The fall of the Berlin Wall was one of those moments I remember vividly from my youth. I was only 13 at the time, but I remember the pictures. I remember sensing the importance of the event. It was a defining moment for me politically. Like so many of these defining moments, it’s usually the small, individual moments that are the most striking. Like the Marines raising the flag on Mount Suribachi, or the man standing in front of the tank during the Tiananman Square protests just a few months before the Berlin Wall fell.

There’s no one picture from the fall of the Wall that stands out, but I do remember video of West Berliners standing on the wall, helping East Berliners climb up over the wall. Amazing stuff.

Anyway, here’s a link to a lot of pictures from that time. I’m struck most about how dated everything looks. Yes, I know it was twenty years ago, and so they would look dated. But photos age strangely. I remember those days, and my memories don’t look so dated to me. Funny how that works. Photo number ten, of the section of wall pulled down, is another I remember from that day. But then, it was a day full of iconic images.

In the years that followed, there was a lot of justified triumphalism, as Eastern Europe pulled itself out of its long nightmare that had begun with the rolling in of Nazi tanks, and the ensuing Holocaust, followed by two generations of political oppression under the Soviets. A lost, dark half-century of misery. There was also a lot of unjustified triumphalism, nonsense about the End of History and other bullshit. Old oppressions replaced with new variations. In a lot of ways, the conflicts of the 90s and in the Middle East today can be traced back to clashes that people thought had been resolved by the wall’s fall. Aftershocks through history. Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan are what they are today, for instance, largely because of Soviet influence in the region. The same goes with North Korea.

It’s sad to think that our current world crises are, in large part, merely echoes of the decisions of the twentieth century’s greatest liberators and tyrants, but it’s true. So, 20 years after the wall, it’s worth remembering the long reach of history.

tags: culture, democracy, foreign policy, human rights, politics, whatever
No Squawks »

That’s how big the deficit is going to be this year, in the recently updated numbers from the Obama administration. That’s six grand for each man, woman and child in this country. When Obama took office, he estimated it would be $1.2 trillion. In four months, it’s gone up 50%. I wonder what it will really be once the dust settles. This is a graph of recent deficits and projected future deficits. Take a look. Really.

Just remember, $6000 per person. That’s $16 and change for each person each day. Of debt. Over the next three years, Obama is projecting that deficits will total about $4 trillion. Or $13,000 per man, woman and child in this country. Over five years, it’s close to $5.5 trillion: and the deficits get bigger again after that. That’s a new car, for each person. For a family of four, the equivalent debt over those five years is $73,000. That would pay off many people’s homes, or at least a sizable amount of most people’s mortgages.

$1.8 trillion in deficits (just for this year, mind you) is more than the combined deficits of the Bush administration for its first seven years.

I’ll just say this: I suspect I could do a lot more good with that $13k (actually, $26,000, if you count Amy’s share as well) over the next three years than the government could. And we wouldn’t have to worry about kickbacks, earmarks, and other shenanigans. Think of what we could do with that money for our families. That’s enough to subsidize private school. Pay for insurance. Set aside money for a college fund. Pay off credit card debt. Go back to school to get a degree or job training.

In the end, though, that money will go down the government hole and end up giving us … well, a lot of nothing.

$1.8 trillion dollars: that’s nearly half the budget Obama’s proposing. For every dollar that the government spends, nearly half is debt. That’s like a family that makes $50k budgeting themselves for a $100k lifestyle. It’s not sustainable. Not even for short periods of time. Anyone who has been in debt or sees someone in debt knows that brief, momentary decisions can be catastrophic for very long periods of time.

$1.8 trillion. It’s completely insane, isn’t it? Over the next few years, just think about what you could have done with that money, and then think about what the government has (or, more likely, hasn’t) done for you. Because that money is coming out of your pocket, and mine. We’ll be paying it for a very, very long time.

tags: politics
No Squawks »

It looks like Maine has passed a bill (signed by the governor) that makes gay marriage legal, the fifth state (I believe) to do so. It looks like my native New Hampshire might be up next, and I can’t imagine that it would fail there.

As far as these things go, I’m happier to see this done by legislation rather than in the courts. That’s not to say that imposing things like gay marriage is necessarily bad when done by the courts (my evangelical friends will howl at that). Of course, it’s not a problem for them to impose a solution to abortion with the human rights amendment, but I’ve long noted that evangelicals have a tendency to make convenient political arguments when moral questions are on the table. That’s fine, by the way, if they want to make moral concerns the guiding principles of their politics. I’ve just never been comfortable doing that.

Since Federalism has always been my political guiding light, I have no particular problem with states recognizing gay marriage. I’ve long suspected that complaints about damaging the institution of marriage are a bit overblown. I suspect even in the Northeast, where liberal values prevail, that gay marriage (when available) would be taken advantage of in virtually no instances. Over the years, I’ve seen very little evidence that gay couples actually want to marry (nearly all the benefits of marriage are already available to gay couples if they go talk to a lawyer). So, not to put a fine point on it, gay marriage will probably wind up safe, legal and rare in the US … eventually.

The question remains about protections for private, civil society institutions (read: churches) in terms of their own teaching. And here I am equally adamant: traditional churches have every right to maintain their own theological standards when it comes to solemnizing marriage. In fact, I find them weak-kneed and pathetic when they cave to cultural pressure on these issues. And progressives who try to impose those values on traditional institutions ought to be ashamed of themselves for trying to do so.

As I said, I prefer these things to be done by the legislature if for no other reason than added force of legitimacy. When imposed by the courts, these sorts of decisions only inflame passions. They should be done, when possible, through bills in individual states.

As for conservatives who oppose this, I’ll merely point out that the key determining factor here is culture, not politics. Churches have been losing this argument for two generations now. Ask yourselves why this is. When I was working on this issue in churches, I saw those questions being asked, but not answered. I’m not sure if that’s changed or not (I rather suspect not).

So, good for Maine for doing it right, even if I’m ambivalent on the actual result. For conservatives I’ll just say that the victory is a sign that pluralism has won over traditional values. It doesn’t mean those values aren’t a majority in the US (I’m sure they still are), but there is no longer a political will to enforce them. Any change will come through culture, not politics. But a warning to gay and lesbian people out there: if you think gay marriage will significanly change the cultural calculus, you’re probably wrong. Lack of political will does not mean the nation’s religious values have changed substantially. You may get marriage, but unless you’re willing to actually use it (which I doubt), then it will be seen by most Americans as a political ploy. A fight about nothing.

Which is why I’ve long been tired with these political/cultural clashes. It’s all a proxy battle. In the end, these things aren’t settled in state capitols, if they’re ever settled at all. They are endless, fruitless messes. When the pendulum swings again (and it will), we’ll be right back where we started. How can any of us relish that?

tags: culture, democracy, politics
No Squawks »

You know, it’s really easy to get frustrated with politicians and politics in general. I think a lot of the frustration can be dealt with by keeping a few simple things in mind. It’s advice, of course. Feel free to mix and match these things if you like. You don’t need to follow all of them to find that nice little Zen moment when it comes to these things, but follow as many as you can:

1. Ignore the cycle.

This is first because it’s the most important. Since the dawn of the Internet age, the news cycle has gotten shorter and shorter. In the age of newspapers and TV, the cycle was a day. Someone would say something (either in the paper or the evening news), and then the next day we’d hear the response. It gave people some time to think and digest. Now, though, response is instantaneous over the internet. Within hours (often within minutes) the Internet will be ablaze with responses and counter-responses.

Ignore it. Why? Because most of this day-t0-day grind will be forgotten in days, or at most, weeks. In any given week there are dozens of mini-narratives that come and go. Don’t give in to the temptation to pay them any heed. They come, they go, they’re rarely of any importance. This goes for the crises of the moment as well, be it poisoned Chinese toys or swine flu.

2. Disagreement is not the end of the world

Our system depends on disagreement. Disagreement keeps political power at bay. While it is nice to have our way politically, disagreement means compromise. Compromise does not mean compromising ones principles, though. Finding a careful balance between idealism and realism begins with recognizing that disagreement is healthy. Which leads us to…

3. Those who disagree with you are not evil

They may be wrong, their views may be destructive, but they’re still people. And for the most part, they’re people who think they’re doing the right thing. The trend now is to demonize (even criminalize) policy disagreements. But truth be told, most people aren’t driven by hate, greed, racism, or bigotry. They have rational or moral reasons for taking the positions they do. You may disagree with them and think their positions are bigoted or racist or rooted in hate. Most likely you’re wrong. And if you find yourself thinking that an opponent is driven by any of those things, it’s time you took a look at your own motivations. It doesn’t mean you have to change your mind about the policy, but maybe you ought to reassess how you’re thinking about others.

4. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good

It is very tempting to want to hold out for the perfect candidate, or to oppose any piece of legislation that falls short of your ideal. Don’t. It never happens. As I said earlier, politics is about compromise. Get used to it. Candidates are never perfect, legislation always falls short. It’s the nature of the beast. If you wait for the perfect, many good (or, more likely, merely okay) opportunities will pass you by, leaving you with a long wait for a ship that won’t come.

5. Invest your passion in ideas, not people

People invariably disappoint, particularly politicians. They do stupid things, say stupid things, and almost always reveal themselves to be hypocrites. Big surprise: they’re humans. Not all politicians are crooked. In fact, most aren’t. But with the labrynthine campaign finance laws, the endless barrage of lobbying, and the sheer amount of details being forced at them, even the best of politicians will screw up.

Instead, focus your support on ideas. Find your political principles (whatever they might be) and stick to them. Think about them. Find candidates and others who share them. Learn how to spin those ideas into criteria for judging policies and candidates. And if you find your ideas inadequate the solution is easy: change your mind. But don’t attach your hopes to a single person.

6. The public realm is more than elections and votes

When we think of politics, we often think about what is done in our state capitols or in Washington, DC. But that is only a small part of public life. Being involved and making a difference in our world doesn’t mean only being concerned about who we vote for and what bills are being passed. It’s also what we do. Our work, our private lives, our families. What we say, and how we live our lives. They all have an impact on society in their own ways. In fact, our contributions to public life merely by living outweigh our votes for federal candidates every two years. Citizenship isn’t just voting, but living. And that’s where your principles begin: how do you live your life? Living out your principles says a lot more to people around you than who you voted for, or what your rationalization is for any policy you support or oppose.

7. You don’t need to be a wonk to have an opinion

A policy wonk is what people call that guy (or gal) who knows every jot and tittle of an issue. But let’s be honest: you don’t need to know all the fine details of a policy in order to form a broad opinion of it. For citizens, breadth is more important than depth. If someone tells you that you don’t know what your talking about on a particular issue, they’re merely trying to shut you down. You don’t need to be an expert. If you’re committed to the principle of fiscal responsibility, you don’t need to know the details of Obama’s economic plan to see that he’s not in agreement with you. If you’re committed to international diplomacy to solve intractable foreign policy problems, you didn’t need to see the Iraq invasion plans to know you opposed them. Know why you believe what you do. That’s enough.

I think that’s enough pontificating for now. In politically frustrating times like these, it’s difficult to be a good citizen. It’s tempting to tune out completely. I think of it as an opportunity for reflection and clarification.

tags: democracy, politics
No Squawks »

Michael Barone, writing over on the Washington Examiner website, thinks so, at least in regard to the current economic climate:

So I was heartened to see a poll, conducted March 26-29, by Pew Research, which showed that most of the American public knows knows more about the economic crisis than one might have thought. Large majorities know that TARP money is intended to get banks to lend more and that China holds more U.S. government debt than any other country. People are evidently paying attention, and to a greater extent I think than they usually do.

I’d agree (at least tentatively) with this assessment. It’s certainly a mistake to think that Americans aren’t informed about public policy, which is what many elites (particularly in the media, but also in the government sector) seem to think. Less important to most Americans are the individuals involved, such as the name of the Treasury Secretary. Instead, they tend to know the broad outlines of what’s going on, enough to make some basic decisions about whether they like or dislike the direction the country is going.

On the other hand, I think it is true that most Americans spend little to no time in forming a coherent picture of what they believe government should be doing. They flit from crisis to crisis, event to event, responding to each individually rather than working from basic principles that they have developed. Because of this, many Americans are far too dependent on the media to give them their perspective on any particular issue, and are prone to falling into cults of personality when it comes to politics. Rather than absorb facts and come to their own conclusions, they are far too willing to accept the way the media or individual politicians choose to frame specific issues.

Forget money in politics, corruption, or whatever. The real problem at the heart of American politics is a failure of citizenship. It’s not that Americans are uninformed, it’s that they simply haven’t thought through the foundations of their own political commitments. Because of this, they are ill equipped to make sound decisions regarding the kind of people they’d like in office, and are often unable to cut through the cloud of bullshit that makes up political rhetoric these days (on both sides, mind you). Economics is one of those issues that people do have opinions about, though, because it is so directly tied to the health of their families.

Americans haven’t been taught how to extrapolate from first principles to broad policy proposals. In short, they haven’t been taught ideology. Ideology has a bad rap, but all the word means is a systematic framework for understanding culture, society and politics. Without ideology, the American people have become far too unrooted, too easily moved by populism (what I think of as simply telling people what they want to hear). While it is certainly a mistake to cling too closely to ideology, having a framework of principles for political engagement is important. Whether those principles are rooted in individual freedom, free markets, human rights, peace and justice, equality, whatever, Americans have not been taught how to systematically connect those principles to policy. They have not been taught how to think about politics. They might instinctively know what they think about particular issues, but they can’t articulate the hows and whys.

Knowledge isn’t enough. If fact, I’d say vast knowledge about policy specifics isn’t all that important. Self-awareness about the principles driving your beliefs is more important. We don’t all need to be policy wonks to be good citizens, but we should all be philosophers. The first step of assessing any policy is to align it with what you believe to be true about society and the world. Specifics can be helpful, but they can also mislead. I don’t need to know the specifics about Obama’s massive 2010 budget to make an initial assessment. It’s a vast expansion of government intervention in the economy. No one is really debating that point. Since my political principles oppose such things, I know I don’t support it. Done. The important thing is knowing why.

So, Barone might be right about Americans being knowledgeable about policy, including the economic crisis. That’s great. But it’s not really enough.

tags: democracy, politics, whatever
No Squawks »

This story has been getting some attention, and it’s interesting primarily for how amusing it is. Michelle Obama volunteered the other day at a soup kitchen for the homeless in Washington, DC. Get past the part where she’s serving leftover White House risotto to the poor, and get a load of the picture.

Yes, the “homeless” guy getting food has a cellphone. As Yakov Smirnov would say, “What a country.”

Beyond simply being amusing, it’s worth raising the question about what poverty really means in this country. I have no doubt that there are people (especially now, with the economy the way it is) who cannot afford even the very basics for themselves and their families. That’s always true. However, poverty has come to mean something very different: basically, anyone who cannot afford the bottom level middle class lifestyle. That means television, internet, cable, cellphones, game consoles, etc.

This is a long way away from the kind of poverty which makes you choose between food for the table and electricity or heat or water. I’ve had the opportunity to hear, on at least two occasions, (and I know others have heard this as well) African visitors to the United States comment on what an amazing country America is because, “Even our homeless, poor people are fat.” It might not have been PC for them to say so, but it is often true.

But I wonder, is this guy with the cellphone one of the ones who can’t afford health care? And I wonder why that is?

I’m not trying to be an ass. But it’s a worthwhile question: how much effect does it have on such public policy questions as health care that many Americans have no ability or desire to prioritize household expenditures? I’ve probably told this story here before, but I remember this same question coming up in college. A professor was talking about the health care crisis (this was back in 1994, to tell you how long this “crisis” has supposedly been going on). It was after Hillary’s failure to get nationalized health care passed in Bill’s first term. He quoted some number of people who did not have health insurance. And I said something along the lines of, “How many of them can afford it, but choose not to purchase it?” His response was, “No one chooses not to have health coverage!”

It was one of those epiphany moments for me, when I realized that even some of my favorite professors were sometimes slightly clueless. The reality is that people make this choice all the time. Especially young people, but not only them. Health care is not a tangible good unless it’s being used. And many people simply don’t use it, or not very often. When given the choice between cash in their pocket and a monthly or weekly bill which gives them nothing tangible, they’ll often choose the cash. It’s not rational, perhaps, but it is what people do.

And so it goes for many other everyday choices that people make. “Do I get my oil changed, or do I pay my cable bill? My car can go another month without the oil change, so I’ll keep my cable. Can’t miss my shows!”

Not everyone behaves this way. Many people actually do make the right decisions and make sacrifices in order to not only make ends meet, but to do so in a way that maintains the investments they’ve made, such as their car.

Things change over time. Twenty years ago, there was no real Internet, as we know it today. But today it’s easier for people to come up with excuses for why it is absolutely necessary. The same goes with cellphones. We’ve become accustomed to the convenience of always being in touch. But a cellphone is not absolutely necessary. Make do with a regular phone. It’s cheaper. It’s not as convenient, perhaps, but it’s not necessary. People made it through life without cell phones perfectly well up until about ten years ago or so. Going without for awhile is not going to kill you. Same with the Internet, cable, and any number of other consumer goods that we might think we need, but don’t.

In the past I’ve been supportive of consumerism. I think it’s great to buy things, especially things from overseas. They need the jobs, we like the stuff. It is among one of the best ways to support growing economies overseas: buy their stuff. But there are negatives. Sure, we get attached to “things” and it’s bad for us … whatever. That’s not really a problem. The real problem is that we become accustomed to a certain lifestyle, and it is far too easy to live not necessarily over, but up to our means. And when recessions come (as they always do, every ten to fifteen years or so) we are unable to scale back our lifestyles to meet on financial obligations.

Most of us are not going to be faced with the most difficult decisions, even in this recession. Even the poor have some luxuries that, during the 30s and 40s, would have been considered decadent. Making it through any economic downturn, any loss of a job, any reversal of fortune, means being able to prioritize the things in our lives which are important.

Funny that I don’t really hear that coming from anyone, given the economic situation we’re in.

tags: politics
No Squawks »

According to a new Rasmussen poll, Republicans are only one point behind Democrats in the general ballot question. I’m not terribly surprised, given the unpopularity of Obama’s stimulus package, combined with the coverage of the long string of Democratic tax and mortgage scandals (finally, not that any of that is new). But I think there is something more significant behind the evening out of the polls: Bush is no longer a factor.

After eight years of Bush and six of Republican control of congress (a plurality of voters seemed to forget that for the last two years the Dems have controlled Congress), I think a lot of voters simply forgot that both parties seem to suffer from the same problems: corruption being the most prominent at the moment. I’m always a bit thunderstruck by how forgetful the public is, as a whole, when it comes to politics. The news cycle is so short now, that within weeks (sometimes days) issues flash by, only to be long forgotten.

Now, with Bush gone and the voters able to look past him and at the issues, they’ve largely reverted to the 50-50 split that existed before 9/11. I’m not sure this is a good thing, but I’m expecting it’s better than the alternative. It will take longer (years, probably) to deflate the ridiculous Bush-hate on the left (just as it took a few years to deflate Clinton-hate on the right after he left office), but it looks like the short memory of voters may have played a part, here.

It’s also worth remembering that while Bush’s poll numbers were very low late last year, the numbers for the Democrat-run Congress were even worse. It wasn’t just Bush that was unpopular last year, it was politicians in general. Let’s see in a few weeks where Obama’s numbers are.

tags: elections, politics
No Squawks »

Most Americans really don’t know much about economics. Economics isn’t taught consistently in high school, and is virtually ignored in college. What I know about economics I learned by reading Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek: hardly comprehensive.

But I’m more and more convinced that macroeconomics is about as reliable as reading tea leaves. The current debate over the so-called “stimulus package” is a great case in point. Will Wilkinson explains it better than I can (read the whole thing, it’s a great post):

In the debate over economic stimulus, I hear many otherwise brilliant people making a lot of baseless conjectures about mass psychology — about consumer and creditor “fear” and “uncertainty,” and what to do about it. But, as far as I can tell, none of them has even a rudimentary theory about the causes of micro-fear or how it scales up to aggregate consumer demand or aggregrate credit supply, etc. So I feel like I’m hearing a lot of smart people talking out of their asses about a subject they’ve never actually studied –the psychology of coordinated expectations — and pretending it is “economics,” a subject with much greater rhetorical prestige and political power than amateur psychology.

I’ve probably said this before on this blog (I know Amy has heard me say it) but the economy of the last five or six years has hardly been bad, despite what the media have been saying about it. Even now, while the economy is facing some challenges, the overall outlook is hardly bleak. And much of the current hand-wringing over the economy has more to do with what people think than what actually is.

(more…)

tags: culture, markets, movies, politics, war
No Squawks »

The rollout for the conversion to fully digital television transmissions, originally scheduled for February 17, has now been delayed until June. No decent reason has been given. I’ve been expecting a delay since I heard last month that government funds for the coupons to subsidize the boxes has dried up. As I said then, there’s really no reason to spend any more government money on this. Megan McArdle seems to be wondering the same thing.

In my mind, the delay seems more likely to confuse people than to help them. Not that the government’s efforts to educate the public have been effective. Still, it seems that the delay cannot possibly be the networks themselves, as they all seemed ready for the transition (I mean, come on, it’s been scheduled for years and has already seen a few previous delays).

As Megan posted earlier, Obama’s call to delay the transition last month seems to be at least partly at the request of people who stand to gain from a delay. But then, I’m not really surprised at this point given Obama’s reneging on just about every point on his good government checklist. Note: I don’t particularly blame Obama for this, except his naivete in thinking that saying something makes it so. Washington works the way Washington works, and you don’t change it in a day. On the other hand, he really ought to have known better, and his fumbling of this issue (along with a few dozen other things) so early seems to confirm that the chief objection to Obama (lack of experience) is coming to bite him on the ass.

Switch to digital, already. The delay is only going to cost money and do no one (but a few lobbyists) any good.

tags: politics, technology, television
No Squawks »

According to this article, Obama is retaining yet another oft-criticized tool the Bush administration used in counter-terrorism: rendition.

Now, can someone please tell me what Obama doesn’t now agree with in terms of Bush’s anti-terror policy? Sure, Obama says he’s going to close Guantanamo, but hasn’t actually done it yet (and it’s not an unreasonable bet that it will still be open in four years when Obama’s term comes to an end). Sure, Obama has made “harsh interrogation techniques” off-limits: of course, they have been since at least 2005, and most since late 2003. So what has Obama actually done?

Nothing. He’s changed nothing. And if this isn’t a vindication of Bush’s approach to terrorism, I don’t know what is. Obama continues criticizing Bush, but he’s doing exactly the same things.

Not that I mind all that much. Guantanamo Bay’s detention facility was always a compromise of principles, but a necessary one given the limitations of the law and ther requirements of war. Rendition was also a tough call, but it was one that was used by the Clinton administration and then Bush, and was, again, a necessary compromise even if it was sometimes abused.

Here’s the statement:

“Obviously you need to preserve some tools — you still have to go after the bad guys,” said an Obama administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing the legal reasoning. “The legal advisors working on this looked at rendition. It is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice.”

In other words, Bush’s policy was sound. Remember, Bush’s war policies were the primary driving force behind Obama’s election. Now that he’s faced with the reality (and daily briefings) he has adopted Bush’s policies. Nearly everything Obama criticized about Bush on these issues has been reversed. As I said, with every statement like this, Bush’s record is further vindicated. If a war opponent like Obama can see the rationale behind these policies and completely change his mind, then it stands to reason that Bush himself was doing a decent job of it.

Obama might continue to criticize Bush, but it’s all empty rhetoric now. If there were really something to complain about, the policies would have changed. On these items, Obama was wrong and Bush right. Obama’s behavior, rather than his words, demonstrates the truth of it. And if Obama’s supporters now adopt his new position on the issues, it becomes even more clear that they never had a problem with the policies themselves, but only the person behind them, making their protests over the last six years rooted not in principle, but personal, partisan hatred.

tags: politics
No Squawks »