Politics: Rational Decisions

TORONTO, ONTARIO - Much has been made in the media of the substantial gains made by the Republican Party in yesterday's elections in the United States, with that party taking control of the House of Representatives by a comfortable margin, gaining a clear majority of governorships, and gaining six seats in the Senate (with two races technically uncalled). Yet, while there was a clear mood of discontent and desire for change, there also seemed in the results to be a tremendous reminder that all politics is local, as looking at most races revealed a lot of rational decisions by voters.

If the best one-sentence summary of the mood of the electorate was "we want government to work better," that led to a hard choice when the options were the party in power and the party that was in power until two years ago. When other choices were available, the voters often took them seriously. Lincoln Chafee, who has been heavily critical of the Republican party of which he once was a member as well as the Democratic Party, ran as an independent and won the governorship of Rhode Island. Chafee, once described as a moderate Republican, was supposed to be symbolic of the changes in that party as it seemed he had no future--yet voters decided he was actually the best person to run his home state. His political career was hardly over.

Yet, most states did not have a viable third-party, new-thinking alternative with the name recognition of Chafee. (Notably, Maine's Eliot Cutler lacked only name recognition and almost defeated Republican Paul LePage, but came up short.) In those cases, when it came down to a Democrat and Republican, it often came down to local issues and candidate quality, which is why Connecticut went all-Democratic at the Federal level, and Pennsylvania substantially Republican.

If there was a long-standing Democratic incumbent (like Representatives James Oberstar and John Spratt or Senator Russ Feingold), that person tended to be quite vulnerable to the discontent of the voters. But, if the alternative were perceived as somewhat fringe (such as Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, or Tom Tancredo) or simply not politically experienced enough (Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, and arguably even Dino Rossi), then the incumbent Democrat tended to be chosen anyway.

Much has been made of the rise of the TEA parties, but in the Senate, there were really only two TEA party victories, and neither of those may have had much to do with the TEA parties per se. Both Marco Rubio in Florida and Rand Paul in Kentucky are gifted politicians, whatever one thinks of their policy ideas, and would have been strong candidates in any year. Compare that with O'Donnell and Angle, who appear to have cost the Republicans easy-to-win seats, and the fact that Lisa Murkowski appears to have won a write-in campaign over the Sarah Palin-endorsed Republican nominee Joe Miller in Alaska, and it's not at all clear that the TEA parties made a big difference in general elections.

Instead, what I see is a country of discontented voters looking for fresh ideas that were moderate and productive in nature, and when they couldn't find that, trying to make a rational choice between the two main parties. In a year in which so much outside money was spent on the election, that's not a bad thing to observe.

Culture: Symbolic Family Feud

PLACERVILLE, CALIFORNIA - I've written in the past about watching game shows with my great aunt here. One of the shows that airs on the Game Show Network (GSN) is the slightly dated version of Family Feud with Richard Karn (I have yet to see the latest version with Steve Harvey). While I remember the show since the days of Richard Dawson, this was the first time I realized just how symbolic Family Feud is of culture in United States.

The basic goal of Family Feud is to come up with the answers that match those of a game show survey of one hundred people. In other words, the idea isn't to come up with the "correct" answer (not that there really is a correct answer to "a thing you check before you go to bed"), but the answer most likely to be stated by average citizens. According to the logic of the show, it's best to think like the average person, not to think more creatively or unconventionally.

Following this way of thinking, if everyone thinks something that is factually incorrect, then matching that incorrect perception would be rewarded. Now, Family Feud would never ask "Who was responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9/11?" but if they did, answering "Saddam Hussein" would probably earn points for one's team. More realistically, if people had answered "September" to "A month with 31 days" (an actual survey inquiry on a recent show), then that would also be rewarded, despite being incorrect. Granted, the games are often won and lost on some of the less common responses, with perhaps 6-10 of the 100 responses as the most common answers are usually easiest to figure out, but even figuring out those are basically an exercise in thinking in a mediocre fashion.

Think about the reward structure in a lot of fields--sales and finance, for example. They are basically about understanding how the average person thinks. Sales may be based on the fundamentals of what a product has to offer, but it's mostly about connecting with average person in the marketplace. Finance may be based on the fundamentals of the individual businesses, but the real money is made from predicting how people will react to those fundamentals in the securities marketplace.

Those that do well at Family Feud likely will be rewarded for applying those same skills in money-making professions in the United States.

Culture: Shocked! Elitism in US?

TORONTO, ONTARIO - Right about a year ago, I cut out an opinion piece in the Christian Science Monitor by Em Powers Hunter. In it, she described how staying in a "ritzy" hotel in Washington, D.C. with her 13-year old son caused her to question whether the American Dream was dead. The key moment? "After taking photos of the hotel, he noted that all of the people had the same expression: disgust." The disgust was directed at their tourist clothes--"my rumped sweater, Wal-Mart jeans, and $11 tennis shoes."

My first thought was "Duh?" Did it really take her forty years and taking a teen-aged child to an expensive hotel for her to realize that there was elitism in the United States? While I will be the first to propose that the issue is more obvious and pronounced in the northeast region than the rest of the country, even in places like Seattle, Washington, or Austin, Texas, it is not hard to pockets of elitism. Ever tried wearing "tourist" attire to an opera, or an expensive restaurant? Ever tried getting an audience with one's Congressperson at their local office? How about attending a Rotary Club meeting?

I'm mystified at the level of idealism that must be involved in thinking that class doesn't play a part in the United States. I say "class" rather than "money" because while it takes a certain amount of wealth to be able to afford to go to certain restaurants or to be able to throw around $20 bills like pennies at a Rotary Club meeting (I suppose it's $50 bills by now; I haven't attended one in almost twenty years), I've known plenty of financially well-off people that did not behave in an overtly elitist manner--sending their children to public schools, funding public events when corporate sponsors disappeared, volunteering, etc. One might call these people the ethical rich--and for the record, the Rotary Club was full of them. And, on the flip side, I've known people that likely had lower net worths than I did complaining about how they were not given special treatment by government bureaucrats or the police, trying to play an elitist card.

Does that mean, as Hunter questions in the piece, that "the spirit-stirring Lincoln Memorial with the powerful words etched on the walls and Lincoln himself looking down into our eyes [is] a hoax? Were all these monuments just propaganda tools?" Of course not. There has been a certain hypocrisy in supposed United States ideals right from the start, made most obvious by things that have been modified over the years like the end of slavery and granting women the right to vote. That hasn't meant that people and even the country itself wasn't striving toward these ideals.

People in the United States seem to have a major tendency to assume that either something is in its ideal state, or it is irretrievably broken. It's white or black, never gray. If there's a crack in our idealism in the form of elitism, then the idealism must be a farce. Life is rarely that simple. There's plenty of gray. Elitism does exist in the United States. That doesn't mean it isn't striving for ideals of equality, or that it's hopeless for someone wearing "Wal-Mart" attire to became a "great man." Perhaps that person will become great by helping to chip away at the unjustified elitism, and will eventually join the ranks of the ethical rich.

Politics: Brilliant Branding

TORONTO, ONTARIO - In the early months of 2010, political pundits really didn't know what to make of the TEA party. While the basic ideas underlying the movement were clear, it wasn't clear how much money would be involved, what kind of candidates they would back, or if they would have any actual electoral impact at all in a country that has had a two-party system for essentially its entire existence. There seemed only two long-term possibilities, (1) having its ideas subsumed by the Republican Party (as suggested on this blog), the only major party that it had anything in common with, or (2) replacing the Republican Party as the second party with the Democrats remaining the other party. There was plenty of precedent for the first (in my lifetime, most prominently both major parties taking deficit reduction seriously in the 1990's because of Ross Perot's Reform Party influence), and some precedent for the second possibility (the Whigs being replaced by the Republicans).

Now, it seems pretty clear what will happen, which could be described as a hybrid of the above possibilities. By mostly running as Republicans, using the Republican Party electoral apparatus, the TEA Party movement has not only changed the effective ideology of the Republican Party at large, but seems to be in the process of replacing it from within. The two party system has won again, and yet another "third party" possibility is no longer independent, but an integral part of one of the two parties. It may take an election cycle or more for the process to be complete, but the merger of the TEA party and the Republican party seems inevitable.

The electoral brilliance of the TEA Party is clear. Severe political damage was done by the George W. Bush administration to two brands: the political name "Bush" (nobody's talking about Jeb Bush running for anything for now), and the Republican Party. As badly as the Democratic Party is generically polling right now as the party in power during poor economic times, the Republican Party is still polling just as badly, little improved from 2008. (In fact, the latest Gallup Poll has them tied at 44% favorability, well under historical ratings.)

By re-branding conservative ideas as "TEA Party" ideas instead of "Republican Party" ideas, the baggage of the Republican brand is side-stepped, and people can get enthusiastic about it. Especially in a culture in which marketing is far more important than substance, even people that might think that "Republican" ideas didn't work can support "TEA Party" ideas, even when they are economically indistinguishable.

I would go so far as to say that the Republicans ought to seriously consider re-naming themselves formally, though it's too late to do so for the November elections. Even if in the future they ultimately tack back to the political center (which seems inevitable in the long-term), having a fresh brand will imply fresh ideas even when their ideas could otherwise be described as less than fresh. Furthermore, they could also set up a re-launch of the "classic Republican" brand at some point in the future, when they might need to distance themselves from the current era.

Somehow, I suspect the minds behind the right-wing are way ahead of me, just like they were on the TEA Party.

Politics: Messaging and Class Warfare

TORONTO, ONTARIO - I have to admit that the "class warfare" accusation that Republicans make against Democrats has never made a whole lot of sense to me. While I can understand the "anti-business" argument Republicans make about taxation even when I disagree with it (and I don't always disagree), the idea that Democrats are trying to foment "warfare" between economic classes by implementing progressive taxation which puts a higher taxation rate on incomes over a certain level strikes me as very bizarre. As someone who has been in a wide variety of marginal tax rate "brackets" in recent years, it just seems intuitive to me that higher-income people can afford to pay a greater amount of their last dollar than lower-income people. I didn't feel like anyone had declared war on me when I paid a marginal rate of 33% on my last dollar of income.

Much of the problem seems to be that people don't understand progressive income taxes. When the tax rate on the first $1 of income is changed, that affects all taxpayers (with income, anyway, but that deserves a separate discussion), not just low-income taxpayers. On that first $1, everyone, regardless of total income, pays the same amount--currently ten cents in the United States. For single people, that rate goes up to an income level of $8,375. Everyone pays $837.50 on that income, even millionaires. It's only income above $8,375 that is taxed at progressive higher rates. For single people earning more than $373,651, the rate on their additional income is 35%. However, they don't pay 35% of the first $373,651 (which would be $130,778), they pay $108,420.24 by my calculation using 2010 rates, a 29% overall rate. If taxes on the income in the lowest bracket go down by $100, EVERYONE with at least that much income has their taxes go down by $100, the "rich" included.

So, when Republicans talk about "maintaining the tax cuts for people with incomes under $250,000," what they really mean is "maintaining the tax cuts for income under $250,000" (and it is not a coincidence that most Democrats will use the latter wording). Technically, those using the first wording are wrong. Maintaining the tax cuts for income under $250,000 means maintaining tax cuts for everybody--including those with incomes higher than that amount.

I don't understand why Democrats don't try to use this language more often. President Obama, for example, wants to maintain the tax cuts implemented in the Bush administration for the low income tax brackets, but not on the higher income tax brackets. That means he's in favor of keeping taxes lower for EVERYBODY. What he is in favor of is restoring previous tax rates on higher brackets--those indeed would affect only the "rich", though not just the "millionaires and billionaires" he cited in a recent speech. The rhetoric of neither side is especially reflective of the reality of the proposals on the table, but it's especially strange in the case of Democrats, who under the accusation of "class warfare" don't defend their proposals by pointing out that they do mean lower taxes for EVERYONE. Where is that campaign rhetoric about "one America"? (Oh, that's right, nobody is actually interested in that.)

Considering the fact that people in the United States don't seem to want to understand the basics of a tax system they've had in more-or-less the same conceptual form since 1939, I'm not very optimistic that an energy tax will be understood, especially if it turns out to be cap-and-trade--and that means that there is little hope of it ever being accepted, even if it is somehow passed.

Politics: No Chance for One Nation

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.

Blog: The Two-Year Mark

TORONTO, ONTARIO - According to the calendar, today marks the two-year anniversary of this blog. In the Internet era, that's not saying much--the earliest blogs started almost a decade before this one, and any blog that is regularly updated for more than about three months tends to last for years.

Along more than 850 posts so far, this blog has clearly changed in focus. Originally intended to try to point out some aspects not receiving much attention in the political races in Canada and the United States in the fall of 2008, political posts are quite rare now. That's mostly because the tone of this blog was intended to be largely non-partisan (though I doubt any regular reader had any doubts who I would vote for long before the elections arrived). Nobody wants to hear that. Reasoned analysis is not considered to be of value, only partisan point-making. There's no interest in centrism.

The bulk of the posts now are of the glorified diary variety. Photo blogs of events that I've attended or places that I have visited dominate other attempts at commentary on the state of the world. Still, a perusal of any given week of posts shows a variety of topics, often including media, heritage, transportation and societal trends.

Because successful blogs stick to a single topic that has a target audience that returns regularly, this blog was not expected to be wildly successful, as I had no interest in a single-topic blog. Still, I expected that more comments would be posted to the blog to argue with points raised. Those have been few and far between. Frankly, there's been more deleted spam than challenging comments.

Near as I can tell, the bulk of the regular audience are friends and family checking in on what I have been doing. As a result it seems like the future of this blog might well be limited to the diary-type entries to save time in e-mail and phone communications with friends and family.

Certainly, the idea that this blog might directly or indirectly lead to employment has proven to be a pipe dream. I've been explicitly told that I have no blogging skills by two potential blogs I expressed interest in contributing to, and I can't say I've met anyone as a result of this blog, much less a potential employer.

I rather like the idea of reaching one thousand posts, though, so shortly of having nothing of consequence on my mind, the near-daily posts will likely continue in the present format until that milestone is reached.

Culture: Attractiveness to Migrants

TORONTO, ONTARIO - Somehow, I missed a Gallup poll released back in April on international immigration patterns. I don't recall attention to it in the Canadian media either, which is rather remarkable considering the fact that it reveals trends favorable to Canada as compared with its rival for attracting quality immigrants, the United States.

The United States and Canada are clearly the most attractive nations in the world to immigrants, if the Gallup poll is to be believed. 165 million people would like to move to the United States, while 45 million people would like to move to Canada (which, I would point out, is more people than live here presently). The fact that more people would like to move to the United States is not the most interesting part of the poll. Only the younger and less educated potential immigrants prefer the US--the older (25 and up) and more educated (high school and higher) prefer Canada.

At some level, this seems somewhat counter-intuitive. When North Americans think about the differences between the two countries, they consider Canada to be the more socialist country, the one with more social programs and safety nets. The older and more educated immigrants generally don't need these social programs nearly as much as the younger and less educated. One might think that the more educated would be attracted to the lower taxes of the United States, and the less educated to the programs that help the less privileged in Canada. Yet, that's not the case. In the most extreme demographic polled by Gallup, college graduates from Southeast Asia, Canada was preferred to the United States by a more than 3:1 margin!

What are people seeing? The poll doesn't directly address that, but I suspect a lot of the difference comes down to cultural reputations. For the past decade, the United States is increasingly known as an intolerant place where immigrants are not welcome, at least if they are in any way identifiable as a immigrant. In contrast, Canada's reputation for being multi-cultural is spreading. The educated around the world understand that in Canada they will be allowed to be bi-cultural--both Canadian and whatever they were before they migrated (this blog has addressed this idea before).

The poll mentions what likely is also a major factor--Canadian immigration policy clearly favors well-educated, skilled immigrants, whereas the mess that can barely be called a system in the United States mostly offers no such preference. If somebody knows they are desired, they tend to find that place more attractive.

Whatever the reason, this isn't good for the United States. If the best and brightest are starting to prefer Canada instead of the United States, the increasingly globalized economy will inevitably start to move to Canada's favor as the Canadian work force becomes more qualified relative to that in the United States.

The United States has many reasons to reform its immigration policies. The Gallup Poll is just yet another reason.

Politics: Demographic Trouble? Yeah, Right

TORONTO, ONTARIO - The left wing seems to be taking some kind of weird solace in the "time bomb" of demographics in the United States. The Republicans might do exceptionally well this election cycle, the thinking goes, but Hispanics vote overwhelmingly for Democrats and will make up 25% of the electorate by 2050. It's only a matter of time until the Republicans are in big trouble. Unfortunately for those promulgating this theory, it's delusional.

It is true that about two-thirds of Hispanics voted for Barack Obama in 2008, a rate greater than just about any group other than African-Americans. Their votes turned the tide for Democrats in states like Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. Yet, in the long-term view, that may prove a blip. In 2004, George W. Bush attracted about 45 percent of Hispanic vote, within striking distance of his overall share of the electorate.

George W. Bush, while occasionally campaigning in Spanish and clearly making an effort to court the Hispanic vote, was hardly a Hispanic icon. He did not resonate with the immigrant experience which is fresher for many Hispanics than much of the rest of the population. Besides emphasizing relations with Mexico, his foreign and economic policies did little to entice Hispanics. While he often talked about immigration reform, little was accomplished in this regard in two terms as president.

It's not hard to imagine that if Republicans nominated a Hispanic (think Marco Rubio after a couple terms in the Senate, or even former Florida governor Bob Martinez now) that they could really break through. If that candidate made real immigration reform with some sort of limited amnesty a campaign plank, it would seem believable that he (or she) could attract two-thirds of the Hispanic vote just like Barack Obama did.

Republicans argue that Hispanics, who are more likely to be Catholic, are fundamentally social conservatives, more opposed to gay marriage and abortion than the general population, and therefore are a more natural fit with their party. Democrats counter that while that might be true, Hispanics are more likely to vote on the basis of economic issues than social issues, and in that realm the Democrats are a better match. So far, the Democrats have been right, but I don't think the Republicans have really tried yet.

I don't expect the Republican Party to shrink into a small TEA party in the long term, and for the sake of robust democracy in the United States, we should hope that it doesn't. If for the sake of its survival, the GOP starts to reach out to diverse groups, it strikes me that it could reverse the demographic time bomb. Marco Rubio is not the only right-wing Hispanic. The Democrats that think time and demographics are on their side are ostriches, and I suspect they may have a big surprise ahead of them.

Politics: On Rostenkowski

TORONTO, ONTARIO - Former Illinois Representative Dan Rostenkowski died yesterday at the age of 82. The long-time chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the main tax writing body, he is probably best known for a scandal that in which he eventually pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud and served 17 months in prison. However, when I think of Rostenkowski, the Chicago Democrat, what I most remember is his forthrightness about taxes and his ability to work on a bipartisan basis, something that seems impossible today.

In one of his most iconic moments, Rostenkowski stated on CBS' Face the Nation in 1989 that he was "not in favor of any tax decreases. I'm in favor of increasing taxes, because I believe that is fundamentally what needs to be done." Imagine even a Democrat saying that today! The interview resulted in one of my all-time favorite Charles Osgood verses:

Rostenkowski faced the nation,
He was forthright as can be,
How the nation faces Rostenkowski,
We'll just have to see.

As it would turn out, taxes were increased in that budgetary cycle. Republican President George H.W. Bush worked with Congressional Democrats to come up with a way to reduce the deficit that involved some tax increases. The decision is regarded by most economists as a fundamentally sound one, yet despite that, Bush was crucified for breaking the "no new taxes" pledge from his 1988 campaign. Rostenkowski had argued with the President that he should "spend some of his popularity" on economic policy, but Bush spent more than he had. Rather than blaming Rostenkowski or the Democrats for the taxes, Bush received the blame and lost the Presidency to Bill Clinton in 1992. Rostenkowski would be indicted that same year, and would lose his re-election bid in 1994.

It's hard to imagine that world today. Now, in the United States, not even the Democrats seriously contemplate the kind of tax increases that a Republican president supported in 1989. The two parties barely speak to one another; cutting deals like the one seen in 1989 is not a serious possibility. Dan Rostenkowski was definitely from another era, and I daresay that the political environment in that era was much healthier than the one that exists today.

Politics: No Party in Touch

TORONTO, ONTARIO - Last week's excellent program "The House Goes to Quebec" on CBC Radio One made an interesting and potentially very important point--the majority of the population of Quebec supports the general position of more autonomy but not independence for the province, and no Federal party supports this position. The Bloc Québécois (BQ) officially supports full sovereignty for Quebec, while the Liberals, Conservatives, and New Democrats (NPD in French) all officially support the current constitutional arrangement.

While there are a variety of reasons why the current situation exists, and exactly what elements of "increased autonomy" would be a tenable political position is somewhat debatable, what this clearly represents is an opportunity. A party willing to take into its platform the unrepresented position has the potential to make serious inroads, in large part by blunting the appeal of the BQ. On the surface, it would seem that the opportunity is open most to the Conservatives--the main risk of taking on this position would be backlash in the west, and it seems unlikely that an Albertan or British Columbian would run from the Conservatives over increased rights for Quebec. Furthermore, once the Conservatives take on such a position, the risk for the Liberals or New Democrats to follow suit would be greatly reduced, and very rapidly the unrepresented position could suddenly be represented by the three national parties. Personally, I'll be watching for the Conservatives to potentially make such a move after the BQ has already weakened--perhaps after current popular leader Gilles Duceppe steps down.

It might seem unlikely, but some are making the case that a similar situation exists in the United States. Amongst others, Matthew Dowd has argued that voters want collective solutions to current economic problems, but do not trust the Federal government. Thus, the collective solutions must come from what might be called activist government at the local and community levels. Personally, I think this is a ridiculous idea from a pragmatic perspective--how exactly are local governments going to solve the immigration problem?--but he has a point that no political party supports this position. The Democrats have been pushing Federal-level solutions, and the Republicans have been trying to reduce the involvement of government at all levels, even state and municipal levels.

Again, the opportunity here seems to be on the right-wing side of the ideological spectrum. It would not be hard for Republicans to drop their current anti-government position and return to their more tradition position of favoring local government over the Federal government. At most, they would be alienating the TEA party faction of their coalition, and these voters realistically would not be likely to run to the Democrats. By emphasizing "community" in their rhetoric and a platform of empowering local government, they could attract independent voters that essentially share Dowd's vision (however misguided it might be). In fact, I daresay they could decimate the Democrats for a generation if they did this and managed to implement it effectively.

However, I don't see this happening. The Republicans lack leadership in general and are dead-set on attracting the TEA party supporters. Likely, they will have enough success in doing so that there will be no incentive to change course, no matter how much more successful another course might be in the long term. Quebec might have its actual preferences reflected the conceivable political future, but community-focused and Federal-mistrusting citizens in the United States probably will not.

Politics: Schieffer Has a Point

TORONTO, ONTARIO - I often credit Bob Schieffer of CBS with the best two minutes of political analysis each week in his commentary at the end of Face the Nation. This week's commentary did it again, bringing up a point that he is hardly the first to express but seems to be largely forgotten in the mainstream media--every time a radical change occurs (a "game changing event"), the opposing political party tends to over-react toward the other extreme and while it might do well in one election, soon finds that it has gone too far from the mainstream and enters an electoral wilderness.

Of course, the reason nobody is echoing Schieffer's message is that neither side wants to acknowledge the historical precedent. The Republicans--at least the Conservative activists--don't want to believe there is a precedent, preferring to believe that this is a "new" era. The Democrats also don't want to look at other historical precedents--like the fact that major legislation (like health care) had never been passed without significant public support before--but more importantly, they are secretly hoping there is historical precedent in this instance and don't want to discourage the Republicans from heading far from mainstream voters. There's no incentive to make Schieffer's point.

People on the left and the right don't want to believe that there is anyone left in the center anymore, but that's still where most elections will be won or lost. The politically median citizen still matters, and they rightly feel alienated by both major parties in the United States right now. Some will not vote, but some will choose between the lesser of perceived evils, and the farther candidates go from the center, the harder it will be for them to attract votes. Contrary to what activists wish to believe, the median voter is not a member of the TEA party--median voters in Oregon and even Arizona have now voted for higher taxes. They may not trust government, but they'd still prefer that it start functioning better.

Canada has a similar problem. The Conservatives can't seem to bring themselves to the true political center, occasionally reverting to their right-of-center Reform origins and simultaneously keeping their poll numbers in check. The Liberals can hardly claim the center when there seems to be serious consideration of a coalition with the unabashedly-left New Democrats. Where is a "Red Tory," once the symbol of the political center in Canada, supposed to go now? Most find the federal Conservatives too far right, and the Liberals too far left. A few I know have actually gone to the Green Party, but that party has yet to win a single federal seat.

This isn't brain surgery; this is Politics 101. All the major parties in North America need to quit acting like they are applying their learning from Politics 457C and get back to the political center. Whoever figures that out first may be pleasantly surprised at the next outcomes at the ballot box.

Postscript: I guess I'm not the only one thinking like Schieffer. See Ed Kilgore's post today on fivethirtyeight.com.

Politics: Britain Understands Politics

TORONTO, ONTARIO - The results of the primary and special elections in the United States yesterday, as well as a community meeting held tonight in my local parliamentary riding lead me to one conclusion--too many in North America have forgotten the purpose of politics, and it's time to look back to Britain for a reminder of how things are supposed to work.

There seem to be almost as many spins on the various electoral results in the United States yesterday as there are analysts, but I believe that it is fairly safe to say that no moderates in either major political party did well. On the Democratic side, Arlen Specter lost in a Pennsylvania senate primary to the more liberal Joe Sestak and Blanche Lincoln heads to an Arkansas senate runoff with the more liberal Bill Halter that she seems likely to lose. On the Republican side, more conservative "Tea Party" candidates did well all over, from Rand Paul in Kentucky to Art Robinson in Oregon.

This is hardly a new trend in the United States. The current highly partisan environment, in the nation's capitol and elsewhere, has been growing for at least two decades. The result has been essentially no bipartisan legislation of any kind except in economic emergencies and growing disillusion with government in general by people of all political stripes. Politicians who dare to actually talk to people of the other party and find common ground can't even receive their party's nomination anymore--just ask Bob Bennett in Utah.

While Canada hasn't decayed nearly as far, the concept of working together seems to be pretty rare here as well. At a community meeting tonight, my local Member of Parliament, Gerard Kennedy, was asked about the prospects of a coalition of left-wing parties in the next election. "People seem to have strong identities as Liberals or New Democrats," Kennedy stated, "They focus on those identities and not commonalities. That's a big problem for sitting down at the table" to even discuss a coalition. While far from calling for inter-party unity on the left, Kennedy did seem to be less than satisfied with the status quo. "We have a cultural issue here in Canada. We're more focused on identity than in finding commonalities."

Great Britain has its own problems--mostly economic--but the election there this month proved that politicians there at least understand that politics is about finding commonalities--usually called "compromises"--and getting things done. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats may not be natural partners, but they found enough in common in just five days to form a government that they intend to last for a normal 4-5 year election cycle. Conservative leader David Cameron and Liberal Democratic leader Nick Clegg figured out how they might work together, and as a result their country has what it needs to address those economic problems (and they are rewarded as being Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, respectively).

I'm not the first to say it, but as many people as possible need to be saying it. North American politicians need to re-learn what Cameron and Clegg demonstrated in Great Britain. Being elected means having a responsibility to govern the country, whether as part of a ruling government or majority party or as part of an opposition or minority party keeping them honest. To best represent the country as a whole, they need to speak to one another and act on their commonalities. If they aren't doing that, they aren't doing their jobs. Most politicians in North America are not doing this job, and voters need to be upset about that, not whether their representatives are ideologically pure.

Culture: Losing Science

TORONTO, ONTARIO - I often cite Russia as the potential future of the United States if corporatist policies are allowed to dominate by both conservatives and liberals. The economic problems in Russia are not so much socialist policies--though the government has a close hand in many companies--as they are problems of lack of competition. Because large companies--usually backed by the government--so dominate market segments, there's really no chance at innovation by small companies; they would be crushed by the dominant companies.

Whether one believes that as a possible future in the United States or not, there's a new cautionary tale out of Russia. The Christian Science Monitor noted in a recent article that scientific research in Russia has slowed significantly. The amount of peer-reviewed papers being published by Russian authors is now not much more than one-tenth of that of the United States, less than one-third of that of China.

While lack of government funding has driven the decline in scientific output, with Russia allocating about 2% as much money as the US (on that basis, their output actually looks quite good!) for scientific research. However, the article points out that the problem is much deeper. Andre Ionin is quoted in the article as saying "the profession of scientist is not prestigious anymore, and the government does not define scientific tasks that would attract talented people." Only 1.6% of Russian students viewed science as a worthwhile career in a 2006 survey.

The money has not dried up in the United States yet, but it seems to me that the social standing of scientists and engineers has fallen. I won't rehash my own experience of watching my peers decide to pursue other professions after getting an advanced degree. Some--though certainly not all--TEA party activists have included scientists as part of the government workforce that "wastes their tax dollars," usually in the context of climate change research, the most common thing they call "junk science." Mainstream media have laid off their science reporters as they have slashed spending in general.

The Obama administration has been increasing science funding. However, as of yet there is no race-to-the-moon-style reason for the general public to get excited by science. Until we have reason to believe, like Bill Nye the Science Guy, that "science is cool," there is always the danger that the United States is just one unsympathetic administration away from heading down the road that Russia has gone in science.

Politics: Time for Stability

TORONTO, ONTARIO - Now that the highest hurdle to health insurance reform in the United States has been overcome, everyone should have a pretty clear outline of what will happen as a result of the legislation. (That doesn't mean, of course, that Republicans will not persist in mis-characterizing it.) We know what kinds of things happen soon (such as children not being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions) and what kinds of things happen in 2013 and later (such as the taxes on more comprehensive health insurance plans). That means businesses can now start planning based on the new health insurance reality, and I believe the Obama administration should continue to provide some certainty to business by providing more details on what it intends to push in legislation for the remainder of the legislative session.

In interviews with various small business owners and entrepreneurs in recent months on various shows, most of whom opposed health insurance reform, there was actually a clear undercurrent of opinion that the better interviewers started to reveal. What the businesspeople really objected to was the legislative uncertainty. They didn't know what the health care legislation was going to look like or what it might cost them, but even beyond that, they didn't trust what the Democrats would do next. Would it be climate change legislation that would include a carbon tax, direct or implicit? Would it be financial reforms aimed at big banks that would cause them to further reduce credit available to small business? Would be it additional union rights, that might even cause problems for a growing small business? If they just knew what might be coming, they could at least plan for it and make intelligent decisions on whether to continue or grow their businesses.

Considering that the biggest wildcard, health insurance reform, is largely settled and that the Democrats have comparatively limited ability to advance a legislative agenda without a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and no expectation for any cooperation from any Republicans at all, there is an opportunity to map out some degree of certainty. The administration--presumably in concert with Congressional leaders--can now decide its basic road map for the balance of 2010, announce some policy positions, and provide some certainty.

A likely scenario seems to be passing some financial accountability reforms. None of these would directly impact small businesses, except insofar as they impact credit markets. Politically, this really stands out as a sore thumb--essentially nothing has been done yet to prevent another replay of 2008 in the coming years. Then, focus could be on the economy--it wouldn't be called a stimulus package even if it involved some spending. The "laser beam focus on the economy" might be a bit late, but would likely help the Democrats' narrative for the elections in the fall. All other large legislation, such as climate change and card check, would not be pursued.

Maybe the Democrats would come up with a different plan, and start with the economy. In any event, if they really want to improve the economy and gain the trust of business, they need to start injecting certainty. Their limited ability to pass legislation makes it more palatable for them to aggressively pursue a limited agenda, rather than a broad one. The more we all can see what is coming, the more rationally we will all behave for the rest of the year.

Politics: No Money for Coffee

TORONTO, ONTARIO - There's finally a political group in the United States that has as its fundamental principle something I've been saying for years--that the political system is broken and needs to be changed. It actually has more followers on Facebook than the TEA Party. Yet, you've probably never heard of the Coffee Party, and you probably won't hear much about it. While the movement has some other issues, the fundamental reason it will not take off is that no outside money will get behind it.

The Coffee Party's first problem is that it is not about taking a stand on any issues. It's not opposed to any legislation, nor is it pushing any specific legislation. It is explicitly non-ideological. It's about having civil discourse on political issues. That's exactly what isn't happening in the United States, especially at the national level, and probably exactly what needs to happen. But, it's not interesting to the media. There are no soundbites that result. There may never be a coherent and simple message coming out of these discussions. Since the whole idea is to be civil, there won't be anyone yelling or trying to interrupt other political events. As far as the media is concerned, there is nothing that will warrant coverage of anything that the Coffee Party ever does.

All that could be overcome if the Coffee Party could advertise and get its message out through commercial means, instead of free means. They're not going to have the money to do that. No corporation in its right mind would ever donate money to a movement whose outcome is unclear. Even months from now, if some sort of centrist political position comes out out of the Coffee Party that a corporation could support, it will be more financially efficient for them to lobby the two major parties to support that position than to support a grass-roots group with no legislative power. It might be somewhat worthwile from a public relations standpoint, but dollar for dollar, they're better off taking their money elsewhere.

The Coffee Party claims that it doesn't like comparisons with the TEA Party, but they are hard to avoid. The TEA party is angry, perhaps intellectually incoherent and with unclear goals but clearly against health care legislation, economic stimulus legislation, and anti-government. It is full of soundbites, uncivil language and disruptive activities, and thus is a boon to the media that cover it. Because of its known positions that are in alliance with corporate interests, it doesn't even need direct contributions--events can be run in parallel with other organizations, such as conservative think-tanks, that are corporate-funded. Unless subsumed by the Republican Party, which seems the most likely outcome, the TEA Party could continue for a very long time.

While the Coffee Party may have more friends on Facebook, I don't know if more people showed up for coffee parties in the first coordinated meeting day last Saturday than for TEA Party events. The media in the United States largely ignored the event. The Coffee Party itself doesn't seem to know based on a perusal of its web site today. The Coffee Party might be the one party that has something positive to offer to the society at large today, and it is likely to just be ignored like it was on Saturday. Short of radical changes in the role of money in society, I don't see how that changes.

Politics: Understanding Innovation

TORONTO, ONTARIO - Who was the best engineer in the history of the world? Unless you are a railroader and thought of Casey Jones, likely you were dumbfounded, and perhaps came up with Leonardo Da Vinci or Thomas Edison after some thought. Engineers are not normally glorified in the United States culture the way sports figures, politicians, businessmen or even scientists are (bet you can think of a few of those), which is part of the argument made by Henry Petroski in new book, "The Essential Engineer: Why Science Alone Will Not Solve Our Global Problems." More importantly, Petroski argues that engineering needs to be more valued because science alone won't solve our problems. The arguments that Petroski is making on his current book tour deserve some attention, and I will respond to some of the points he is making in subsequent posts. For today, I want to focus on his core point, that engineering needs more cultural and political emphasis in the United States.

Petroski claims to be driven to write his most recent book as a result of the Obama administration's emphasis on promoting science as a means to innovation. In his view, the government doesn't seem to understand the difference between science, famously described as "describing what exists" (in ever-increasing levels of insightful detail), and engineering, "the creation of things that have yet to exist." The process of innovation, almost by definition, necessarily involves engineering, the creation of something new. Scientists could come up new explanations as revolutionary as Copernican astronomy, nuclear physics, or the periodic table of elements, and it would have no significant impact on the economy unless an engineer created something with it.

Strictly speaking, of course, Petroski is correct. However, in theory, scientists could perform the innovative task of engineering and do the invention themselves, just as engineers often have to do scientific research in order to come up with an idea that works. As much as he tries to draw a bright line between the two professions, the best engineers I know are good scientists, and the best scientists I know occasionally dabble brilliantly in engineering.

Yet, from a cultural perspective, I think Petroski is right. There seems to be a belief in the United States, in particular in its business culture, that the scientific discovery is the key part of the whole process, and the engineering is just an inevitable afterthought. The Nobel Prizes are the only technology prizes most people have ever heard about, and they are awarded on the basis of scientific discoveries, describing how things work. Many engineers haven't even heard about the engineering prizes, for actually making things, that do exist.

Personally, as a trained engineer (furthermore, one who has always tried to emphasize product development and commercialization), I have run into this lack of understanding of engineering repeatedly in my career. Whenever a non-engineer is placed in charge of the day-to-day product development process, a company is lucky to ever get a product out the door. Scientists seem to think that once they demonstrate something a few times in feasibility that a perfect product will shortly be finished by engineers at minimal expense. The details of devices that use their discovery (in the case of medical diagnostics or consumer goods), or manufacturing processes to mass-produce their discovery (in the case of pharmaceuticals) are regarded as annoyances instead of the barriers that will determine a product's commercial success. On the other hand, when engineers run the show, the problems to overcome those barriers are enumerated, attacked, and generally overcome close to original budgets and time lines.

The real problem, as I'll explore further in a future post, is not scientists that don't understand engineering, as usually they are happy to hand off commercialization problems for engineers to figure out, but business people. They are the ones that not only don't seem to understand the difference between science and engineering, but don't want to spend any money on the commercialization process because they feel they've already spent too much money on scientific research. When they start cost-cutting in the development process and products fail to appear as scheduled, they blame the very engineers that in many cases told them there weren't enough resources to finish the job. Innovation, just like scientific discovery, doesn't come for free, but business people seem to think it's a place to save money.

Petroski is right that the Obama administration, while talking about innovation, has put funding mostly into basic research through the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. To fund commercialization resulting from government-funded scientific research (the actual innovation), small companies will still need to turn to private sources, whether they be partner companies, venture capitalists, or potential customers--and that's especially hard to do in a recession. Yet, it's almost more the cultural factor than the funding that needs to be addressed--getting the MBA's of the world to understand that they will need to emphasize commercialization in their companies if they want to be innovative. Nobody in the Obama administration is even saying things along these lines, so Petroski feels he needs to stand up and talk about it.

Interestingly, Canada has recognized that it has a much larger innovation gap than the United States, and it has responded completely differently. Noting that its academic institutions and basic scientific research seem to stack up on such measures as patenting, the current government has decided to focus on commercialization in its economic initiatives. In other words, Canada sees that its scientists are doing their jobs, but their engineers don't seem to be able to turn the discoveries into innovations that make a difference in the marketplace. I haven't yet heard Petroski's take on the Canadian initiatives, but I suspect he would say that Canada is doing exactly what he feels the United States should do.

Of course, as an engineer in Canada who has tried to make a career out of commercialization, I sure haven't seen the emphasis make any difference in my job search so far.

Culture: The Context of Numbers

TORONTO, ONTARIO - Anyone who has spent time at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) understands that things are numeric there to an extreme degree. All buildings are numbered, which is not all that uncommon, but while many buildings were named, everyone called them by their numbers, not the names. One didn't become a Physics major; one joined Course VIII. (I wasn't in Chemical Engineering; I was in Course X.) In perhaps the most extreme example, on one of my first days on campus, I sat down in a computer lab, and noted that the IP (Internet Protocol) address for the computer was 18.56.129.2--18 for the MIT domain (since released), 56 for the building number, 129 for the room number, and 2 for the computer number. It was almost too organized for me to stand.

While numeric literacy was certainly widespread on campus, the ability to understand the context of numbers was remarkably rare. The classic mathematician's view that there was some sort of absolute truth in numbers seemed to be widespread. Even something fairly accepted in scientific circles, like that a given part per billion of a given substance in the atmosphere might be a problem or not depending on what else was in the atmosphere, seemed to bother people, who would have rather set an absolute maximum for that substance, regardless of what else was there.

A really great example of the importance of context was highlighted by a Nate Silver post on FiveThirtyEight.com last week. Silver explains it better than I could, but in short form, the absolute popularity of the health care plan put forth by the Democrats in the United States had not changed since November. However, since the political landscape had significantly changed in that time, Silver argued that the same numbers were viewed completely differently by lawmakers and could result in a very different vote taken by Congress, even though public opinion was, at least in quantifiable terms, the same.

I don't know what it is about the human condition that prefers absolutes to context-sensitive evaluation. From politics to atmospheric science to (famously) quantum mechanics, most of the world simply doesn't exist in absolutes. If people would keep that in mind, I suspect they would make much better decisions in many aspects of their lives.

Politics: On the So-Called Summit

TORONTO, ONTARIO - Presumably, others will better cover the political aftermath of the so-called "Health Care Summit" held in Washington, DC earlier today, not that much appears likely to come of it. I want to offer just three points.

First, Wyoming senator John Barrasso obviously did not watch the NTV interview with Newfoundland and Labrador premier Danny Williams available at this web site. Williams made it very clear that he was satisfied with the provincial health care that had found his heart problem and offered him options for addressing it. He chose to take the option of going to the United States because he was in a hurry and wanted to minimize recovery time in order to get back to work. Basically, he was an elitist--he spent extra money to get a world-class procedure. Did the Wyoming Republican really want to emphasize costly, discretionary procedures, such as that obtained by Williams in the US?

Second, and following closely from that point, I don't understand why more isn't made of the fundamental contradiction in the Republican argument about quality of care. They go off about the United States having the best health care system in the world, and then say they want to focus on cost control. Why do the people that live and breathe the free market not seem to understand that "you get what you pay for." If one doesn't fundamentally reform the system (say, to a single-payer system that minimizes overhead), the only way to reduce costs in a fundamental way is to avoid expensive procedures and minimize payments to health professionals and providers. Yes, liability reform would help at the margins (and I wish the Democrats would include it in their proposals just to get it off the table, even if it isn't a panacea), but fundamentally, the only way to make the system less expensive while maintaining the health insurance industry is to pay less for it. Pretending that won't affect quality is disingenuous.

Finally, I am greatly disappointed with the media coverage of this event. Granted, I didn't sit through the hours of what might best be described as bickering, but most coverage sure didn't even try to get at the substance of the day. Even CBC radio and television, as well as the commercial networks, focused on the silly exchange between President Obama and Senator McCain in which they referred to the election being over. In video coverage, only the the PBS NewsHour chose to air any of the few moments of agreement during the day and generally tried to capture the strongest points raised by both sides. Is there really only one outlet for real journalism left in North America?

Politics: Gingrich the Answer?

TORONTO, ONTARIO - I write this piece today reluctantly, but the conclusion seems rather inevitable. If we accept the premise expressed last week that a thinking-world presidential candidate is mostly likely to restore balance to the United States, currently in an unhealthy emotional mode--and maybe such a premise should be rejected--the person who seems most likely to serve that role is Republican Newt Gingrich.

I really don't like Newt Gingrich very much. I've written here before about how he basically rejects my world view, like many in the right wing of the Republican Party. His constant references to Christian ideas and references to the United States as a Christian nation strike me as counter to the constitution. Furthermore, his personal life has been especially repugnant. I actually don't care much when politicians are not faithful to their spouses--the French seem to be doing just fine ignoring affairs--but Gingrich is especially hypocritical for enabling the investigations of Bill Clinton when he was being unfaithful at the time himself, and for the manner in which he reportedly divorced his first wife when she was recovering from cancer in 1981.

But, it's hard to deny that Gingrich clearly comes from the "thinking" world. He always focuses on the future, and can construct a vision of where the country should be going, whether one agrees with it or not. He did it once as a primary architect of the "Contract with America" in the 1994 election, and he is reportedly working on a similar kind of national platform for 2010, and certainly could come up with a visionary platform for his own presidential campaign in 2012. Furthermore, he eventually showed an ability to work with a Democratic president to pass legislation and budgets that created the only Federal surpluses of my lifetime. From a strictly political effectiveness standpoint, Gingrich stands pretty tall.

His negatives might also be a positive in some sense. If the country could elect someone as personally egregious as Gingrich, then "common" adultery could no longer be considered a major issue for future candidates. Furthermore, as an arch conservative, he might be the only kind of "thinking" world, professorial type that could be elected. The last serious candidate from the "thinking" world, Al Gore, was rejected as someone who was too nerdy to have a beer with. It's hard to imagine the same accusation sticking to Gingrich.

I'm not the only person to notice Gingrich's potential. Tom Schaller wrote a piece on fivethirtyeight.com just this weekend looking at Gingrich's electability. As much as I wouldn't like the outcome of a Ginrich presidency, at least it would hold the potential to break the country out of its emotional state with forward-looking, vision-filled ideas.