I haven't been to one of these raucous town halls, so I can only speculate from news reports about what is going on in these things.
But it wouldn't surprise me if Members, their staffs, and their allies are often trying to manage the message and tone of these things. We've seen stories of sections reserved for union attendees, who enter after arriving later than long lines of people who are held at the door. And I've read at least one report of a Member taking questions as selected for him by his staff, without opening a floor mike. Talk of "balance" and "participation" comes easily to any politician seeking to find space for his allies, and it isn't hard to imagine discussions set up to emphasize apparent support for health care reform out of all proportion to the views of the attendees.
And in such staged and stilted environments, it isn't hard to imagine attendees getting angry, and finding a way to express the real proportions of sentiment in the room.
It's also easy to imagine the dilemma of many of these Members. Computerized gerrymandering has created many safe seats in Congress and state Legislatures -- obtaining office in such a district is as much a matter of building support within the party as it is winning the general election. I suspect many of our Congressmen are more adept at intraparty politics than general elections, because the latter is far less important in their jurisdiction.
The general electorate tolerates such stuff when the stakes are low, because they are less invested in particular issues than the various constituents making up the governing coalition. But when the coalition's agenda becomes so ambitious that it clearly conflicts with the general interest, and/or the particular interests outside the coalition, the general voices become a lot stronger.
I imagine that many Congressmen now find their districts generally opposed to the policies so avidly supported by their intraparty coalitions. These face a tough problem, as they need both to stay in office, and to advance their careers, but can't please both. It would be only natural for them to try to minimize the problem by managing the discussions of the issues so as to minimize the voice of the opposition, in the hope that the issue will go away by the next general election.
At this point, I'm very worried that the liberals in Congress will ram through as many benefits for their constituents as they can, calculating that even if they lose their majorities, it will be very hard to unwind those concessions. Under a Democratic President, they might well be right.
At that point, we don't have any good outcomes. The concessions couldn't be unwound without bitter fights, and the disappointment of a lot of people who have been educated to believe they deserve all this stuff. And it would be quite hard to unwind them under a Democratic President. I'm afraid that Congress is now poised to do a great deal of damage to our economy, our governance, and our politics.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Small Changes, Large Changes
The Post reports that President Obama's poll numbers are slipping:
". . . public approval of President Obama's stewardship on the issue has dropped below the 50 percent threshold for the first time . . . . Obama's approval ratings on other front-burner issues, such as the economy and the federal budget deficit, have also slipped over the summer, as rising concern about spending and continuing worries about the economy combine to challenge his administration."
I'm not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, every President's polls slip after their inaugural highs. The difficulties of realizing policy goals begins to peel off the previously hopeful as they are disappointed with various policy details.
On the other hand, Obama's strength was based on his identity as a new and different figure, with a different approach. He's losing support among exactly those who should be part of a new coalition, and rapidly: "Among independents and Republicans, confidence [in the stimulus plan] has decreased by 20 or more points; it has dropped seven points among Democrats." The article doesn't give the initial number, but that's a whopping drop from any level. "Nearly a quarter of moderate and conservative Democrats (22 percent) now see Obama as an 'old-style tax-and-spend Democrat,' up from 4 percent in March." Such Democrats are unique in their sympathy for a Democratic presidency and their interest in middle-of-the-road economic policy. In March, they were sure Obama wasn't a traditional liberal. Suddenly, a significant number of them have changed their mind, which suggests that the "change" message is under serious pressure.
These moves suggest that the core themes of Obama's image are eroding. It would be harder for Obama to claim that he's "bipartisan" if the independents and conservative Dems think he's a traditional liberal. And he has deliberately sold that unique character, so his credibility is bound up in people's agreement with that self-assessment.
The legislative implications are clear. If Obama's centrist image collapses, Democrats from swing districts and states will be a lot less willing to co-operate, as they'll doubt his ability to continually make the sale to their constituencies. He'll then have to choose between moving further left to keep the liberals on board, which would accelerate the erosion. Or he'll have to move his policy proposals to the right, to shore up his image and coalition. That would not play well with Congressional liberals, who have so far largely had their way and have expansive hopes for this Administration. They might co-operate out of self-interest, but there would be considerable tensions within the party. Obama would then have to organize cohesive and saleable policies from those tensions, requiring considerably more legislative involvement than he's had so far. His ability to reach out could also be compromised by a new impression in Congress that he really is a liberal, and any concessions he makes are only momentary and incidental.
These difficulties passing legislation would only make it more difficult to address the country's immediate problems, whose resolution are the chief driver of general impressions.
This doesn't have to be fatal. Obama might be able to weave harmony among the party's factions. Though I haven't yet been impressed with his political or philosophical acumen, I'm in the minority, and deft leadership through crisis is certainly what we've been told to expect of the man. That would be impressive in its own right. If he can pass a health care bill that satisfies his party conservatives, and starts to see improvement in the economy, the moment could validate the skill and poise. It might establish the bona fides of his centrism, and cast quibblers like myself as reactionaries.
But those are big ifs, and contrary to my understanding of his real goals. I think the man is a true liberal, and that the polls reflect a growing realization of that. If so, time is running out on this Administration. Once they've lost that centrist label, they can't get it back -- every effort to do so would seem more calculated than anything else, and he'd lack the credibility to make the case. The President would be left with the liberal wing of his own party, and considerable disappointment and confusion over his inability to push things forward. At that point, the national discussion could get ugly.
". . . public approval of President Obama's stewardship on the issue has dropped below the 50 percent threshold for the first time . . . . Obama's approval ratings on other front-burner issues, such as the economy and the federal budget deficit, have also slipped over the summer, as rising concern about spending and continuing worries about the economy combine to challenge his administration."
I'm not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, every President's polls slip after their inaugural highs. The difficulties of realizing policy goals begins to peel off the previously hopeful as they are disappointed with various policy details.
On the other hand, Obama's strength was based on his identity as a new and different figure, with a different approach. He's losing support among exactly those who should be part of a new coalition, and rapidly: "Among independents and Republicans, confidence [in the stimulus plan] has decreased by 20 or more points; it has dropped seven points among Democrats." The article doesn't give the initial number, but that's a whopping drop from any level. "Nearly a quarter of moderate and conservative Democrats (22 percent) now see Obama as an 'old-style tax-and-spend Democrat,' up from 4 percent in March." Such Democrats are unique in their sympathy for a Democratic presidency and their interest in middle-of-the-road economic policy. In March, they were sure Obama wasn't a traditional liberal. Suddenly, a significant number of them have changed their mind, which suggests that the "change" message is under serious pressure.
These moves suggest that the core themes of Obama's image are eroding. It would be harder for Obama to claim that he's "bipartisan" if the independents and conservative Dems think he's a traditional liberal. And he has deliberately sold that unique character, so his credibility is bound up in people's agreement with that self-assessment.
The legislative implications are clear. If Obama's centrist image collapses, Democrats from swing districts and states will be a lot less willing to co-operate, as they'll doubt his ability to continually make the sale to their constituencies. He'll then have to choose between moving further left to keep the liberals on board, which would accelerate the erosion. Or he'll have to move his policy proposals to the right, to shore up his image and coalition. That would not play well with Congressional liberals, who have so far largely had their way and have expansive hopes for this Administration. They might co-operate out of self-interest, but there would be considerable tensions within the party. Obama would then have to organize cohesive and saleable policies from those tensions, requiring considerably more legislative involvement than he's had so far. His ability to reach out could also be compromised by a new impression in Congress that he really is a liberal, and any concessions he makes are only momentary and incidental.
These difficulties passing legislation would only make it more difficult to address the country's immediate problems, whose resolution are the chief driver of general impressions.
This doesn't have to be fatal. Obama might be able to weave harmony among the party's factions. Though I haven't yet been impressed with his political or philosophical acumen, I'm in the minority, and deft leadership through crisis is certainly what we've been told to expect of the man. That would be impressive in its own right. If he can pass a health care bill that satisfies his party conservatives, and starts to see improvement in the economy, the moment could validate the skill and poise. It might establish the bona fides of his centrism, and cast quibblers like myself as reactionaries.
But those are big ifs, and contrary to my understanding of his real goals. I think the man is a true liberal, and that the polls reflect a growing realization of that. If so, time is running out on this Administration. Once they've lost that centrist label, they can't get it back -- every effort to do so would seem more calculated than anything else, and he'd lack the credibility to make the case. The President would be left with the liberal wing of his own party, and considerable disappointment and confusion over his inability to push things forward. At that point, the national discussion could get ugly.
Monday, June 15, 2009
"Their voices should be heard and respected"
The President has, after a long delay, commented on the Iranian election:
-- White House
But, ". . . I can't state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election." And, ". . . the use of tough, hard-headed diplomacy -- diplomacy with no illusions about Iran and the nature of the differences between our two countries -- is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of our national security interests. . . "
It sounds as if the President has decided not only to look the other way, but to signal that he shall do so, and without much effect on future "diplomacy".
This is entirely unnecessary. Even conceding we don't actually _know_ that Ahmadinejad stole the election, there is still a long bill of particulars to be brought against the Iranian regime, a list of political suppressions so long as to have long ago deprived them of any presumption of legitimate popular support. Pointing out their tyrannies would go a long way to depriving them of the legitimacy they hoped to obtain from these "elections". Instead we are promising them a return to stability, and silence on their claims for legitimacy, at the very moment when they are unbalanced and unsure.
I am well aware that criticizing the regime voluteers us for the role of foil for a regimen eager to change the subject. But these are exactly the moments where Obama's "gift" for communication should shine: surely there are ways to communicate that we regard this announcement as a sham, and to signal our support for the dissidents, without claiming to tell the Iranians what to do.
I fear this could be a very dangerous precedent. Mugabe has already stolen an election last year, and the President just gave Zimbabwe aid (through the offices of Tsvangiri, but still destined for Zimbabwe). There will be people who want to steal the coming election in Iraq, who must first wonder if doing so would cost them the support of the US. The answer seems to be that if you can stabilize your domestic position, yes, we will take a "hardheaded" look at your rise to power.
Having said all that, I am deeply troubled by the violence that I've been seeing
on television. I think that the democratic process -- free speech, the
ability of people to peacefully dissent -- all those are universal values and
need to be respected.
-- White House
But, ". . . I can't state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election." And, ". . . the use of tough, hard-headed diplomacy -- diplomacy with no illusions about Iran and the nature of the differences between our two countries -- is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of our national security interests. . . "
It sounds as if the President has decided not only to look the other way, but to signal that he shall do so, and without much effect on future "diplomacy".
This is entirely unnecessary. Even conceding we don't actually _know_ that Ahmadinejad stole the election, there is still a long bill of particulars to be brought against the Iranian regime, a list of political suppressions so long as to have long ago deprived them of any presumption of legitimate popular support. Pointing out their tyrannies would go a long way to depriving them of the legitimacy they hoped to obtain from these "elections". Instead we are promising them a return to stability, and silence on their claims for legitimacy, at the very moment when they are unbalanced and unsure.
I am well aware that criticizing the regime voluteers us for the role of foil for a regimen eager to change the subject. But these are exactly the moments where Obama's "gift" for communication should shine: surely there are ways to communicate that we regard this announcement as a sham, and to signal our support for the dissidents, without claiming to tell the Iranians what to do.
I fear this could be a very dangerous precedent. Mugabe has already stolen an election last year, and the President just gave Zimbabwe aid (through the offices of Tsvangiri, but still destined for Zimbabwe). There will be people who want to steal the coming election in Iraq, who must first wonder if doing so would cost them the support of the US. The answer seems to be that if you can stabilize your domestic position, yes, we will take a "hardheaded" look at your rise to power.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Lookee Here
Hmm.
AP, via Instapundit, via Gateway Pundit.
That doesn't sound good. IG Walpin referred the matter to the local U.S. attorney, who negotiated a settlement that retrieved over $424K from the recipient group but declined to prosecute. That, too, seems a little off -- Attorney Brown said the referral had open questions and had no audit stating the amount of misspent funds. But Attorney Brown also said the recipient group had a culture of "sloppiness", which would sort of complicate an audit, no?
Then again, IG Walpin's "office made repeated public comments just before the Sacramento mayoral election, prompting the U.S. attorney's office to inform the media that it did not intend to file any criminal charges." So maybe the IG had an ax to grind? Which would seem odd, the story details him a New York guy, so what scores would he have to settle in Sacramento?
IG Walpin was appointed in January 2007. It wouldn't surprise me to learn there is a lot of real sloppiness, and maybe some, er, "sloppiness", in the deployment of public service grants. Programs of this sort often have vague objectives and metrics, leaving lots of discretion to local officials. I doubt they've got kids handing out campaign literature, but they can hire administrators, influence the sort of kids hired, and decide whose neighborhood gets beautified. That sort of soft patronage that helps build a coalition. It's an inevitable part of any government program, and I suspect part of the real political motivations of these things, which doesn't necessarily mean they don't still try to serve their stated purposes, and doesn't mean necessarily mean that local officials are abusing the program. But it's easier for them to focus on their particular agendas if "sloppiness" confuses oversight of their compliance with the regulations directing activity to the stated purposes. An IG who insisted on commonplace compliance could interfere with the political purposes of these programs.
That's all speculative. The case ought to be researched. Apparently the White House has to advise Congress of the reasons for dismissing an IG, clearly that ought to happen. Someone ought to look at all the internal email and documentation on the Sacramento case. Also up for review: the cases IG Walpin had in the hopper, complaints about him from other Congresspeople, his record relative to predecessors, a second look at the U.S. attorney's decision not to prosecute. GAO is the logical investigator, but they aren't exactly hard-hitting, and they can take forever. So while they're working, all the documents ought to be available via FOIA, muck to be raked by the enterprising.
IG's who bust the President's buddies build credibility for the purposes of this massive spending increase. Firing them, not so much. We won't get, or believe, a straight answer from the Administration, so let's open the books and see what others may find in them.
President Barack Obama says he has lost confidence in the inspector general who investigates AmeriCorps and other national service programs and has told Congress he is removing him from the position.
Obama’s move follows an investigation by IG Gerald Walpin of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star, into the misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group that Johnson headed. . . . The IG found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used
AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.
AP, via Instapundit, via Gateway Pundit.
That doesn't sound good. IG Walpin referred the matter to the local U.S. attorney, who negotiated a settlement that retrieved over $424K from the recipient group but declined to prosecute. That, too, seems a little off -- Attorney Brown said the referral had open questions and had no audit stating the amount of misspent funds. But Attorney Brown also said the recipient group had a culture of "sloppiness", which would sort of complicate an audit, no?
Then again, IG Walpin's "office made repeated public comments just before the Sacramento mayoral election, prompting the U.S. attorney's office to inform the media that it did not intend to file any criminal charges." So maybe the IG had an ax to grind? Which would seem odd, the story details him a New York guy, so what scores would he have to settle in Sacramento?
IG Walpin was appointed in January 2007. It wouldn't surprise me to learn there is a lot of real sloppiness, and maybe some, er, "sloppiness", in the deployment of public service grants. Programs of this sort often have vague objectives and metrics, leaving lots of discretion to local officials. I doubt they've got kids handing out campaign literature, but they can hire administrators, influence the sort of kids hired, and decide whose neighborhood gets beautified. That sort of soft patronage that helps build a coalition. It's an inevitable part of any government program, and I suspect part of the real political motivations of these things, which doesn't necessarily mean they don't still try to serve their stated purposes, and doesn't mean necessarily mean that local officials are abusing the program. But it's easier for them to focus on their particular agendas if "sloppiness" confuses oversight of their compliance with the regulations directing activity to the stated purposes. An IG who insisted on commonplace compliance could interfere with the political purposes of these programs.
That's all speculative. The case ought to be researched. Apparently the White House has to advise Congress of the reasons for dismissing an IG, clearly that ought to happen. Someone ought to look at all the internal email and documentation on the Sacramento case. Also up for review: the cases IG Walpin had in the hopper, complaints about him from other Congresspeople, his record relative to predecessors, a second look at the U.S. attorney's decision not to prosecute. GAO is the logical investigator, but they aren't exactly hard-hitting, and they can take forever. So while they're working, all the documents ought to be available via FOIA, muck to be raked by the enterprising.
IG's who bust the President's buddies build credibility for the purposes of this massive spending increase. Firing them, not so much. We won't get, or believe, a straight answer from the Administration, so let's open the books and see what others may find in them.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Cairo
I hope President Obama's overtures lead to greater peace and stability. Because if they don't, he is laying out a basis for considerable future trouble. For a guy who talks so much about listening and dialogue, he seems to overlook a great deal of the nuance and complexity of his predecessor's policy -- and that neglect founds most of his unusually strong critique of that policy. Obama positions his policy as a dramatic break from Bush, but there really isn't much that is new, and much of the "innovation" are things Bush was doing that Obama won't acknowledge. Bush was differentiating Islam from terrorism three days after the World Trade Center was bombed. If Obama ever does anything controversial, he may want a better hearing for the complexities of his policies than he has afforded Bush.
I don't see how it is helpful to frame the Iranian nuclear problem as simply a formal deviation from treaty commitments; these wouldn't matter so much if Iran weren't a terror sponsor with a sizeable faction founded on the destruction of Israel. Is it really good idea to focus our complaint on Iranian compliance with a treaty that Israel hasn't signed? Doesn't that lead to an equivalence between Iranian nukes and Israeli, especially when the President is setting out the reduction of all nukes as a policy goal?
Nor do I understand how it helps to tacitly accept the criticisms of American policy. The CIA intervened in Iran fifty years ago; maybe it wasn't the right thing to do, maybe we needed to do it, but it was a long time ago.
I don't like the President very much. I think he vastly overestimates his own understanding, and attributes the apparent contradictions of others to their errors rather than his own incomplete knowledge of their views or the problem. He is far too quick to make declarative statements with little basis, and this leads him to some very questionable rhetoric. Barack Obama has very little basis to tell Muslims what their own faith commands of them. And while he might speak more with more authority on Christian values, he softens their clear statements with universal implications to uncontroversial and meaningless formulations like "progress". Obama is constantly telling people universal truths that are obvious to anyone who will drop their ill-conceived ideas in disagreement with him, but offers surprisingly thin arguments for those truths.
So perhaps I look too hard for the negatives and weaknesses in his rhetoric and policy. Perhaps he will convince our opponents that we are genuinely not in opposition to them, and sway the larger mass of Muslims to greater sympathy and cooperation with us. Perhaps these gestures of trust and openness will inspire reciprocal movement. I would happily rethink the lessons I've drawn from history to understand how we've arrived at a new vision of peace and harmony. I'm already obscure, I have no reputation to lose, and in any should rather lose a reputation to error than live in a world of warfare because I was right.
But if this outreach falls short, I'm afraid we may find that the President has strengthened the rhetoric of our enemies, confused our ability to argue against them, and undermined our credibility.
I don't see how it is helpful to frame the Iranian nuclear problem as simply a formal deviation from treaty commitments; these wouldn't matter so much if Iran weren't a terror sponsor with a sizeable faction founded on the destruction of Israel. Is it really good idea to focus our complaint on Iranian compliance with a treaty that Israel hasn't signed? Doesn't that lead to an equivalence between Iranian nukes and Israeli, especially when the President is setting out the reduction of all nukes as a policy goal?
Nor do I understand how it helps to tacitly accept the criticisms of American policy. The CIA intervened in Iran fifty years ago; maybe it wasn't the right thing to do, maybe we needed to do it, but it was a long time ago.
I don't like the President very much. I think he vastly overestimates his own understanding, and attributes the apparent contradictions of others to their errors rather than his own incomplete knowledge of their views or the problem. He is far too quick to make declarative statements with little basis, and this leads him to some very questionable rhetoric. Barack Obama has very little basis to tell Muslims what their own faith commands of them. And while he might speak more with more authority on Christian values, he softens their clear statements with universal implications to uncontroversial and meaningless formulations like "progress". Obama is constantly telling people universal truths that are obvious to anyone who will drop their ill-conceived ideas in disagreement with him, but offers surprisingly thin arguments for those truths.
So perhaps I look too hard for the negatives and weaknesses in his rhetoric and policy. Perhaps he will convince our opponents that we are genuinely not in opposition to them, and sway the larger mass of Muslims to greater sympathy and cooperation with us. Perhaps these gestures of trust and openness will inspire reciprocal movement. I would happily rethink the lessons I've drawn from history to understand how we've arrived at a new vision of peace and harmony. I'm already obscure, I have no reputation to lose, and in any should rather lose a reputation to error than live in a world of warfare because I was right.
But if this outreach falls short, I'm afraid we may find that the President has strengthened the rhetoric of our enemies, confused our ability to argue against them, and undermined our credibility.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Conspiracy Theories
Bloggers are speculating that perhaps Chrysler dealers were closed for selection on the basis of donations to Republicans (via Jonah and sfexaminer.com).
I doubt the Administration would do anything so colossally stupid, at least directly. I expect that list was compiled by Chrysler people, and how could they receive such directions without leaving a paper trail?
It is conceivable that the Administration was consulted on the list, and drew Congress into those consultations, and that lists with more Democrats were discovered to have various business problems, and that such business problems kept emerging until the list became Republican through a process akin to natural selection. It's also possible that the demographics of the redundancies in Chrysler's network overlapped with the demographics correlated with Republican membership. We would have to see a pattern of Republican dealerships closed in proximity to Democratic dealerships, and that against the patterns we would expect from some reasonable business logic, and without a plausible business logic for those patterns.
If there is an apparent pattern, it deserves scrutiny. But it would be shocking to see that this happened on any plausible basis. Let's remember that a lot of these dealers are getting screwed, and the Republicans among them already dislike this Administration, so they are primed to see something sinister.
To quickly review the situation, I took all dealer owners whose names appeared
more than once in the list. And, of those who contributed to political
campaigns, every single one had donated almost exclusively to GOP candidates.
While this isn't an exhaustive review, it does have some ominous implications if
it can be verified.
I doubt the Administration would do anything so colossally stupid, at least directly. I expect that list was compiled by Chrysler people, and how could they receive such directions without leaving a paper trail?
It is conceivable that the Administration was consulted on the list, and drew Congress into those consultations, and that lists with more Democrats were discovered to have various business problems, and that such business problems kept emerging until the list became Republican through a process akin to natural selection. It's also possible that the demographics of the redundancies in Chrysler's network overlapped with the demographics correlated with Republican membership. We would have to see a pattern of Republican dealerships closed in proximity to Democratic dealerships, and that against the patterns we would expect from some reasonable business logic, and without a plausible business logic for those patterns.
If there is an apparent pattern, it deserves scrutiny. But it would be shocking to see that this happened on any plausible basis. Let's remember that a lot of these dealers are getting screwed, and the Republicans among them already dislike this Administration, so they are primed to see something sinister.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
More Mush
We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two
opposite and absolutist ends. . . . On the other end of
the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two
words: "anything goes."
Just a few days after preaching at Notre Dame on fairness among disputants, the President is reducing his opponents' arguments to a caricature. Perhaps "enhanced interrogation" was a mistake, and perhaps the legal justification was faulty. But even if the Bush Administration was wrong about the rules, it certainly took pains to abide by them as it understhood them.
More could be said about the President's speech. He deploys his usual rhetorical devices to mask his assertions under the guise of argument, and to expand his supporting facts well beyond any reasonable implication. Those tools are most effective when the subject matter is soaring principles. When applied to more pedestrian details, it becomes easier to notice their inaccuracies and misrepresentations. And he is here deploying these tools against a core constituency, disappointed at the continuity of his terror policy with that against which he ran, and so less likely to uncritically applaud his conclusions, and more likely to first study the substance of his argument.
The President is popular, and seems successful as the economy and markets have seemingly improved, and still enjoys the prestige of what he might achieve in Congress. But his few achievements are still untested, and the possibilities face enormous hurdles. As he is tested, people will review the founding principles he has laid out, and will find that they do not hold together, or do not respond to the actual critiques and so miss the actual problems, or do not correspond with the promises of his campaign. His popularity has depended on the suggestion that he can meet the many conflicting hopes, and on a vision of egalitarian and prosperous promises. As he disappoints those hopes, his supporters will scrutinize his principles more closely. I do not think they will be satisfied by the rigor they find there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)