So, now that we are on the subject of CEO's for President, how does Mitt Romney compare with other candidates.
Herbert Hoover
I will start with Hoover. Romney's big disadvantage compared to Hoover is that he lacks Hoover's international experience and prestige. Furthermore, since the US is the world's only superpower, foreign policy is more important now than it was in Hoover's day.
In terms of administrative competence, no doubt Romney has it, but Hoover would be a tough act to match. Besides, Romney has a disadvantage in that regard. Hoover favored administrative competence in general, either in the private or the public sector. Romney belongs to a party that is opposed on principle to administrative competence in government (at least in its mommy functions). For anyone, even a Republican President, to display administrative competence in government would be ideologically threatening to many of today's Republicans.
On the other hand, if the Hoover Administration proved one thing, it was that it takes more than administrative competence to make a successful President. Some have suggested that Hoover's failures were because he never learned to be a politician. But I am unconvinced. The only way to know how many of Hoover's failing were the result of poor political skills, one would have to see him as President under more normal circumstances. That option is not available to us. I believe that Hoover's failure was the result, not of poor political skills, but of a conventional wisdom that forced him into taking harmful actions.
Either way, Romney has the advantage here. Unlike Hoover, he had been chief executive of a government as well as a business. While some in the Massachusetts legislature complained* that he had an autocratic CEO style, he was able to work with them and did get a good taste of what running a government is like.
Furthermore, although the conventional wisdom of the 1930's is all too strong today, it is by no means as unanimous. And Romney may not be captive to it. He has sometimes sounded suspiciously Keynesian, and has also hinted that he may favor monetary expansion. I suppose it will all depend on how much power he gives Paul Ryan. (More on that in a later post).
Ross Perot
Ross Perot ran for President in 1992, campaigning mostly on the budget deficit, and later founded the Reform Party. Although I briefly considered voting for him, I decided against it, at least in part because he showed alarmingly autocratic tendencies.** The most popular joke about his was that he would be in for a rude surprise when he found out that the President couldn't fire Congress. But jokes of that sort are usually not really jokes. He really did seem to favor some sort of elective dictatorship and to lack patience with the delays and inconveniences of democracy.
Worse yet, he started making bizarre rants about the Republicans wiretapping his office and seeking to disrupt his daughter's wedding and circulate doctored photographs of her. As his accusations took on a greater and greater air of outright clinical paranoia, one-times supporters increasingly abandoned him. Favoring an elective dictatorship was one thing; having a dictator of dubious sanity was another.
Romney certainly comes in ahead of Perot. As a former state governor, he understands and (presumably) accepts how democratic government works. And he shows no sign of mental derangement. But then again, saying that Romney would make a better President than Perot because he is neither a dictator nor insane is not setting the bar very high.
Herman Cain
I have discussed Herman Cain before. Insofar as he showed none of Perot's disturbing authoritarianism or signs of paranoia, Cain was preferable. He was, however, totally unqualified to be President. He was completely clueless about foreign policy and not a good enough politician to understand all the proper cultural cues the Republican base demanded. But Cain's most serious problem was that he gave no evidence of understanding that running a government is any different from running a business. He did not appear to understand, as this commentator puts it, that running a business is about, "dedication to the narrow welfare of one firm or economic sector" is totally unlike being President, which calls for "reconciling competing interests and voter blocs for the purpose of advancing a semblance of the common, national good. " I hold out some hope that Romney does understand the distinction.
Donald Trump
I understand the unanimous, trans-partisan and trans-ideological desire to forget that Donald Trump ever sought to be President. The mere thought of such a thing is enough to make me want to wash out my brain with bleach. Fortunately, there was no actual danger of such a thing ever coming to pass. I will make one comment on Donald Trump's brief candidacy. To many of the Republican base, obnoxiousness is the most important quality in a leader. They equate obnoxiousness with firm and unyielding principle. So I guess is that if you regard obnoxiousness as the prime qualification in a leader, then Trump is perfect. Otherwise, I can't think of a single good thing to say about him.
Conclusion
Comparing CEO candidates for President, Mitt Romney is way out in front of the pack. Then again, I would put the disastrous Hoover second. Romney has better recession-fighting tools at hand than Hoover did and is less likely to be captive to dangerous conventional wisdom. It is, of course, hard to tell what Romney would actually do or attempt to do once in office. But I believe we are sufficiently out of danger that even if he gives Paul Ryan a free reign, the damage should be considerably less disastrous than what Hoover witnessed. And I am reasonably optimistic that Romney would not do anything too self-destructive. I do give Hoover the advantage in foreign policy, but I suppose we will muddle through.
Distantly trailing Romney and Hoover is Herman Cain who, although unqualified and prone to disastrous policies, is sane and appears to respect democratic norms. Distantly behind him is mad autocrat Perot. And bringing up the rear is Donald Trump, who we will all pretend is not there.
_____________________________________
*Can't find link.
**One of the reasons Ron Paul makes me so uneasy is that he reminds me too much of Ross Perot.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Friday, October 26, 2012
A Brief Look at the Election as it Progresses
Unsurprisingly, Democrats have a strong lead in early voting. That lead is overwhelming in the very earliest voting and diminishes the closer we draw to the election. Presumably Republicans will have an equally strong lead on election day.
If Obama does pull off a narrow win, no doubt it will be in large part on the strength of early voting. Look to Republicans to start shortening early voting, or end it altogether.
If Obama does pull off a narrow win, no doubt it will be in large part on the strength of early voting. Look to Republicans to start shortening early voting, or end it altogether.
(A Certain) CEO for President
One of Mitt Romney's strongest selling points is that his record in business makes him particularly well qualified to set economic policy in our worst downturn since the 1930's. His shortcomings include that many people doubt whether his background as a corporate raider was actually useful, and his lack of experience on foreign policy and tendency to offend potential allies.
Upon hearing such things, I am tempted to ask people who hold such a view to imagine their ideal candidate for an economic crisis. You would want a President with extensive private sector success. If possible, you would prefer him to have worked in a non-financial industry, producing actual physical things, rather than speculating in paper fortunes. It would also help if he was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but self-made, building his company from the ground up. Since he would be our chief executive, a high degree of administrative competence would be absolutely vital. You would want him to set aside Obama's sometime adversarial attitude toward business and think of business, instead, as a partner, distrustful of government regulation, and in favor of private initiative. You would want a real fiscal conservative, one who took balanced budgets seriously and was not afraid to raise taxes on the rich in order to achieve it. You would want someone who looked upon public assistance with suspicion, fearing it would create dependency, and preferring volunteerism to government action. Still, it would be good to have someone above any possible suspicion of being a heartless plutocrat -- a leader renowned for his humanitarian work would be ideal. It would also help if his business experience was of an international scope and he was widely respected and admired the world over. And, as a final icing on the cake, how about a leader so respected by all across the political spectrum as to seem almost above partisan politics.
Is that the sort of leader you would want in the White House during an economic crisis? And then, of course, the punchline. I have good news. He was in the White House during our greatest economic crisis. His name was Herbert Hoover.
So what is one to make of Herbert Hoover? When I was growing up and going to school, we were taught that Herbert Hoover was a good man, in over his head, that he did his best under the circumstances, but his best was not good enough. He attempted to revive the economy with public works and loan assistance, but was not successful. The hatred that rained down on him was mostly undeserved, since he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. None of this was permitted to detract from the magnitude of Roosevelt's achievements. Simply put, we were given the impression that Hoover's best was not good enough, but Roosevelt's was.
Starting in college, I began to see right-wing views challenging this conventional view. They argued that Hoover was, indeed, responsible for the Great Depression, not because he did too little, but because he did too much. If he had only let market forces play out on their own, the economy would have quickly recovered, but he interfered and doomed things to ruin. The rejoinder to this is obvious -- if Hoover's interference made things so bad, why did the economy improve so much when Roosevelt interfered even more?
It was not until the current crisis that I began hearing serious arguments for how Hoover could be held responsible for the Great Depression. To Keynesians, his error was trying (most unsuccessfully) to balance the budget. To monetarists, Hoover damaged the economy by maintaining a dollar peg against gold. So it turns out that, yes, Hoover really did do a great deal to damage the economy. Then again, in his defense, Hoover was only doing what conventional wisdom of the day called for. Everyone assumed that the budget should be kept balanced and the gold standard maintained. Anyone else in his place would have done exactly the same thing. Indeed, Roosevelt ran for presidency in 1932 at a "Tea Party" candidate, denouncing Hoover for running large deficits and pledging to make deep cuts in spending. Devaluing against gold was a terrifying, almost unthinkable act. And even after they were discredited, the IMF continued to demand similar policies of countries in economic distress up throughout the 1980's and '90's. And now the European Central Bank is demanding the same of peripheral Europe to this day.
So my final conclusion was that what they taught us about Hoover in school was about right. He was a good man, in over his head. He did his best, but the conventional wisdom of the day (which continues to this day, despite all evidence against it) doomed him to fail. Only when conventional wisdom had been thoroughly discredited was it possible to go against it. What is clear, though, is although Hoover had perhaps the strongest private sector resume and most impressive administrative competence of any President ever, neither of these credentials did him any good when the country hit its worst economic crisis.
Upon hearing such things, I am tempted to ask people who hold such a view to imagine their ideal candidate for an economic crisis. You would want a President with extensive private sector success. If possible, you would prefer him to have worked in a non-financial industry, producing actual physical things, rather than speculating in paper fortunes. It would also help if he was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but self-made, building his company from the ground up. Since he would be our chief executive, a high degree of administrative competence would be absolutely vital. You would want him to set aside Obama's sometime adversarial attitude toward business and think of business, instead, as a partner, distrustful of government regulation, and in favor of private initiative. You would want a real fiscal conservative, one who took balanced budgets seriously and was not afraid to raise taxes on the rich in order to achieve it. You would want someone who looked upon public assistance with suspicion, fearing it would create dependency, and preferring volunteerism to government action. Still, it would be good to have someone above any possible suspicion of being a heartless plutocrat -- a leader renowned for his humanitarian work would be ideal. It would also help if his business experience was of an international scope and he was widely respected and admired the world over. And, as a final icing on the cake, how about a leader so respected by all across the political spectrum as to seem almost above partisan politics.
Is that the sort of leader you would want in the White House during an economic crisis? And then, of course, the punchline. I have good news. He was in the White House during our greatest economic crisis. His name was Herbert Hoover.
So what is one to make of Herbert Hoover? When I was growing up and going to school, we were taught that Herbert Hoover was a good man, in over his head, that he did his best under the circumstances, but his best was not good enough. He attempted to revive the economy with public works and loan assistance, but was not successful. The hatred that rained down on him was mostly undeserved, since he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. None of this was permitted to detract from the magnitude of Roosevelt's achievements. Simply put, we were given the impression that Hoover's best was not good enough, but Roosevelt's was.
Starting in college, I began to see right-wing views challenging this conventional view. They argued that Hoover was, indeed, responsible for the Great Depression, not because he did too little, but because he did too much. If he had only let market forces play out on their own, the economy would have quickly recovered, but he interfered and doomed things to ruin. The rejoinder to this is obvious -- if Hoover's interference made things so bad, why did the economy improve so much when Roosevelt interfered even more?
It was not until the current crisis that I began hearing serious arguments for how Hoover could be held responsible for the Great Depression. To Keynesians, his error was trying (most unsuccessfully) to balance the budget. To monetarists, Hoover damaged the economy by maintaining a dollar peg against gold. So it turns out that, yes, Hoover really did do a great deal to damage the economy. Then again, in his defense, Hoover was only doing what conventional wisdom of the day called for. Everyone assumed that the budget should be kept balanced and the gold standard maintained. Anyone else in his place would have done exactly the same thing. Indeed, Roosevelt ran for presidency in 1932 at a "Tea Party" candidate, denouncing Hoover for running large deficits and pledging to make deep cuts in spending. Devaluing against gold was a terrifying, almost unthinkable act. And even after they were discredited, the IMF continued to demand similar policies of countries in economic distress up throughout the 1980's and '90's. And now the European Central Bank is demanding the same of peripheral Europe to this day.
So my final conclusion was that what they taught us about Hoover in school was about right. He was a good man, in over his head. He did his best, but the conventional wisdom of the day (which continues to this day, despite all evidence against it) doomed him to fail. Only when conventional wisdom had been thoroughly discredited was it possible to go against it. What is clear, though, is although Hoover had perhaps the strongest private sector resume and most impressive administrative competence of any President ever, neither of these credentials did him any good when the country hit its worst economic crisis.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Post Script on Romney and Foreign Policy
On the subject of Romney and foreign policy this post expresses my views perfectly:
It is still possible that a President who conducted his foreign policy that way might escape serious political damage. So long as no U.S. ground troops were involved, any resulting blunders would probably not affect most Americans much. And people are more likely to notice the chest-thumping speeches the President makes than actual outcomes on the far side of the world. But this is a terribly irresponsible way for any President to view the world.
The author ends up concluding that, although he dislikes President Obama's foreign policy, at least Obama has a foreign policy and takes it seriously.
As an interesting bonus, consider the same author's preceding piece in which he suggests that maybe Israel is not as unique as I and others have suggested. If your foreign policy is one of "omni-directional belligerence," then you are apt to allow any ally who wants a war with any adversary to drag you in after them. Israel is merely the most obvious example, but the same rule may apply to Georgia and even Taiwan. The result would be to drag us into a lot of wars that are not in our interest, on the general principle of maximalism.
Finally, though not related to foreign policy, I highly recommend this beautiful essay by the same author on the subject of abortion in cases of rape. He points out that it is perfectly morally consistent for anyone who believes that full personhood begins with conception -- that a one-celled zygote is morally equivalent to a newborn -- refusing to condone abortion even in cases of rape is morally consistent, even required. But anyone taking that position should honestly face what he is asking of the women in question and not just pretend that, although rape is a horrible thing, it can be a blessing in disguise if it results in a baby.
[Romney] treats foreign policy as a matter of domestic marketing, and he believes that the people of the United States want our country to be really obnoxious, but not actually take any serious risks.This is probably an accurate take on how most Americans feel about foreign policy. They want America to be loud and assertive and order other countries around, but not to get into any actual wars because that would be messy. Of course, it is also a terrible way to conduct foreign policy. Although I believe a well-executed bluff can occasionally be useful, basing one's entire foreign policy on empty posturing is a surefire recipe for disaster.
It is still possible that a President who conducted his foreign policy that way might escape serious political damage. So long as no U.S. ground troops were involved, any resulting blunders would probably not affect most Americans much. And people are more likely to notice the chest-thumping speeches the President makes than actual outcomes on the far side of the world. But this is a terribly irresponsible way for any President to view the world.
The author ends up concluding that, although he dislikes President Obama's foreign policy, at least Obama has a foreign policy and takes it seriously.
As an interesting bonus, consider the same author's preceding piece in which he suggests that maybe Israel is not as unique as I and others have suggested. If your foreign policy is one of "omni-directional belligerence," then you are apt to allow any ally who wants a war with any adversary to drag you in after them. Israel is merely the most obvious example, but the same rule may apply to Georgia and even Taiwan. The result would be to drag us into a lot of wars that are not in our interest, on the general principle of maximalism.
Finally, though not related to foreign policy, I highly recommend this beautiful essay by the same author on the subject of abortion in cases of rape. He points out that it is perfectly morally consistent for anyone who believes that full personhood begins with conception -- that a one-celled zygote is morally equivalent to a newborn -- refusing to condone abortion even in cases of rape is morally consistent, even required. But anyone taking that position should honestly face what he is asking of the women in question and not just pretend that, although rape is a horrible thing, it can be a blessing in disguise if it results in a baby.
Monday, October 22, 2012
The Election, and Stages of Grief
Supposedly, there are five stages of grief -- denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Supposedly, they occur in linear order, progressing from one to the next, all the way up to acceptance.
I have always been skeptical. It all looks a little bit too neat and tidy to me. Do all people pass through grief in the same linear order? Are there no individual variations? My guess is that these traits do all tend to be associated with grief, and perhaps even that they tend to move from one being dominant to another. But they also overlap, and people may experience one or all at the same time.
That is what I am experiencing as the election is two weeks away and keeps trending more and more toward Romney. As that prospect gets stronger and stronger, I find myself experiencing some or all of those reactions hour-by-hour and even minute-by-minute.
Denial: I desperately scan Nate Silver, looking for any sign that Obama may be pulling ahead.
Anger: I think of all the most extreme positions Republicans have taken, the Ryan budget, tax cuts for the rich, undermining Medicaid and Medicare, itching for a war with Iran and accuse the Republicans of wanting a return to the Gilded Age.
Bargaining: I tell myself that Romney might be a new Eisenhower, and I could live with that.
Depression: All the time, especially every time some poll shows Romney pulling further ahead.
I deliberately indulge all these things, hoping to get to acceptance. I haven't gotten there yet. Maybe after the election.
I have always been skeptical. It all looks a little bit too neat and tidy to me. Do all people pass through grief in the same linear order? Are there no individual variations? My guess is that these traits do all tend to be associated with grief, and perhaps even that they tend to move from one being dominant to another. But they also overlap, and people may experience one or all at the same time.
That is what I am experiencing as the election is two weeks away and keeps trending more and more toward Romney. As that prospect gets stronger and stronger, I find myself experiencing some or all of those reactions hour-by-hour and even minute-by-minute.
Denial: I desperately scan Nate Silver, looking for any sign that Obama may be pulling ahead.
Anger: I think of all the most extreme positions Republicans have taken, the Ryan budget, tax cuts for the rich, undermining Medicaid and Medicare, itching for a war with Iran and accuse the Republicans of wanting a return to the Gilded Age.
Bargaining: I tell myself that Romney might be a new Eisenhower, and I could live with that.
Depression: All the time, especially every time some poll shows Romney pulling further ahead.
I deliberately indulge all these things, hoping to get to acceptance. I haven't gotten there yet. Maybe after the election.
Romney-Ryan on Foreign Policy
I have not watched any of the presidential debates -- too stressful. I did watch the vice presidential debate and followed general comments on the presidential ones. And the general consensus seems to be that Romney and Ryan that they won't do anything different from Obama. They will just beat their chests harder and give more belligerent speeches, and this will make them much more effective. Their reasons for assuring people they won't do anything different is obvious. The American people are war-weary and have no desire for any more wars. Actual belligerence is unpopular. But Romney-Ryan argue that talking belligerent will make the same policies much more effective. Why the emphasis on talk at the expense of action. I can think of four (probably interrelated) theories:
They Really Believe It.
It may be that Romney and Ryan believe that words carry immense, almost magical power. Let us not forget, after all, that many right wingers believe that Ronald Reagan toppled Communism just by saying, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
And, to be quite fair, a number of Republican Presidents have used the well-executed bluff effectively. Dwight David Eisenhower ended the war in Korea, refrained from starting one in Vietnam, and held the first Cold War summit with the Soviets. But he also had an attack dog in the form of is Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles. Unlike today's Republicans, Eisenhower and Dulles were genuine fiscal conservatives who wanted balanced budgets and considered military spending to be "spending." So Dulles uses loud bluster and threats of nuclear war in lieu of an actual military buildup. Sometimes it worked; sometimes it didn't. Richard Nixon pursued detente with the Soviets, but also encouraged the belief during crises that he was a "madman" who might actually be crazy enough to use nuclear weapons. Ronald Reagan at least sometimes copied Dulles and Nixon and apparently had the Soviets believing he was a crazed warmonger long after it became apparent to even his harshest domestic critics that he was nothing of the kind.
So belligerent talk can sometimes be effective as a bluff. It has its disadvantages, though. For one thing, it rattles allies as well as enemies. But I suspect that will not bother conservatives. Most right wingers do not want allies -- only obedient vassals or enemies.* To actually have to take an ally's interests into account is seen as a threat to our sovereignty. Bluffs can also have tragic consequences when friends act in reliance on them. Dulles' promises to liberate Eastern Europe may have encouraged the heroic but doomed Hungarian Revolution that was bloodily crushed. Less famously, Nixon and Kissenger encouraged Kurdish revolts in Iraq and then did nothing when they were crushed. Finally, while bluffs might intimidate, say, the government of Iran, we are currently up against a highly fragmented enemy in the form of Islamic terrorists. No amount of belligerent talk is going to intimidate every individual terrorist or small group of terrorist in the whole world.
It is Purely for Domestic Consumption.
Chest beating and big talk may not move actual events with foreign powers, but they sell well with domestic audiences. Let's face it. Most Americans don't especially care about foreign policy. But they like Presidents who stand tall and talk tough. So long as they don't start any prolonged wars, who cares whether such talk is effective. And if anything bad does happen, you are less likely to get blamed for it if you at least sound tough.
Once again, this is not altogether new. Many people suspect that Dulles' loud talk was aimed largely at a domestic audience. Truman had been relentlessly hounded for being soft on Communism. Eisenhower's policies were objectively no more aggressive than Truman's (less, if you consider that Truman fought a major war and Eisenhower didn't). But so long as Dulles sounded off, he protected his right flank from the McCarthy wing of the party.
It is an Awkward Political Compromise.
This is closely related, of course, but not quite the same. I did read an interesting suggestion on the subject -- that it is simply an attempt to sound tougher (as a sop to the base) without actually doing anything that might start a war (to please the broader public). Or, as the author puts it, "Rhetorical argument signals differences with Obama without publicly committing to to any particular one."
It's a Christian Thing.
I owe this one to Fred Clark, the Slacktivist. Clark argues that to a certain strain of Evangelical Christians, what is in the heart is most important, while actions are secondary, and consequences almost irrelevant.** Thus good intentions and virtuous attitudes are what is really important. Actions are far less important than the intent behind them. If their intent is right, good consequences will necessarily follow.
And come to think of it, just as my second and third possibilities have a great deal in common, so do the first and the last.
_____________________________________________
*Except for Israel. Israel is not our vassal; we are Israel's vassal.
**The same attitude applies to programs for the poor. The important thing is to ensure that people donate freely, with a charitable heart. Whether the poor are adequately provided for is a matter of no importance.
They Really Believe It.
It may be that Romney and Ryan believe that words carry immense, almost magical power. Let us not forget, after all, that many right wingers believe that Ronald Reagan toppled Communism just by saying, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
And, to be quite fair, a number of Republican Presidents have used the well-executed bluff effectively. Dwight David Eisenhower ended the war in Korea, refrained from starting one in Vietnam, and held the first Cold War summit with the Soviets. But he also had an attack dog in the form of is Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles. Unlike today's Republicans, Eisenhower and Dulles were genuine fiscal conservatives who wanted balanced budgets and considered military spending to be "spending." So Dulles uses loud bluster and threats of nuclear war in lieu of an actual military buildup. Sometimes it worked; sometimes it didn't. Richard Nixon pursued detente with the Soviets, but also encouraged the belief during crises that he was a "madman" who might actually be crazy enough to use nuclear weapons. Ronald Reagan at least sometimes copied Dulles and Nixon and apparently had the Soviets believing he was a crazed warmonger long after it became apparent to even his harshest domestic critics that he was nothing of the kind.
So belligerent talk can sometimes be effective as a bluff. It has its disadvantages, though. For one thing, it rattles allies as well as enemies. But I suspect that will not bother conservatives. Most right wingers do not want allies -- only obedient vassals or enemies.* To actually have to take an ally's interests into account is seen as a threat to our sovereignty. Bluffs can also have tragic consequences when friends act in reliance on them. Dulles' promises to liberate Eastern Europe may have encouraged the heroic but doomed Hungarian Revolution that was bloodily crushed. Less famously, Nixon and Kissenger encouraged Kurdish revolts in Iraq and then did nothing when they were crushed. Finally, while bluffs might intimidate, say, the government of Iran, we are currently up against a highly fragmented enemy in the form of Islamic terrorists. No amount of belligerent talk is going to intimidate every individual terrorist or small group of terrorist in the whole world.
It is Purely for Domestic Consumption.
Chest beating and big talk may not move actual events with foreign powers, but they sell well with domestic audiences. Let's face it. Most Americans don't especially care about foreign policy. But they like Presidents who stand tall and talk tough. So long as they don't start any prolonged wars, who cares whether such talk is effective. And if anything bad does happen, you are less likely to get blamed for it if you at least sound tough.
Once again, this is not altogether new. Many people suspect that Dulles' loud talk was aimed largely at a domestic audience. Truman had been relentlessly hounded for being soft on Communism. Eisenhower's policies were objectively no more aggressive than Truman's (less, if you consider that Truman fought a major war and Eisenhower didn't). But so long as Dulles sounded off, he protected his right flank from the McCarthy wing of the party.
It is an Awkward Political Compromise.
This is closely related, of course, but not quite the same. I did read an interesting suggestion on the subject -- that it is simply an attempt to sound tougher (as a sop to the base) without actually doing anything that might start a war (to please the broader public). Or, as the author puts it, "Rhetorical argument signals differences with Obama without publicly committing to to any particular one."
It's a Christian Thing.
I owe this one to Fred Clark, the Slacktivist. Clark argues that to a certain strain of Evangelical Christians, what is in the heart is most important, while actions are secondary, and consequences almost irrelevant.** Thus good intentions and virtuous attitudes are what is really important. Actions are far less important than the intent behind them. If their intent is right, good consequences will necessarily follow.
And come to think of it, just as my second and third possibilities have a great deal in common, so do the first and the last.
_____________________________________________
*Except for Israel. Israel is not our vassal; we are Israel's vassal.
**The same attitude applies to programs for the poor. The important thing is to ensure that people donate freely, with a charitable heart. Whether the poor are adequately provided for is a matter of no importance.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
On Thinking You Are Better Than Other People
In yet another link I can no longer find, David Frum responded to Democrats who are frustrated a Republican populism when Republicans are so much the party of the rich. Irrelevant, he said, American populist resentment is not directed at the rich, but at the educated. And the Democrats are the party of the educated.
I have come to conclude, though, that this is only half true. Real populist resentment is directed toward people who think they are better than you. Wealth, Republicans are quick to point out, is not in itself resented because most people aspire to wealth for themselves. But the same goes, to some extent, for education. As Rick Santorum learned the hard way when he dismissed Obama wishing everyone to go to college as snobbery, most people aspire to higher education for themselves or at least their children. Education, after all, is the usual key to wealth.
I believe that overall, if people are more likely to resent the educated than the rich, it is because they are more likely to perceive the educated as seeing themselves as better than other people. And let us admit, there is some truth to that. People with credentials and expertise certainly do regard themselves as having superior specialized knowledge in their field, and the "I know better than you" attitude gets resented (especially when it clashes with people's cherished religious beliefs). But that might be forgivable if the educated limited themselves to claiming superior expertise. What is really most resented, I think, is the unstated suspicion that educated people consider themselves morally superior to less educated people. And let's face it -- many educated people do consider their education a mark of moral superiority. Is it any wonder that such an outlook is resented?
By contrast, rich people do not claim any special superiority because of their wealth -- or do they? Various theologies that see wealth as a reward for merit are nothing new, after all. The prosperity gospel remains with us today. And most significant, the growing frequency of public speeches using phrases like "makers and takers," "job creators," "our most productive citizens," all suggest that wealth is some sort of measure of merit. At the very least, income is taken as a reasonable proxy for social utility. Taken a step further, this view assumes that people are either entrepreneurs or parasites. And furthermore, this simply reflects the views of today's rich and powerful, who firmly believe that their superior wealth is proof of superior merit, if only the ignorant public would just understand that.
And really, taken to its logical conclusion, it is really hard to escape the suspicion that today's Republican Party really does think rich people are better than the rest of us. This is a problem for the Republican party because, while celebrating success and loudly proclaiming that you admire the successful is an electoral winner, proclaiming that net worth is a good measure of moral worth, that being rich makes you better than other people, is a surefire loser. Occupy Wall Street has been an overall failure but its basic message -- that this country is turning into a plutocracy, and that we don't like it -- had a lot of resonance. The Tea Party's primary concerns may be immigration and cutting spending on the poor, but they, too, often express a fear that this country is turning into a plutocracy. The Republican Establishment interprets this to mean that the Tea Party is mad as hell that this country is not plutocratic enough, and they will do their utmost to correct that.
The Romney campaign ran into trouble so long as he campaigned as a plutocrat. At the first debate, he shook the etch-a-sketch, announced those old statements were no longer operative, and saw his campaign take off. How Romney would actually govern is anyone's guess. But it is emblematic of the Republican leadership's basic problem. In their heart of hearts, the Republican leaders believe that wealth makes people better. Their dilemma is how to advance such an agenda and govern in that way without letting the word get out.
I have come to conclude, though, that this is only half true. Real populist resentment is directed toward people who think they are better than you. Wealth, Republicans are quick to point out, is not in itself resented because most people aspire to wealth for themselves. But the same goes, to some extent, for education. As Rick Santorum learned the hard way when he dismissed Obama wishing everyone to go to college as snobbery, most people aspire to higher education for themselves or at least their children. Education, after all, is the usual key to wealth.
I believe that overall, if people are more likely to resent the educated than the rich, it is because they are more likely to perceive the educated as seeing themselves as better than other people. And let us admit, there is some truth to that. People with credentials and expertise certainly do regard themselves as having superior specialized knowledge in their field, and the "I know better than you" attitude gets resented (especially when it clashes with people's cherished religious beliefs). But that might be forgivable if the educated limited themselves to claiming superior expertise. What is really most resented, I think, is the unstated suspicion that educated people consider themselves morally superior to less educated people. And let's face it -- many educated people do consider their education a mark of moral superiority. Is it any wonder that such an outlook is resented?
By contrast, rich people do not claim any special superiority because of their wealth -- or do they? Various theologies that see wealth as a reward for merit are nothing new, after all. The prosperity gospel remains with us today. And most significant, the growing frequency of public speeches using phrases like "makers and takers," "job creators," "our most productive citizens," all suggest that wealth is some sort of measure of merit. At the very least, income is taken as a reasonable proxy for social utility. Taken a step further, this view assumes that people are either entrepreneurs or parasites. And furthermore, this simply reflects the views of today's rich and powerful, who firmly believe that their superior wealth is proof of superior merit, if only the ignorant public would just understand that.
And really, taken to its logical conclusion, it is really hard to escape the suspicion that today's Republican Party really does think rich people are better than the rest of us. This is a problem for the Republican party because, while celebrating success and loudly proclaiming that you admire the successful is an electoral winner, proclaiming that net worth is a good measure of moral worth, that being rich makes you better than other people, is a surefire loser. Occupy Wall Street has been an overall failure but its basic message -- that this country is turning into a plutocracy, and that we don't like it -- had a lot of resonance. The Tea Party's primary concerns may be immigration and cutting spending on the poor, but they, too, often express a fear that this country is turning into a plutocracy. The Republican Establishment interprets this to mean that the Tea Party is mad as hell that this country is not plutocratic enough, and they will do their utmost to correct that.
The Romney campaign ran into trouble so long as he campaigned as a plutocrat. At the first debate, he shook the etch-a-sketch, announced those old statements were no longer operative, and saw his campaign take off. How Romney would actually govern is anyone's guess. But it is emblematic of the Republican leadership's basic problem. In their heart of hearts, the Republican leaders believe that wealth makes people better. Their dilemma is how to advance such an agenda and govern in that way without letting the word get out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)