As of the end of last month, Sam is looking for consulting work in nonprofit fundraising, direct response and direct marketing.
He's a good strategist, copywriter, donor relations person, major gifts solicitor, etc.
So, contact him if interested: ydavis2053@comcast.net
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Who will be the next president?
Now that the race for the Democratic party's nomination is settled, we can begin asking the question, "Who will be the next president?" And, we may also ask, "Does it matter very much?"
The historic nature of the presumptive nomination of Barack Obama, the first African American to win a major party nod for president, will soon be overshadowed by the perceived leadership qualities of Obama versus John McCain.
As Gene Healy has pointed out in The Cult of the Presidency, Americans have come to regard the presidency as a sort of national messiahship, and over the last century most occupants of the office have responded by feeding the illusion one fallible human being can wave a magic wand and solve all our problems.
Both Obama and McCain will play to that century-old illusion, albeit in different ways. Once in office, either Obama or McCain will set about expanding the power and influence of the office, as have most of their predecessors starting with Teddy Roosevelt. And, at some point during his first or second term, a majority of Americans will be disillusioned thoroughly and long for the next national messiah to arrive on the scene.
And the cycle will repeat itself until we Americans grow up a bit and understand that individuals can solve their own problems, left alone and reasonably free to do so by government, but others cannot. This is the fundamental message both of classical liberalism and Buddhism, philosophies with very different cultural points of origin.
Who the next president is will matter in terms of whether there is more or less mischief visited on peaceful individuals here and people living in other countries, but not in epic, sweeping change. Obama in particular is attempting to depict this presidential election in that way, as epic legend in the making. McCain's approach is dialed a bit lower, but the same cultural motif is there. Seeing oneself as an epic hero or messiah is, by definition, demented, so what are we to make of the psychological profiles of these two men, one of whom will be the next president?
The relevant question we should ask ourselves, rather than who should be president, is "Why do we need an elected monarch at all? Isn't it time we moved on to a different, less authoritarian structure?"
My solution would be the plural presidency as pioneered in Switzerland. But only a change in our cultural expectations can bring about something as sane and rational as a committee exercising federal executive power by consensus. That change has to come from us, ordinary Americans.
Otherwise, this boom-and-bust cycle of high expectation, magical illusion and delusion, and bitter disappointment will continue for a long time.
The historic nature of the presumptive nomination of Barack Obama, the first African American to win a major party nod for president, will soon be overshadowed by the perceived leadership qualities of Obama versus John McCain.
As Gene Healy has pointed out in The Cult of the Presidency, Americans have come to regard the presidency as a sort of national messiahship, and over the last century most occupants of the office have responded by feeding the illusion one fallible human being can wave a magic wand and solve all our problems.
Both Obama and McCain will play to that century-old illusion, albeit in different ways. Once in office, either Obama or McCain will set about expanding the power and influence of the office, as have most of their predecessors starting with Teddy Roosevelt. And, at some point during his first or second term, a majority of Americans will be disillusioned thoroughly and long for the next national messiah to arrive on the scene.
And the cycle will repeat itself until we Americans grow up a bit and understand that individuals can solve their own problems, left alone and reasonably free to do so by government, but others cannot. This is the fundamental message both of classical liberalism and Buddhism, philosophies with very different cultural points of origin.
Who the next president is will matter in terms of whether there is more or less mischief visited on peaceful individuals here and people living in other countries, but not in epic, sweeping change. Obama in particular is attempting to depict this presidential election in that way, as epic legend in the making. McCain's approach is dialed a bit lower, but the same cultural motif is there. Seeing oneself as an epic hero or messiah is, by definition, demented, so what are we to make of the psychological profiles of these two men, one of whom will be the next president?
The relevant question we should ask ourselves, rather than who should be president, is "Why do we need an elected monarch at all? Isn't it time we moved on to a different, less authoritarian structure?"
My solution would be the plural presidency as pioneered in Switzerland. But only a change in our cultural expectations can bring about something as sane and rational as a committee exercising federal executive power by consensus. That change has to come from us, ordinary Americans.
Otherwise, this boom-and-bust cycle of high expectation, magical illusion and delusion, and bitter disappointment will continue for a long time.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Cognitive surplus
A great video, about 16 minutes long, on this blog: http://www.donorpowerblog.com/
Watch it if you have the opportunity. It might not change your life, but it will cause some under-used synapses to fire.
Watch it if you have the opportunity. It might not change your life, but it will cause some under-used synapses to fire.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
More is better
As we drag along toward the 2008 presidential election, it becomes more apparent with every public utterance of the Three Senators that a single, all-powerful executive is a bad idea whose time has passed. Who may have a better idea?
The Swiss. They do pretty superbly with chocolate, bank account privacy and precision watches. But that's not all. They believe, when it comes to government chief executives, more is better.
The Swiss have a number of long-term governance and political successes under their belt. Not having a power-crazed single executive is one of them. Their "plural presidency" seems to work well in a country focused on creating domestic peace, even-handed international relations and the widest possible prosperity. Perhaps it sounds bit strange because no major Western nation has a plural executive, although a case can be made that in parliamentary democracies the cabinet system has certain features that are similar.
After digesting Gene Healy's new book The Cult of the Presidency, I found myself thinking that a plural executive may well be the best solution to avoid a future American Caesar, given the perceptions and expectations Americans now place on the office after 100 years of "heroic" presidents starting with Teddy Roosevelt.
Julius and Octavian Caesar were able to finally destroy the Roman Republic by subverting the dual executive Consul system, with of course the connivance and acquiescence of the Senate. Along the way, they created a mythology of imminent and continuing crisis which, of course, only a strong leader would be able to solve.
Octavian's speeches sound very much like those any conservative Republican candidate would make today, while his uncle Julius comes over more like a liberal Democrat. The parallels to contemporary American politics are stunning and very disturbing.
America only avoided an increasingly-oppressive "elective monarchy" until Teddy Roosevelt came to office, and then only because certain key occupants of the office -- Grover Cleveland comes to mind instantly -- had a strong and abiding respect for the limitations placed on the federal government and the presidency itself by the framers of the Constitution. With the advent of the 20th century, and novel "progressive" interpretations of the role of government in society, those restraints went out the window.
Most of the presidents who have followed the first Roosevelt have expanded the power of the office, and fanned the expectations of the people as to what a president can and should be allowed to do. Most from Teddy to Wilson to Roosevelt to Bush II have thrived on having a huge imminent threat to fight, just like the Caesars 2000 years ago.
It should not surprise anyone aware of this history what Bush II has attempted. Hardly any president of the last century (Gerald Ford may be the only one) has actively sought to roll back the widened powers of the office. Almost all have sought to stretch executive powers further. At least two -- Nixon and Bush II -- have actually claimed to be above the law, in a similar sense as ancient kings and emperors.
So, a Swiss-style plural presidency looks very, very good as a means of avoiding a repeat of some very tragic history. I believe that whether Obama, Clinton or McCain arrives in the Oval Office the afternoon of January 20, 2009, he or she will set about aggrandizing the powers of the office still further, all in the name of the public good, however spun and packaged.
The Swiss. They do pretty superbly with chocolate, bank account privacy and precision watches. But that's not all. They believe, when it comes to government chief executives, more is better.
The Swiss have a number of long-term governance and political successes under their belt. Not having a power-crazed single executive is one of them. Their "plural presidency" seems to work well in a country focused on creating domestic peace, even-handed international relations and the widest possible prosperity. Perhaps it sounds bit strange because no major Western nation has a plural executive, although a case can be made that in parliamentary democracies the cabinet system has certain features that are similar.
After digesting Gene Healy's new book The Cult of the Presidency, I found myself thinking that a plural executive may well be the best solution to avoid a future American Caesar, given the perceptions and expectations Americans now place on the office after 100 years of "heroic" presidents starting with Teddy Roosevelt.
Julius and Octavian Caesar were able to finally destroy the Roman Republic by subverting the dual executive Consul system, with of course the connivance and acquiescence of the Senate. Along the way, they created a mythology of imminent and continuing crisis which, of course, only a strong leader would be able to solve.
Octavian's speeches sound very much like those any conservative Republican candidate would make today, while his uncle Julius comes over more like a liberal Democrat. The parallels to contemporary American politics are stunning and very disturbing.
America only avoided an increasingly-oppressive "elective monarchy" until Teddy Roosevelt came to office, and then only because certain key occupants of the office -- Grover Cleveland comes to mind instantly -- had a strong and abiding respect for the limitations placed on the federal government and the presidency itself by the framers of the Constitution. With the advent of the 20th century, and novel "progressive" interpretations of the role of government in society, those restraints went out the window.
Most of the presidents who have followed the first Roosevelt have expanded the power of the office, and fanned the expectations of the people as to what a president can and should be allowed to do. Most from Teddy to Wilson to Roosevelt to Bush II have thrived on having a huge imminent threat to fight, just like the Caesars 2000 years ago.
It should not surprise anyone aware of this history what Bush II has attempted. Hardly any president of the last century (Gerald Ford may be the only one) has actively sought to roll back the widened powers of the office. Almost all have sought to stretch executive powers further. At least two -- Nixon and Bush II -- have actually claimed to be above the law, in a similar sense as ancient kings and emperors.
So, a Swiss-style plural presidency looks very, very good as a means of avoiding a repeat of some very tragic history. I believe that whether Obama, Clinton or McCain arrives in the Oval Office the afternoon of January 20, 2009, he or she will set about aggrandizing the powers of the office still further, all in the name of the public good, however spun and packaged.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Real hope for real change
“Shakyamuni Buddha who attained enlightenment countless kalpas ago, the Lotus Sutra that leads all people to Buddhahood, and we ordinary human beings are in no way different or separate from one another. To chant Myoho-renge-kyo with this realization is to inherit the ultimate Law of life and death. This is a matter of the utmost importance for Nichiren’s disciples and lay supporters, and this is what it means to embrace the Lotus Sutra.”—Nichiren Daishonin, The Heritage of the Ultimate Law of Life.
Nichiren (1222-1262 CE) founded the Nichiren school of Buddhism. A large number of his writings, most letters of encouragement to his followers, are extant. A significant number of them have been translated into English and other languages by the SGI Buddhist lay association, which has members in 190 countries and territories, including the U.S.
The most important point of Nichiren Buddhism is that each human being has the potential to be “a Buddha,” or become enlightened. This is a daily-life oriented philosophy, based on the premise of cause and effect and that all our thoughts, words and deeds reflect our state of life at a given moment. Nichiren formulated the phrase Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, based on the Lotus Sutra, for practitioners to chant daily, sharing the practice with others, as he did.
Empowerment of the individual is thus the core of Nichiren’s teachings, which he saw as a rejuvenation and fulfillment of the highest teaching of the first historic Buddha, Shakyamuni Gautama. The individual does not look to others as the source of happiness and salvation, but to him or her self. This dramatically contrasts with other religious teachings that place the ultimate reality outside human beings and teach that only through intermediaries such as clergy can the individual connect with that ultimate reality.
The underlying philosophy of the dominant world culture today is the belief that others are the source of our happiness and our suffering. This distortion results in a spiraling cycle of suffering for individuals, families, and ultimately nations. Societies based on this distortion, as ours are at present, are plagued with constant violence, wars, avarice, and other manifestations of behavior Buddhists designate as “the six lower worlds,” or “evil” states of life which deny the dignity and sanctity of human life. Moreover, most leaders in our societies perpetuate the notion that our problems and solutions lie outside us, and that elites of one kind or another must guide and direct everyone else. We are not encouraged to take responsibility for our own lives, and in fact encouraged to surrender our innate power over ourselves to others. The cycle thus continues.
This year Americans will elect a new president and members of Congress, as well as various state and local officials. Most of those candidates will offer up policies that ultimately stem from this basic distortion. They will present themselves as the guides we must have to lead us to happiness and fulfillment, in one way or another. But essentially they will offer nothing else than to urge us to trust them, and to surrender a large part of our innate personal power over our own lives to them. This is not unique to political leaders; many in other areas of society do the same.
It is no accident that throughout recorded history, society’s leaders, with only a few exceptions, have had the same modus operandi as our current ones. The core philosophy, expressed at different times in varying ways, has been disempowerment of the individual and empowerment of elites. The practice of Nichiren Buddhism represents a radical, yet completely peaceful revolution – a human revolution conducted by individuals alone and in voluntary association with each other – that will some day obviate politics as practiced now.
The wave of change of millions of individuals will also bring about the effective end of war, and a new consciousness of the inter-related, and inter-dependent nature of all life. This will happen despite, not on account of, the activities of the institutions that today seem to be in charge of society. This vast change in the culture of a significant part of humanity will spill over into every aspect of society. The world of a century from now, two centuries from now, five centuries from now will be virtually unrecognizable to the war, conflict and suffering plagued planet we now inhabit. This universal cultural change is already underway through the lives of 16 million or more individuals practicing Nichiren Buddhism in the SGI lay association today.
Nichiren (1222-1262 CE) founded the Nichiren school of Buddhism. A large number of his writings, most letters of encouragement to his followers, are extant. A significant number of them have been translated into English and other languages by the SGI Buddhist lay association, which has members in 190 countries and territories, including the U.S.
The most important point of Nichiren Buddhism is that each human being has the potential to be “a Buddha,” or become enlightened. This is a daily-life oriented philosophy, based on the premise of cause and effect and that all our thoughts, words and deeds reflect our state of life at a given moment. Nichiren formulated the phrase Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, based on the Lotus Sutra, for practitioners to chant daily, sharing the practice with others, as he did.
Empowerment of the individual is thus the core of Nichiren’s teachings, which he saw as a rejuvenation and fulfillment of the highest teaching of the first historic Buddha, Shakyamuni Gautama. The individual does not look to others as the source of happiness and salvation, but to him or her self. This dramatically contrasts with other religious teachings that place the ultimate reality outside human beings and teach that only through intermediaries such as clergy can the individual connect with that ultimate reality.
The underlying philosophy of the dominant world culture today is the belief that others are the source of our happiness and our suffering. This distortion results in a spiraling cycle of suffering for individuals, families, and ultimately nations. Societies based on this distortion, as ours are at present, are plagued with constant violence, wars, avarice, and other manifestations of behavior Buddhists designate as “the six lower worlds,” or “evil” states of life which deny the dignity and sanctity of human life. Moreover, most leaders in our societies perpetuate the notion that our problems and solutions lie outside us, and that elites of one kind or another must guide and direct everyone else. We are not encouraged to take responsibility for our own lives, and in fact encouraged to surrender our innate power over ourselves to others. The cycle thus continues.
This year Americans will elect a new president and members of Congress, as well as various state and local officials. Most of those candidates will offer up policies that ultimately stem from this basic distortion. They will present themselves as the guides we must have to lead us to happiness and fulfillment, in one way or another. But essentially they will offer nothing else than to urge us to trust them, and to surrender a large part of our innate personal power over our own lives to them. This is not unique to political leaders; many in other areas of society do the same.
It is no accident that throughout recorded history, society’s leaders, with only a few exceptions, have had the same modus operandi as our current ones. The core philosophy, expressed at different times in varying ways, has been disempowerment of the individual and empowerment of elites. The practice of Nichiren Buddhism represents a radical, yet completely peaceful revolution – a human revolution conducted by individuals alone and in voluntary association with each other – that will some day obviate politics as practiced now.
The wave of change of millions of individuals will also bring about the effective end of war, and a new consciousness of the inter-related, and inter-dependent nature of all life. This will happen despite, not on account of, the activities of the institutions that today seem to be in charge of society. This vast change in the culture of a significant part of humanity will spill over into every aspect of society. The world of a century from now, two centuries from now, five centuries from now will be virtually unrecognizable to the war, conflict and suffering plagued planet we now inhabit. This universal cultural change is already underway through the lives of 16 million or more individuals practicing Nichiren Buddhism in the SGI lay association today.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
A Strictly Tactical Analysis
While it is very likely now that Hillary Clinton cannot overtake Barack Obama’s increased lead in delegates to the upcoming Democratic convention, the rational question superdelegates should be asking is “Who is most likely to be able to defeat John McCain in November?”
Before slicing and dicing that, it’s instructive to remember that for much of the 2004 campaign, John Kerry looked entirely competitive with George Bush. Kerry’s political strategy was to campaign nationally pretty much as he has campaigned in Massachusetts. The Republican strategy was run a campaign like they’d run one in Texas or Tennessee or Idaho.
As it turned out, the Swift Boat smear orchestrated by Karl Rove, the perception that Kerry was an out-of-touch elitist, and the still-lingering hyper-concern about terrorism, all combined to give GW four more years in the White House. In retrospect, Kerry was not the best candidate the Democrats could have fielded. Likely John Edwards would have been better. Al Gore might have actually won a rematch.
Oddly enough, the Democrats are in the same boat, no pun intended, this year. Like Kerry, Obama has already given the Republicans enough ammunition to paint him as an elitist who secretly condescends to the small town “Bubbas” who account for a significant part of lower middle income voters. He has that 20-year association with Jeremiah Wright which, although he has condemned Wright, will come back to haunt him as a judgment issue – i.e., how did he avoid figuring out that Wright is a loony racist for two decades as a parishioner? And, if he really didn’t know that, why not? Obama is obviously an intelligent, gifted man, rising from Illinois state legislator to presidential contender in a handful of years.
Obama has gotten a virtual pass from Hillary Clinton on the Wright-connected questions. He will get no such pass from McCain and the Republican strategists. It may well feature in any number of political commercials we see and hear in coming months.
Moving on to the purely analytical statistics now. While it is true Obama has polled more votes and gained more delegates than Hillary, the New York Senator has won in the big states, some of which at least they must win to capture the presidency. Obama’s victories, interestingly, are mostly in states which can be counted on to vote Republican come November.
Polls show Clinton beating McCain in states like Ohio and close in Florida, states that are shown going for McCain against Obama in the same polls. Clinton is correct in her assessment that she has won among the constituencies that Democrats must have to forge a winning coalition in November. There is polling evidence that significant numbers of Clinton Democrats plan to desert the party in November if Hillary is not the nominee. This group profiles very much like the “Reagan Democrats” who propelled the former actor to two landslide victories.
Like Kerry, Obama’s support comes mostly from the Democratic base. While there is evidence some Republicans and some independents are trending toward Obama, it’s not overwhelming. And there is polling evidence that those voters would be offset, or more than offset, by disaffected Clintonistas voting for McCain.
So what happens in November? Here’s my best guess, based on the factors described above.
If Obama is the Democratic nominee: The campaign will, electorally, be a replay of 2004, McCain picking up some states like Pennsylvania and Michigan that the Republicans haven’t carried since Reagan. The popular vote will be in the range of McCain 52-55%, Obama 45-48%. McCain will pick up about a third of Clinton Democrats. Clinton’s lukewarm commitment to support Obama if he’s the nominee is just that: lukewarm. If she loses the nomination, the next day she will suddenly rediscover a 100% commitment to being U.S. Senator from New York. She will give zero real help to Obama, and hope secretly for his defeat so that, at 64, she can run against McCain in 2012 when he’ll be 76 and maybe even not be running.
The Republicans will, as noted, make this contest about character and judgment. Although there are plenty of questions to go all around on that, GOP strategists have proved particularly adept at assassinating the character of opposition candidates. And, as noted, there is the nice guy, war hero image McCain enjoys that will be hard to destroy in a few months, even if the Democratic strategists knew how to go for the jugular, which they haven’t shown they do for a number of years now.
If Clinton is the Democratic nominee: Several red states, notably Ohio, Missouri and Florida, will be up for grabs. Clinton will grind McCain down mostly on social issues, glossing over her near-total agreement with him about defense and foreign policy. She will probably win, with a popular vote in the range of Clinton 51-52%, McCain 48-49%. In other words, it will be close, but Hillary will prevail. In this scenario, disaffected Obama supporters, of whom there will be many, will simply sit out the election. But enough of them will turn out and vote Democratic anyway that no blue state will be threatened.
The red states Hillary wins will be on the strength of her coalition-building and “Reagan Democrats,” whom she will split with McCain. She will win among women overwhelmingly. Unlike almost every other major Democratic officeholder, Hillary Clinton knows how to go for the jugular and appear reasonable while doing it. She will employ this tactic highly effectively on McCain.
National polls at this moment seem to back Hillary's contention she is the stronger nominee. She is ahead by two or three points against McCain while Obama is dead even. More importantly, she is ahead in some big states the GOP took last time out. Odd that leading Democrats are now calling for Hillary to leave the race, ensuring the nomination of a candidate who will more than likely lose to the Arizona senator. An election that, as of January 1, looked "in the bag" for the Democrats has now become a race in which they're betting on the wrong horse.
It's noteworthy that George McGovern has been among those prominent Democrats calling for Hillary to withdraw. And as we all know, McGovern is an expert on how to win a national election - right, George?
Summing up my projection, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, the next president is John McCain. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, the next president is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Since it now seems inevitable Obama will be the Democrats' standard bearer, that means McCain is headed for the Oval Office, in my view.
My analysis is based purely on observing the game. Personally, I don’t like any of the three major candidates on the issues and it does not matter to me which one ends up in the White House. I further happen to believe the presidency, as an institution, is out of control and has been for a century; that whoever occupies the office will continue to abuse and expand executive power at the expense of the Bill of Rights and constitutionally-prescribed government.
For me, it’s like a choice between Julius Caesar and Napoleon, and there’s not really any variety in that scenario.
Before slicing and dicing that, it’s instructive to remember that for much of the 2004 campaign, John Kerry looked entirely competitive with George Bush. Kerry’s political strategy was to campaign nationally pretty much as he has campaigned in Massachusetts. The Republican strategy was run a campaign like they’d run one in Texas or Tennessee or Idaho.
As it turned out, the Swift Boat smear orchestrated by Karl Rove, the perception that Kerry was an out-of-touch elitist, and the still-lingering hyper-concern about terrorism, all combined to give GW four more years in the White House. In retrospect, Kerry was not the best candidate the Democrats could have fielded. Likely John Edwards would have been better. Al Gore might have actually won a rematch.
Oddly enough, the Democrats are in the same boat, no pun intended, this year. Like Kerry, Obama has already given the Republicans enough ammunition to paint him as an elitist who secretly condescends to the small town “Bubbas” who account for a significant part of lower middle income voters. He has that 20-year association with Jeremiah Wright which, although he has condemned Wright, will come back to haunt him as a judgment issue – i.e., how did he avoid figuring out that Wright is a loony racist for two decades as a parishioner? And, if he really didn’t know that, why not? Obama is obviously an intelligent, gifted man, rising from Illinois state legislator to presidential contender in a handful of years.
Obama has gotten a virtual pass from Hillary Clinton on the Wright-connected questions. He will get no such pass from McCain and the Republican strategists. It may well feature in any number of political commercials we see and hear in coming months.
Moving on to the purely analytical statistics now. While it is true Obama has polled more votes and gained more delegates than Hillary, the New York Senator has won in the big states, some of which at least they must win to capture the presidency. Obama’s victories, interestingly, are mostly in states which can be counted on to vote Republican come November.
Polls show Clinton beating McCain in states like Ohio and close in Florida, states that are shown going for McCain against Obama in the same polls. Clinton is correct in her assessment that she has won among the constituencies that Democrats must have to forge a winning coalition in November. There is polling evidence that significant numbers of Clinton Democrats plan to desert the party in November if Hillary is not the nominee. This group profiles very much like the “Reagan Democrats” who propelled the former actor to two landslide victories.
Like Kerry, Obama’s support comes mostly from the Democratic base. While there is evidence some Republicans and some independents are trending toward Obama, it’s not overwhelming. And there is polling evidence that those voters would be offset, or more than offset, by disaffected Clintonistas voting for McCain.
So what happens in November? Here’s my best guess, based on the factors described above.
If Obama is the Democratic nominee: The campaign will, electorally, be a replay of 2004, McCain picking up some states like Pennsylvania and Michigan that the Republicans haven’t carried since Reagan. The popular vote will be in the range of McCain 52-55%, Obama 45-48%. McCain will pick up about a third of Clinton Democrats. Clinton’s lukewarm commitment to support Obama if he’s the nominee is just that: lukewarm. If she loses the nomination, the next day she will suddenly rediscover a 100% commitment to being U.S. Senator from New York. She will give zero real help to Obama, and hope secretly for his defeat so that, at 64, she can run against McCain in 2012 when he’ll be 76 and maybe even not be running.
The Republicans will, as noted, make this contest about character and judgment. Although there are plenty of questions to go all around on that, GOP strategists have proved particularly adept at assassinating the character of opposition candidates. And, as noted, there is the nice guy, war hero image McCain enjoys that will be hard to destroy in a few months, even if the Democratic strategists knew how to go for the jugular, which they haven’t shown they do for a number of years now.
If Clinton is the Democratic nominee: Several red states, notably Ohio, Missouri and Florida, will be up for grabs. Clinton will grind McCain down mostly on social issues, glossing over her near-total agreement with him about defense and foreign policy. She will probably win, with a popular vote in the range of Clinton 51-52%, McCain 48-49%. In other words, it will be close, but Hillary will prevail. In this scenario, disaffected Obama supporters, of whom there will be many, will simply sit out the election. But enough of them will turn out and vote Democratic anyway that no blue state will be threatened.
The red states Hillary wins will be on the strength of her coalition-building and “Reagan Democrats,” whom she will split with McCain. She will win among women overwhelmingly. Unlike almost every other major Democratic officeholder, Hillary Clinton knows how to go for the jugular and appear reasonable while doing it. She will employ this tactic highly effectively on McCain.
National polls at this moment seem to back Hillary's contention she is the stronger nominee. She is ahead by two or three points against McCain while Obama is dead even. More importantly, she is ahead in some big states the GOP took last time out. Odd that leading Democrats are now calling for Hillary to leave the race, ensuring the nomination of a candidate who will more than likely lose to the Arizona senator. An election that, as of January 1, looked "in the bag" for the Democrats has now become a race in which they're betting on the wrong horse.
It's noteworthy that George McGovern has been among those prominent Democrats calling for Hillary to withdraw. And as we all know, McGovern is an expert on how to win a national election - right, George?
Summing up my projection, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, the next president is John McCain. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, the next president is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Since it now seems inevitable Obama will be the Democrats' standard bearer, that means McCain is headed for the Oval Office, in my view.
My analysis is based purely on observing the game. Personally, I don’t like any of the three major candidates on the issues and it does not matter to me which one ends up in the White House. I further happen to believe the presidency, as an institution, is out of control and has been for a century; that whoever occupies the office will continue to abuse and expand executive power at the expense of the Bill of Rights and constitutionally-prescribed government.
For me, it’s like a choice between Julius Caesar and Napoleon, and there’s not really any variety in that scenario.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
On that day I will still have the same challenges in life I had the day before. I will have the same strengths, weaknesses, hopes, dreams, shortcomings and victories I had the day before.
My life will still be 100% my responsibility. It will not matter very much who sits in the Oval Office that day.
Whoever that may be -- he or she -- that individual is not our national messiah, is not our national nanny, is not our national drill sergeant.
We are each in charge of our own lives. We maintain maximum control of our own lives in part by understanding this and by realizing that nothing external, and most especially not politics, has the fundamental power to change our lives.
Only we can do that, each of us for himself or herself, and work voluntarily with others to effect change around us.
Any other nostrum is delusional, now and on Wednesday, January 21, 2009, and on every other day.
My life will still be 100% my responsibility. It will not matter very much who sits in the Oval Office that day.
Whoever that may be -- he or she -- that individual is not our national messiah, is not our national nanny, is not our national drill sergeant.
We are each in charge of our own lives. We maintain maximum control of our own lives in part by understanding this and by realizing that nothing external, and most especially not politics, has the fundamental power to change our lives.
Only we can do that, each of us for himself or herself, and work voluntarily with others to effect change around us.
Any other nostrum is delusional, now and on Wednesday, January 21, 2009, and on every other day.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
After Pennsylvania
As I've been saying all along, don't count Hillary out. And, despite the conventional "wisdom," now beginning to fade somewhat, I still believe she will be the Democratic nominee. Obama now seems deflated and although his rhetoric still soars, the spirit isn't there anymore. You can hear the weariness in his voice. There is no such weariness in Senator Clinton's voice. Soundbites of Obama's supporters cheering him last night appeared laced with anxiety and tentativeness not there before.
Momentum is now on Hillary's side. Hillary won in Pennsylvania, as she did in Ohio and other large states, precisely the coalition of voters the Democrats must have to win in November. It's also telling that there is such animosity toward Obama among Clinton stalwarts, with perhaps as many as a third of them ready to vote for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee according to one exit poll.
Contrary to what many pundits convinced themselves, I believe that Obama would be the weaker candidate in November.
Obama has a nearly complete lack of experience in public office compared to McCain, and therefore very little by way of policy track record to verify what he would or would not do in office. McCain can question his wisdom, if not his patriotism, in saying he would talk to folks like the Iranian president.
There are lingering questions about Rev. Wright, which the Republicans would gleefully revisit likely by proxy and not McCain himself, and Obama's obvious elitism evidenced by the remarks about small town voters in Pennsylvania, remarks which he cannot explain away as meaning something else. And there is his straight-down-the-line Great Society ideology, meaning he has hitched his policy star to a set of policies that even most Democrats admit were failures.
Hillary brings no such weaknesses to the battle with McCain, and she has the political shark instincts that Obama seems to lack. Maybe he's just a nicer person, which is too bad because he's definitely swimming with a shark right now who smells blood in the water. Clinton can legitimately claim to be strong on national defense, while staking out a "New Democrat" stance on social issues which, although not much different from Great Society stances, at least have the flavor of being pro-free-market.
My continuing bet is that Hillary will convince just enough superdelegates she is only Democrat who can beat McCain to get the nomination. Her main problem after that will be holding onto enough Obama supporters to have a chance of winning. Obama, if he becomes the nominee, will have a fatally wounded party to contend with and a host of anti-Obama Clinton voters who may hold their noses and vote for McCain.
A further prediction: I suspect McCain will pick Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal as his running mate. It would be a stroke of pure genius.
Meantime, libertarians can only hope someone with the high name recognition of a Jesse Ventura will mount a serious campaign. The likely nominee of the Libertarian Party is totally unknown and probably will do well to get the usual 1/2 percent of the vote the LP has drawn in recent years.
There are other prominent people who are libertarians -- Kurt Russell, Drew Carey, etc -- but they have not gotten the urge to run, yet. Maybe after 4 years of a Democrat or McCain some libertarian with a well-known name will decide it's finally time.
Momentum is now on Hillary's side. Hillary won in Pennsylvania, as she did in Ohio and other large states, precisely the coalition of voters the Democrats must have to win in November. It's also telling that there is such animosity toward Obama among Clinton stalwarts, with perhaps as many as a third of them ready to vote for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee according to one exit poll.
Contrary to what many pundits convinced themselves, I believe that Obama would be the weaker candidate in November.
Obama has a nearly complete lack of experience in public office compared to McCain, and therefore very little by way of policy track record to verify what he would or would not do in office. McCain can question his wisdom, if not his patriotism, in saying he would talk to folks like the Iranian president.
There are lingering questions about Rev. Wright, which the Republicans would gleefully revisit likely by proxy and not McCain himself, and Obama's obvious elitism evidenced by the remarks about small town voters in Pennsylvania, remarks which he cannot explain away as meaning something else. And there is his straight-down-the-line Great Society ideology, meaning he has hitched his policy star to a set of policies that even most Democrats admit were failures.
Hillary brings no such weaknesses to the battle with McCain, and she has the political shark instincts that Obama seems to lack. Maybe he's just a nicer person, which is too bad because he's definitely swimming with a shark right now who smells blood in the water. Clinton can legitimately claim to be strong on national defense, while staking out a "New Democrat" stance on social issues which, although not much different from Great Society stances, at least have the flavor of being pro-free-market.
My continuing bet is that Hillary will convince just enough superdelegates she is only Democrat who can beat McCain to get the nomination. Her main problem after that will be holding onto enough Obama supporters to have a chance of winning. Obama, if he becomes the nominee, will have a fatally wounded party to contend with and a host of anti-Obama Clinton voters who may hold their noses and vote for McCain.
A further prediction: I suspect McCain will pick Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal as his running mate. It would be a stroke of pure genius.
Meantime, libertarians can only hope someone with the high name recognition of a Jesse Ventura will mount a serious campaign. The likely nominee of the Libertarian Party is totally unknown and probably will do well to get the usual 1/2 percent of the vote the LP has drawn in recent years.
There are other prominent people who are libertarians -- Kurt Russell, Drew Carey, etc -- but they have not gotten the urge to run, yet. Maybe after 4 years of a Democrat or McCain some libertarian with a well-known name will decide it's finally time.
Monday, April 21, 2008
The Difference between Cats and Dogs
On blogs where I make comments, and in emails with certain friends and colleagues, I've come to a light-blub-realization moment, which I call "The Difference between Cats and Dogs."
The main thrust of that difference is an unwillingness by some of my colleagues to pursue the discussion of an issue when "inconvenient facts" begin to emerge, or an attempt at short-shrift dismissal.
For instance, recently I got into a discussion of global warming with a blogger, definitely center-of-left, who is an old friend of mine. After I'd presented various evidence, he dismissed it all with "sea temperature" being more important than anything else, anyway. This, after a number of things were cited including the inflated rates of global warming many scientists use to base dire predictions on.
Dogs will clamp down on a given position, like a tasty bone, and refuse to give it up, no matter what happens.
Many of same dogs barking now about warming were yelping about a coming Ice Age not that many years ago, within living adult memory of Baby Boomers, in fact.
The Times magazine of June 24, 1974 shocked everyone with a cover story titled "Another Ice Age?" The hysterics then were over the discovery that the atmosphere had been getting colder over a three decade period. Likewise, despite the deeply suspicious, and frequently revised, figures from international organizations, satellite and other observations point to another cooling period under way since 1998.Warming and cooling cycles are well-documented parts of the cyclical climate process.
The New Ice Age scare did not seem to get much traction, likely because meterological evidence for it was even sketchier than it is for global warming, and maybe because collectivists moved on to new tacts. The ideology of environmentalism got a boost, however, with the collapse of communism, because there were no other tents for them to take shelter in. Pack mentality? Global warming - real or imagined, catastrophic or not - became the issue du jour for thinly-disguised collectivists.
They are now proposing a vast international bureaucracy and likening the battle against global warming to war. Where have we heard that metaphor before? War on Drugs? War on Terrorism? Seems like both of those two have been unmitigated disasters and have, by the way, not achieved the stated goals. They have both been used as pretexts to expand government power, crush civil liberties, and waste thousands of lives and billions in confiscated resources.
At worst -- that is, if you believe global warming is necessarily bad -- data suggests an overall global temperature increase of .31 degrees Fahrenheit per decade over the last several decades. That works out to about 3 degrees a century, but doesn't take into account that climate is cylical with warming and cooling periods occuring regularly.
The dogs in this story refer to those who clamp down on a position -- in this case that global warming is happening at an alarming rate and the results will be disastrous -- and don't let go, no matter what. The cats are those who patiently shift through all the results over as long a period of time as possible to see what the truth may really be.
As one dedicated to being an analytical cat, I believe it is likely global warming is taking place, but at nothing near the rate Al Gore and other hystericists would have us believe. Moreover, I also think that an important, and maybe only workable, option for dealing with it -- adaptation -- has been ignored. It has been ignored precisely because adaption would require no wide new powers for government and no massive new bureaucracy to control yet another aspect of human activity. And that little inconvenient truth about cooling and warming cycles has been completely ignored.
Most of the media, and almost all academics, still infected with the progressivist notion that government management and direction of most human activity is a good thing, and further infected with "if it bleeds, it leads," want both global warming, and catastrophic effects therefrom, to be reality. They want that so much they recoil at anyone or any data that suggests otherwise, and can be counted on to marginalize such people and data.
And that's the difference between cats and dogs.
The main thrust of that difference is an unwillingness by some of my colleagues to pursue the discussion of an issue when "inconvenient facts" begin to emerge, or an attempt at short-shrift dismissal.
For instance, recently I got into a discussion of global warming with a blogger, definitely center-of-left, who is an old friend of mine. After I'd presented various evidence, he dismissed it all with "sea temperature" being more important than anything else, anyway. This, after a number of things were cited including the inflated rates of global warming many scientists use to base dire predictions on.
Dogs will clamp down on a given position, like a tasty bone, and refuse to give it up, no matter what happens.
Many of same dogs barking now about warming were yelping about a coming Ice Age not that many years ago, within living adult memory of Baby Boomers, in fact.
The Times magazine of June 24, 1974 shocked everyone with a cover story titled "Another Ice Age?" The hysterics then were over the discovery that the atmosphere had been getting colder over a three decade period. Likewise, despite the deeply suspicious, and frequently revised, figures from international organizations, satellite and other observations point to another cooling period under way since 1998.Warming and cooling cycles are well-documented parts of the cyclical climate process.
The New Ice Age scare did not seem to get much traction, likely because meterological evidence for it was even sketchier than it is for global warming, and maybe because collectivists moved on to new tacts. The ideology of environmentalism got a boost, however, with the collapse of communism, because there were no other tents for them to take shelter in. Pack mentality? Global warming - real or imagined, catastrophic or not - became the issue du jour for thinly-disguised collectivists.
They are now proposing a vast international bureaucracy and likening the battle against global warming to war. Where have we heard that metaphor before? War on Drugs? War on Terrorism? Seems like both of those two have been unmitigated disasters and have, by the way, not achieved the stated goals. They have both been used as pretexts to expand government power, crush civil liberties, and waste thousands of lives and billions in confiscated resources.
At worst -- that is, if you believe global warming is necessarily bad -- data suggests an overall global temperature increase of .31 degrees Fahrenheit per decade over the last several decades. That works out to about 3 degrees a century, but doesn't take into account that climate is cylical with warming and cooling periods occuring regularly.
The dogs in this story refer to those who clamp down on a position -- in this case that global warming is happening at an alarming rate and the results will be disastrous -- and don't let go, no matter what. The cats are those who patiently shift through all the results over as long a period of time as possible to see what the truth may really be.
As one dedicated to being an analytical cat, I believe it is likely global warming is taking place, but at nothing near the rate Al Gore and other hystericists would have us believe. Moreover, I also think that an important, and maybe only workable, option for dealing with it -- adaptation -- has been ignored. It has been ignored precisely because adaption would require no wide new powers for government and no massive new bureaucracy to control yet another aspect of human activity. And that little inconvenient truth about cooling and warming cycles has been completely ignored.
Most of the media, and almost all academics, still infected with the progressivist notion that government management and direction of most human activity is a good thing, and further infected with "if it bleeds, it leads," want both global warming, and catastrophic effects therefrom, to be reality. They want that so much they recoil at anyone or any data that suggests otherwise, and can be counted on to marginalize such people and data.
And that's the difference between cats and dogs.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Some Comments on Ethics
Over on the Donor Power Blog, Jeff Brooks has cited a recent study showing a decline in ethics in nonprofit organizations. Not one to leave this important topic unaddressed, I posted this comment:
It's not really surprising that nonprofit ethics are in a sorry state. Generally, there is what one might call an ethics crisis throughout American society.
Various sociological and cultural phenomenon play into this, but perhaps the most important, in my opinion, is the general failure to learn from history, from the past.
Civilizations have been most successful when abiding by some well-known ethical consensus, a kind of "basic law" if you will, which a majority choose to follow.
Times when such conditions have flourished include the reign of King Ashoka in ancient India, a period virtually unknown to most Westerners, as well as several dynastic periods in ancient China. It might be noted that these were generally characterized by religious pluralism as well as respect for individuals on the part of rulers. Ashoka in particular stands out as a model leader.
In the West, such environments have existed at various times, including the rule of the judges in early Israel, Athens during its classical heyday, and at least the first 150 years of the American federal republic.
A general cure for this malady will not come about through social engineering but through voluntary awakening by many individuals that changes need to be made, beginning in our own daily lives.
It's not really surprising that nonprofit ethics are in a sorry state. Generally, there is what one might call an ethics crisis throughout American society.
Various sociological and cultural phenomenon play into this, but perhaps the most important, in my opinion, is the general failure to learn from history, from the past.
Civilizations have been most successful when abiding by some well-known ethical consensus, a kind of "basic law" if you will, which a majority choose to follow.
Times when such conditions have flourished include the reign of King Ashoka in ancient India, a period virtually unknown to most Westerners, as well as several dynastic periods in ancient China. It might be noted that these were generally characterized by religious pluralism as well as respect for individuals on the part of rulers. Ashoka in particular stands out as a model leader.
In the West, such environments have existed at various times, including the rule of the judges in early Israel, Athens during its classical heyday, and at least the first 150 years of the American federal republic.
A general cure for this malady will not come about through social engineering but through voluntary awakening by many individuals that changes need to be made, beginning in our own daily lives.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Mind and matter: the "Monte Hall Problem"
Scott Adam's "Dilbert" blog had a post about this story today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
Which prompted this response from me:
Nichiren Buddhism postulates that we do indeed affect reality around us with our "mind," in the widest sense of that word. The concept is called "esho funi" or the oneness of life and environment. The concept that supports that is "ichinen sanzen" or the "life moment" or "mind" of the individual.
The collection and interaction of our individual "minds" or "life moments" with the environment produce the greater environment, which can be described with such terms as "society" and "natural world," primarily.
One legendary account of the power of the human mind is the ancient Chinese story of "General Stone Tiger." The general's mother was eaten, the story goes, by a ravenous tiger. Single-mindedly determined to kill the culprit, he set off through the forest and encountered, at a distance, what seemed to be the profile of a tiger. He quickly drew his bow and buried an arrow deeply in the figure.
Upon close examination, he discovered that he'd shot his arrow deep into a rock that resembled the form of a tiger. No matter how hard he tried afterward, he could not repeat the feat.
Another account, from ancient China, again from a time of war. An emperor was trying to put down a rebellion, but his army needed to cross the Yellow River to attack. It was late fall, and the scout who saw the river discovered it was not yet frozen, which it needed to be for the emperor's army to cross. Reporting back to the emperor, the scout was afraid of telling him the river wasn't frozen, so he lied. The emperor so implicitly believed him, however, that when he and the army arrived at the riverbank the next day, the Yellow River had frozen over.
Nichiren Buddhism teaches we each have this tremendous, universe-moving power within us and can tap it through daily chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
Which prompted this response from me:
Nichiren Buddhism postulates that we do indeed affect reality around us with our "mind," in the widest sense of that word. The concept is called "esho funi" or the oneness of life and environment. The concept that supports that is "ichinen sanzen" or the "life moment" or "mind" of the individual.
The collection and interaction of our individual "minds" or "life moments" with the environment produce the greater environment, which can be described with such terms as "society" and "natural world," primarily.
One legendary account of the power of the human mind is the ancient Chinese story of "General Stone Tiger." The general's mother was eaten, the story goes, by a ravenous tiger. Single-mindedly determined to kill the culprit, he set off through the forest and encountered, at a distance, what seemed to be the profile of a tiger. He quickly drew his bow and buried an arrow deeply in the figure.
Upon close examination, he discovered that he'd shot his arrow deep into a rock that resembled the form of a tiger. No matter how hard he tried afterward, he could not repeat the feat.
Another account, from ancient China, again from a time of war. An emperor was trying to put down a rebellion, but his army needed to cross the Yellow River to attack. It was late fall, and the scout who saw the river discovered it was not yet frozen, which it needed to be for the emperor's army to cross. Reporting back to the emperor, the scout was afraid of telling him the river wasn't frozen, so he lied. The emperor so implicitly believed him, however, that when he and the army arrived at the riverbank the next day, the Yellow River had frozen over.
Nichiren Buddhism teaches we each have this tremendous, universe-moving power within us and can tap it through daily chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Ventura for President?
National polls are out showing either of the putative Democratic nominees ahead of John McCain. But...
But the differences are within the margin of error and we're still half a year away from the general election. At this same point in 2004, I believe that John Kerry had a similar lead over GWB, to put things in perspective. (Kerry of course had the nomination wrapped up around this time in 2004, so that may have been something of a factor, but I don't know. I just know that independent voters are called that because they can go either way, and might not decide until November 4.)
Also not factored into the polls is the "animosity factor" about which NPR did a report this morning. They interviewed Clinton and Obama activists at the California Democratic Convention. Both camps were really antagonistic to each other to the point of admitting they might sit out the general election or vote for McCain if their candidate didn't get the nomination.
That celebration you hear quietly in the background is coming from Republicans who thought they had no chance this year after 8 years of Bush.
But now, somehow, they do. If they face Obama, Rev. Wright* will become the best-known minister in America and not in a good sense. If they face Hillary, they have all kinds of other demons to scare voters with, including hubby Bill. "Do you really want him in the White House again?" the voice asks, as they show Bill hugging Monica Lewinsky.
Meantime, the fact Cindy McCain is a beer distributor will probably go down well (pun intended) with NASCARites, hockey fans and many other assorted aging men who would all like to marry a rich trophy wife 17 years younger than them.
*My hunch on this is that McCain will not address this issue head-on himself but leave it to various attack dogs like whoever he gets to run for vice president. There's even talk of Joe Lieberman being his running mate - which would be a first - first guy ever to run for vice president for both major parties. Joe could get all moralistic about Wright and be relatively safe since he's a liberal on social issues. Whether that's even possible, I don't know.
But look for McCain to pick a political rockstar for veep. Maybe Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal -- he's very young, bright, "ethnically balances" the ticket and hasn't been in office long enough to get a bad rep. And if they gave civil service exams for president, Jindal is the one politician I can think of who would pass. And, he got elected governor in a basically Democratic state in a year when very few Republicans were getting elected anywhere. Jindal as veep candidate might be a huge stroke of genius.
Hillary and Barack are the Democrats' only active rockstars, and they are not going to be on the same ticket, unless some really wicked Faustian bargain is done, so evil Satan wouldn't want to be in on the negotiations. Bill Richardson? He's not really a rockstar. Nancy Pelosi? A turnoff for anyone outside California, and for many inside. Al Gore? No, he's been there and done that and probably still wants to be president.
It's all pretty disenchanting since McCain, Obama and Clinton are one and all proponents of government management of most human activities.
What would really energize the election would be someone like Jesse Ventura jumping in as independent candidate. Check out his appearance on CNN's Larry King Live early this week. Jesse talked straight and honest while the Obama, Clinton and McCain guys sounded like the slicko political operatives they are.
I'm hoping Ventura will run. If he does, I'm hoping he'll win. Now that would really shake things up in Washington town.
But the differences are within the margin of error and we're still half a year away from the general election. At this same point in 2004, I believe that John Kerry had a similar lead over GWB, to put things in perspective. (Kerry of course had the nomination wrapped up around this time in 2004, so that may have been something of a factor, but I don't know. I just know that independent voters are called that because they can go either way, and might not decide until November 4.)
Also not factored into the polls is the "animosity factor" about which NPR did a report this morning. They interviewed Clinton and Obama activists at the California Democratic Convention. Both camps were really antagonistic to each other to the point of admitting they might sit out the general election or vote for McCain if their candidate didn't get the nomination.
That celebration you hear quietly in the background is coming from Republicans who thought they had no chance this year after 8 years of Bush.
But now, somehow, they do. If they face Obama, Rev. Wright* will become the best-known minister in America and not in a good sense. If they face Hillary, they have all kinds of other demons to scare voters with, including hubby Bill. "Do you really want him in the White House again?" the voice asks, as they show Bill hugging Monica Lewinsky.
Meantime, the fact Cindy McCain is a beer distributor will probably go down well (pun intended) with NASCARites, hockey fans and many other assorted aging men who would all like to marry a rich trophy wife 17 years younger than them.
*My hunch on this is that McCain will not address this issue head-on himself but leave it to various attack dogs like whoever he gets to run for vice president. There's even talk of Joe Lieberman being his running mate - which would be a first - first guy ever to run for vice president for both major parties. Joe could get all moralistic about Wright and be relatively safe since he's a liberal on social issues. Whether that's even possible, I don't know.
But look for McCain to pick a political rockstar for veep. Maybe Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal -- he's very young, bright, "ethnically balances" the ticket and hasn't been in office long enough to get a bad rep. And if they gave civil service exams for president, Jindal is the one politician I can think of who would pass. And, he got elected governor in a basically Democratic state in a year when very few Republicans were getting elected anywhere. Jindal as veep candidate might be a huge stroke of genius.
Hillary and Barack are the Democrats' only active rockstars, and they are not going to be on the same ticket, unless some really wicked Faustian bargain is done, so evil Satan wouldn't want to be in on the negotiations. Bill Richardson? He's not really a rockstar. Nancy Pelosi? A turnoff for anyone outside California, and for many inside. Al Gore? No, he's been there and done that and probably still wants to be president.
It's all pretty disenchanting since McCain, Obama and Clinton are one and all proponents of government management of most human activities.
What would really energize the election would be someone like Jesse Ventura jumping in as independent candidate. Check out his appearance on CNN's Larry King Live early this week. Jesse talked straight and honest while the Obama, Clinton and McCain guys sounded like the slicko political operatives they are.
I'm hoping Ventura will run. If he does, I'm hoping he'll win. Now that would really shake things up in Washington town.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Neil Bush and Rev. Moon
The recent revelation that Neil Bush, younger brother of one George W. Bush, has a close association with, and has taken trips on behalf of, Unification Church founder Sun Young Moon should be deeply troubling to us. But most Americans likely won't notice.
We should. This type of odd connection --and Rev. Moon is not only an odd connection but a freaky one — of the Bush family should be instructive to American voters in the process of electing the U.S. president.
My first thought is that the lesson should be, “Don’t do it!” as in, “Let’s not have a president for the next four years and see how that works out.”
But that won’t happen - we will have one egomaniac or another in the Oval Office. And the odds are his or her connections will prove equally bizzare and/or dangerous and/or freaky.
We’ve all heard now about Obama’s “spiritual mentor,” Rev. Wright. Doubtless similarly macabre associations for McCain and Clinton will emerge as well.
What gives? Well, if you conclude, as rationality demands you must, that anyone who would want to be U.S. president is ipso facto demented, there’s a straight line from that to this phenomenon — exotic, nightmarish personal and family connections that most of us ordinary folk would not have on a bet.
My permanent solution for this madness? Rein in executive power with a highly restrictive constitutional amendment, thus making the office unattractive to those among us with serious personality disorders. Or, better yet, a plural executive a la Switzerland, increasing the chances we’ll have a couple of normal people involved at the top of the federal republic.
Otherwise, we should get used to it. And it’s nothing new. Two words: Billy Carter.
We should. This type of odd connection --and Rev. Moon is not only an odd connection but a freaky one — of the Bush family should be instructive to American voters in the process of electing the U.S. president.
My first thought is that the lesson should be, “Don’t do it!” as in, “Let’s not have a president for the next four years and see how that works out.”
But that won’t happen - we will have one egomaniac or another in the Oval Office. And the odds are his or her connections will prove equally bizzare and/or dangerous and/or freaky.
We’ve all heard now about Obama’s “spiritual mentor,” Rev. Wright. Doubtless similarly macabre associations for McCain and Clinton will emerge as well.
What gives? Well, if you conclude, as rationality demands you must, that anyone who would want to be U.S. president is ipso facto demented, there’s a straight line from that to this phenomenon — exotic, nightmarish personal and family connections that most of us ordinary folk would not have on a bet.
My permanent solution for this madness? Rein in executive power with a highly restrictive constitutional amendment, thus making the office unattractive to those among us with serious personality disorders. Or, better yet, a plural executive a la Switzerland, increasing the chances we’ll have a couple of normal people involved at the top of the federal republic.
Otherwise, we should get used to it. And it’s nothing new. Two words: Billy Carter.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
The Cult of the Presidency
I recommend – strongly – that you get Gene Healy’s new book The Cult of the Presidency. (Due out in late April - check www.catostore.org).
Healy carefully documents that, although Bush II may be one of the worst offenders in abusing executive power, he is not the first by a long shot.
The tradition dates back at least a century to Theodore Roosevelt and includes most Democrats and Republicans since then. Healy makes a very strong argument that Americans have come to view the presidency as a sort of secular national messiahship, and that most occupants of the office from Teddy on have fanned this belief and used it as cover for increasingly-widened powers, at the expense of limited government and civil liberties.
The ultimate problem, Healy seems to be saying, is not who occupies the presidency but the very nature of the office as seen by most Americans today. Most of us want the president to solve every problem, or at least “respond” to every problem, and that requires widening the power of government in general and the president in particular. FDR openly admitted when he took office in 1933 he would be asking for domestic powers equivalent to the wartime powers of commander-in-chief.
So, if you think calculating evil is a recent development in the Oval Office, take a closer look at the last 100 years. Woodrow Wilson persecuted opponents of the Great War. FDR sent Japanese-Americans who were U.S. citizens to concentration camps, after seizing their property. LBJ gave us the Vietnam War, in which many more people died than in the Iraq War. Nixon of course gave us Watergate and assorted other Machiavellian criminality.
The precedent for presidents over the last century has been bad, unless you happen to believe a president with virtually unlimited power is a good idea. Many people do – so long as it’s “their guy” with the power.
That’s demented, in my opinion. The end result of this is always a Caesar, or worse.
We need to un-set the precedent. We should either place new, stringent restrictions on the president via constitutional amendment or adopt something like the Swiss plural presidency (they have 7) in which a committee exercises executive power. The committee members act as equal checks on each other.
The election of Obama, Clinton or McCain will do nothing to change the current situation, despite the fervent belief of their passionate supporters.
Lord Acton pointed out that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The nature of the office virtually guarantees corruption. The president now has a wide array of arrogated powers and patronage, virtually-Congressional-oversight-free command of the most sophisticated and well-armed military in the world, and control of a vast intelligence network centered in the CIA and NSA.
That’s a heady, imperial mix. It defies common sense to believe that anyone – other than a few long-dead saints – could resist the temptation to use that power extensively. And indeed, hardly any president has resisted the temptation during the last century.
America’s founders designed the office of president for people like Cincinnatus, not people like Caesar. We need to revisit that sentiment and re-set the precedent because history teaches us that after Caesar comes Caligula.
Healy carefully documents that, although Bush II may be one of the worst offenders in abusing executive power, he is not the first by a long shot.
The tradition dates back at least a century to Theodore Roosevelt and includes most Democrats and Republicans since then. Healy makes a very strong argument that Americans have come to view the presidency as a sort of secular national messiahship, and that most occupants of the office from Teddy on have fanned this belief and used it as cover for increasingly-widened powers, at the expense of limited government and civil liberties.
The ultimate problem, Healy seems to be saying, is not who occupies the presidency but the very nature of the office as seen by most Americans today. Most of us want the president to solve every problem, or at least “respond” to every problem, and that requires widening the power of government in general and the president in particular. FDR openly admitted when he took office in 1933 he would be asking for domestic powers equivalent to the wartime powers of commander-in-chief.
So, if you think calculating evil is a recent development in the Oval Office, take a closer look at the last 100 years. Woodrow Wilson persecuted opponents of the Great War. FDR sent Japanese-Americans who were U.S. citizens to concentration camps, after seizing their property. LBJ gave us the Vietnam War, in which many more people died than in the Iraq War. Nixon of course gave us Watergate and assorted other Machiavellian criminality.
The precedent for presidents over the last century has been bad, unless you happen to believe a president with virtually unlimited power is a good idea. Many people do – so long as it’s “their guy” with the power.
That’s demented, in my opinion. The end result of this is always a Caesar, or worse.
We need to un-set the precedent. We should either place new, stringent restrictions on the president via constitutional amendment or adopt something like the Swiss plural presidency (they have 7) in which a committee exercises executive power. The committee members act as equal checks on each other.
The election of Obama, Clinton or McCain will do nothing to change the current situation, despite the fervent belief of their passionate supporters.
Lord Acton pointed out that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The nature of the office virtually guarantees corruption. The president now has a wide array of arrogated powers and patronage, virtually-Congressional-oversight-free command of the most sophisticated and well-armed military in the world, and control of a vast intelligence network centered in the CIA and NSA.
That’s a heady, imperial mix. It defies common sense to believe that anyone – other than a few long-dead saints – could resist the temptation to use that power extensively. And indeed, hardly any president has resisted the temptation during the last century.
America’s founders designed the office of president for people like Cincinnatus, not people like Caesar. We need to revisit that sentiment and re-set the precedent because history teaches us that after Caesar comes Caligula.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Heaven help us
Hillary Clinton, quote from today’s NY Times: ‘“We need a president who can restore our confidence,” she said. “We need a president who is ready on Day 1 to be commander in chief of our economy.”’
Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/politics/25campaign.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
If memory serves, that’s what Benito Mussolini, Juan Peron and Antonio Salazar were all about – being chief commanders of their economies, along with such other fine folks as Stalin and Mao (and numerous minor tyrants).
Which begs the question, what does this make Hillary?
Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/politics/25campaign.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
If memory serves, that’s what Benito Mussolini, Juan Peron and Antonio Salazar were all about – being chief commanders of their economies, along with such other fine folks as Stalin and Mao (and numerous minor tyrants).
Which begs the question, what does this make Hillary?
Thursday, March 13, 2008
A Buddhist Video Interview
Sally Quinn at the Washington Post interviews religious leaders. Short videos of the interviews are posted on their website.
To view one from my Nichiren Buddhist SGI lay association, click on the link below and scroll down to Bill Aiken and click on his name:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sally_quinn/2007/12/divine_impulses_a_video_interv.html
Bill is a longtime practitioner and currently SGI-USA national public affairs director.
If you're interested in finding out more about Nichiren Buddhism, based on chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, visit the national website at http://www.sgi-usa.org/
To view one from my Nichiren Buddhist SGI lay association, click on the link below and scroll down to Bill Aiken and click on his name:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sally_quinn/2007/12/divine_impulses_a_video_interv.html
Bill is a longtime practitioner and currently SGI-USA national public affairs director.
If you're interested in finding out more about Nichiren Buddhism, based on chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, visit the national website at http://www.sgi-usa.org/
Monday, March 10, 2008
A Cultural Change
Ask around among your friends and see who's actually read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Even among Baby Boomers, putatively better educated than generations since, it's only a minority. Some years back, a poll was done to discover what Americans thought of the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.
When given verbatim reading of one or another of the first ten amendments -- minus identification of where it came from -- a surprising number either thought the protected right shouldn't be protected or, worse still, thought it was somehow communist.
Is this because most people are inherently stupid?
No, the answer lies in our culture. Americans are exceptionally poorly educated, thanks to our government monopoly elementary and secondary school system. Results include a culture that places more importance on American Idol and the personal life of Britney Spears than on American government and the daily abuse of power by the executive and Congress.
In fact, with the general ignorance of the Bill of Rights, most Americans would likely not notice most of their rights being taken away.
If it were not for a small minority of libertarians and civil libertarians, both major parties, and their special interest group allies, would have long ago scrapped the Bill of Rights. They've been chipping away at it furiously over the years, especially during the last eight, but consistently for several decades.
Ultimately, it will require a change in culture, a rejuvenation of widespread interest in how the government works and how much power it has, to change this state of affairs. The "progressive" solution of giving government even more power will result, eventually, in autocracy just as the ancient Roman Republic ended, as several democratic Greek city states ended, and as the French Revolution ended.
Our culture - with amnesia about what happened last year, much less last century or a couple of millenia ago - has to change if we want to stop a headlong rush into a new age of imperial autocracy followed by a new Dark Ages.
But for the moment, we seem quite unconcerned about it all.
When given verbatim reading of one or another of the first ten amendments -- minus identification of where it came from -- a surprising number either thought the protected right shouldn't be protected or, worse still, thought it was somehow communist.
Is this because most people are inherently stupid?
No, the answer lies in our culture. Americans are exceptionally poorly educated, thanks to our government monopoly elementary and secondary school system. Results include a culture that places more importance on American Idol and the personal life of Britney Spears than on American government and the daily abuse of power by the executive and Congress.
In fact, with the general ignorance of the Bill of Rights, most Americans would likely not notice most of their rights being taken away.
If it were not for a small minority of libertarians and civil libertarians, both major parties, and their special interest group allies, would have long ago scrapped the Bill of Rights. They've been chipping away at it furiously over the years, especially during the last eight, but consistently for several decades.
Ultimately, it will require a change in culture, a rejuvenation of widespread interest in how the government works and how much power it has, to change this state of affairs. The "progressive" solution of giving government even more power will result, eventually, in autocracy just as the ancient Roman Republic ended, as several democratic Greek city states ended, and as the French Revolution ended.
Our culture - with amnesia about what happened last year, much less last century or a couple of millenia ago - has to change if we want to stop a headlong rush into a new age of imperial autocracy followed by a new Dark Ages.
But for the moment, we seem quite unconcerned about it all.
Friday, March 7, 2008
On The Media
NPR produces a weekly program called On The Media with Brooke Gladstone and Bob Garfield. It's a news program about how journalists are reporting the news. Think book reviews written by authors of other books and you've got a general idea.
Not that it's a bad show. Sometimes it can be excellent, but affiliate stations tend to run it off-prime time. In radio, "prime time" is 6 am - 10 am (when people are commuting to work) and 3 pm - 7 pm (when people are commuting home) and Saturday from 8 am - 12 noon when people are puttering around the house.
Invariably, On The Media is broadcast very early Saturday morning, when no one except Buddhists are awake, or on Saturday or Sunday afternoon, when no one is listening to radio except Met opera fans, and only from December to April.
Surfing to the On The Media webpage today, I was not amazed to find stories and comments about the now-ending love affair journalists have had with Barack Obama. Likely that skit on a recent Saturday Night Live made it untenable for news folk to continue. But On The Media has done their part, comprehensively examining the phenomenon and wondering what it meant.
What it meant, of course, is that people who write stories in magazines and newspapers, or report stories on radio and television, are not necessarily any less prone to silly behavior than the rest of us. Objectively, there is a strong case to be made that many journalists were treating the Senator from Illinois with especially soft kid gloves.
Maybe they thought Hillary was not smart enough to notice. They were wrong.
A good friend of Sam is a gentleman down in Alabama named Glynn Wilson who runs an online newspaper and blog called Locust Fork World News. Glynn does some good things, like campaigning against the continued imprisonment of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat who was targeted by the Gonzales Justice department and sent to prison on trumped-up charges.
Glynn also epitomized, and still epitomizes, the fascination of a certain segment of the media with Obama. Even before running an editorial endorsing Barack, he was obviously very favorable to him, to the extent of interpreting Obama's primary streak, ended this week, to mean that there would be a landslide Democratic victory this fall and that the country would move farther left than at any previous time since FDR.
All of that was wishful thinking, in Sam's opinion. But it was an extreme expression of what many in the media and the entertainment industry long for: a real life re-enactment of West Wing, during which the problems of the country and world are solved by brilliant, lefty wonks with lots of funding for new social programs and tons of warm fuzziness.
Well, the Democratic race is still on and is getting as ugly as the most partisan Republican could have hoped, defying the media's fairly blatant attempt to manipulate it into a revival of Camelot. But the good news is that people like Brooke and Bob will be looking more closely at their colleagues than ever before.
Perhaps now the media will start questioning the basic assumptions found in the policy prescriptions of McCain, Obama and Clinton that envision an even larger role for government meddling in human activities.
Brooke and Bob can wonder if just the way questions are framed assume certain things.
The most basic assumption that needs to be challenged, and which has not been since the time of FDR, is that the government needs to "do something" about every conceivable human problem.
The evidence of the 20th century should have put that idea to rest. But, in their own peculiar way, journalists are the most conservative of people, refusing to give up a pet belief until there is not only overwhelming evidence against it, but overwhelmingly overt evidence.
One prominent example of that would be the absolute astonishment of many, maybe most, American journalists when the Soviet Union fell in 1991. Sober-eyed economists like Milton Friedman had long predicted it (and predicted it would mostly have to do with the internal rotteness of the system, not outside military pressure).
It took the actual, very public collapse of the Soviets to wake up newspeople to the inherent immorality and corruption of coercive collectivism. But in recent years many seem to have forgotten, as they continue to give warm coverage to collectivist ideas from Obama, Clinton and McCain, without questioning the basic assumption, without asking the question, "But why should the government be doing anything about this -- in a constitutional federal republic?"
Maybe Brooke and Bob can begin asking questions about why their colleagues aren't asking that question.
Not that it's a bad show. Sometimes it can be excellent, but affiliate stations tend to run it off-prime time. In radio, "prime time" is 6 am - 10 am (when people are commuting to work) and 3 pm - 7 pm (when people are commuting home) and Saturday from 8 am - 12 noon when people are puttering around the house.
Invariably, On The Media is broadcast very early Saturday morning, when no one except Buddhists are awake, or on Saturday or Sunday afternoon, when no one is listening to radio except Met opera fans, and only from December to April.
Surfing to the On The Media webpage today, I was not amazed to find stories and comments about the now-ending love affair journalists have had with Barack Obama. Likely that skit on a recent Saturday Night Live made it untenable for news folk to continue. But On The Media has done their part, comprehensively examining the phenomenon and wondering what it meant.
What it meant, of course, is that people who write stories in magazines and newspapers, or report stories on radio and television, are not necessarily any less prone to silly behavior than the rest of us. Objectively, there is a strong case to be made that many journalists were treating the Senator from Illinois with especially soft kid gloves.
Maybe they thought Hillary was not smart enough to notice. They were wrong.
A good friend of Sam is a gentleman down in Alabama named Glynn Wilson who runs an online newspaper and blog called Locust Fork World News. Glynn does some good things, like campaigning against the continued imprisonment of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat who was targeted by the Gonzales Justice department and sent to prison on trumped-up charges.
Glynn also epitomized, and still epitomizes, the fascination of a certain segment of the media with Obama. Even before running an editorial endorsing Barack, he was obviously very favorable to him, to the extent of interpreting Obama's primary streak, ended this week, to mean that there would be a landslide Democratic victory this fall and that the country would move farther left than at any previous time since FDR.
All of that was wishful thinking, in Sam's opinion. But it was an extreme expression of what many in the media and the entertainment industry long for: a real life re-enactment of West Wing, during which the problems of the country and world are solved by brilliant, lefty wonks with lots of funding for new social programs and tons of warm fuzziness.
Well, the Democratic race is still on and is getting as ugly as the most partisan Republican could have hoped, defying the media's fairly blatant attempt to manipulate it into a revival of Camelot. But the good news is that people like Brooke and Bob will be looking more closely at their colleagues than ever before.
Perhaps now the media will start questioning the basic assumptions found in the policy prescriptions of McCain, Obama and Clinton that envision an even larger role for government meddling in human activities.
Brooke and Bob can wonder if just the way questions are framed assume certain things.
The most basic assumption that needs to be challenged, and which has not been since the time of FDR, is that the government needs to "do something" about every conceivable human problem.
The evidence of the 20th century should have put that idea to rest. But, in their own peculiar way, journalists are the most conservative of people, refusing to give up a pet belief until there is not only overwhelming evidence against it, but overwhelmingly overt evidence.
One prominent example of that would be the absolute astonishment of many, maybe most, American journalists when the Soviet Union fell in 1991. Sober-eyed economists like Milton Friedman had long predicted it (and predicted it would mostly have to do with the internal rotteness of the system, not outside military pressure).
It took the actual, very public collapse of the Soviets to wake up newspeople to the inherent immorality and corruption of coercive collectivism. But in recent years many seem to have forgotten, as they continue to give warm coverage to collectivist ideas from Obama, Clinton and McCain, without questioning the basic assumption, without asking the question, "But why should the government be doing anything about this -- in a constitutional federal republic?"
Maybe Brooke and Bob can begin asking questions about why their colleagues aren't asking that question.
Monday, March 3, 2008
No More Saviors in the White House
Let's revisit Michelle Obama’s recent statement, cited in the Cato@Liberty post repeated here last week: “Barack Obama … is going to demand that you shed your cynicism… That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”
The problem that I have with Ms. Obama's statement -- the same problem that I have with the attitudes of Hillary Clinton and John McCain -- is that it shows a kind of insipient arrogance that has taken over the leading politicians of this country. Heavens knows George Bush has his share, or more than his share, of it.
While Ms. Obama did not reference "forcing" Americans to do anything, the language she used should be regarded as offensive, just as I regard many statements by Clinton and McCain offensive.
In one of the Dune books, Frank Herbert gives a brief lesson on how democracy is transformed into aristocracy. One of the key warning signs he mentions is increasing arrogance on the part of the political class, a subtle elitism that eventually becomes overt.
You would have to look very hard for a leading politician today who does not show at least some of the arrogance that Herbert said should be a red flag. Positioning yourself as a secular messiah is supremely arrogant, and that is precisely what Senator Obama has done. Hillary likely thinks of herself in similar terms and anyone who's studied John McCain's career knows he is also condescending and arrogant.
A belief that Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton or John McCain, will save America is not rational. Most U.S. presidents have, at least since the time of Teddy Roosevelt, positioned themselves as saviors who would lead us to the Promised Land. Seems logical someone would have succeeded by now, but as we have seen the most prominent results of this historical trend has been a century of war and increasing repression of individual rights.
The problem is not "electing the right people to office" but, rather, the wide range of power that U.S. presidents in particular, and Congress as well, have arrogated to themselves. (Bush's lawyers, in court defending his abritrary detention of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, went so far as to claim that in "wartime" the "commander in chief" could pretty much ignore any law or the Bill of Rights if he chooses. Think about the implications of that.)
Maybe Obama or Clinton are so decent they would never abuse the office the way Bush has. Maybe. But maybe not. Power has a strange effect on people, like a personality-altering hallucogenic. Go to DC sometime and tour K Street and the Capitol area and see the addicts.
The framers of the Constitution -- who'd had it up to here with arbitrary executive power courtesy King George and his despotic royal governors -- deliberately and severely limited the power of the president, of Congress, and of government as a whole. They added on the Bill of Rights for good measure. This was undone by the bloodless coup d'etat FDR carried out in the 1930s. (His chief henchmen later admitted, in so many words, that what they'd been up to was subverting the intentions of the framers and the limits on power in the Constitution.)
Those original limits are all in tatters now. Even more frightening is that the media and the public generally do not understand this.
The presidency has been allowed to accumulate too much power. FDR sent thousands of Japanese-Americans to concentration camps. Truman signed off on experiments on African American servicemen. Nixon and Kennedy used the IRS against political opponents. Bloody, expensive wars became the hallmark of American foreign policy during the 20th century.
I worry deeply about someone with a savior complex in the office of president. FDR had such a complex, so did LBJ. I worry deeply about someone who wants to be nanny for 250 million individuals in the office of president. I worry deeply about someone who doesn't think free speech rights are as important as having a "clean government," as John McCain has stated on national television.
So, yes, Michelle Obama's comments are troubling. Ms. Obama is highly educated, a successful attorney, and doubtless looked on in her own right as a role model by many younger women. Her comments speak to a culture of dependence on government and deference to government, not a culture which cherishes individual liberty and responsibility.
The bottom line is that, although George Bush will thankfully leave office next January 20, none of his three putative successors -- upon close examination -- offer anything different. None are offering to reduce the power of the presidency, or reduce the role of the federal government in individual lives or renounce the fool's errand of America as world policeman. None are offering anything, in fact, but a further expansion of bureaucrats nosing into our lives, and attempting to run them for us, in some way.
Our current president, George Bush, was not the first mass-abuser of executive power. Given that we do not seem to be examining politicians very closely yet, he won't be the last. And remember, he seemed pretty innocuous at first, before 9/11. Many people thought Bush was a dimwit, but figured that the worst thing that could happen would be looting taxpayers on behalf of Halliburton and the oil companies.
Not even close. But the warning signs were there in remarks Bush made on the campaign trail and in the advisers he surrounded himself with, most notably Rove and Cheney.
We must start looking at politicians exceptionally critically. The election is not American Idol, where the winner gets a recording or film contract. The winner ends up in the presidency, which can now, thanks to FDR, visit untold mischief on the country and the world.
No more saviors in the White House; inevitably, they turn out to be anything but.
The problem that I have with Ms. Obama's statement -- the same problem that I have with the attitudes of Hillary Clinton and John McCain -- is that it shows a kind of insipient arrogance that has taken over the leading politicians of this country. Heavens knows George Bush has his share, or more than his share, of it.
While Ms. Obama did not reference "forcing" Americans to do anything, the language she used should be regarded as offensive, just as I regard many statements by Clinton and McCain offensive.
In one of the Dune books, Frank Herbert gives a brief lesson on how democracy is transformed into aristocracy. One of the key warning signs he mentions is increasing arrogance on the part of the political class, a subtle elitism that eventually becomes overt.
You would have to look very hard for a leading politician today who does not show at least some of the arrogance that Herbert said should be a red flag. Positioning yourself as a secular messiah is supremely arrogant, and that is precisely what Senator Obama has done. Hillary likely thinks of herself in similar terms and anyone who's studied John McCain's career knows he is also condescending and arrogant.
A belief that Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton or John McCain, will save America is not rational. Most U.S. presidents have, at least since the time of Teddy Roosevelt, positioned themselves as saviors who would lead us to the Promised Land. Seems logical someone would have succeeded by now, but as we have seen the most prominent results of this historical trend has been a century of war and increasing repression of individual rights.
The problem is not "electing the right people to office" but, rather, the wide range of power that U.S. presidents in particular, and Congress as well, have arrogated to themselves. (Bush's lawyers, in court defending his abritrary detention of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, went so far as to claim that in "wartime" the "commander in chief" could pretty much ignore any law or the Bill of Rights if he chooses. Think about the implications of that.)
Maybe Obama or Clinton are so decent they would never abuse the office the way Bush has. Maybe. But maybe not. Power has a strange effect on people, like a personality-altering hallucogenic. Go to DC sometime and tour K Street and the Capitol area and see the addicts.
The framers of the Constitution -- who'd had it up to here with arbitrary executive power courtesy King George and his despotic royal governors -- deliberately and severely limited the power of the president, of Congress, and of government as a whole. They added on the Bill of Rights for good measure. This was undone by the bloodless coup d'etat FDR carried out in the 1930s. (His chief henchmen later admitted, in so many words, that what they'd been up to was subverting the intentions of the framers and the limits on power in the Constitution.)
Those original limits are all in tatters now. Even more frightening is that the media and the public generally do not understand this.
The presidency has been allowed to accumulate too much power. FDR sent thousands of Japanese-Americans to concentration camps. Truman signed off on experiments on African American servicemen. Nixon and Kennedy used the IRS against political opponents. Bloody, expensive wars became the hallmark of American foreign policy during the 20th century.
I worry deeply about someone with a savior complex in the office of president. FDR had such a complex, so did LBJ. I worry deeply about someone who wants to be nanny for 250 million individuals in the office of president. I worry deeply about someone who doesn't think free speech rights are as important as having a "clean government," as John McCain has stated on national television.
So, yes, Michelle Obama's comments are troubling. Ms. Obama is highly educated, a successful attorney, and doubtless looked on in her own right as a role model by many younger women. Her comments speak to a culture of dependence on government and deference to government, not a culture which cherishes individual liberty and responsibility.
The bottom line is that, although George Bush will thankfully leave office next January 20, none of his three putative successors -- upon close examination -- offer anything different. None are offering to reduce the power of the presidency, or reduce the role of the federal government in individual lives or renounce the fool's errand of America as world policeman. None are offering anything, in fact, but a further expansion of bureaucrats nosing into our lives, and attempting to run them for us, in some way.
Our current president, George Bush, was not the first mass-abuser of executive power. Given that we do not seem to be examining politicians very closely yet, he won't be the last. And remember, he seemed pretty innocuous at first, before 9/11. Many people thought Bush was a dimwit, but figured that the worst thing that could happen would be looting taxpayers on behalf of Halliburton and the oil companies.
Not even close. But the warning signs were there in remarks Bush made on the campaign trail and in the advisers he surrounded himself with, most notably Rove and Cheney.
We must start looking at politicians exceptionally critically. The election is not American Idol, where the winner gets a recording or film contract. The winner ends up in the presidency, which can now, thanks to FDR, visit untold mischief on the country and the world.
No more saviors in the White House; inevitably, they turn out to be anything but.
Gridlock is Best
What would be the best scenario for 2009? Gridlock.
History has shown us that when different parties are in control at opposite ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, partisan egoes work to minimize the damage the federal government can do. That certainly was the case during Clinton's last six years in office, not to mention the era of Dick Nixon.
Conversely, under FDR, LBJ and Bush junior, control of both branches by the same party gave rise to the worst possible abuses on any number of fronts.
This probably translates to John McCain with a Democratic Congress, although Hillary with a Republican Congress might be more fun to watch.
History has shown us that when different parties are in control at opposite ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, partisan egoes work to minimize the damage the federal government can do. That certainly was the case during Clinton's last six years in office, not to mention the era of Dick Nixon.
Conversely, under FDR, LBJ and Bush junior, control of both branches by the same party gave rise to the worst possible abuses on any number of fronts.
This probably translates to John McCain with a Democratic Congress, although Hillary with a Republican Congress might be more fun to watch.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Demander in Chief
A post on today's Cato@Liberty blog.
Demander-in-Chief
posted by Sallie James
Bill Kristol’s column in yesterday’s New York Times contained an interesting, if disconcerting, quote from Michelle Obama:
Barack Obama … is going to demand that you shed your cynicism… That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.
The President of the United States is the employee of the American people. He is not there to make demands of people. If I want to sit on my couch for the rest of my life eating Doritos and watching trashy television — unengaged, uninformed and uninvolved — that’s my prerogative.
--End of repeated post--
Well, Sam in Annapolis agrees. Get those Pringles, sodas and such ready. But, you know, I am engaged in Buddhist activities, but that's my choice, not the president's or anyone else's.
Demander-in-Chief
posted by Sallie James
Bill Kristol’s column in yesterday’s New York Times contained an interesting, if disconcerting, quote from Michelle Obama:
Barack Obama … is going to demand that you shed your cynicism… That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.
The President of the United States is the employee of the American people. He is not there to make demands of people. If I want to sit on my couch for the rest of my life eating Doritos and watching trashy television — unengaged, uninformed and uninvolved — that’s my prerogative.
--End of repeated post--
Well, Sam in Annapolis agrees. Get those Pringles, sodas and such ready. But, you know, I am engaged in Buddhist activities, but that's my choice, not the president's or anyone else's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)