Republicans Are Name-Callers

I know what you are thinking -- isn't calling someone a "name-caller" automatically make you one yourself? The answer is no -- not if it's an accurate label -- or did I just blow your mind?

What do I mean by name-callers? I mean Republicans no longer offer arguments. Why did House Republicans say they voted down the first bill? They claim it's because Nancy Pelosi gave a partisan speech. What does McCain or Palin offer in terms of policy solutions? Tough talk and attacks on Obama. Without arguments, they are just calling people names. And the truth is, they don't have a choice. Here's why:

Part of the answer relates to why most of America thinks this current bill is all about bailing out Wall Street. The way I understand it, the issue isn't that people aren't spending or buying. The problem also isn't that big companies going bust hurts the economy. The problem, essentially, is a lack of good credit -- people can't buy or lend. And that has a ripple effect -- it hurts big business, it hurts small business, and it hurts us all. Thus, Republicans simply cannot understand the current problem. Now, yes, they can on an individual basis. But the conservative ideology cannot. The traditional conservative platform understands the economy as driven solely by demand: infuse the economy with more money (via tax cuts) and the economy does better. However, the key to this problem is that it's not about demand -- it's about credit. Credit: something that should have had government oversight and requires it now. Thus, the Republican platform can't even begin to envision the problem -- it's wholly outside their economic understanding. Consequently, Republicans can't offer arguments about the bill -- they can only call names.

Another aspect of the problem: as the world changes it becomes increasingly hard for conservatives to deny that small government is the best form of government. John McCain has been criticized from the left and the right for not being more specific about his economic plan. But what can he say? In the last 8 years of the Bush laissez-faire economy, we've seen Europe (yes, that Europe) grow faster economically than us and the EU catch up in terms of global influence. Conservatives, who used to mock those "socialist" countries, must also be aware that the dollar has become weaker and weaker against the euro (granted, a lot of that has to do with the fact that the dollar is traditionally hedged against oil).

And here's where it ties in to the VP debate: Palin may have chosen not to answer questions and repeat cliches because she's personally incapable of answering questions (see Katie Couric interview). Or: Palin can't answer questions because the Republican platform has no answer: she can only attack and offer cliches.

The fact is, as Thomas Friedman wrote recently (and I quoted previously), the modern global economy requires active governments that oversee and take advantage of cash flows that move rapidly and globally. Democrats, because they envision a helping role for the government in the economy, can offer solutions to these problems. Republicans cannot.

And finally, it's worth noting that the gaping whole in the Republican credo doesn't end with financial oversight. The myth that the freemarket cures all has been rocked. Hopefully, that leads to a similar debunking of other freemarket cure-all myths, like: trading polution points versus investing in alternative energy, vouchers versus investing in our schools, and that Reagan was cognizant during his second term.

So, next time you hear a Republican, listen to see if he is really offering an argument, or simply throwing out buzzwords: "Regan," "big government," "death tax," etc. Unless they can provide an argument, and not just a catchy phrase (which they are good at), then it's just name-calling.

NY Times on the Veep Debate

I won't be posting detailed thoughts on the Veep debate because the NY Times editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/opinion/03fri1.html?em) sums up exactly how I feel. The CNN/major news outlet story was that Palin exceeded expectations but Biden won. Well, considering the expectation was that Palin couldn't speak in full sentences I'm not sure how much Republicans should really be patting themselves on the back. The editorial points out that she offered zero substance, but plenty of cliches and attacks. In fact, my next post, coming later today, will be about how conservative rhetoric has degenerated into name-calling -- there's no argument left more them to make (at least economically and in terms of foreign policy) so it's become one giant version of calling Democrats "poopy-pants."

But more on that later. What did you think of the debate?

Do the Dems Have a Plan?

Is it possible that the Democrats actually have a plan this election -- and therefore really could win? Part of me worries that we haven't seen the Keating Five attack ad yet because the Obama camp refuses to run it. On the other hand, they could be saving their best for the final run -- and making sure that Obama stays on message. Across the aisle, for example, it's certainly been a problem for McCain that he's been all over the map on issues -- especially the economy -- and has even had correct his VP candidate.

And speaking of the VP candidate, I remember being afraid that the Dems were once again taking the high road and were going to lose because they wouldn't attack Palin. Now, with her favorables dropping and independents switching over to the Dems because of her, maybe letting Palin implode was the plan all along.

As for Palin imploding, well, that never gets old. As I've said before, as long as McPain/Palin loses this will go down as the funniest VP pick of all time. Take a look at Palin and Biden both answer Katie Couric on Roe v. Wade. Biden's answer is incredibly well-thought out. He especially shines when asked to name a court decision with which he disagrees -- and talks about the Violence Against Women Act. Biden derides the court, as he should, for invalidating the Violence Against Women Act for failing to have an interstate commerce connection. Of course, the conservative cour has had no problem finding such a connection when it comes to anti-abortion laws.

Then Palin answers on the video, stumbling through her normal gibberish. She isn't even lucid. But what's most frightening is that when Katie Couric asks her to name another case with which she disagrees, it's clear that Palin can't name another Supreme Court case. I mean, she couldn't even throw out Dredd Scott. Either she agrees with slavery or she knows absolutely nothing about the Court. I wonder how many Justices she could name. In her defense though, I'm not sure they get newspapers in Alaska either.

Yes, Palin's an easy target, but it's important to remember that her selection reflects poorly on the judgment of the artist formerly known as John McCain.

So while I'm still afraid of the McCain campaign attacks, which are sure to come, and will attempt to play on American's underlying racism, I'm starting to believe that the Dems have a plan and they just might win. Even pollster.com, which tends to have the most conservative estimates (when it comes to electoral college predictions) of the sites I look at, now has Obama with a strong lead -- including a 2 point lead in Florida.

Guest Post: More on the Debates

Since I don't have time for a long post today I wanted to make sure, if you didn't happen to see it, this great comment on the blog. It includes some great insight into the upcoming debate as well as how Obama should handle the issue of the surge. I can say, with almost certainty, that it was placed by a friend I once heard described by a neutral party as "erudite as shit." I have edited the formatting.
-Vox Populi

Obama scored better and more often than did McCain -- not only at the level of intellect and policy -- but also of stature. Hopefully Biden can do the same thing on Thursday.

Biden will be faced with something of the opposite of the challenge that Obama faced on Friday: while people were looking to see if Obama, despite his limited time in elected office, was "ready" to be president and he needed to come off as down to Earth (as opposed to being an aloof elitist (a la Gore or Adlai Stevenson)), everyone knows that Biden knows the ins and outs of both Washington and foreign policy the difficulty will be whether he can convey that vast wealth of knowledge while maintaining a respectful tone toward Palin. Regardless of whether you think Palin deserves to be talked down to (I, for one, think she does), Biden needs to resist the temptation or risk eliciting sympathy for Palin. As this blog mentioned previously, Palin is someone people relate to and see pieces of themselves in. The average person does not know the ins and outs of foreign policy but likely still considers himself or herself capable of making (and expressing) foreign policy decisions--perhaps by listening to their gut and being sure never to blink. If Biden's attacks seem too mean spirited or smack of a know-it-all smugness, those who like Palin may sense that their own intelligence and judgment is being impugned as well and thus might respond negatively.

On a completely different note, I must say that while I thought Obama generally acquitted himself nicely I was surprised by his answer on the surge in Iraq. Obviously this was a point where McCain felt particularly confident and where he could really press Obama and try to score some points by noting the differences in their respective stances on the surge. Obama answered McCain by trying to draw a distinction between a strategy and a tactic, a line of argument that in my view was ill-conceived. Rather than argue about the differences between a successful tactic in service of a failed strategy, I thought he should have opted for an answer that I thought he had used rather successfully in the debates during the democratic primaries. The argument ran something like this: Our military, is of course, the strongest in the world and given the right number of troops and the right military equipment they can achieve any military objective that it would be prudent for us to ask of them. But the problem in Iraq has moved beyond military objectives. What we have in Iraq is a social problem, not a military one. So of course the surge worked, it was a military objective carried out successfully by our brave men and women who are the best soldiers in the world. But that does not change the fact that the Iraq government has failed to meet all of its social and political deadlines. The government of Iraq this year is running at a huge surplus [I think its around 80 billion dollars, if i remember correctly], while American tax payers are paying millions of dollars a day and America's children are putting their lives at risk everyday. With the military objectives of this war largely complete its time for us to turn over the country to men and women of Iraq and to the government that they elected and to bring our sons and daughters home.

Just my two cents.

Arguing With Conservatives Part II: Minimum Wage

Since it's a relatively slow news day so far I thought I'd return to another episode in arguing with conservatives. And I know what you are thinking, is it fair to beat them when they are down? After all, hasn't the recent financial crisis already shown that traditional laisez-faire economics won't work? The answer is yes and yes because politicians and the public have short-term memories. For example, remember when everyone was so upset about the media coverage of Bristol Palin? Well, now it appears that McCain campaign is praying she'll get married and that the media will cover it.

We know that the failure of unregulated finance won't mean the end of Republican calls for deregulation, so it's worth taking a look at another popular conservative argument: that minimum wage hurts the economy. In fact, conservatives often go so far as to say that minimum wage actually hurts workers. The argument is very simple, and at first blush, it can almost make sense: they argue that a lower wage means that more workers will be employed. Furthermore, conservatives argue that a free market leaves workers open to choose a different job -- and thus the minimum wage actually encourages a lower wage for workers. Even further, and contradictorily, you'll hear conservatives argue that a higher wage could prove disastrous for the economy.

The argument against a minimum wage -- and a living wage -- has several simple and obvious flaws that I'll look at in turn. First, cutting or abolishing the minimum wage flies in the face of the hard evidence that is American history. We know that there was a time when Americans did not have the protection of labor laws -- and what did we have? Answer: twelve year olds working in coal mines. Thus, while conservatives can point to a hypothetical scenario in which workers suffer, we can point to a real world scenario in which workers suffer in the absence of a minimum wage. Along these lines, we also know that the minimum wage has consistently gone up in this country and that hasn't spelled doom for anyone -- not the workers, and certainly not the people holding the ultimate wealth.

And here are the problems with arguing that a lower minimum wage means more workers employed. First, people can't survive on minimum wage as it is -- so a lower minimum wage is a moot point in terms of any benefit it brings individual workers. Second, there's no guarantee that cheaper labor translates to higher production. Simple hypothetical: if a company can only sell 100 widgets, and it takes 10 workers to produce those widgets, a reduction in the cost of labor will not mean more widgets produced. In fact, all it will means is an increase in the profit of the company owner. Furthermore, an increase in a minimum wage, unlike a decrease, has the effect of increasing demand. Thus, increasing the minimum wage would conceivably lead to greater production and thus the employment of more workers -- not the other way around.

The one concern I do have with wage arguments is the very real problem of losing American jobs overseas. I'm not against the free market -- I'm against the unregulated free market. Thus, if it's more efficient for some jobs to move overeas, then the answer isn't in the form of a $25 billion loan to the auto industry. Instead, we should take that money and put it towards education, job training, and new industries (like clean energy) that have the potential for producing jobs. Unfortunately, that's not politicaly possible -- but special interests are a whole other topic that plague both parties -- and something I'll address in a later post.

And finally, the last hypocrisy: Republicans think the only factor in the economy is giving people money to spend. They say we do that by giving huge tax cuts to the wealthy. Well, why not give that money to working people would would be far more likely to spend it? The answer: once again, the minimum wage argument may not really be about the economy at all -- it's about keeping the wealthy and their money where it is.

Thoughts on the Debate

I wish Obama wouldn't start sentences with "John is right . . ." or some variation thereof. That's going to be a commercial for McCain if it isn't already. Nothing stops Obama from starting his sentences with "where I disagree with Senator McCain is . . ." However, it's certainly better than McCain's repeated and condescending use of "what Obama doesn't understand . . ." My friend Julia points out the interesting hypocrisy in this McCain tactic -- they want to label Obama an intellectual elitist -- but at the same time he doesn't understand foreign policy. Apparently, understanding foreign policy doesn't take a brain it takes gut instinct -- as in when Obama mocked the current President for "looking into the eyes" of Putin and McCain responds with "I have looked into his eyes and I saw three letters -- K-G-B."

It's like Stephen Colbert says: "Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. Now, I know some of you are going to say, 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works."

Apparently McCain measures foreign policy like Stephen Colbert pretending to be an idiot. And what is it, exactly, that McCain thinks Obama doesn't understand? George Lakoff talks about how conservatives are drawn to the "strict father" model of the world. It seems McCain thinks we are the world's parent -- he describes Russia as "out of line" and thinks we need to punish countries who don't agree with us like they are petulant children. Unfortunatley, however, we aren't the world's parent and diplomacy, as Obama understands, often requires some nuance. However, I did like one aspect of McCain's proposals and that was the never-before seen "League of Democracies." I imagine, since we already have NATO and the EU, that the League of Democracies differs in that it includes Batman and the Green Lantern.

It was also interesting to see McCain gun for the Jewish vote. I think he dropped the "existential threat to Israel" line about 500 times. It's not surprising to see McCain use this tactict since his unflinching miltarism in support of Israel is also the source of Lieberman's dedication. Hopefully "the Great Schlep" has an effect and Jewish voters -- who like to criticize the right for one issue voting on abortion -- don't do the same thing with Israel.

Just as interesting as the things that were in the debate were the things that weren't. For example, McCain never said "middle class" and Obama is already slamming McCain for this. Seems like a winning tactic to me.

Another big part of every debate is body language -- people blame Gore for walking behind Bush in a debate (trying to show he was taller, I think) and coming off like a loser while Bush chuckled good-naturedly. Well, McCain certainly played the part of the grumpy old man (smirking, scoffing, refusing to look at Obama) -- and its making news. McCain's grumpiness will definitely help Obama. A few months ago an article in Slate talked about how Bugs Bunny (calm, cool politician) beats Daffy Duck (the angry politician). It's an interesting framework that certainly works for the elections that I can remember.

And what else wasn't there? McCain's VP. After the debate, Biden was all over the networks hyping Obama and Palin was nohwere to be found. This follows the recent trend of conservatives becomingly increasingly nervous about Palin's nomination. Kathleen Parker at the National Review writes an article about how bad Palin is, labelling her candidacy the "Palin Problem" and calling for her to step down and George Will, along with other conservatives, is getting sick of the anti-illectual bent of the Republican party. I think it's telling that Tina Fey's impersonation of Palin is so funny and yet she doesn't even have to change Palin's words half the time. There's a fine line between fear and hilarity -- if Palin doesn't get elected the good news is it will go down as the funniest VP pick of all time.

Addendum: Hamiltonian Thinkers

David Brooks writes an article praising John McCain -- perhaps in fearful reaction to the McCain camp's war on the media -- or perhaps out of genuine respect. He describes all the qualities I used to associate with McCain -- integrity, humility, toughness, and a body that appears to be made out of raw sourdough. Okay, I added that last one. But still -- the fact remains that this election has done a lot to change that perception. Although, it's also fair to note that Obama has been plenty unfair in his ads as well lately.

Brooks concludes, praising McCain: "If McCain is elected, he will retain his instinct for the hard challenge. With that Greatest Generation style of his, he will run the least partisan administration in recent times. He is not a sophisticated conceptual thinker, but he is a good judge of character. He is not an organized administrator, but he has become a practiced legislative craftsman. He is, above all — and this is completely impossible to convey in the midst of a campaign — a serious man prone to serious things."

That sounds great but here's the problem: McCain isn't running to be leader of the Autobots. Facing hard challenges and judge of character may work for Optimus Prime, but the last 8 years have shown us the danger in having a president who is "not an organized administrator" or a "sophisticated conceptual thinker." The financial mess is case in point: Paulson wants to close his eyes and throw a lot of money at the problem, while more conceptual thinkers (yes, I'm citing Paul Krugman yet again) see the issues as slightly more complicated.

Obama, I trust. Why? He's a conceptual thinker. How do I know this? Because unlike every other political candidate in history, when he gave his March 2008 speech on the economy, he appeared to favor Alexander Hamilton over Thomas Jefferson. Politicians love to quote Jefferson, but Jefferson was an agrarian populist who thought the country would be nothing but a bunch of libertarian farmers. Hamilton, on the other hand, was the genius behind the structuring of the American economy. As Obama explained: "The great task before our founders was putting into practice the ideal that government could simultaneously serve liberty and advance the common good. For Alexander Hamilton, the young secretary of the treasury, that task was bound to the vigor of the American economy. Hamilton had a strong belief in the power of the market, but he balanced that belief with a conviction that human enterprise, and I quote, "may be beneficially stimulated by prudent aids and encouragements on the part of the government." Government, he believed, had an important role to play in advancing our common prosperity. So he nationalized the state Revolutionary War debts, weaving together the economies of the states and creating an American system of credit and capital markets. And he encouraged manufacturing and infrastructure, so products could be moved to market. Hamilton met fierce opposition from Thomas Jefferson, who worried that this brand of capitalism would favor the interests of the few over the many. Jefferson preferred an agrarian economy, because he believed that it would give individual landowners freedom and that this freedom would nurture our democratic institutions."

In fact, a historical perspective may help illuminate a lot about this election. I'm trying to get a man we call "the Lifetime Learner" to write a special piece on this topic. The Lifetime Learner is a guy who read several books on each President (that's right, even Millar Fillmore) just to be able to say with conviction that Bush was the worst ever. I think the verdict was that he narrowly beat out Zachary Taylor.

Anyway, I'm going to see if I can get a guest post for you this weekend along with the regular posts. I hope the debate comes off tonight and proves that Obama is the Hamilton to McCain's Jefferson when it comes to conceptual thinking. As for populism, however, I'm hoping Obama can play that message as well.