The Commonwealth Book Club will discuss "Three Cups of Tea", by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin, at its March 14 meeting. Location TBA, but most likely the Hopewell Library. New members are welcome.
The Commonwealth Book Club is in its fourth year. We have around twelve active members and average about seven per session. Our goal, thus far met, is to read and discuss ten "serious" books per annum. Upcoming authors include Thomas Friedman and Malcomb Gladwell, and I'm lobbying the group to read a good biography of Andrew Jackson.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
"To Govern is To Choose"
It's an old saying, but age does not lessen its truth: "To govern is to choose."
The more I watch our new President, the more I doubt his understanding of this fundamental principle. The stimulus package seemed to have something - indeed, a great deal - for almost everyone. There was little evidence of choice. We can do it all, the President said - borrowing a trillion or two now and paying it back later.
Now comes the new budget outline, following the same paradigm. Plenty for everyone, and it will all be paid for (and the deficit halved) by rising receipts when the boom-time economy magically returns in a year or two.
Once again - for the third presidency in a row - I have the impression that there are no adults in the White House. Clinton made choices, true, but his choices were political choices - forced upon him when the opposition took control of Congress. Bush spent like a Democrat - especially on his war and his military toys - fully expecting the prosperity bandwagon to roll on forever. And now, Mr. Obama seems bent on outdoing them both!
The great irony is, of course, that the very generation which worked ceaselessly to elect Mr. Obama stands to pick up the tab for his undisciplined approach. When the bills eventually come due - which can hardly be that long - it is the Millennials who will face the huge interest payments, dwindling discretionary funds, bloated bureaucracy, decaying environment, and hordes of foreign creditors demanding their pound of flesh.
Three years ago, I was a Democrat - a member of the Virginia State Central Committee. But the longer I hung around Democrats, the more I realized that most rank-and-file Democrats live in a parallel mental universe where nothing has a cost and good intentions justify the worst policy choices.
The best thing that can be said for Democrats seemed to be this: They aren't Republicans.
But that wasn't enough. I quit the Democratic Party (for the second time) and have decided from now on to have nothing to do with either party. Neither has the slightest idea of fiscal discipline - or of making any hard decisions which conflict with their desire to win elections.
I say, "a plague on both their houses!" We need something new - a party of virtue, willing to declare that the Emperor (Republican or Democrat) has no clothes.
Let it start here.
Obama is a superb politician, but nothing more. He looks very good right now, because he is willing to promise everything to everyone, at no cost to anyone. But that will pall, in time. Americans, too accustomed to facing their own dismal finances, aren't about to believe Mr. Obama's sub-prime budget-making for long.
Too bad their only alternative is to elect Republicans in 2010, or 2012...
The more I watch our new President, the more I doubt his understanding of this fundamental principle. The stimulus package seemed to have something - indeed, a great deal - for almost everyone. There was little evidence of choice. We can do it all, the President said - borrowing a trillion or two now and paying it back later.
Now comes the new budget outline, following the same paradigm. Plenty for everyone, and it will all be paid for (and the deficit halved) by rising receipts when the boom-time economy magically returns in a year or two.
Once again - for the third presidency in a row - I have the impression that there are no adults in the White House. Clinton made choices, true, but his choices were political choices - forced upon him when the opposition took control of Congress. Bush spent like a Democrat - especially on his war and his military toys - fully expecting the prosperity bandwagon to roll on forever. And now, Mr. Obama seems bent on outdoing them both!
The great irony is, of course, that the very generation which worked ceaselessly to elect Mr. Obama stands to pick up the tab for his undisciplined approach. When the bills eventually come due - which can hardly be that long - it is the Millennials who will face the huge interest payments, dwindling discretionary funds, bloated bureaucracy, decaying environment, and hordes of foreign creditors demanding their pound of flesh.
Three years ago, I was a Democrat - a member of the Virginia State Central Committee. But the longer I hung around Democrats, the more I realized that most rank-and-file Democrats live in a parallel mental universe where nothing has a cost and good intentions justify the worst policy choices.
The best thing that can be said for Democrats seemed to be this: They aren't Republicans.
But that wasn't enough. I quit the Democratic Party (for the second time) and have decided from now on to have nothing to do with either party. Neither has the slightest idea of fiscal discipline - or of making any hard decisions which conflict with their desire to win elections.
I say, "a plague on both their houses!" We need something new - a party of virtue, willing to declare that the Emperor (Republican or Democrat) has no clothes.
Let it start here.
Obama is a superb politician, but nothing more. He looks very good right now, because he is willing to promise everything to everyone, at no cost to anyone. But that will pall, in time. Americans, too accustomed to facing their own dismal finances, aren't about to believe Mr. Obama's sub-prime budget-making for long.
Too bad their only alternative is to elect Republicans in 2010, or 2012...
Friday, February 20, 2009
There's Something about Barry.
Just a quick thought for this busy day: I keep wondering when President Obama will move beyond campaign mode and start outlining a future for the country.
As the candidate of the "out" party, running against a monumentally unpopular President - and make no mistake, Mr. Obama ran against President Bush, not John McCain - candidate Obama consistently defined himself in terms of his differences with the last administration. Even when his tone was positive, he spoke in terms of what he wasn't for, what he wouldn't do.
It worked brilliantly, but this is no longer the campaign.
The other day, in The New York Times, columnist Bob Herbert quoted the President as follows:
“Now, I have to say that given that they were running the show for a pretty long time prior to me getting there, and that their theory was tested pretty thoroughly and it’s landed us in the situation where we’ve got over a trillion-dollars’ worth of debt and the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression, I think I have a better argument in terms of economic thinking.”
Read that carefully. The central assertion goes something like this: "I must be right, because the other guys were so very, very wrong."
As a rare progressive supporting John McCain, I ran into that logical fallacy again and again during the campaign. In essence, the case for Mr. Obama seems to have been, "Sure, he's not very experienced or tested. But at least he's not Bush. Bush has been so awful, Obama's got to be an improvement!"
Which, of course, ignored the fact that John McCain, also, wasn't George W. Bush. The fundamental mistake of McCain's campaign was his failure to make that apparent - and, indeed, doing almost everything he could to make himself look like America's least popular politician.
But it also ignored the very real possibility that a bad president can be succeeded by another equally bad, or even worse. Take, for example, Franklin Pierce and his successor, James Buchanan.
Here's my point: President Obama is still working that same line. The Bush policies were a failure, therefore mine will be better. They were wrong, so I must be right.
Look at the quotation again. Mr. Obama never actually says what his argument is. He says that the Bush policies were disastrous - which is manifestly true - and then insists on the conclusion that "I have a better argument".
Really?
The deeper we go into this recession, and the longer I watch this administration, the more I fear that there is no guiding vision behind the Obama economic policy. It seems to consist of gestures and sound-bites, e.g., protectionist steel policy in the stimulus package, balanced by assurances that the new legislation means nothing if it contradicts our treaty obligations.
That's campaign stuff: A gesture to Group A, another to Group B. Baffle 'em with bullshit. Make policy after you're elected.
Well, you've been elected, Mr. Obama. The first of your 48 months has flown by. And we still don't have anything like a vision of the America which will emerge from this economic crisis.
The campaign is over, or should be. If you start running for re-election this early, I promise you, it ain't gonna happen.
This is one of those relatively rare times when the best political strategy is to govern well.
As the candidate of the "out" party, running against a monumentally unpopular President - and make no mistake, Mr. Obama ran against President Bush, not John McCain - candidate Obama consistently defined himself in terms of his differences with the last administration. Even when his tone was positive, he spoke in terms of what he wasn't for, what he wouldn't do.
It worked brilliantly, but this is no longer the campaign.
The other day, in The New York Times, columnist Bob Herbert quoted the President as follows:
“Now, I have to say that given that they were running the show for a pretty long time prior to me getting there, and that their theory was tested pretty thoroughly and it’s landed us in the situation where we’ve got over a trillion-dollars’ worth of debt and the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression, I think I have a better argument in terms of economic thinking.”
Read that carefully. The central assertion goes something like this: "I must be right, because the other guys were so very, very wrong."
As a rare progressive supporting John McCain, I ran into that logical fallacy again and again during the campaign. In essence, the case for Mr. Obama seems to have been, "Sure, he's not very experienced or tested. But at least he's not Bush. Bush has been so awful, Obama's got to be an improvement!"
Which, of course, ignored the fact that John McCain, also, wasn't George W. Bush. The fundamental mistake of McCain's campaign was his failure to make that apparent - and, indeed, doing almost everything he could to make himself look like America's least popular politician.
But it also ignored the very real possibility that a bad president can be succeeded by another equally bad, or even worse. Take, for example, Franklin Pierce and his successor, James Buchanan.
Here's my point: President Obama is still working that same line. The Bush policies were a failure, therefore mine will be better. They were wrong, so I must be right.
Look at the quotation again. Mr. Obama never actually says what his argument is. He says that the Bush policies were disastrous - which is manifestly true - and then insists on the conclusion that "I have a better argument".
Really?
The deeper we go into this recession, and the longer I watch this administration, the more I fear that there is no guiding vision behind the Obama economic policy. It seems to consist of gestures and sound-bites, e.g., protectionist steel policy in the stimulus package, balanced by assurances that the new legislation means nothing if it contradicts our treaty obligations.
That's campaign stuff: A gesture to Group A, another to Group B. Baffle 'em with bullshit. Make policy after you're elected.
Well, you've been elected, Mr. Obama. The first of your 48 months has flown by. And we still don't have anything like a vision of the America which will emerge from this economic crisis.
The campaign is over, or should be. If you start running for re-election this early, I promise you, it ain't gonna happen.
This is one of those relatively rare times when the best political strategy is to govern well.
Friday, February 13, 2009
A Fresh Start.
I have been away from this space for too long - from writing for too long. The hiatus I took from the Village News last fall has evolved into a permanent parting of the ways. I wish my old weekly well, but we are no longer moving toward the same horizon.
This blog, and its sister, must of necessity become my principal outlet. When we survive this economic crisis - and if newspapers do - I'd like to see my thoughts in print again. But for now, here we are - a little blog, with aspirations.
Above all, my hope for this blog - and for everything I do in the public sphere - will be to create a movement for a third political entity. For lack of an alternate term, a third party - but with this distinction. I'd like to see a third party which defined itself - not in terms of winning elections - but in terms of moving the public conversation forward. A party inspired by the example of the anti-slavery parties of the 1830's and 1840's - the stubborn, righteous little parties which eventually shattered the Whig coalition and gave rise to the intelligent, forward-looking, and relatively virtuous Republican Party of Lincoln.
I'll stop for a moment to reiterate this point, because it seems so utterly at odds with what the "political scientists" preach. I'd like to build a party which defined itself in terms of moving the national conversation forward. A party willing to lose an election - or many elections - in order to make itself heard. A party willing, indeed, to sabotage certain types of candidates - particularly those cold-blooded narcissists who run in the name of good ideas and noble ideals, but in the service of themselves, alone.
It will take me some time to define with any precision where this party would stand, but a starting place would be with the liberal Republican tradition - the tradition of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, of Wendell Willkie and Everett Dirksen, of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Christopher Shays. I seek a party which can balance a maximum of individual liberty with an understanding that we all have a moral, as well as legal, obligation to the greater good - what the Founders would have called the commonwealth philosophy. A party which, as part of that greater good, felt a strong commitment to preserving a liveable environment for our children and grandchildren.
A party which, if it held a few seats in the present Congress, would be equally impatient with the right-wing Republicans' capitalistic myopia and the Democrats' Euro-socialist opportunism.
A party which might support the new President from time to time, but which would consistently urge a longer-range vision.
For this much is certainly true: America - and the rest of the world - will be remade by the current crisis. There is a way to emerge from this as a better society, and that way is almost certainly not to be found the in ideas of New Deal-New Frontier-Great Society statism. Nor is it to be found in propping up an obsolete automobile industry; nor in preserving legal and policy environment which has enriched the developers and bankers and given us suburban sprawl; nor in infusing new life into an employment-based health insurance system which serves to keep bright people working for large corporations instead of freeing them to start new, small enterprises.
I hope my old readers and friends will find me here - and that they will give me the time to make my case. Much of what I say will be uncongenial to supporters of President Obama - and downright heresy to the supporters of his predecessor. Indeed, supporters of each will be horrified to learn that I regard them as more similar than otherwise - as I find their two parties more alike than the only two alternatives in a political society have any right being.
At any rate, I ask you to come with me on a continuous thought experiment. I've always thought outside the box, and my regular readers have learned that I occasionally come up with a thought worth pondering. It's all a matter of turning off that internal editor which automatically rejects anything truly different.
For what we need now, most assuredly, is something different - something new. Perhaps something so old that it appears new.
And so, to begin...
This blog, and its sister, must of necessity become my principal outlet. When we survive this economic crisis - and if newspapers do - I'd like to see my thoughts in print again. But for now, here we are - a little blog, with aspirations.
Above all, my hope for this blog - and for everything I do in the public sphere - will be to create a movement for a third political entity. For lack of an alternate term, a third party - but with this distinction. I'd like to see a third party which defined itself - not in terms of winning elections - but in terms of moving the public conversation forward. A party inspired by the example of the anti-slavery parties of the 1830's and 1840's - the stubborn, righteous little parties which eventually shattered the Whig coalition and gave rise to the intelligent, forward-looking, and relatively virtuous Republican Party of Lincoln.
I'll stop for a moment to reiterate this point, because it seems so utterly at odds with what the "political scientists" preach. I'd like to build a party which defined itself in terms of moving the national conversation forward. A party willing to lose an election - or many elections - in order to make itself heard. A party willing, indeed, to sabotage certain types of candidates - particularly those cold-blooded narcissists who run in the name of good ideas and noble ideals, but in the service of themselves, alone.
It will take me some time to define with any precision where this party would stand, but a starting place would be with the liberal Republican tradition - the tradition of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, of Wendell Willkie and Everett Dirksen, of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Christopher Shays. I seek a party which can balance a maximum of individual liberty with an understanding that we all have a moral, as well as legal, obligation to the greater good - what the Founders would have called the commonwealth philosophy. A party which, as part of that greater good, felt a strong commitment to preserving a liveable environment for our children and grandchildren.
A party which, if it held a few seats in the present Congress, would be equally impatient with the right-wing Republicans' capitalistic myopia and the Democrats' Euro-socialist opportunism.
A party which might support the new President from time to time, but which would consistently urge a longer-range vision.
For this much is certainly true: America - and the rest of the world - will be remade by the current crisis. There is a way to emerge from this as a better society, and that way is almost certainly not to be found the in ideas of New Deal-New Frontier-Great Society statism. Nor is it to be found in propping up an obsolete automobile industry; nor in preserving legal and policy environment which has enriched the developers and bankers and given us suburban sprawl; nor in infusing new life into an employment-based health insurance system which serves to keep bright people working for large corporations instead of freeing them to start new, small enterprises.
I hope my old readers and friends will find me here - and that they will give me the time to make my case. Much of what I say will be uncongenial to supporters of President Obama - and downright heresy to the supporters of his predecessor. Indeed, supporters of each will be horrified to learn that I regard them as more similar than otherwise - as I find their two parties more alike than the only two alternatives in a political society have any right being.
At any rate, I ask you to come with me on a continuous thought experiment. I've always thought outside the box, and my regular readers have learned that I occasionally come up with a thought worth pondering. It's all a matter of turning off that internal editor which automatically rejects anything truly different.
For what we need now, most assuredly, is something different - something new. Perhaps something so old that it appears new.
And so, to begin...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)