Category Archives: Politics: US: 2008 Elections

The GOP Slogan: “No, You Can’t”

Equal time for the GOP: NO, YOU CAN'T — NO, SE PUEDE.

Posted in Politics: US: 2008 Elections | 2 Comments

McCain — What’s Fair Criticism?

The Smirking Chimp, Puffing up John McCain, POW, has some rough stuff about McCain.

I think this part is not only fair criticism, but gets at the heart of one of the main reasons I can't trust the guy and get steamed every time I hear about his 'Straight Talk':

McCain's tragic flaw: He knows the right thing. He often sets out to do the right thing. But he doesn't follow through. We saw McCain's weak character in 2000, when the Bush campaign defeated him in the crucial South Carolina primary by smearing his family. Placing his presidential ambitions first, he swallowed his pride, set aside his honor, and campaigned for Bush against Al Gore. It came up again in 2005, when McCain used his POW experience as a POW to convince Congress to pass, and Bush to sign, a law outlawing torture of detainees at Guantanamo and other camps. But when Bush issued one of his infamous “signing statements” giving himself the right to continue torturing-in effect, negating McCain's law-he remained silent, sucking up to Bush again.

Ditto McCain's off-again on-again kowtows to the theocratic right wing. Or yesterday's cowardly eleventh-hour failure to vote on the stimulus package even though McCain was in DC.

But the main thrust of the Smirking Chimp article is that McCain is to be blamed for cracking after days of very vigorous torture that he suffered as a POW and/or for not correcting people who say he didn't. I don't buy that.

Posted in Politics: McCain, Politics: US: 2008 Elections | 1 Comment

Muppets Endorse Edwards!

Funny video — Muppets for President — but isn't it a stealth Edwards endorsement?

I jest; everyone likes Kermit, so that's the endorsement.

(spotted via la Bartow)

Posted in Politics: US: 2008 Elections | 1 Comment

Barack Obama, Ida Merriam, and the Power to Inspire

The thing that sets Barack Obama apart from Hilary Clinton is his ability to inspire with words. For many, Hilary Clinton inspires just by being; so too for other does Obama. (And then there's the people who are inspired by both…) But Sen. Obama gives a quantum better speech. I know that I've suggested before that speechifying isn't the first thing I look for in a candidate, but it does matter and not just in the obvious ways.

To explain what I mean, I need to tell you about Ida Merriam. Ida Merriam was one of the many idealistic young people who responded to FDR's call to come to Washington and help make the government better, joining the Social Security Administration (SSA) at its founding. Like many others drawn to DC by FDR, she stayed on, although both her tenure and her achievements at the SSA's Office of Research and Statistics were exceptional. She was still going strong when she retired in 1972.

Her semi-official biography notes some of Mrs. Merriam's major achievements; it paints a portrait of a statistician/demographer who understood that measuring the right things carefully and well can open policy possibilities,

Mrs. Merriam brought a clear vision of the importance of research to sound policy development. Cogent analysis, clear writing and impeccable accuracy are the hallmark of her own work and set the standard for others. Research on public programs, in her view, belongs in the public domain and the role of government research is to put it there in clear and understandable form. Under her direction ORS publications grew beyond the monthly Social Security Bulletin, to include special reports and brief R&S Notes that were issued quickly to respond to policymakers' questions.

The Social Security Bulletin brought a broad view of the role of social insurance in the nation's social and economic fabric. Mrs. Merriam personally established the social welfare expenditure series that tracks national spending for such purposes as education, health care, social and vocational services and income security through social insurance and social assistance. In that series, social insurance is not only Social Security, but other public programs —unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, and public employees retirement systems—as well as private group efforts to protect individuals against the economic vicissitudes of life—such as short-term sickness and disability benefits, private group life and disability insurance and private pensions. Trends in each of these systems were brought together in the social welfare expenditure series. The health care component of the series set the framework for the national health expenditure series that is now used to project future national health spending.

In the 1960s, under Mrs. Merriam's leadership, ORS catapulted into the forefront of social policy analysis. New concerns about the poor and civil rights for minorities, a building debate on health insurance for the elderly, extension of disability insurance to workers under age 50 and enactment of early retirement benefits for men all posed new research challenges.

Longstanding scholarly interest in defining and measuring “low-income” took a major step forward when ORS published what was to become the official poverty thresholds for comparing the economic status of families of different sizes. For the first time, statisticians could count the number of poor children, elderly and other adults.

Dorothy Rice, who directed and conducted many of the health insurance studies recalls, “Throughout her career as a public servant, Mrs. Merriam earned a well-deserved reputation as an administrator with scientific objectivity, outstanding social policy expertise, and unquestioned integrity. She was one of those public servants who viewed government service as a noble calling, a medium through which she could and did make a positive and lasting impact on the social well-being of the populace.

People like Mrs. Merriam not only made FDR's New Deal possible, they made it last.

JFK's call to public service (“And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”) produced a similar, if maybe smaller, wave of people who staffed the bureaucracy and helped the lumbering beast be more responsible and responsive. It was notable that his next four successors were not as successful at attracting deep talent to staff their administrations; each had their stars and their workhorses, but not in the same quantity.

I suppose in some way one could say that Ronald Reagan also energized a generation of people to come to DC and take jobs in the bowels of the government, although in this case the idealistic charge was to destroy the beast from the inside, an inheritance that has been coming to its fruiting in the current, less inspiring and more nakedly corrupt, administration. It's notable that one quiet Republican achievement has been to work hard to undermine the legacy left by Ida Merriam and her equally unsung opposite numbers in other agencies by ruining the government's ability to collect (not to mention to share!) good data. Without decent time series data, future governments will find it that much hard to build a case for social policies.

Mrs. Merriam — as I always called her — lived in our neighborhood in Washington DC, and used to walk by our house from time to time. She's always symbolized to me how political inspiration could shape lives in ways lasting a generation or more. Thanks in no small part to her work, and that of others like her, the SSA was known as the most efficient and well-run federal government department. And she was a very nice lady, too.

The power to inspire is the power to mobilize not just masses to turn out for rallies, not just voters to turn out to polls, but also to get people to make (and re-make) institutions. And as Jean Monnet (a sexist but wise Frenchman) said, “Nothing is possible without men, nothing is lasting without institutions.”

The ability to give a great speech is a tool of statecraft. It can open doors, make possibilities. The power to inspire is the power to direct at a distance, to harness human energy while reducing the need for political command-and-control.

The ability to give a great speech also can be a tool of nation-(re)building. It depends, of course, on what you say.

But if you and your country are lucky, the next Ida Merriam is listening.

[Note: An earlier draft of this essay accidentally briefly appeared on the site.]

Posted in Politics: US: 2008 Elections | 2 Comments

Let the GOP Food Fight Begin

The week before Super Tuesday should see the GOP dumping its opposition research on McCain. (And there's so much to mine.)

This anti-McCain ad is in one way quite brilliant:

The Republican base ought to hate this. But in another way it's quite insidious. If McCain survives this sort of onslaught, it may make him more electable by making him seem less conservative.

Is that a bug or a feature?

(FWIW I think that McCain's real weakness is character. One gets the feeling that too many people who know him personally think that he's a wacko; and too often he talks like a warmonger.)

Posted in Politics: US: 2008 Elections | Comments Off on Let the GOP Food Fight Begin

Edwards Pulls Out

It's soon to be official: after his weak showing in Florida, John Edwards is pulling out of the race.

I guess that means I'm an Obama supporter now. Not that I couldn't support Clinton, but I have enough doubt about the people she surrounds herself with and attracts — DLCers for example — that Obama seems a better bet.

I also think Obama will have an advantage in foreign relations, as he'll be perceived as more of a clean slate than someone named Clinton. He's been an opponent of the Iraq war from the start, and still has a better, clearer position than Clinton on ending the war and removing US troops from Iraq (even though Edwards's position was better still). He's better on telecoms issues too.

That said, on domestic issues there's also much to like on paper about the Clinton candidacy as compared to Obama's especially on health care. How much of that would survive contact with lobbyists and Republicans is the question.

Whoever it was who said that Obama is running as (Bill) Clinton and (Sen.) Clinton is running as Gore got it mostly right. I didn't want either as my first choice; even if I get my third choice it is sure to be much better than the remaining alternatives.

And I hope Edwards becomes Attorney General. That would be something.

Posted in Politics: US: 2008 Elections | 8 Comments