Great hopes make great men.
Thomas Fuller
Kathleen Parker, "The Palinization of the GOP": Thumbs UP!
I GUARANTEE one of the top articles that will go around the media conservative circuit over the coming week. I'm not going to analyze the article in depth here, but I've already read a conservative rant or two against it (cited on the RCP home page today). The general gist is this: media conservatives are attempting to portray Mitt Romney as the "establishment GOP candidate" versus the "authentic conservative" being, in various stages, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich. The "establishment candidate" is variously described as a "Republican-in-name-only", "Obama-Lite", etc. This is predictable, disingenuous hubris.
I have been probably one of the most consistent Palin critics among conservtive bloggers. But let's get the core of what Ms. Parker is talking about. First of all, there's the "red meat" rhetoric: the more judgmental and personal you get, the better. I think I write some of the best Obama jokes on the Internet. But I'm more subtle about it. I'll give a simple example: during a recent post, I wrote that it's time for the American people to elect a real President, not someone whom plays one on TV. This was a swipe at the overexposed Obama, whom leads from behind, is defensive and inflexible, one of the worst communicators, negotiators and political tacticians in the history of the American Presidency. What I just said is counter to the current myth of Obama: he has impressive oratorical skills, but that's not the same as being an excellent communicator. I've written articles in tech communication journals: the standard principle we always start off with is to know your audience.
Obama gave at least 3 dozen speeches on so-called healthcare reform, many if not most repetitive in nature. He was absolutely confident that the people were not rejecting his reforms--he just hadn't found the right phrasing; he had somehow failed to communicate the "compelling" rationale. This was hubris. The people rejected the policies. He failed to understand the salient fact that he was touching on a third rail of American politics: people's private sector health care. People like their health care choices. When you impose massive change on a system, people are wary that it will change the status quo--and probably not for the better. The law of unintended consequences is at play. The President should have known better.
One of my most persistent criticisms of Sarah Palin had to do with her 2006 gubernatorial campaign. She didn't have a stand on many Alaskan legislative issues, but she basically gave this "aw, shucks" performance: she was just an ordinary housewife busy raising kids and didn't have time to spend figuring out what those career politicians were doing in the state capitol. You might not have known she had spent several years as mayor, had served on a state commission and in fact had been considered as a replacement for Governor Murkowski's former US Senate seat. She also took cheap shots at her general election opponents, one a former governor and the other a state legislative leader, saying they might qualify to serve as a cook and a statistician in her administration. Some may think that's funny, but there's an anti-intellectual spirit to it.
I'm a little sensitive to this issue because I faced anti-intellectual bias trying to reestablish an IT professional career in a slumping academic market. In fact, I was specifically told off the record to drop any mention of my PhD in MIS, that most IT managers viewed academics as ivory-tower idealists whom can't function in the practical business world. (For the most part, I can verify that prejudice does exist, although my Indian, Asian, and Latin American colleagues are favorably impressed. Some companies have research areas where those credentials may be appreciated, but I was never recruited into a research position.) But I found validation in a different way. A year or two back I started getting UH snail mail solicitations and occasional fundraising calls. I wasn't thrilled to see the mailings reference my MBA over my doctorate. So when one of the UH fundraisers called me, I brought up the topic and she promised to follow up. She later told me that others in my position felt (at least from a professional perspective) the MBA was more marketable, and they generally preferred to be addressed as such. The UH Alumni Association accommodated my change request.
I don't like anti-intellectualism in politics (or, in more specific terms, populism). I don't think those in public service should engage in name calling, distortions, inflammatory accusations, or rehearsed sound bites. When Cain went after the Perry campaign and then after the Democratic operatives regarding his sexual harassment charges, the fact of that matter is that the charges happened on his watch as CEO at NRA. He knew that these kind of details might surface either from the opposition or news media when he entered into politics. The source or motivation of the leak is irrelevant. I was also unhappy with Perry's use of the "Americans are lazy" snippet from an Obama speech out of context. When I wrote a relevant commentary on the full context the other day, I refuted Obama's charge (that the issue of foreign investment in American plants, etc. was because we were doing a poor job of marketing America--I pointed out that foreign companies invest for a number of objective reasons, not some mindless sales pitch; American's business tax and regulatory burden simply isn't competitive, and we need to become more competitive).
But I'm also sensitive to science issues, particularly on issues like creationism (vs. evolution) and the global warming kerfuffle. Unlike Jon Huntsman, I don't judge science by counting the groupthink noses of non-climate scientists in the National Academy of Science. I do realize that a paradigm shift in science always meets resistance from the status quo scientists. I was more concerned with scientific ethics in the Climategate scandal. But it's a rejection of process, not substance. Republicans need to be respectful of the scientific method and the work of scientists and not allow themselves to be defined by a group, say, anxious to find validation for the Biblical account of the origins of planet Earth.
Now let's talk about ideological purity. To beat an incumbent President, even a weakened, incompetent one like Barack Obama, one must build a broad center-right coalition. We already have one of the most ideologically pure Presidents since FDR. People are tired of ideological stalemate in Washington--low Congressional approval ratings under 15% demonstrate that. And however Obama feels with 42% approval ratings, he also realizes that his approvals are three times that of Congress and will likely run a campaign against a do-nothing Republican House and months of negative campaign ads against the GOP nominee.
Prior to the race as it's evolved, it was almost a given the GOP, with a rich stable of sitting or former governors: Daniels (my favorite), Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Barbour, Pataki, Christie, Perry, Gary Johnson, Jeb Bush, and/or Huntsman (among others), would nominate an able administrator, preferably with blue or purple state support, to run against Obama. Even though I consider Obama's intelligence overrated, he can certainly hold his own against many, if not most of the active candidates. We have 4 current/former legislators (Paul, Bachmann, Santorum, and Gingrich).
Rick Perry has a lot of campaign money, but he and Herman Cain have been hurt by different things; I don't see a way for Perry to overcome his debate moments. What's become very clear is that moderates and independents will not support these candidates. The only one who has been consistently able to compete against Obama is Romney. Whatever issues are important to the base, what's important to know is that Romney is focusing on the economy and Obama, and he has a story to tell that he's a competent manager and can work with an opposition. No matter what happens next November, the Senate will have a minority with the weapon of a filibuster. Ideology will not win the day. A lot of what Romney can do depends on how much of the Senate can turnover next fall. Gingrich can also argue negotiation skills, but he has high unfavorables and he has a lot of baggage that can be exploited by Romney or Obama.
I am particular irked by the cheap pops, e.g., Gingrich's attacks on moderators or the media and Cain's finding a virtue in his lack of federal experience to the wild applause. The former point is a trite complaint; haven't we heard enough complaints from Obama about the poor hand he's been dealt; we get it: the media doesn't play even-handed. Life isn't fair: move on. The last thing we want is a war between the President and the media. We are looking at another $10T over the coming decade to a $15T debt, which already approaches the credit limit for a $15T economy. I submit wasting time complaining about the media instead of fixing the nation's problems is not something any conservative should be cheering.
The latter is the flip side of Barack Obama whom also ran on similar grounds, announcing his bid for the Presidency just 2 years into his first Senate term. Obama, like Cain, did not have public sector executive experience and ran against Washington. The idea that Cain can come into Washington and have his way with the likes on Reid, Schumer, Durbin, and Pelosi over 30-second populist sound bites is sheer madness.
My general assessment of the field right now:
- Ron Paul. Arguably along with Romney, the brainiest of the candidates, philosophically more consistent and distinct. He lacks management experience and has only limited influence with his fellow Congressional members. Certain issues, like drug legalization and foreign policy, do not go over well with the mainstream.
- Mitt Romney. He's clearly the favorite to win the nomination. His pragmatic issue position shifts are viewed with disdain by media conservatives. I'm a little concerned about his strong statements about Iran and his tough talk on China and currency; he needs to avoid getting tied down on specifics, and compare and contrast his decision-making style versus Obama's, including R&D on national defense, spreading involvement across Africa and Middle East, etc.
- Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is certainly articulate and he's freshened up the Reagan/Bush agenda. He lacks executive experience, and I fully expect attacks on major issue shifts on green power and health insurance mandates. Paul and Romney are better debaters, hands down: there's a difference between being articulate and a good debater. Gingrich is predictable, and that's a problem.
- Herman Cain. I see other conservative columnists whom wanted to support Cain, especially given the nature of the sexual harassment charges, whom have made similar observations about the Libya interview moment. That was 50 times worse than Perry's brain freeze moment. He's now beginning to sink in the polls, with the latest Fox News poll showing him well behind Gingrich and Romney.
- Rick Perry. He's got the money and might be able to leapfrog back up after Gingrich and Cain fail, but he's not doing well in head to heads against Obama, and I don't like the ads he's running. He needs to avoid a scorched earth strategy against Romney or else he'll kill his 2016 chances.
- Michele Bachmann. I think Bachmann may be the only viable not-Romney candidate if and when Gingrich fails. I think she can go after Gingrich, but her campaign is running on fumes
- Other Candidates. It's theoretically possible for Santorum to be given a shot if and when Gingrich fails, but an incumbent senator being trounced by Casey in 2006 makes it inconceivable. Huntsman and Johnson barely measure within statistical significance.
The College Student Loan Debate & Federal Education Spending
I wrote a commentary several days back on the Barack Obama college loan initiative. I've addressed many of the points in the embedded video below, but it's a good summary. As I recall, this program is a tweak of an existing bad law; I wasn't aware of the loan forgiveness portion already existing in the program, which is clearly extraordinarily bad public policy: why should the government be in the bank business for which it has no core competence? Even if it is, why would it forgive up to six-figure debts--at all? Why should the taxpayer be taking on the risk of student default? But as I recall, Obama made a few minor tweaks: cap loan payments at a fixed percentage of income (which would tend to increase the risk of taxpayer loss), push up the forgiveness eligibility date by 5 years to 20 (I would think any payments at all during the interim 5 years of the loan would mitigate taxpayer loss), and allow folding of certain private-sector originating federally-guaranteed loans with direct government loans. Now in reality, the average consolidated student loan is more like the cost of a new intermediate car and 10 years in length, so many of these tweaks have a modest effect, but it add to an already unsustainable national debt.
Rick Perry and other conservatives recently underscored a desire to see the elimination of the Department of Education: this is a classic federalism/tenth amendment issue given traditional state/local governance of public education. Although the Heritage post relating to education spending in the 2009 stimulus bill has a dated context, its basic points are still relevant. I want to summarize some of the basic 10 points:
- the federal government engages in moral hazard in education funding by bailing out state/local governments
- federal government education programs are poorly managed and controlled,
- federal program benefits (e.g., of early childhood programs) are, at best, temporary in nature
- federal funds are managed top-down versus more competently delegated to local management
- federal programs are biased towards public alternatives versus more inexpensive, often as or more effective private competitors
- school construction funding is not only morally hazardous but pushing-on-a-string, questionable (i.e., neo-Keynesian) economics that has little bearing on educational objectives
- colleges game federal subsidies (loans, grants, etc.) into pricing, meaning that college loans don't solve the unsustainable college cost bubble (up nearly three-quarters over the past decade) but contribute to it
- federal education programs over the past few decades have failed to deliver on improving primary effectiveness criteria (e.g., student achievement, graduation rates)
- the Department of Education is bloated and incompetently administered
Political Humor
"There was another Republican debate on Saturday, and listen to this: Ron Paul only got 89 seconds to speak. Seriously? Rick Perry gets more time than that to try to remember something." - Jimmy Fallon
[Ron Paul has a plan to triple his speaking time: he's agreed to serve as the lifeline to Rick Perry and Herman Cain during the "Who Wants To Be a One-Percenter?" round of the debates.]
Some originals:
- What is the Senate Democrats' favorite game show? "Let's Make a Deal"
- What game show did former Congressman Christopher Lee get caught playing? "The Dating Game"
- What was William Jefferson's favorite game show? "The Price is Right"
- What is the Super Committee's favorite game show? "Deal or No Deal"
- What game show do loan officers in the Obama Administration qualify for? "Wipeout"
- What game most aptly describes Congressional hearings? "Trivial Pursuit"
- What game show does Bill Clinton have the hardest time playing? "To Tell the Truth"
- What game show had as a grand prize former Governor Palin's emails? "Password"
- What game show do INS agents routinely fail to qualify for? "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?"
- What game is Obama and Congressional Democrats playing with unfunded liabilities? "The $45.8T Pyramid (Scheme)"
- Which game show has Newt Gingrich qualified for more than any other Presidential candidate? "The Newlywed Game"
- What game show did Herman Cain recently fail to qualify for? "Concentration"
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Boston, "Amanda". I don't think any artist can conceive and perform a better example of a pop ballad. This is not to say I'm satisfied with the songwriting, particularly the bridge verses. Most of us guys know from dating experience if you admit to your feelings too soon in the relationship, it can backfire and your lady may break things off. There's a bit of game playing going on: the thrill of the chase, etc. (ABBA explored a similar theme in "The Name of the Game".) The way I would have bridged off that theme would have been to say something like, "I'm going to seize this opportunity; I don't want to chance your moving on, not realizing how I feel about you." Instead the bridge seems to come across to me like a cheesy line from a teenage boy trying to talk his girlfriend into sex, e.g., "the world could end tomorrow without our making love even once." I think the song would have been more effective if the songwriter left a little something to the imagination.
But I know that die-hard Boston fans wouldn't touch a thing and would consider my questioning a rock classic heresy (I understand that feeling--I love Eric Clapton's original Layla, but I would picket his acoustic version: a rock guitar virtuoso should not be allowed to retool the primal scream of a man pining for his lady into a sleepy jazz number). That's what inspires some of us to write our own songs.
