage could be gained through compromise, and right now, there isn't much advantage to either side to actually do any more than talk. It's no different than it ever has been.
I was very pleased to see "new politics" disappear from the lexicon so rapidly in the United States. As far as I am concerned, there isn't any such thing.
Some tried to paint the very election of Barack Obama as representative of "new politics" for its use of technology to reach new voters, especially younger voters, but to me it was just a classic get-out-the-vote campaign. Twitter, generic cell phone messaging, and the extensive use of the world wide web may have been new, but it wasn't conceptually any different than the first phone banks used more than a generation ago, or the first application of customer relations management software to politics. While the number of new voters registered may make a significant difference in a number of (at least formerly) swing states like Virginia and Nevada going forward, that doesn't represent new politics--it represents very efficient execution of a classic political strategy.
In the end, it probably wasn't even Obama's impressive "ground game" that won the election. Just as in 1992, when the Clinton campaign "focused on the economy like a laser beam," the collapsing economy in the United States so damaged the Republican brand that even a perceived "maverick" within its ranks could not stand against the news. With a 4% margin of victory in the popular vote and a structural advantage in the electoral college, the approximately 2% that the highly successful "get-out-the-vote" campaign probably gained turned out to be superfluous. The oldest factor in the book--the state of the economy--was the single most important factor in the election.
Yet, the "new politics" was not supposed to be about the election, but about how Obama governed after the election. He went out of his way to try to open dialogue with the Republicans, inviting them to the White House, and speaking of bi-partisanship from the day he was elected right through the first few weeks of the the administration. In return, there were zero Republican votes for the stimulus package in the House and only a handful in the Senate. What happened? There was no "new politics"; the Republicans were still operating in a classic political space. There was no political advantage to be gained by voting for the package in the House, as they could not stop its passage there. If it works, the Republicans could claim they were trying to improve it; if it fails, they could say they were opposed the whole time. In the Senate, there was only an advantage to voting for it if something was gained in return, in this case the reduction in the size of the package by about 20%. If it works, the Republicans could say they improved it, and if it fails, they can say they were substantially opposed.
Even Obama's attempts at bi-partisanship weren't really "new politics" but just very shrewd classic politics. By reaching out, he appeared less ideological at a time when voters were tired of ideology. As a popular president, he conceivably could leverage that popularity and pressure the opposition somewhat toward compromise. He had very little to lose--if the Republicans refused to even talk, they would definitely look bad. In the end, though, it was all about what basic political advantage could be gained through compromise, and right now, there isn't much advantage to either side to actually do any more than talk. It's no different than it ever has been.
I was very pleased to see "new politics" disappear from the lexicon so rapidly in the United States. As far as I am concerned, there isn't any such thing.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Margin Notes: Obama Visit, Presidents, Models
Very large snow flakes fell on Toronto, Ontario on 18-February-2009
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Just when the rains of last week had cleared most of the snow off the ground, guess what showed up? Some of the largest snowflakes I had ever seen were included in the snowfall on Wednesday as pictured above. When it was all over, we had a fresh coating of white. As a consolation prize, freshly-fallen snow is always prettier than old, dirty snow.
* * * * * *
Today, as I walked around the neighborhood, the sun came out while the snow was still falling. While I looked around, I was unable to find a "snowbow."
* * * * * *
The weather was especially miserable on Thursday as United States President Barack Obama made his first foreign trip to Canada's capitol of Ottawa. Fortunately, nothing needed to take place outside. Prime Minister Stephen Harper--who had been almost absent from public view this year--looked very good during his joint press conference with Obama as well as in follow-up media interviews. He appeared to be someone that Canadians could be proud to call their leader. His best line? "When you disagree with the United States, it doesn't matter if you're right or you're wrong, you lose."
* * * * * *
Amazingly, though, no less than National Public Radio managed to get Prime Minister Harper's name incorrect that day. During an hourly update at 15:00 Eastern, the NPR news announcer stated that "Obama met with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Hadley." Hadley, by the way, was a National Security adviser to President Bush.
* * * * * *
While most of the media attention on the visit focused on the meeting with Harper, the more significant meeting may have been that between Obama and Canadian Governor General Michaëlle Jean. This was the first meeting between black heads of state of the two countries. Also of note was that Obama reportedly had a constructive meeting with opposition leader Michael Ignatieff.
* * * * * *
The best quote I heard surrounding the Obama visit to Canada was a wag who noted that the biggest security threat was that "Obama might be crushed by an enormous group hug."
* * * * * *
Between the US President's Day holiday and the Obama visit, it seemed like Shopper's Drug Mart had presidential envy this week. Their advertising this week touted a "Presidential Sale." Sure, they tried to claim that it was about special deals with the presidents of the companies making the various products that were on sale. I think their advertising agency had something entirely different in mind.
* * * * * *
The way the economy is going, Shopper's Drug Mart might soon need much deeper discounts. In a piece about Family Dollar stores on National Public Radio's All Things Considered this week, Target was referred to as a "high-end retailer." Last I checked, Tiffany's was a high-end retailer, not Target. If Target is high-end, only dollar stores must count as a normal retailers now!
* * * * * *
The engine facility at East Davidson on the O-scale Model Railroad Club of Toronto in Toronto, Ontario was viewed during a public show on 22-February-2009
I thought I must be going to a high-end train show when I saw that the Model Railroad Club of Toronto was charging $8 adult admission to their show. Perhaps it wasn't a bargain, but considering how impressive this 62 year old, 7000 square foot model railroad was in person, I wasn't complaining. There will be more on the Model Railroad Club of Toronto in future posts.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Politics: Can Obama Restore Balance?
TORONTO, ONTARIO - In the midst of the battle to get a stimulus package passed in Congress, relatively few people took notice of the speech that US President Barack Obama made on Thursday, the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln. In the speech, Obama cited the influence of Lincoln on his own philosophy--and demonstrated that, despite his recent failures to achieve bi-partisanship, he conceptually understands what it will take to bring the United States back to balance again.
It's not news that Obama admires the nation's 16th president or that an earlier president from Illinois influenced the present one. One only needs to read excerpts of Obama's autobiography for that to become clear. In the campaign, though, it seemed more like rhetoric. The current stimulus package makes it seem much more real.
A key passage from Lincoln that Obama cited on Thursday was the following:
For too long, the United States has been unbalanced in favor of individualism. All attempts to introduce any degree of broader responsibility have been derided as socialism, communism, and impediments to real growth in the economy, threats to the very concept of freedom itself. It took essentially a generation, but the consequences of being so extreme toward individualism have now become clear--when things go wrong, not just the very weakest but a sizable percentage of people suddenly don't have anything left to try to recover, dragging the whole system down.
On the other hand, that same individualism is what has made the country so great--it allows entrepreneurs to take risks and innovate, to advance not just their own lives but give the whole world new technologies. The key is to keep things in balance--allow individualism as much as possible, but establish regulation and safety nets so that the whole system doesn't fail when some of risks taken by the entrepreneurs turn out to be failures.
Obama not only talks about this in conceptual terms, but the philosophy could be seen at work in the stimulus package. Tax cuts--that most sacred of individualist financial measures, the minimization of money taken from individuals--were part of the package. That could be seen as a political move to try to gain Republican support in a bi-partisan outreach, but it could also be seen simply as recognition that individualism still needs to be encouraged going forward. It's consistent with the philosophy of balance. Similarly, spending by the spender of last resort--the government--was included in Obama's package. That could be seen as a set of pork projects for politicians, but it could also be seen as a way to demonstrate that the government can have a direct role in protecting the health of the economy when it is in crisis--a move back toward balance.
Republicans in general would have had a lot more credibility in opposing the package that Obama will sign tomorrow had they focused their criticism on the nature of the spending in the package, questioning whether it was effective stimulus. There likely were ways to improve how the money will be spent--Obama himself admitted that the bill wasn't perfect. Instead, many--especially in the House--simply stated they wanted nothing but tax cuts and didn't want the government to spend any money. They were sticking to the individualist game plan, and wanted nothing of communal responsibility. They remained out of balance.
The sad part is that the concept of individualism has been so ingrained in the United States for the past generation that the Republicans may have actually made the superior political choice. Barack Obama may the taking his cues from Abraham Lincoln and trying to bring things back into balance, but the country may no longer be receptive to balance. It will be very interesting to see how far Obama can move the United States back toward communal responsibility again.
It's not news that Obama admires the nation's 16th president or that an earlier president from Illinois influenced the present one. One only needs to read excerpts of Obama's autobiography for that to become clear. In the campaign, though, it seemed more like rhetoric. The current stimulus package makes it seem much more real.
A key passage from Lincoln that Obama cited on Thursday was the following:
The legitimate object of government is to do for the people what needs to be done but which they cannot, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, by themselves.Obama has, in many places, written and spoken on the concept of balance between individualism and communal responsibility, and stated that Lincoln was a master of that balancing act.
For too long, the United States has been unbalanced in favor of individualism. All attempts to introduce any degree of broader responsibility have been derided as socialism, communism, and impediments to real growth in the economy, threats to the very concept of freedom itself. It took essentially a generation, but the consequences of being so extreme toward individualism have now become clear--when things go wrong, not just the very weakest but a sizable percentage of people suddenly don't have anything left to try to recover, dragging the whole system down.
On the other hand, that same individualism is what has made the country so great--it allows entrepreneurs to take risks and innovate, to advance not just their own lives but give the whole world new technologies. The key is to keep things in balance--allow individualism as much as possible, but establish regulation and safety nets so that the whole system doesn't fail when some of risks taken by the entrepreneurs turn out to be failures.
Obama not only talks about this in conceptual terms, but the philosophy could be seen at work in the stimulus package. Tax cuts--that most sacred of individualist financial measures, the minimization of money taken from individuals--were part of the package. That could be seen as a political move to try to gain Republican support in a bi-partisan outreach, but it could also be seen simply as recognition that individualism still needs to be encouraged going forward. It's consistent with the philosophy of balance. Similarly, spending by the spender of last resort--the government--was included in Obama's package. That could be seen as a set of pork projects for politicians, but it could also be seen as a way to demonstrate that the government can have a direct role in protecting the health of the economy when it is in crisis--a move back toward balance.
Republicans in general would have had a lot more credibility in opposing the package that Obama will sign tomorrow had they focused their criticism on the nature of the spending in the package, questioning whether it was effective stimulus. There likely were ways to improve how the money will be spent--Obama himself admitted that the bill wasn't perfect. Instead, many--especially in the House--simply stated they wanted nothing but tax cuts and didn't want the government to spend any money. They were sticking to the individualist game plan, and wanted nothing of communal responsibility. They remained out of balance.
The sad part is that the concept of individualism has been so ingrained in the United States for the past generation that the Republicans may have actually made the superior political choice. Barack Obama may the taking his cues from Abraham Lincoln and trying to bring things back into balance, but the country may no longer be receptive to balance. It will be very interesting to see how far Obama can move the United States back toward communal responsibility again.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Politics: Cosby as the Role Model
TORONTO, ONTARIO - On inauguration day earlier this week, CBC Television's "The National" ran an interesting report by Leslie MacKinnon on how Hollywood had helped pave the way for Barack Obama, the first non-white person to be elected President of the United States. The report presented a variety of racial milestones from Jackie Robinson to an African-American president on 24. It did mention The Cosby Show, but I think it understated the influence of that sitcom and its role in making the election of Barack Obama possible.
Apparently The Jeffersons had been presenting a Black family on CBS since 1975, but I don't remember ever watching it, and its relatively anemic ratings probably mean I wasn't the only young person in that era that didn't. In contrast, in looking over the episode list in preparation for writing this entry, I must have seen almost all of the Cosby Shows. I distinctly remember that it was appointment television--if it was 8 pm on Thursday night, you tuned in NBC and you watched it. When upstart FOX placed "The Simpsons" against it for the 1990-1 season, there was some question, but Cosby generally won out across the country.
We didn't tune in because it the cast was made up entirely of Black people (in the days before African-American was the preferred term). As pointed out earlier this week, there simply weren't many Blacks in the community in which I was raised. We tuned in because it was funny. Bill Cosby and the rest of the cast were entertaining, and the scripts described family experiences that it seemed like anyone could have when children were growing up. There wasn't anything especially "Black" about it.
If anything, the presented fictional Huxtable family was higher class than most of the families that I was familiar with, being headed by doctor and clearly reasonably wealthy. That was the key to the impact of the Cosby Show. Where other portions of the media might have served to have whites feel in some way superior, the Cosby Show caused people like me to look up to Black people. Why wouldn't one want to raise children the way the Huxtables raised theirs? So, if one could view a Black people as role models for parenting or economic status, then why couldn't one view a Black person as a credible politician or world leader? The leap for a Cosby Show viewer was not that large.
That Bill Cosby and Barack Obama seem almost interchangeable in their commentaries about how to eliminate racial divides that exist in the United States is likely not a coincidence. The Cosby Show demonstrated how to live responsibly--in a way that no person would question--and Barack Obama's family has lived such a life for real. Do we not see Phylicia Rashād (Clair Huxtable) in Michelle Obama? Do we not see Keshia Knight Pulliam (Rudy) in Sasha Obama? One hopes that Malia will not behave like Tempestt Bledsoe (Vanessa) in the White House!
Barack Obama understood that he was elected on the shoulders of giants. It may not be fully appreciated that Bill Cosby is one of those giants.
Apparently The Jeffersons had been presenting a Black family on CBS since 1975, but I don't remember ever watching it, and its relatively anemic ratings probably mean I wasn't the only young person in that era that didn't. In contrast, in looking over the episode list in preparation for writing this entry, I must have seen almost all of the Cosby Shows. I distinctly remember that it was appointment television--if it was 8 pm on Thursday night, you tuned in NBC and you watched it. When upstart FOX placed "The Simpsons" against it for the 1990-1 season, there was some question, but Cosby generally won out across the country.
We didn't tune in because it the cast was made up entirely of Black people (in the days before African-American was the preferred term). As pointed out earlier this week, there simply weren't many Blacks in the community in which I was raised. We tuned in because it was funny. Bill Cosby and the rest of the cast were entertaining, and the scripts described family experiences that it seemed like anyone could have when children were growing up. There wasn't anything especially "Black" about it.
If anything, the presented fictional Huxtable family was higher class than most of the families that I was familiar with, being headed by doctor and clearly reasonably wealthy. That was the key to the impact of the Cosby Show. Where other portions of the media might have served to have whites feel in some way superior, the Cosby Show caused people like me to look up to Black people. Why wouldn't one want to raise children the way the Huxtables raised theirs? So, if one could view a Black people as role models for parenting or economic status, then why couldn't one view a Black person as a credible politician or world leader? The leap for a Cosby Show viewer was not that large.
That Bill Cosby and Barack Obama seem almost interchangeable in their commentaries about how to eliminate racial divides that exist in the United States is likely not a coincidence. The Cosby Show demonstrated how to live responsibly--in a way that no person would question--and Barack Obama's family has lived such a life for real. Do we not see Phylicia Rashād (Clair Huxtable) in Michelle Obama? Do we not see Keshia Knight Pulliam (Rudy) in Sasha Obama? One hopes that Malia will not behave like Tempestt Bledsoe (Vanessa) in the White House!
Barack Obama understood that he was elected on the shoulders of giants. It may not be fully appreciated that Bill Cosby is one of those giants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)