Campaign Promises

Unequivocal campaign promises are useful in an election campaign, but usually nuisances once elected. In 1988 President George H. B. Bush clearly announced, “Read my lips. No new taxes.” After being pressured by a Democratic Congress while trying to garner support for the first Gulf War, Bush acquiesced on taxes. Never mind that Democrats wanted to increase taxes, they were able to effectively bludgeon Bush with his inability to keep a clear promise. It is rhetorically difficult to go back on a campaign promise.

President Barack Obama was not particularly consistent, but seems to have promised to “save or create” 3.5 million new jobs by 2011. Let’s engage in a little sentence parsing. We can assume that he is speaking about jobs created by the entire economy whole not just by the government, so he can claim jobs created in the private sector towards fulfilling the promise. Let us further assume that he is promising 3.5 million “net” jobs saved or created. If 3.5 million jobs are create, but 4 million lost, it would hardly be a boast that Obama would be proud of.

Unfortunately, the economy has been hemorrhaging net jobs, and its is getting less and less probable that 3.5 million net jobs will be created by 2011. However, he apparently hopes to use creative accounting to at least claim some job creation. Unfortunately, the recovery.gov web site where these jobs are documented as proved to be an inflated embarrassment. Sometimes, cost of living increases are counted as jobs created and in some other instances jobs were created in non-existent Congressional districts. Moreover, created jobs are counted but there is no opposite side of the ledger where jobs lost to government policies are counted.

At the beginning of the year, the Obama Administration promised that if the stimulus package were quickly passed, the unemployment rate would never rise above 8%. At last count, it was 10.2% and still on the increase. Given the ability to calculate and predict economic statistics, people are entitled to be very skeptical of the administrations computation of 650,000 jobs saved.

The figure below shows the total employment since last year in blue. Employment is clearly dropping systematically. The red line is what the administration claims the job level would have been without the stimulus package. The stimulus seem rather ineffectual in the face of falling employment thus far, even if taken at face value. At best, if you believe the Administration’s numbers and if you believe that, without evidence, that the 650,000 represents net jobs not one half of the ledger, the stimulus is only a 0.4% effect on total employment. This seems like a modest benefit for which we raised the deficit to GDP ratio to the highest it has been since the World War II era.

It is understandable that Obama wishes not to be saddled with an unkept campaign promise. But it is preferable and perhaps even better political strategy to not be ridiculed for ludicrous claims or dishonesty than to face problems square on. The electorate can deal more effectively with honest efforts that have failed than dishonesty and denial.

Trails of Choice

Regardless of any political assessment of the presidency of George W. Bush, the one undeniable fact is it that after the attacks of September 11 the American homeland remained safe from terrorist attack under Bush’s watch. Whether because of or in spite of the hot wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, whether because of or in spite of detaining captured terrorists at Guantanamo, whether because of or in spite of enhanced investigative powers, whether due to foolish good fortune or wise policy, Americans have remained safe at home.

Last week, Army Major Nidal Hasan allegedly killed 13 people and wounded 30 others  at Fort Hood in Texas while reportedly shouting “Allahu Akbar!” – “Allah is the Greatest.” While the initial reaction in the media has been to downplay Hasan’s terrorist ties, it has become clear that at the very least Hasan was a home ground jihadist, inspired by radical Islam abroad. Now the Hasan shootings cannot be realistically blamed on the Obama Administration, it does represent the first successful terror attack on US soil since 9/11.

Since coming into office, the Obama Administration has scaled back the War on Terror, refusing to use even the term, while traveling the world apologizing for aggressive US behavior against terrorismm. Guantanamo is being shut down. Last year the War in Afghanistan was a war of necessity, this year decisions about strategy seem to be unsure and tentative, confusing troops and heartening the enemy.

Now the Obama Administration has decided to place five terrorist on trial in federal court, a trial of choice. Let’s be clear, the choice is not between indefinite detention and a fair trial. The Supreme Court has given its blessing to military trials especially designed for acts of war for individuals captured on the field of battle by the military. The federal trial will open up the possibility of accidental release of classified information, as similar trials have in the past, and the opportunity for terrorists to use the trial for propaganda purposes. We were told that the War in Iraq was a war of choice. It is fair to assert that these federal trials are not legally or morally mandated, they are trials of choice.

The only possible advantages of such a trial are moral preening on the part of the Obama Administration, the chance once again to do something George Bush would not have, and an opportunity to appease Obama’s base on the Left. However, as the Administration elects to roll back the intensity on the War on Terror, the more it sets itself up, fairly or unfairly, for blame should terrorists manage to carry off a spectacular attack on the US.

Calculatiing Schwarzenegger’s Letter Statistics

Politics can be about principled differences fought out verbally in public. Politics can represent our noblest aspirations for creating a free and orderly society. Sometimes, politics can also resemble middle-schoolers calling names in the school yard. Perhaps it is not surprising that such behavior can be found in California, that seems to lead the country in so many regards.

San Francisco assemblyman Tom Ammiano in an emotional outburst disagreed with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger shouting, “You lie,” as Schwarzenegger began to speak at a Left-of-center group. Ammiano further suggested that the governor, “kiss my gay ass?” The incident certainly did not resemble the civility of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Apparently, the Governor’s office is not above subtle slights of its own. The Governor vetoed Ammiano’s bill for financing for the Port of San Francisco. The curt letter explaining the veto apparently contained a hidden message. If you carefully examine the letter reproduced below,

you might notice that the first letters of the lines in the body of the text spell out “I f— you.”This is so silly, that one might believe that the whole story is apocryphal, but is was reported, presumably seriously by the San Francisco Chronicle. No one believes that the hidden message is the “weird coincidence” press secretary Aaron McLear argued it was, but there is a interesting statistical question as to how likely is it that message would have appeared randomly.If Pw(i) is the probability that a word in the English language begins with the letter i, and Pw(f) is that a word begins with f, etc., then the probability of this curious sequence is

Pw= Pw(i) Pw(f) Pw(u) Pw(c) Pw(k) Pw(y) Pw(o) Pw(u).

Unfortunately, those probabilities about word beginnings were not easily found. A less direct means to estimate the likelihood of the letter sequence is to use the probabilities of the letters occurring in the English language. These values can be obtained from Wikipedia. The probability of this “weird coincidence” would then be:

P= P(i) P(f) P(u) P(c) P(k) P(y) P(o) P(u)

or

P= (0.0697) (0.0223) ( 0.0276) ( 0.0278) ( 0.0077) (0.0197) ( 0.0751) (0.0276)

or

P= 3.74971 x 10^(-13)

or one chance in 2.7 trillion.

We thank the Governor Schwarzenegger and Assemblyman Ammiano for the entertainment and an opportunity to make an interesting calculation.

The New Blacklisting

Nearly two hundred years ago, Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville toured the United States in a political anthropological expedition (though he would not have used such a description) to understand and document how this new form of government — a geographically large and diverse republic — was able to function. Europe had experience with hierarchical governments but the American experiment, based on assent-by-the-governed, was still very new. What kind of people could manage to rule themselves? What did the act of self-rule do to the character of a people? How could a free people avoid the religious, political, and ethnic conflicts that plagued other countries?

One of de Tocqueville’s observations was that in daily activities Americans tended to make economic self-calculations that trumped other considerations. He wrote. “In no other country in the world is the love of property keener or more alert than in the United States, and nowhere else does the majority display less inclination toward doctrines which in any way threaten the way property is owned” In other words, what difference does it make what particular religious doctrines or political views a person adheres to so long as those views do not interfere that person providing fair value in a transaction. In this way, Americans of different religions could manage to live relatively peacefully, a condition that Europeans of the time had difficulty achieving.

The natural tendency for the needs of commerce to overwhelm other concerns is part of the reason that the Jim Crow laws in the South of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were enacted. Given natural commercial tendencies, many people would be tempted to provide accommodations and other services for Americans of all races. If they would not be so tempted, there would have been no need for the Jim Crow laws. People would have segregated themselves without the need for specific legislation. It took government to ensure that races were separated.

A more recent example of racial feelings yielding to commercial ones is Marge Schott. She was the former president and CEO of baseball’s Cincinnati Reds. Schott was infamous for her racially insensitive statements. Many were convinced that she harbored racists feelings. Nonetheless, she was willing to pay black baseball players millions of dollars because they provided important value to her baseball team. Commerce trumped other, baser feelings.

It is only when governments or monopolistic industries get involved that the natural disposition to overlook personal characteristics in favor of commerce can be overwhelmed. In the 1940s and 1950s, Americans the entertainment industry who were or suspected of being sympathetic to the American Communist Party where blacklisted in Hollywood. Governmental and public pressure made it difficult for these people to work. If only the quality of their work was at issue, blacklisting would never have been effective.

In the 1950’s, the chief public sin, real or imagined, was being a Communist. Today, the gravest mortal sin, real or imagined, is being a racist. The recent charge of racism on the part of Rush Limbaugh, at least partially based on what is now acknowledged as falsified quotes, caused him withdrawal his name from a group of investors attempting to purchase the National Football League’s St. Louis Rams. His presence as a potential owner would have undermined the group’s chances.

Limbaugh was effectively blacklisted from the NFL. Many of those involved in opposition to Limbaugh whom would be aghast if their actions were characterized this way, but it is accurate. Unlike most other businesses, the competitors of the Rams, the other football teams must approve potential owners of the Rams. Opposing Limbaugh was an easy way to win popular acclaim without the cost of a missed commercial opportunity. The peculiar nature of the NFL contributes to the ability to blacklist.

The NFL and entertainment industry are private entities that can do business with whomever they wish. But it should be remembered that both Hollywood (pressured by government) and football (largely pressured by other owners) blacklist people with great impunity because of the monopolistic or public character of their enterprise. Free enterprise smooths over differences in society. By contrast, governments and other large institutions can sometimes aggravate them.

Obama Transfer of Money to the Wealthy

There have been devastating effects of the current recession on many millions of Americans. Unemployment hoovers around 10% and 300,000 homes a month are being foreclosed upon. The amount of real suffering should not be underestimated. However, one small economic metric has modulated. Inflation has been near zero and indeed for some months prices have decreased. As a consequence, social security payments, which are indexed to inflation, are not scheduled to increase this year. The Obama Administration has decided to give seniors a $250 check in addition to the $250 sent out to seniors in February at a cost of $13 billion dollars.

The irony is that these payments represent a transfer of money from the least wealthy to the wealthiest portion of society. The median wealth of those in the 60-69 age range is the highest in society. There are certainly seniors who are not wealthy, but the $250 payment is given to all social security recipients regardless of wealth or income. The transfer payment is regressive. Perhaps, wealth seniors ought to be encouraged to send their $250 check to their grandchildren who will be ultimately responsible for the repayment of the increase debt necessitated by the payment.

Why would the Obama Administration who talks about reducing economic inequality countenance a transfer of wealth to the flush elderly? Is it because the elderly have turned against Obama’s health care proposals and this payment might increase the popularity of Obama among seniors? As Obama asked, “Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?”

Bush as Nobel Point Guard

“So soon? Too early. He [Obama] has no contribution so far.” — Lech Walesa, dissent who opposed Soviet occupation of the Poland and 1983 Peace Prize winner.

In basketball, the sport that Barack Obama and many others enjoy, a key statistic is the “assist.” Many times an easy basket is scored because a player, typically a point guard, makes an quick astute pass to an open player. Former President George Bush can now be safely said to be the most accomplished Nobel point guard, assisting many in scoring a Nobel. The latest beneficiary of this is President Barack Obama who was just awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Even the most ardent Obama supporters recognize that, at best, any such award is premature. Indeed, he was formally nominated just after reaching office. The Nobel Committee selected Obama because: “Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play.” This is a clear slap at Bush, whose foreign policy was caricatured as being unilateral. The London Times observed as much: “Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration.” Assist Bush.

This assist was not Bush’s latest, not his first. In 2001, one month after the attack of September 11, the Nobel Prize Committee awarded Kofi Annan and the United Nations the Peace Prize. The US was formulating its reaction to these attacks, and there was concern that the US might act without specific UN authorization, the Nobel Committee used the award to boost the moral authority, such as it is, of the UN. Of course, we would later come to realize that the UN was implicated in a corrupt Food for Oil program that undermined sanctions against Iraq and enriched intermediaries associated with the UN. Assist Bush.

In 2002, in the lead up to the liberation of Iraq, former President Jimmy Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Carter’s record is at best mixed: Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviets during his watch and Americans were held hostage by the Iranians after the Shah, a US ally was overthrown. However, Carter was instrumental in providing a forum for Egypt’s Anwar Sadat and Israel’s Menachem Begin to workout a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt in 1978. The Nobel Committee overlooked this for two and half decades until is was convenient to use Carter as a bludgeon against Bush. Indeed, the Nobel Prize Committee Chairman, Gunnar Berge, openly explained the Prize “should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the [Bush] administration has taken… It’s a kick in the leg to all that follow the same…” Assist Bush.

The former Vice-President Al Gore case is roughly similar to the Carter case. There could be an argument made that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should be recognized by the Nobel Committee. Al Gore had been burning fuel proselytizing the necessity of eschewing carbon use to avert global climate change. But giving the same PowerPoint presentation in many venues, does not quite seem to rise to the level of a Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, Al Gore was involved in a close a election with George Bush, which many used to routinely dispute Bush’s legitimacy — even after a clear Bush re-election in 2004. By this time, Gore had turned angry, shouting that Bush: “… played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place.” That was good enough for the Nobel Committee in 2007. Assist Bush.

The Nobel Peace Prize Committee is not the only one to play political games. There is a plausible argument that Dr. Paul Krugman of Princeton University should win the Nobel Prize in economics based on his trade studies early his career. However, Krugman had spent most the Bush term as a regular, relentless, and often rabid critic of the Bush Administration. Awarding Krugman the prize was just too tempting in this context. Assist Bush

It is not as if there are too few potential recipients that the Nobel Peace Prize can be awarded frivolously to score political points. The Weekly Standard cites Sima Samar, an activist who has pursued women’s rights in Afghanistan at personal risk; or Hu Jia, a human rights activist jailed by the Chinese; or Dr. Denis Mukwege, who has “dedicated his life to helping Congolese women and girls who are victims of gang rape and brutal sexual violence” as those who could have be recognized. The award could have gone to the dissidents in the streets of Iran for protesting a stolen election.

It appears that Obama has a tin ear, as he doesn’t appear to realize that he will be easy to mock for accepting a prize he doesn’t deserved. He could demonstrate integrity, mute criticism by political opponents, and provide counter evidence to the charge that he is self-aggrandizing by respectfully declining the prize. Better yet, he could accept the prize as Commander and Chief on behalf of the US military, particularly General David Petraeus, for their heroic efforts to bring freedom and security to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Consider that advice that will not likely be followed.

Obama Undermines His Own Credibility

Scott Rasmussen is at the peak of the polling industry having been one of, if not the most, accurate predictor of the last presidential election. It is pretty straightforward for anyone to conduct a poll, but to adjust polls properly for how many Democrats and Republicans or how many likely voters there are in the sample, is either a very sophisticated science or an art. Rasmussen has been tracking the standing of President Barack Obama with likely voters since the inauguration.

Obama came into office with a 65% approval rating among likely voters, with 44% percent strongly approving. Rasmussen has been trying to estimate the passion behind approval or disapproval by also tracking the difference between those who “strongly approve” and those who “strongly disapprove.” When Obama became president, this index was at +28%. Clearly Obama came into office as a very popular figure, even for a freshly minted president.

Since then, his approval rating has steadily dwindled. Among likely voters, the total approval or disapproval rating is about 50-50, just as many people approve of Obama’s job performance as disapprove. However, the passion has definitely shifted toward those who disapprove. The difference between those who strongly approve shifted negative somewhere in June 2009, now hovers at about -10% though it fluctuates daily in the Rasmussen poll.

A general decline is to be expected. Some of this has been due to a worsening unemployment rate, now far higher than Obama promised when arguing for his stimulus package. As always, to govern is to decide. To decide is to make some people angry with your policies. Obama has been able to pass or at least propose very consequential legislation, from the stimulus package, to cap-and-trade, to medical care (now insurance) reform. There will be winners and losers as a result. This would explain a drop in Obama’s approval rating and an increase in those who strongly disapprove. However, there has been no parallel increase in those who strongly approve.

Allow me to respectfully suggest that this may be due in part to the fact Obama’s early mountain of credibility has been continuously eroded by the flow of his own words. A case a point is his argument that there is no intention for the “public option” for health insureance to be used as a wedge to create a single-payer system for health care. In this prime-time speech on health insurance reform, he said: “Now, my health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a `government takeover’ of the entire health care system… So let me set the record straight here. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. That’s how the market works.”

However, neither supporters of the President or others believe this. Congressman Barney Frank and others have spoken candidly about using the public option as a wedge for a single-payer system. The only thing that seems to unite those who support the President’s health insurance reform and those who oppose it, is the conviction that a public option will inevitably lead to a single-payer system roughly analogous to Canada’s or England’s. Most realize that if the President was focused solely on more competition, he could simply urge the removal of cross-state barriers to health insurance competition. The government could mandate the publication of doctors and hospital prices and institute health care savings accounts to increase competition in the health care and health insurance market. Very few people believe the public option is really about competition.

Obama supporters are forced to quickly glide by the president’s words and rationalize them as a way to get the health insurance reform bills passed in the current political environment. Supporters are left with a disappointment that Obama does not make the open case for the type of reform they want. Others are provided further evidence of duplicity. The president cannot maintain his credibility if neither his supporters or opponents believe his words. If Obama and the Democrats cannot make the open case for the reform they want — a single payer system —by being honest about it then in a society ruled by the assent of the governed, it should not pass.

A Leaderhip Moment

It used to be the conventional wisdom that an African-American would find it impossible to become president. The analysis held that an African-American person who was not threatening to whites would not be appear sufficiently authentic to the African-American community. The more a potential black candidate modulated his persona to make white America comfortable, the less support he or she would likely garner from African-American community. Shelbe Steele was the most persuasive proponent of this view.

President Barak Obama shattered this analysis in November 2008. Whether through his personal charm, intellect, oratory skills, or political organization, Obama has manged to remain a hip celebrity while energizing white Americans on his behalf. In many ways, Obama’s greatest contribution is to demonstrate America’s movement past preoccupation with race. Obama made Americans proud that they could support an African-American candidate.

The current argument offered by former President Jimmy Carter and even the usually level-headed Bill Cosby is that much of the opposition to Obama’s health care plan is rooted in racism. This does not make statistical sense since Obama entered office with nearly 70% approval and now his medical care plan has less than majority support. Clearly some people who were sufficient unbiased to approve of Obama’s presidential performance at one time now disagree with Obama’s medical care policies. The casual broad brush of racism is pernicious and toxic, and ultimately undermines the historic importance of the Obama presidency.

Long after the results of the medical care controversy are resolved, the nation’s psyche will either overcome these racism charges or the notion of perpetual American racism will ingrain further itself among some. If the racism charge is allowed to gain currency, the nation will be become more polarized on racial grounds. Many Americans who fancy themselves as unprejudiced are likely be insulted by the charge.

The time is now for President Obama to exercise leadership before charges of racial animosity are allowed to undermine any potential unity in the country. It is incumbent on Obama to speak out against such a path in an unequivocal way. Obama must devote an public speech to making clear that there is room for disagreement with him outside the scope of racism. He should marshal his considerable rhetorical skills to calm the racial waters. He should warn that he will not allow charges of racism to undermine his presidency or his goals.

When Obama’s candidacy was jeopardized by his 20-year association with the radical minister Jeremiah Wright, Obama quickly delivered a special speech to explain his views on race and cauterize the Wright’s wound on this reputation. At this point, people like Jimmy Carter, who destroyed his own presidency, are undermining the transformative nature of the Obama presidency. Now is a time for an Obama leadership moment.

You lie, [fill in]

Maureen Dowd is an amazing women with a remarkable acuity of hearing and the ability to read other people’s intentions. As everyone now knows by now, Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) rudely shouted out “You lie!” as President Barack Obama argued that his health care would not cover illegal aliens. Wilson quickly apologized to the the White House for the outburst — an apology accepted by the President.

However, Dowd says, “…fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!” What makes this feat extraordinary is that most people watching on television could barely hear anything, but the growns and boos  in response tp Wilson. In addition, Dowd was immediately able to know which particular representative made the remark. Her instant recall and in depth knowledge of all 435 Congression representatives allowed her to know that what she describes as a “milquetoast Republican backbencher ” is a racist. I respectfully submit that Dowd hearing was largely improved by  her later by reading of either, Left-leaning blog posts or the reports of the NY Times research department. Dowd’s reading of Joe Wilson’s intentions probably are more revealing of Dowd than of Wilson.

Earlier in his speech, Obama perhaps began the attack when he said.

“The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.”

Everyone knows that Sarah Palin is associated with the death panel charge. Would someone with as acute hearing as Dowd, whose head is tilted with different political perspective, hear at the end of the statement, “It is lie, plain and simple, bxxxx]?”

Reactionary Liberals

I am not sure what is more amusing, watching middle class Americans marching for Conservative principles in the Nation’s capital or Liberals (at least the Liberal blogs) becoming apoplectic in reaction.

On September 12, some thousands of Americans exercised their right to freely assemble and petition their government for redress of grievances. Estimates on the numbers who came vary by orders of magnitude. The Washington Post reported that 30,000 registered with FreedomWorks, but that was only one of the organizers. The New York Times reports a “sea of protesters” composed of “tens of thousands” that far exceeded the expectations of authorities. The tens of thousands figure is also carried by the Washington Post and Washington Times. It is safe to say that the tens of thousands value really means a “a lot of people and we really don’t know how many.”

Matthew Hemingway of National Review on the scene believes the numbers were in the hundreds of thousands. Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin headlines a 2 million crowd estimate, based on a barrage of tweets and posts but apparently no authoritative sources. Many crowd estimates cross-referenced each other in a information-lacking echo chamber. Inflating crowd estimates from supporters and minimizing estimates from those opposed to a demonstration are a traditional Washington DC sport. Here is a link to a time lapse movie of the march taking from a high building, documenting that there was quite a crowd.

Like any crowd, there are a few at the fringes. Both the NY Times, Huffington Post, and Think Progress found what thety were looking for and noticed several tasteless pre-printed signs that read “Bury Obamacare with Kennedy.” This is milk toast tasteless compared to the vicious anti-Bush attacks during antiwar rallies. The Washington Post noted that most signs were hand printed and from the pictures posted by the Washington Post, most people appeared to be hard working middle class people for whom public protests were a new experience. The NY Times notes that, “many came on their own and were not part of an organization or group.”

However, the Huffington Post and Think Progress feel necessary to demonize the protesters by focusing on a few oddballs . These sites cannot even acknowledge that the honest concerns of the protesters. Even if you believe, as the Huffington Post and Think Progress that these protesters are wrong, confused or used, only the angriest and most partisan perspective would group all the demonstrators together and assign the worst motives.

We should perhaps forgive the Left. The seem to be a bit disoriented, unaccustomed to the fact that there is a President and Congress sympathetic to their views. Public protests and marches are their preferred tactics. Shouting chants is a Left wing sword wheeled in service of the people. How dare Conservatives usurp the means of the Left? They are for the exclusive use of the Left, the true representatives of the people. Perhaps, in a couple of years the Left will grow acclimated to dissent — but don’t bet on it.