I read a fascinating debate on http://www.psychologytoday.com/.
Nibel Barbar argued that atheism will replace religion because, in developed countries, the psychological functions of religion can be provided in alternative venues. Sports are his primary example, and he argues that religion and sport ceremonies are similar in that sports provide a humanistic/polytheist religion where 'spectators worship other human beings, their achievements, and the groups to which they belong.' Socializing with people with a built-in source of agreement, chanting and singing, ritualistic colors and a transformative experience where people escape their daily lives with something greater than themselves. Sports, like religion, is a distraction from everything else that is happening, a simple satisfying socialization shortcut.
Barbar thinks there is no longer a need for religion because "with better science, and with government safety nets, and smaller families, there is less fear and uncertainty in people's daily lives and hence less of a market for religion." Thus, there is less demand for religion and combined with an explosion of competition from psychotherapuetic drugs, electronic entertainment, and sports which have combined to result in an explosion of atheism in developed countries.
Michael Austin counters that religion isn't practiced just because of fear arising from short life spans and tremendous ignorance about the workings of the universe. Religion is practiced because people believe it is true. This sets it apart from a marketplace analysis of cause and demand, giving people a reason to exist, principles to guide their life. Austin further claims that Atheism can never be a belief system, because it is merely a rejection of something and not a positive value system like religion.
Austin is correct that in and of itself, atheism is not a belief system. His conclusion: because Atheism isn't a source of morality, religion will always be needed. This is pure fallacy. Morality can be found in serving your own real, long-term interests. Honesty, hard work, and dedication to family...the true foundations of morality, can all be arrived at through reason. Honesty earns a reputation for honesty, which opens up opportunities in the business and personal spheres. Businesses want to partner with you, customers return for your services, and friends trust you with secrets and truth. Hard work is rewarded both financially and psychologically with promotion, wealth, and contentment. Dedication to family and friends is reciprocated, developing a reliable network of individuals who can be counted on in times of need. These foundations of a good life admit that death means the end of us, that life is worth living as long and as well as possible, and that morality leads to happiness and mental peace. Morality is it's own goal.
What about Austin's contention that genuine belief is a strong reason to expect the persistence of religion? Market forces don't have as strong of an impact on something that a person believes to be nonfungible. This is certainly important and true. Perhaps this is why religion persists despite the growing lack of need for the psychological effects of religion.
In my opinion even if religion is genuinely believed, this characteristic is not a strong indication that future generations, or even future iterations of the same individuals will hold the same genuine beliefs. The moral foundation formed by religion can be logically and reliably created without myth and archaic power structures. Eventually the cost efficiency, reasonability, and personalization available to people who simply find their own moral compass will attract a critical mass of people away from the seductive social pressures and networking that religion relies upon to persist. This is what I call the critical mass theory.
The Critical Theory suggests that after a majority of people no longer are beholden to the prevailing myth, the social pressures to accept the prevailing religion will disappear. It suggests that one of the reasons that religion persists is that most people are socially honor-bound to believe or profess to believe in religion. In other words, because the vast majority of people in America profess to find their moral compass in Christianity, all people feel a strong social pressure to acknowledge the moral compass and the psychological value of believing in the prevailing myth. This is a subject I will discuss in more detail in the future.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Censorship and Narrative: The Chinese Strategy
Every nation has an historical narrative that they use to educate a domestic audience and persuade an international audience. In contrast to history, an historical narrative includes interpretations and generalizations of the national past and teaches these generalizations as part of the facts of history. In broad terms, the United States narrative goes like this:
The United States is the most powerful country in the world, but unlike superpowers of the past, the U.S. is a benign superpower seeking only to spread the morally pure agenda of freedom, democracy, and opportunity. This plays well to a domestic and foreign audience. Some aspects of U.S. policy are difficult to fit into this narrative, such as occupying Iraq but not the equally (if not more) strategically dangerous Iran. Bush tried to argue that he would set an example of functioning democracy in the region, then spread the goodness to everybody else. Unfortunately for the U.S narrative this argument does not pass the laugh test, and not just because the given reason for attacking Iraq was WMD, but also because most of the U.S.'s closest allies in the region (as further proven by wikileaks), are not democracies and are not interested in welcoming democracy into their closed dictatorial fiefdoms. If the U.S. goal was really to spread democracy, leaning on dependent allies such as Egypt and Jordan to liberalize their own systems is probably more likely to succeed without major upheaval, and is certainly less costly than the new 'clear, hold, build' strategy that we all hope (but do not believe) is working in Af-Pak and Iraq. A sophisticated observer will note that the U.S. (like every nation on earth) cynically uses its narrative to leverage realpolitik objectives.
Despite its flaws, the U.S. narrative is nonetheless appealing. Opportunity is available in the U.S. for those who can get here, and there are many real life stories that anecdotal support the acceptance and success of poor immigrants who are willing to work hard and risk everything to have a go in America.
To an outsider, the Chinese narrative is much less appealing. The basic tenants are not particularly repulsive, rather it is what those arguments are used to justify that renders the Chinese narrative somewhat unpalatable to foreigners. This might be because of a less well-run international narrative, or it might be because of a narrative that is tailored to a domestic rather than an international audience. Let's take a look.
The Chinese patriotic education campaign started in 1992 and has been wildly successful in reversing the pro-western worldview that was quite prevalent in China during the late 1980's. Successful patriotic education in the modern world has three essential components and one optional component.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/world/asia/11china.html?_r=2
You'll find that the Chinese government quickly developed a containment strategy for the damage caused by the Nobel Prize awarded to a jailed dissident. They follow the exact pattern I described above. First, they scrubbed the Chinese Internet for all references of the Award Ceremony, or even the Nobel itself. This decreases public awareness of the Nobel generally and Liu in particular. Knowing that this is only a partial strategy, the the state media denounced the award as a "Western plot to hold back a rising China and branding the award’s supporters as “clowns.” Global Times, a populist tabloid affiliated with the party-owned People’s Daily, called the event a “political farce” and Oslo a “cult center.”(NYT).
Domestically, the narrative hits all the right notes. It's got suspicion of foreign imperialism, an insult to China's dignity, glorifying a known criminal tried and convicted under Chinese law, and selective quotation of Liu to make him fit the role of imperialist tool who has committed treason against his own people. Struggling, succeeding China is victimized again.
Internationally, the narrative plays very poorly. China strong-armed 19 countries into skipping the Nobel ceremony, appeared bellicose and intolerant, highlighted their opposition to democratic reformers, and generally appeared to violate their own rules about imperialist tendencies. This failure to appeal to an international audience does not condemn the Chinese narrative to failure. The primary purpose of a narrative is to win the domestic audience, and at this the narrative has been wildly successful. The challenge for China in the future is to produce a narrative that appeals to both domestic and international audiences, otherwise they will not develop the sort of soft power enjoyed by the U.S. and to some extent the E.U. They will not have waves of talented immigrants, they will not get the benefit of the doubt in their global intentions (a situation with great relevance in the South China Sea), and they will not be recognized as a true great world power...something they want more than anything.
It will be interesting to see how the Chinese wiggle out the nationalistic trap they have set for themselves. They must have a reason for the continued dominance of the CCP, but they cannot stoke nationalism to dangerous and nativist levels. This balancing act will grow more difficult with each new international incident. I wish them luck. It will be interesting to watch their narrative evolve as their interests become more and more clearly aligned with the nations whose social and economic imperialism they once denounced. Without a change, the Chinese will not be able to leverage any concessions, benefits of the doubt, or soft power out of its historical narrative.
The United States is the most powerful country in the world, but unlike superpowers of the past, the U.S. is a benign superpower seeking only to spread the morally pure agenda of freedom, democracy, and opportunity. This plays well to a domestic and foreign audience. Some aspects of U.S. policy are difficult to fit into this narrative, such as occupying Iraq but not the equally (if not more) strategically dangerous Iran. Bush tried to argue that he would set an example of functioning democracy in the region, then spread the goodness to everybody else. Unfortunately for the U.S narrative this argument does not pass the laugh test, and not just because the given reason for attacking Iraq was WMD, but also because most of the U.S.'s closest allies in the region (as further proven by wikileaks), are not democracies and are not interested in welcoming democracy into their closed dictatorial fiefdoms. If the U.S. goal was really to spread democracy, leaning on dependent allies such as Egypt and Jordan to liberalize their own systems is probably more likely to succeed without major upheaval, and is certainly less costly than the new 'clear, hold, build' strategy that we all hope (but do not believe) is working in Af-Pak and Iraq. A sophisticated observer will note that the U.S. (like every nation on earth) cynically uses its narrative to leverage realpolitik objectives.
Despite its flaws, the U.S. narrative is nonetheless appealing. Opportunity is available in the U.S. for those who can get here, and there are many real life stories that anecdotal support the acceptance and success of poor immigrants who are willing to work hard and risk everything to have a go in America.
To an outsider, the Chinese narrative is much less appealing. The basic tenants are not particularly repulsive, rather it is what those arguments are used to justify that renders the Chinese narrative somewhat unpalatable to foreigners. This might be because of a less well-run international narrative, or it might be because of a narrative that is tailored to a domestic rather than an international audience. Let's take a look.
The Chinese patriotic education campaign started in 1992 and has been wildly successful in reversing the pro-western worldview that was quite prevalent in China during the late 1980's. Successful patriotic education in the modern world has three essential components and one optional component.
- Denial of Access to Information: If something is only sporadically available in foreign media, only tangentially related to China, or simply not a large story, total denial of access to information can succeed behind the Great Firewall and the State Run Media. As long as the strategy is implemented consistently and competently, censorship can work. (U.S. take note, your response to wikileaks-Inconsistent and Incompetent).
- Timely and Detailed Particularized Responses to Important Events: These responses must expand and utilize the overarching narrative of No.3 below. These responses can also be coupled with an aggressive implementation of censorship to keep out particularly damaging details. The key to this step is using every potentially damaging incident to feed your narrative.
- Careful Construction of a Domestically Attractive Narrative: The overarching CCP narrative is a tale of persistent Western and particularly Japanese victimization of an ancient culture, the tale of the CCP bringing Chinese people back to power over foreign aggressors, the tale of a rise from ashes into an economic powerhouse and a respected leader of the world, and perhaps most importantly the threat of collapse upon loss of the CCP. This narrative has two particularly attractive aspects to a domestic audience:
- It is the tale of the inherent superiority of an ancient continuous culture unmatched in the world. Everybody loves to culturally identify with superiority because it's an easy way to replace personal accomplishment. This continuity is a myth of course, because the Chinese culture is a history of division, rising and falling dynasties, conquering, expansion, contraction, and repeated dominance by foreigners. Any continuity that persisted was destroyed by Mao during the Cultural Revolution.
- Everything China has gained in the last 30 years; wealth, prestige, and self-confidence is totally dependent upon the party in power. No Chinese person wants to sacrifice the progress they've made. The CCP has every incentive to continue the progress, and the people know it.
- Construction of an International Narrative: This is the optional component, the one that is completely underdeveloped for China. The U.S. international narrative is above, and it is well-developed and carefully considered. The Chinese international narrative, to the extent they have one, is Deng XiaoPing's concept of organization of the developing world and general opposition to U.S. and Soviet hegemony hinted at here: “China is not a superpower, nor will she ever seek to be one. If one day China should change her color and turn into a superpower, if she too should play the tyrant in the world, and everywhere subject others to her bullying, aggression and exploitation, the people of the world should identify her as social-imperialism, expose it, oppose it and work together with the Chinese people to overthrow it.” Thus China positions itself as the anti-imperialist, the champion of the underdeveloped, a peaceful player in the continuing integration and advancement of the developing world. This narrative was beginning to enjoy some success before the recent expansion of core interests to cover the entire South China Sea, continuing support for a parasitic N.Korea, and bullying of Japan over the boat collision incident. This narrative now needs to be revisited.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/world/asia/11china.html?_r=2
You'll find that the Chinese government quickly developed a containment strategy for the damage caused by the Nobel Prize awarded to a jailed dissident. They follow the exact pattern I described above. First, they scrubbed the Chinese Internet for all references of the Award Ceremony, or even the Nobel itself. This decreases public awareness of the Nobel generally and Liu in particular. Knowing that this is only a partial strategy, the the state media denounced the award as a "Western plot to hold back a rising China and branding the award’s supporters as “clowns.” Global Times, a populist tabloid affiliated with the party-owned People’s Daily, called the event a “political farce” and Oslo a “cult center.”(NYT).
Domestically, the narrative hits all the right notes. It's got suspicion of foreign imperialism, an insult to China's dignity, glorifying a known criminal tried and convicted under Chinese law, and selective quotation of Liu to make him fit the role of imperialist tool who has committed treason against his own people. Struggling, succeeding China is victimized again.
Internationally, the narrative plays very poorly. China strong-armed 19 countries into skipping the Nobel ceremony, appeared bellicose and intolerant, highlighted their opposition to democratic reformers, and generally appeared to violate their own rules about imperialist tendencies. This failure to appeal to an international audience does not condemn the Chinese narrative to failure. The primary purpose of a narrative is to win the domestic audience, and at this the narrative has been wildly successful. The challenge for China in the future is to produce a narrative that appeals to both domestic and international audiences, otherwise they will not develop the sort of soft power enjoyed by the U.S. and to some extent the E.U. They will not have waves of talented immigrants, they will not get the benefit of the doubt in their global intentions (a situation with great relevance in the South China Sea), and they will not be recognized as a true great world power...something they want more than anything.
It will be interesting to see how the Chinese wiggle out the nationalistic trap they have set for themselves. They must have a reason for the continued dominance of the CCP, but they cannot stoke nationalism to dangerous and nativist levels. This balancing act will grow more difficult with each new international incident. I wish them luck. It will be interesting to watch their narrative evolve as their interests become more and more clearly aligned with the nations whose social and economic imperialism they once denounced. Without a change, the Chinese will not be able to leverage any concessions, benefits of the doubt, or soft power out of its historical narrative.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
The Euro's True Value: Post-Westphalianism
The Westphalian system has three main components:
First, let me say that nationalism has not always been detrimental to human society and development. Nationalism was first used to overcome tribalism and feudalism, a dark period when each cluster of people were loyal to their own bosses and humanity was far more divided and war-prone than modern times. At its outset, nationalism was a tool to overcome mutual isolation and unawareness. Nationalism actually helped unite larger groups of people into economic free trade zones and broader definitions of the in-group, while shrinking the ominous out-group. Though nationalism is the primary reason for every modern war and trade dispute, it was actually an improvement on the previous system.
The particular brand of nationalism that is widely credited to the Peace of Westphalia faces many challenges. While failed states and non-state actors like Al-Queda are certainly a challenge the Westphalian System, those problems have been attacked by attempts to reinforce the system of state sovereignty. The U.S. is trying to set up a nation in Afghanistan (failing...but trying), the U.S. is giving billions in aid and military equipment to Pakistan (a potential failed state), Kyrgyzstan (out of the news-but fail), Yemen (an undeclared failed state), and many others. The U.S. response to the threat posed by failed states on the Westphalian order has been to try to build states that can uphold the model. The jury is still out on this technique...my guess...fail! At any rate, the cost of maintaining the Westphalian system under modern geopolitical conditions is just too high.
Despite the importance of existential threats to the current system, the most important development in post-nationalism is without a doubt the EU, specifically the Euro. The Euro is at its core an indirect and roundabout assault on the concept of Westphalian Nationalism. Though the Euro founders claimed that they intended for nations to keep their sovereignty, anyone can see that a monetary union will require a fiscal union to succeed in the long term. Erratic fiscal policies under a single monetary policy will inevitably lead to crisis just like the one we are witnessing now. In fact, low interest rates needed by economies like Germany provide skewed incentives in countries like Ireland whose rapid growth demanded higher interest rates. In Spain for example, national economist Angel Ubide explained that the government would've needed to run 5-6% surpluses just to offset the negative real interest rates available under the Euro. This is functionally impossible in a democracy, where people want to spend their money or have it returned to them immediately. It is left for us to decide whether the founders of the EU actually intended for crisis to occur in order to further political integration, or whether they truly believed that the basic principles of economics could be ignored.
Putting that debate aside, the core of the matter is that the Euro is the future of money. As my new favorite person Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa (head of Notre Europe, former member of ECB's executive board) explains, "the dynamics of history consist precisely of the search – largely unguided, often painful but inexorable – for an optimal distribution of power along the scale of ever-wider human aggregations, which are tied by common interests more than by tribal identity."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7596170a-5ec0-11df-af86-00144feab49a.html#axzz17rXMiXmz
As it is obvious to everyone on both ends and even some in the middle of the political spectrum that global corporations, global terror networks, global environmental problems, and global human rights all require an ever-widening scale of government; the Euro is a great tool in advancing beyond the seductive tribalism of nationalism. Since Euro members have so much invested in the success of the Euro, it is nearly impossible to resist the inexorable march toward a more centralized (and less democratic-yay!) system that gives economists a veto over the spending initiatives, labor laws, and other purview of national legislatures. This is after all, the only way to sustain a supranational monetary union.
So, we've learned that Euro was designed to fail, and that the only way forward while saving face is to build a supranational fiscal union. The only way to give coherence to the persistence of national governments would be to allow them to continue making fiscal policy, subject to review by the center. This is my ideal! It destroys the basic tenant of state sovereignty by taking away the ability to control fiscal policy. It undermines the idea of equality between states because no one will truly consider a state without control over either fiscal or monetary (or ostensibly foreign) policy, equal to a state with sovereign control over these aspects of policy. By giving a review of legislation to a central authority, the principle of non-intervention is completely obliterated, and the era of nation states begins its decline!
Once the death grip of nationalistic ideology has been weakened, regional monetary unions could spring up across the globe. Asia is prime real-estate, though it would have to endure the long foundation laying process just as Europe did. Whether it is an alliance of Japan, South Korea, and India to counter China's growing influence, or an even larger union including China, the endgame is the same...the eventual merging of regional monetary unions under a single global system that does away with currency manipulation as trade protectionism, vetoes unsustainable spending by national legislatures and executives eager to buy votes, equalizes labor and environmental laws to level the competitive playing field, and imposes transparent and universal rules on multistate actors like financial institutions who seek to play states against each other and demand bailout money by holding discreet economies hostage.
The Post-nationalistic world order also does away with the ability of states to resort to hyper-nationalistic (and dangerous) propaganda when their local power is threatened by the international community. This takes away one of the most important tools of control of any authoritarian regime. The China Nobel situation is an example. I will post on that next.
- The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination
- The principle of (legal) equality between states
- The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state
First, let me say that nationalism has not always been detrimental to human society and development. Nationalism was first used to overcome tribalism and feudalism, a dark period when each cluster of people were loyal to their own bosses and humanity was far more divided and war-prone than modern times. At its outset, nationalism was a tool to overcome mutual isolation and unawareness. Nationalism actually helped unite larger groups of people into economic free trade zones and broader definitions of the in-group, while shrinking the ominous out-group. Though nationalism is the primary reason for every modern war and trade dispute, it was actually an improvement on the previous system.
The particular brand of nationalism that is widely credited to the Peace of Westphalia faces many challenges. While failed states and non-state actors like Al-Queda are certainly a challenge the Westphalian System, those problems have been attacked by attempts to reinforce the system of state sovereignty. The U.S. is trying to set up a nation in Afghanistan (failing...but trying), the U.S. is giving billions in aid and military equipment to Pakistan (a potential failed state), Kyrgyzstan (out of the news-but fail), Yemen (an undeclared failed state), and many others. The U.S. response to the threat posed by failed states on the Westphalian order has been to try to build states that can uphold the model. The jury is still out on this technique...my guess...fail! At any rate, the cost of maintaining the Westphalian system under modern geopolitical conditions is just too high.
Despite the importance of existential threats to the current system, the most important development in post-nationalism is without a doubt the EU, specifically the Euro. The Euro is at its core an indirect and roundabout assault on the concept of Westphalian Nationalism. Though the Euro founders claimed that they intended for nations to keep their sovereignty, anyone can see that a monetary union will require a fiscal union to succeed in the long term. Erratic fiscal policies under a single monetary policy will inevitably lead to crisis just like the one we are witnessing now. In fact, low interest rates needed by economies like Germany provide skewed incentives in countries like Ireland whose rapid growth demanded higher interest rates. In Spain for example, national economist Angel Ubide explained that the government would've needed to run 5-6% surpluses just to offset the negative real interest rates available under the Euro. This is functionally impossible in a democracy, where people want to spend their money or have it returned to them immediately. It is left for us to decide whether the founders of the EU actually intended for crisis to occur in order to further political integration, or whether they truly believed that the basic principles of economics could be ignored.
Putting that debate aside, the core of the matter is that the Euro is the future of money. As my new favorite person Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa (head of Notre Europe, former member of ECB's executive board) explains, "the dynamics of history consist precisely of the search – largely unguided, often painful but inexorable – for an optimal distribution of power along the scale of ever-wider human aggregations, which are tied by common interests more than by tribal identity."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7596170a-5ec0-11df-af86-00144feab49a.html#axzz17rXMiXmz
As it is obvious to everyone on both ends and even some in the middle of the political spectrum that global corporations, global terror networks, global environmental problems, and global human rights all require an ever-widening scale of government; the Euro is a great tool in advancing beyond the seductive tribalism of nationalism. Since Euro members have so much invested in the success of the Euro, it is nearly impossible to resist the inexorable march toward a more centralized (and less democratic-yay!) system that gives economists a veto over the spending initiatives, labor laws, and other purview of national legislatures. This is after all, the only way to sustain a supranational monetary union.
So, we've learned that Euro was designed to fail, and that the only way forward while saving face is to build a supranational fiscal union. The only way to give coherence to the persistence of national governments would be to allow them to continue making fiscal policy, subject to review by the center. This is my ideal! It destroys the basic tenant of state sovereignty by taking away the ability to control fiscal policy. It undermines the idea of equality between states because no one will truly consider a state without control over either fiscal or monetary (or ostensibly foreign) policy, equal to a state with sovereign control over these aspects of policy. By giving a review of legislation to a central authority, the principle of non-intervention is completely obliterated, and the era of nation states begins its decline!
Once the death grip of nationalistic ideology has been weakened, regional monetary unions could spring up across the globe. Asia is prime real-estate, though it would have to endure the long foundation laying process just as Europe did. Whether it is an alliance of Japan, South Korea, and India to counter China's growing influence, or an even larger union including China, the endgame is the same...the eventual merging of regional monetary unions under a single global system that does away with currency manipulation as trade protectionism, vetoes unsustainable spending by national legislatures and executives eager to buy votes, equalizes labor and environmental laws to level the competitive playing field, and imposes transparent and universal rules on multistate actors like financial institutions who seek to play states against each other and demand bailout money by holding discreet economies hostage.
The Post-nationalistic world order also does away with the ability of states to resort to hyper-nationalistic (and dangerous) propaganda when their local power is threatened by the international community. This takes away one of the most important tools of control of any authoritarian regime. The China Nobel situation is an example. I will post on that next.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Triangulation II: Bambi pulls a Slick Willy
So far, I'm loving post-midterm Bambi (That's what I call Obama because he's just so darn cute). We've got spending freezes for federal employees, we've got (reportedly) a deal to extend all the Bush tax cuts, we've got a serious report from serious people on the deficit commission, and best of all, we've got no more talk of 'wasting a crisis'.
Apologies in advance to anyone unfamiliar with Rahm Emanuel's nickname. Sing this with me to the tune of 'We Will We Will Rock You!' :
We Hate Rahmbo Bye Bye!
Ok so I'm not a song writer, I'll give you that one. Back to Bambi's metamorphosis (and yes the caterpillar might yet become a Clinton-esque butterfly).
Here's one clueless explanation for the 'change'. http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/ben-goddard/131503-maybe-no-encore-in-2012. This proclaims that Bambi has given up and has decided to be a one term president. I won't even dignify that with a response. After all, politicians seek power-why else subject yourself to the debasement of pandering for votes, begging for money, and lying for a living? --Couldn't help a little response.
A much more likely explanation: Bambi learned a lesson from everybody's favorite family man, Bill Clinton. Dick "The Head" Morris (triangulation's main proponent in the Clinton White House) argued that the Tri was not possible under modern conditions, wailing with his trademark hyperbole that partisanship had gone too far...blah.blah
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/this_time_triangulation_not_an_option_Ll4ow8MJ3p5PH4UJiLeAYM
Nothing could make me happier than to prove The Head wrong.
First let's dispense with the myth that Bambi wants to be like FDR and Reagan but not Clinton, because the prior 2 were 'consequential' presidents. In that yawn inducing stem winder called The Audacity of Hope, Black Jesus said "It was Bill Clinton that recognized the categories of conservative and liberal played to Republican advantage and were inadequate to address our problems. Clinton's third way... tapped into the pragmatic, non ideological attitude of Americans."
Of course we know that before you can become a 'New Democrat' you absolutely must try every tired, pork-bellied, government expansion project that the most detached liberal ideologue can dream up just before your midterm slapdown. After your midterm slapdown, then comes the real governing. Under Clinton, Hillarycare failed, and we all know that Obamacare passed, but the strategy was the same.
The next step, it appears, is also the same. Not only does a fed pay freeze help immunize Obama from the political liability of being in lockstep with federal employee unions, it also gives him a strong (measured by the reception of the idiots who vote) argument against further concessions in federal employee numbers and wages. I already made them sacrifice! Still, Clinton needed welfare reform to really prove that he had moderated, all his school uniforms and V-chip nickle and dime stuff didn't sell the moderate label, it was a miracle most theorists once thought impossible...welfare reform.
There are a few things that might qualify Obama as a moderate. Keep in mind that he needs to be seen fighting the government employee mafias that keep a knife to the throat of America.
1. Major, systemic, wholesale, education reform. This would mean something like, mandating performance pay for teachers by making all federal assistance dependent upon it. As a home run, he could set new rules for teacher's unions, perhaps making them optional rather than required.
2. Broader Government union reform. Ban government unions from spending money on elections that pick politicians that have the power to use guns to give the unions more money. This is my most awesome idea because it helps do away with the incestuous relationship between democratic government and its employees. (Taxdollars that are mandated to go toward the election of politicians that will send more taxdollars to go toward the election of the same politicians.) This idea has numerous problems including states' rights issues, free speech issues, and the simple fact that Obama might lose his own primary if he did this.
3. Serious steps to reduce the deficit. These could include, reduction of DOD budget through (tacit) admission of defeat in AF-Pack and Iraq, substantial cuts in the federal workforce, elimination of foreign aid to criminal dictators, common sense entitlement reforms like: eliminating the employer health-care exemption, raising the social security age, reducing benefits for the wealthy, making healthcare available in a national market etc.. HOME RUN: Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced budget. I know, dream on.
4. Complete Tax overhaul. David Brooks touched on this http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/opinion/03brooks.html
The Heritage Foundation believes this would reduce the deficit 65b a year and create over 2million new jobs. It would lower tax rates for almost everyone while raising revenue, have a direct positive impact on everyday people's lives, empower small businesses and entrepreneurs, and best of all it could be sold to both parties. Not only is this the most possible on this list, it is quite possibly the best. It would need to follow the mold of the 1986 resimplification and do away with the thousands and tens of thousands of loopholes, credits, confusions and complications that make everyone sick to their stomach in early April. This doesn't do away with Obama's union problem, but a few more symbolic moves--such as a hiring freeze-- and he could earn a label as a moderate in one fell swoop. Lower corporate taxes while he's at it, and we've got the best president since...well...since...I don't even know.
In short, Bambi is a politician and as a teacher once told me, all politicians can be explained with a single acronym, SMSR, Single Minded Seekers of Re-election. The lefty stuff is going nowhere, so bring on the Tri. (that's a play on Bi--for those of you who don't know what that means I suggest you make younger friends). So that's it Bambi, just choose from 1-4 above and consider me your new biggest fan. Easy huh? I'm a pushover. (Again, younger friends)
Apologies in advance to anyone unfamiliar with Rahm Emanuel's nickname. Sing this with me to the tune of 'We Will We Will Rock You!' :
We Hate Rahmbo Bye Bye!
Ok so I'm not a song writer, I'll give you that one. Back to Bambi's metamorphosis (and yes the caterpillar might yet become a Clinton-esque butterfly).
Here's one clueless explanation for the 'change'. http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/ben-goddard/131503-maybe-no-encore-in-2012. This proclaims that Bambi has given up and has decided to be a one term president. I won't even dignify that with a response. After all, politicians seek power-why else subject yourself to the debasement of pandering for votes, begging for money, and lying for a living? --Couldn't help a little response.
A much more likely explanation: Bambi learned a lesson from everybody's favorite family man, Bill Clinton. Dick "The Head" Morris (triangulation's main proponent in the Clinton White House) argued that the Tri was not possible under modern conditions, wailing with his trademark hyperbole that partisanship had gone too far...blah.blah
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/this_time_triangulation_not_an_option_Ll4ow8MJ3p5PH4UJiLeAYM
Nothing could make me happier than to prove The Head wrong.
First let's dispense with the myth that Bambi wants to be like FDR and Reagan but not Clinton, because the prior 2 were 'consequential' presidents. In that yawn inducing stem winder called The Audacity of Hope, Black Jesus said "It was Bill Clinton that recognized the categories of conservative and liberal played to Republican advantage and were inadequate to address our problems. Clinton's third way... tapped into the pragmatic, non ideological attitude of Americans."
Of course we know that before you can become a 'New Democrat' you absolutely must try every tired, pork-bellied, government expansion project that the most detached liberal ideologue can dream up just before your midterm slapdown. After your midterm slapdown, then comes the real governing. Under Clinton, Hillarycare failed, and we all know that Obamacare passed, but the strategy was the same.
The next step, it appears, is also the same. Not only does a fed pay freeze help immunize Obama from the political liability of being in lockstep with federal employee unions, it also gives him a strong (measured by the reception of the idiots who vote) argument against further concessions in federal employee numbers and wages. I already made them sacrifice! Still, Clinton needed welfare reform to really prove that he had moderated, all his school uniforms and V-chip nickle and dime stuff didn't sell the moderate label, it was a miracle most theorists once thought impossible...welfare reform.
There are a few things that might qualify Obama as a moderate. Keep in mind that he needs to be seen fighting the government employee mafias that keep a knife to the throat of America.
1. Major, systemic, wholesale, education reform. This would mean something like, mandating performance pay for teachers by making all federal assistance dependent upon it. As a home run, he could set new rules for teacher's unions, perhaps making them optional rather than required.
2. Broader Government union reform. Ban government unions from spending money on elections that pick politicians that have the power to use guns to give the unions more money. This is my most awesome idea because it helps do away with the incestuous relationship between democratic government and its employees. (Taxdollars that are mandated to go toward the election of politicians that will send more taxdollars to go toward the election of the same politicians.) This idea has numerous problems including states' rights issues, free speech issues, and the simple fact that Obama might lose his own primary if he did this.
3. Serious steps to reduce the deficit. These could include, reduction of DOD budget through (tacit) admission of defeat in AF-Pack and Iraq, substantial cuts in the federal workforce, elimination of foreign aid to criminal dictators, common sense entitlement reforms like: eliminating the employer health-care exemption, raising the social security age, reducing benefits for the wealthy, making healthcare available in a national market etc.. HOME RUN: Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced budget. I know, dream on.
4. Complete Tax overhaul. David Brooks touched on this http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/opinion/03brooks.html
The Heritage Foundation believes this would reduce the deficit 65b a year and create over 2million new jobs. It would lower tax rates for almost everyone while raising revenue, have a direct positive impact on everyday people's lives, empower small businesses and entrepreneurs, and best of all it could be sold to both parties. Not only is this the most possible on this list, it is quite possibly the best. It would need to follow the mold of the 1986 resimplification and do away with the thousands and tens of thousands of loopholes, credits, confusions and complications that make everyone sick to their stomach in early April. This doesn't do away with Obama's union problem, but a few more symbolic moves--such as a hiring freeze-- and he could earn a label as a moderate in one fell swoop. Lower corporate taxes while he's at it, and we've got the best president since...well...since...I don't even know.
In short, Bambi is a politician and as a teacher once told me, all politicians can be explained with a single acronym, SMSR, Single Minded Seekers of Re-election. The lefty stuff is going nowhere, so bring on the Tri. (that's a play on Bi--for those of you who don't know what that means I suggest you make younger friends). So that's it Bambi, just choose from 1-4 above and consider me your new biggest fan. Easy huh? I'm a pushover. (Again, younger friends)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)