Futures and Options

It seems that Jack Cafferty over at CNN isn’t quite able to tell the difference between movement and action.  In the sense that Obama clearly appears to be in motion far more than Bush ever was I can agree with Cafferty; after all, Bush seemed to favor the appearance of a “hands-off” president while Obama is obviously committed to being conspicuously involved with the country’s day-to-day operations in addition to his strategic visions.  Unfortunately, I cannot agree with Cafferty’s conclusion:

President Obama is attacking our country’s problems on several fronts. He’s got ambitious ideas on how to solve them, and he communicates a sense of calm and confidence to the rest of us as he goes about his business. Will all his ideas work? Of course not. But if you throw enough stuff at the wall, some of it will stick.

Really?  You’re willing to stake the future of this country on the theory that “some of it will stick”?  I pay my bills by being a consultant.  If I operated on Cafferty’s theory I wouldn’t last even a month.  I don’t get to walk into a meeting with a client and suggest that we just try several different methods and hope that we hit on the right process reasonably soon.  I don’t get to have “ambitious ideas” that may not be translatable into feasible actions.  No, I don’t have those luxuries.  I am expected to analyze the situation, understand what is happening, and make decisive recommendations that are not only strategically and tactically sound, but also logistically-achievable.

Now, by no means do I intend to imply that I never make mistakes.  Nor do I intend to imply that mistakes on Obama’s part are somehow unacceptable.  He is as human as anyone else and it’s irrational to expect that he will please everyone (or even make the correct decisions) all the time.  But Cafferty’s commentary is empty praise; he does not offer specific accomplishments or solid examples on which to base his praise.  Rather, he relies upon the vague assumption that appearing busy is interchangeable with achieving results.

None of this is to claim that Obama has been ineffective.  We simply do not have enough information to evaluate such things at this point.  It is far too early for anything Obama has done or advocated to be showing results.  At best, we will begin to see results in two to four years and it’s possible that we will not truly know the effects of our president’s decisions for decades.  There are, of course, some novice mis-steps that Cafferty, to his credit, admits and even correctly evaluates as substantial missed opportunities.  Yet, even I, a person with strong ideological differences from Obama, admit that these mis-steps are ultimately unlikely to be particularly damning in the long run.

No, Cafferty’s praise of Obama is not objectionable per se.  Rather, what is objectionable is the implication that motion is synonymous with action and that there is somehow merit to the idea of simply trying anything and everything on the premise that one will eventually get lucky and find something that works.  The operating principle that even a blind pig will find a truffle every once in a while is something that I wouldn’t trust in my mechanic, much less my President.

Meghan, thank you.  Thank you for reminding me that there are still members of the Republican party who are willing to examine the party’s ideology with a fresh and objective eye.  Thank you for showing that the ideology of the John McCain of 2000 is alive an well in his daughter at least.  Thank you for giving me hope your influence on your father may remind him of the iconoclasm that he tossed aside during the 2008 campaign.

You are not alone in your struggle with the ridiculousness of figureheads like Coulter and Limbaugh.  The fact that the Republican party is tolerating these backwards bigots certainly goes a very long way to explaining why the GOP is in the trouble its in.  There is absolutely no excuse for allowing a woman who has graced us with such gems as, “If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether,” and, “Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims” to remain any sort of political figurehead, yet the party seems deathly afraid to distance itself from people like her.

There seems to be an inability, or at the very least a lack of desire, to separate conservatism from religion, specifically Christianity.  At some point,  the classical liberalism on which the party of Lincoln was founded became perversely intermixed with a Victorian social priggishness and anti-intellectualism that stifles opportunities for scientific growth and seeks new ways to control people’s morality.  The Republican party is systematically aleinating younger people by refusing to budge from fundamentalist religious positions.  There are flashes of legitimate policy (support of the military for example), but it’s difficult to take a party seriously as an intellectual force when prominent members reject modern evolutionary theory or resist efforts to extend basic human rights (secular recognition of a marriage) to homosexual couples.

Unfortunately, many young people who believe in classical liberalism are thoroughly disenchanted with the Republican party and it will take some massive shifts in the GOP’s ideology to ensure long-term viability.  The Libertarian Party is driving hard to establish itself in the minds of young people as the true standard-bearer of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, and to a large extent they are succeeding.  The Republican Party is losing the battle of public perception because it insists on clinging to extremist social positions and cannot seem to understand that its opposition isn’t evil, just of a differing opinion.

I am not sanguine about the GOP’s future as a party unless it changes course and once again embraces libertarian ideals, but every so often I see a younger Republican who embraces the change that needs to be made within the GOP and who is willing to work within the party and try to shout some reason into the prevailing maelstrom of reactionary thought.  I wish you luck.

And, even though the proposal is strictly intended as hyperbole, if you’re ever in Seattle, why not find out if I’m “Mr Far Right”; I’ve got a damn good chance since I didn’t vote for either Obama or your father. 

Article 1, Section 9, Sentence 3 of the United States Constitution. It bears repeating with emphasis:  “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

Notice that there’s no exemptions listed, not even in cases where a ridiculously ill-conceived bailout failed to place adequate restrictions on the use of government funds.  And yet, we have senators with room-temperature IQs threatening to attempt to pass not only bills of attainder, but ex post facto bills of attainder, targeting persons who are receiving bonuses from AIG.  Nevermind that these bonuses were contractual obligations that, if not paid out, would have exposed AIG to ridiculously expensive lawsuits.  Nevermind that lawmakers knew about these bonuses when the bailout was first proposed and made no effort to prohibit the use of bailout funds.

Now, do I think these people deserve their bonuses?  Absolutely not.  Do I think that the recipients of these bonuses ought to voluntarily refuse them?  Absolutely.  But it’s a terribly bad precedent to be demanding ex post facto laws or bills of attainder simply because the government rushed legislation through without properly considering the repercussions.  Do the people clamboring for blood realize the terrifying issues that would be raised by allowing this sort of legislation?  Do they just think that they would be immune to the abuse of ex post facto laws or bills of attainder?  This is a genie that we cannot allow to get out of the bottle; it opens up far too many opportunities for abuse.

“²¹Jesus said to him, ‘If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’ ²²When the young man heard this word, he went away grieving, for he had many possessions.”

It’s a hell of a leap.

Quick quiz, which of the following spent more money funding national political candidates:

- Lockheed Martin, the nation’s #1 recipient of military contracts in most years.
- The largest oil company in America.
- The largest political lobbying firm in America.
- The American Federation of Teachers.

Which of the the following combined groups spent more money funding national political candidates:

- The top two defense contractors combined.
- The four largest oil companies in America combined.
- The five largest lobbying firms combined.
- The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.

If you answered the teachers’ unions in both cases, you’re right.

Given how often teachers are cited as being underpaid (and, frankly, I tend to agree that at least the good ones are indeed underpaid) one can’t help but be just a little surprised to find out that the teachers’ unions have more money to throw around than Big Oil.  Maybe these unions ought to put their money where their mouths are and reduce the dues they charge teachers rather than lining their coffers to curry favor with politicians.  Of course, that would put the power back in the hands of the individual teachers rather than the hands of the union leadership, so we all know how likely that is to happen.

Oh jet lag, how I had forgotten thee.

Light reading.

Pulling out all the stops for my welcome back to traveling.  Snow?  In Charlotte?  In March?