Monthly Archives: January 2010

In our world of instant gratification and twitter, we as a people want fast solutions to problems. If you really think about it everything is instant this and instant that. The problem, in my personal view, is that this is spilling over into politics. While it is not new argument, it is changing how politicians are politicking in today’s society.

One great example is on jobs and the economy. While the picture is stark and not that promising for people who have lost their jobs, especially with unemployment at 10%, people are looking for a quick solution to give them a job. It is very similar with economic stimulus, as soon as it was passed people wanted results right way, not knowing that it will take months to actually take effect. I agree that the economy is in shambles at the current moment, but at the same time it does not really help the world by having people continue to nag and want a coherent economic policy to solve it right away. Most economic solutions take months to actually take effect.

Another example is on foreign policy. Diplomacy is slow and so is economic investment and development in a country. So, for a quick foreign policy fix using the military is often the solution to any foreign policy quagmire, Republican or Democratic president. The problem, once again, is that using military options usually leads to bad decision making and even a truth commission to investigate war crimes later, its like trying to remember what happened after a hangover.

So, why do politicians go to these “quick fix” solutions if they usually end up in a bad result. The simple explanation is popular demand. Think about it, if the public is anxious about something, they will demand that their politician do something about it right away. If the politician refuses to the action, he will loose his seat in the next election. So, in the end political expediency trades off with short term gain.

The reason that I find this so important is because I have noticed that Obama, a man who is very thoughtful and thinks longterm on most of his political expeditions, is starting to give into this feeling of “quick fix” politics, resulting in bad policies. Part of this is from populist pressure and also because his party is in big trouble. For example, healthcare, a long term solutions is basically dead, cap and trade, a long term solution is dead, and even a continuing negotiation with Iran is now dead. These solutions, while they might take a long time are desperately needed to stave off catastrophe later.

If I had one message for Obama, it would be not to give into the demands of “quick fix” politics. He should remember that a bad “quick fix” could lead to a quick exit for him in the midterm elections or in the next presidential election..

NYT Op-ed contributor, Thomas Friedman, described how Obama was going to have to use his analytical strength over using populist anger to try and win over the people. While I think that Obama used a mixture of both to try and win over the American people, a style of pandering that does not usually go over well with political pundits, he was definitely able to do one specific thing that he is very good at, continuing to push forth is old agenda without creating adaptation to new ideas. It might seem strange for me to comment on the State of Union address this way, especially with man who is dedicated to change, but in my humble opinion this seems to be just a facade. In order to get my point across better, I will analyze each major section of the State of the Union showing where he is killing the horse.

Economy

If I had to pick a topic of the night, I would have to say that the economy would win by a landslide, and respectively, it should have. This area is complex. Breaking down a difficult subject area in order to try and convince the American populace is like explaining quantum physics to non-scientists.

Good: Obama came out strong by announcing the official numbers, describing how he had not raised income taxes and showed the bank bailout was necessary, even though it was comparable to getting a root canal. On that point, he also mentioned small microlevel solutions, such as tax credits for small businesses, which probably will win over the teabaggers. He also used strong anecdotal stories to show that he knew the problems of the people and sympathized with them, always a tearjerker:(

Bad: This is where Obama beat the dead horse, he discussed the U.S. role in the international economy showing similar solutions that were under Bush’s term, such as free trade agreements with South Korea and the long dead DOHA round of trade talks, arguably none would actually stimulate the economy during this time. He also should have talked more about education, I will elaborate latter on this, to show how getting a college degree could save the U.S. money in the long run, not even his tax credits can save him on this point. Keeping jobs on a American soil was another point that was reiterated over and over again, I thought I was watching the Republican response for a second. This really does not do anything but irritate China and other nations. We can’t say that we will participate in the global economy and engage in protectionism, the G-20 basically settled that point last March. Finally, Obama needs to tell the people in the audience that Ben Bernake should stay as the Federal Reserve Chairman. While I would argue that he did keep interest rates too low for too long, he did rescue the world from recession. In essence, it has been a big argument amongst congress, so Obama should show the world that he wants Bernake, a Great Depression scholar, to stay in the job.

Education

This was a very sad point for me. While I agree with his premise that a college diploma is necessary and that schools need more funding, he is missing a big place that he can score political points. Arne Duncan, the current Secretary of Education, proposed a plan that is in action now called “Race to the Top” in which states compete for federal grants and the best teachers, it really can work. Obama should expand on this initiative. He should not set a date on when we will reach these standards, but at least give the American people something to shoot for. For example, he could follow up on an initiative to increase math and science standards, something that we dreadfully lack in.

Healthcare

Obama should have done more than say, “We can’t give up now.” He did acknowledge failure on his part to explain the bill, but he should have done more than that. What Obama needs to do is talk more specifically about how Healthcare helps the economy. That would have created a better connecting theme to the economy. Americans want an answer to this question, just reiterating the same old jargon about healthcare that most people already know will not make things better, it will just show that he wants to get his domestic agenda through. Telling people why he spent so much of his political capital on the topic is important though.

Energy

This also produced the same solutions that we have heard before, like offshore drilling, more nuclear power plants, we will contribute to the global alternative energy market, etc. If Obama really wanted to impress the crowd, and create a feeling of awkwardness amongst Congress members, he should have talked more in detail about cap and trade. This is something that is his big initiative, I think that most Americans don’t understand it, so having some explanation would be nice. Finally, he could have talked about Copenhagen. This conference was ultimately a bust, but it did produce a few agreements. Tell the world where we will go with this framework and how the U.S. will go into Mexico City next year high with pride to define the global climate change agenda. He should have also linked energy more to the economy.

Foreign Policy

This is an area that I was sadly very disappointed in as a listener. With one of the most ambitious foreign policy agendas of any president, and a Noble Prize winner, he should have kept this horse alive. I will dissect each area one by one:

Two Wars: While it is understandable that he did not talk about both wars in depth due to the number of speeches he has give on the topic, I think that it would be nice I he spent more than 10 minutes on it. He should have discussed reintegration programs with the Taliban in Afghanistan and how in a while there will be a conference on the issue of Afghanistan security, Hillary Clinton even missed the State of the Union because she was at a conference on that very topic. Encouraging the troops is nice, discussing future plans for development is better.

Iran: This was a tough topic to deal with. Obama basically lumped Iran and North Korea together, which was a bad move (he might as well have used the Bush term axis of evil). In the end it was mostly about sanctions, but he should have elaborated on what part of the economy the sanctions should have targeted. Also, he should have talked about the possibility of going after a regime change in Iran, subtly of course since that has been on a lot of the news medias minds.

China: If the Chinese don’t yell at this speech for protectionism, as mentioned earlier, then I will be surprised. Obama should have discussed more about the G-2 initiative to work collaboratively with China on economic issues. Also, discussing the major currency revaluation of the remnbi would have been a nice gesture because of the strong foreign trade imbalance. Finally, Obama had an opportunity to talk about human rights and censoring with the recent Google controversy. While China might not like it, Obama would have won points with human rights activists – matching his rhetoric during his Nobel Prize lecture.

Bipartisanship

This is a very difficult issue. In fact, I was surprised that he talked about it so bluntly. He called out Republicans as the party of “No,” leaving Bob McDonnell with mere talking points, and he pressured his own party to not give up. I also like how he said we should listen to each other, but acknowledged that he needs to do a better job of that. If he really wanted to make a statement, he should have called for the end of the filibuster. It is a useless political tool that destroys debate, on both sides. It just creates a procedural barrier to real change. Tackling that hurdle would have sent a message.

Final Thoughts

While I am very critical of Obama here, I will say that he did a very good job. He came out confident, and with a very small agenda (with hardly any new items) to show that he is committed to his old programs. I would give Obama a B- for his performance. He did not address many critical points, and it mostly just political pandering. While I give him the grade because that is what he was supposed to do, it did not show strong leadership. We are in tough times, we need a leader not a panderer to “common sense” solutions. Obama should just bury the corpse of the horse and start riding a new one.

I Have decided to post my article from the Bracketyackon “Common Sense Conservatism,” it is still in its original format, which means not copied edited well. Please enjoy!

Common Sense: It Does Not Make Sense
By John Stang

Over the summer a stunning announcement was made to the world by the Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) when it announced that it was going to offer grilled chicken as a “healthier alternative” to its famously greasy fried chicken. This announcement made self proclaimed liberal comedian and host of Real Time, Bill Maher who humorously commented, “Its not the word fried I’m scared of, its Kentucky.”
This interesting line of reasoning can be applied to a bizarre counterculture movement called the teabaggers, who are against increased government spending, higher taxes, and further government “socialism” by President Obama. The movement is being lead by Fox News commentator Glenn Beck and former 2008 vice-presidential candidate and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin. Recently, Palin published a book titled Going Rogue: An American Life, which outlined her political career and her vision of American politics, calling it “Common Sense Conservatism.” Glenn Beck, believing himself to be the crusader of the middle class and a modern day Thomas Paine, with his book Common Sense outlined a similar thesis.
The main idea of Common Sense Conservatism is that of its self explanatory name, which is to use common sense to solve political problems. Examples of such common sense ideas are not running a deficit in times of economic crisis, preventing government programs from expanding, and a not taxing the middle class. The common sense solutions being offered by the supporters of this movement are to tighten the nation’s fiscal belt, use grassroots solutions for localized development, and have the government leave them alone. Whenever a liberal is critical of these solutions, they will often reply, in a Jack Nicholson sort of way, that they cannot handle the truth about Conservatism’s values and the idea that the government bureaucratic structure might be a bad idea.
But in a Bill Maher sort of fashion, it is not Conservatism that critics attack; it’s the notion of common sense. While common sense sounds like a great solution to problems, fundamentally it fails in an academic setting. Remember last time a president used “gut” solutions to solve problems, the U.S. ended up in two wars, several Whitehouse scandals, and a small thing called a recession caused continued deregulation and bad tax cuts, something the “Common Sense Conservatives” want to continue.
The point is that common sense is not trusted in any other academic discipline. In science there is the scientific method and empirical research, in economics there is empirical data supported various models, and in sociology there are different levels of analysis. Whether people like it or not politics is a science, hence the Platonic name of “Political Science.” Common sense often derives solutions of misnomers and wrong information. Common sense scientific ideas, for instance, did lead to blood letting, Aristotle’s notion of the Universe revolved around love, and that there were only four elements, earth wind, air, and fire.
What is often ironic about this common sense movement is they claim that the government is incompetent to do anything and proposes alternative options to problems. Yet, this same group is the home of the birthers, the deathers, and some who believe that Obama is a Muslim. While I do not dispute the values of Conservatism, many of the solutions have strong merits and are needed for a robust political debate, this new movement of “common sense/teabagger” brand of Republicans will set the U.S. up for failure in the future and is dangerous. Alas, while I am not a fan of this movement, I am with New York Times columnist David Brooks, when I say that this movement will probably not go away, and despite the ideas of ignorance common sense tells me it will probably be around for a long, long time.

To all my loyal fans:

Since I seem to be so popular, I have decided to create a blog where, in the words of Rita Yoe, all my “Ridiculousness” can come out. I will post as often as I can on political topics. I encourage open discussion on various topics. You do not have to be an expert to post, everyone is entitled to an opinion on this site. With that, I would like to address a few things that I will and will not do do:

1. This will not be a site for liberal propaganda (I will post all my political beliefs at a later date). Instead, I will take various positions on different topics.

2. Do not attack other people personally! Unless it is a person in the public domain, such as a celebrity or politican, making fun of people will not be tolerated on this blog and your posts will be deleted.

3. Have fun!

Enjoy being inside my head!

Thanks,
John