Hillary Clinton Doesn't Listen to Economists
When asked this morning by ABC News' George Stephanopoulos if she could name a single economist who backs her call for a gas tax holiday this summer, HRC said "I'm not going to put my lot in with economists.”
I know several of the economists who have been advising Senator Clinton, so I phoned them right after I heard this. I reached two of them. One hadn’t heard her remark and said he couldn’t believe she’d say it. The other had heard it and shrugged it off as “politics as usual.”
That’s the problem: Politics as usual.
The gas tax holiday is small potatoes relative to everything else. But it’s so economically stupid (it would increase demand for gas and cause prices to rise, eliminating any benefit to consumers while costing the Treasury more than $9 billion, and generate more pollution) and silly (even if she won, HRC won’t be president this summer) as to be worrisome. That HRC now says she doesn’t care that what economists think is even more troubling.
In case you’ve missed it, we now have a president who doesn’t care what most economists think. George W. Bush doesn’t even care what scientists think. He rejects all experts who disagree with his politics. This has led to some extraordinarily stupid policies.
I’m not saying HRC is George Bush. And I'm not suggesting economists have all the answers. But when economists tell a president or a presidential candidate that his or her idea is dumb – and when all respectable economists around America agree that it’s a dumb idea – it’s probably wise for the president or presidential candidate to listen. When the president or candidate doesn’t, and proudly defends the policy by saying she's "not going to put my lot in with economists,” we’ve got a problem, folks.
Even though the summer gas tax holiday is pure hokum, it polls well, which is why HRC and John McCain are pushing it. That Barack Obama is not in favor of it despite its positive polling numbers speaks volumes about the kind of president he’ll be – and the kind of president we’d otherwise get from McCain and HRC.
Haven’t we had enough of politicians who reject facts in favor of short-term poll-driven politics?
I know several of the economists who have been advising Senator Clinton, so I phoned them right after I heard this. I reached two of them. One hadn’t heard her remark and said he couldn’t believe she’d say it. The other had heard it and shrugged it off as “politics as usual.”
That’s the problem: Politics as usual.
The gas tax holiday is small potatoes relative to everything else. But it’s so economically stupid (it would increase demand for gas and cause prices to rise, eliminating any benefit to consumers while costing the Treasury more than $9 billion, and generate more pollution) and silly (even if she won, HRC won’t be president this summer) as to be worrisome. That HRC now says she doesn’t care that what economists think is even more troubling.
In case you’ve missed it, we now have a president who doesn’t care what most economists think. George W. Bush doesn’t even care what scientists think. He rejects all experts who disagree with his politics. This has led to some extraordinarily stupid policies.
I’m not saying HRC is George Bush. And I'm not suggesting economists have all the answers. But when economists tell a president or a presidential candidate that his or her idea is dumb – and when all respectable economists around America agree that it’s a dumb idea – it’s probably wise for the president or presidential candidate to listen. When the president or candidate doesn’t, and proudly defends the policy by saying she's "not going to put my lot in with economists,” we’ve got a problem, folks.
Even though the summer gas tax holiday is pure hokum, it polls well, which is why HRC and John McCain are pushing it. That Barack Obama is not in favor of it despite its positive polling numbers speaks volumes about the kind of president he’ll be – and the kind of president we’d otherwise get from McCain and HRC.
Haven’t we had enough of politicians who reject facts in favor of short-term poll-driven politics?
posted by Robert Reich | 11:20 AM
168 Comments:
Amen. It would be great to have a President who had the courage to use his brains, and who got help from experts.
Dr. Reich:
As a learned, scholarly gentleman it is not surprising that you find politics abhorrent. I don't know of many "common" folks who find it enjoyable. Most of us do understand it.
Yes, it's pandering; it's talking down to the public; it could be viewed as trashing the intelligence of the average voter. But it could also be a small glimmer of an example that someone cares; that someone is willing to posit even "dumb" ideas to make a difference to the little people.
Both Hillary and McCain know it ain't gonna happen, so it is false hope, but it does resonate. If it gets a few votes that is the name of the game, especially for the candidate running behind.
You have written much of your desire for a change in political dialogue. There is not enough room in your corner for all of us who would share that desire. Ain't gonna happen because one man comes along preaching about it. Even if that man has the backing of a legion of supporters. It is a change that could be effected over time but it will take a number of politicians speaking the word rather than a number of academics along with, pardon the expression, a bunch of other elitists.
I have written much on your blog about the need to create new legislation immediately by an incoming administration and Congress. Changing the dialogue and attempting a reasoned consensus will eat up valuable time and energy and impede getting important things done. Best case may be inane compromise legislation that will create more problems than it solves.
Already we have Senators and others blowing the trumpet about universal health care not happening in the first year or two of a new administration. Many experts feel that if it doesn't happen in the first two years, or some feel the first year, that it is dead at least until the 2012 elections.
The naysayers state the problem is funding not necessarily the votes if a strongly controlled Democratic new Congress. It is highly unlikely that the Bush tax cuts will be reversed with only a year or so to go. The politically expedient thing will be to let them run out after 2010. This will mitigate some of the tax and spend rhetoric that you know will intensify.
As far as Hillary's economist derision: Face it, economists are not high on the pecking order of the common man, her immediate constituency. To most of the little people economists are elitists who have no idea of their concerns and problems. We know that this is not true but as you know, in politics, perception is reality. The bulk of the well educated and the academics will all understand that her statement was just politics. You know that but you make it an issue on your blog. Are you not indulging in some of your own pandering?
I can appreciate your support of Obama. I have no problem with it. But engaging in the same sort of political speak that you suggest is abhorrent comes across as somewhat disingenuous.
Neither does Bush or McBush... And this country doesn't need four more years of old-fart politics.
Dr. Reich:
I forgot, one other question. I know relying on short term polls appears a poor governing methodology but we keep hearing the cry of a government, "of the people, by the people and for the people". Now how exactly do "we, the people" let our elected folks know what it is we desire? Are our desires remanded to only the periodic election cycles? Do we have no vehicle available in the interim?
I do realize there can be problems with who is doing the polling and how questions are framed; maybe a government polling agency should be formed. Emails and phone calls seem to have some impact but they also tend to represent the activist group and may not be representative of the entire populace. I don't have an answer but have always found the hue and cry over politicians reacting to polling as somewhat of a red herring.
What's even worse is that Hillary Clinton when pressed to name a single economist who supported the notion of a gas tax holiday retorted that she didn't care too much for elite opinion. That the Bush administration had showed us how disastrous elite opinion can be.
1. The problem with the Bush administration is that it didn't listen to "elite" (aka expert) opinion.
2. That sounds like a Republican talking point ... the sort of thing George W. Bush would say to dismiss criticism.
Mr. Reich,
This is called politics and it is what wins elections so you can actually make real changes that benefit people...Of course, this is what inspired you to famously leave the Bill Clinton administration. And, yet, for all its problems, the Clinton Administration did make real improvements for real people, the very people you want to help...Yes, sometimes politics is ugly, but until proven otherwise (see Dukakis, Bill Bradley, Al Gore, etc., etc.), hardball politics is the only way elections are won...
It's nice to have a politician who will ignore the will of the populace, for sound reasoning. However, in this Supercapitalistic society in which we currently live, it's unimaginable to have a politician who will ignore the will of corporate America.
There's a good video on YouTube about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbfa2WJuqc0
There you go Dr. Reich, with your "elite opinion." You, with your books , degrees, and both job and life experience -- you gotta go with your gut! You know, that same gut that says to vote for a war without reading intelligence reports.
Dear Professor Reich and art a layman,
Couldn't agree more, Professor Reich. Obama's choice not to support this idiotic policy speaks a million words about his character.
However, the very fact that voters are so easily swayed by irrational propositions, thinking that it will serve them because some presidential nominee told them so (who will say anything to get votes, and in a manner that much contemporary marketing and psychological literature claims to be effective) speaks about much of the voting blocks behavior. Thats why I wouldn't take it so far as to say that there indeed IS a new politics. It is slowly changing, and we can only hope that peoples efforts (such as yours and many others) continue to bring changes. And it would be INCREDIBLY FOOLISH to ignore the progress that is so evident in this election (albeit, it does have its limits).
thats why, art a layman, when you state that it "ain't gonna happen because one man comes along preaching about...even if that man has the backing of a legion of supporters", i can't help but wonder whether you may not be as "learned" and "scholarly" as you think. many of the freedoms we enjoy today is because ordinary people got together, organized movements, and demanded that their freedoms shouldn't be taken for granted. if youre willing to concede this truth, perhaps you may realize how retarded your phrase is.
and not only the one i quoted, but much more so, what you end with in your entry. its one thing to disagree with Professor Reich, as I'm sure he welcomes, because at the end of the day he's an intellectual, and debate comes with the territory. But to make accusations of "pandering", and being "disingenuous"? Are you fu$ken kidding me? Professor Reich was simply writing about the most recent ridiculous tactic by McCain and HRC; why on earth would any "scholarly" person be offended by that? Where the hell is your evidence that Professor Reich is "pandering", because theres none in your blog entry, and I can't for the life of me note an example where he wasn't being genuine?
aly k
It amazes me that for years now we Liberals/Democrats have been longing for a new type of political discourse in this country which is honest and rational, and yet we still get Democratic candidates who continue to play the same old political games. I'm not saying that Obama is going to be our savior, but the fact that Clinton insists on sticking with this ridiculous gas holiday is really disappointing. And what I find even more disappointing is that a lot of Democrats are falling for it.
For as much as anyone defends this idea by saying it's (gulp) good politics, I don't even think it's that. There's a reason why Hillary's ads don't tell people how little she'd actually be saving them (assuming it saves them anything), and there's a reason why Americans hate George W. so much: Because the truth is that Americans aren't nearly as stupid as Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Hillary think they are. Sure, everyone wants to save money, but it's obvious that people also want a functioning government and are willing to pay for it. Once upon a time, responsible government was part of Hillary's sales pitch and she posed as the big wonk. But now that zero-hour is upon her and the game is almost over, she's promising us ponies in every garage; paid for by the evil oil companies.
Hillary wants to keep people in the dark because it's the only way they'll continue to support her, and even her more intelligent supporters have to toss their credibility out the window to even offer a halfway rationalization for her absurd "tax holiday." There's a reason why low-information voters prefer Hillary, and she wants to keep them that way. She thinks we're all idiots and her supporters can't think to do anything but thank her for it and ask for more.
Dr. Reich,
Your observations are spot on. One of the single most pressing issues facing the country over the next 4 years will be the stagnant or declining global oil supply. The fact that Hillary Clinton is willing to pander on this issue clearly demonstrates that she is not serious about addressing this problem head-on. The fact that she is willing to dismiss the entire field of economics as elitists in order to support her pandering is even more troubling.
Here is a good story where the author is unable to find a single expert anywhere who will support the idea of a gas tax holiday.
http://www.alternet.org/election08/84237/
I’m not saying HRC is George Bush.
I'll say it, then. From her Rovian campaigning to her stance on this issue to her denial of reality regarding the delegate count - especially her recent statement, 'if only the Democrats nominated a candidate the way the Republicans do' - she has proven she is just another Republican-lite in Democratic clothing.
Art A. Layman (a pseudonym I presume), it sure takes a Bush-league reality distortion field to consider this kind of pandering to be a positive for Hillary. This nation is going to face a tough row to hoe the next several years and we are going to need real leadership, not pandering for short-term gain.
I've been lukewarm on Obama until now; his stance on this issue has given me hope he can lend the kind of leadership this country is desperately going to need as we begin to clean up Bush/Cheney's messes.
Why listen to economists when you can get FREE STUFF??!?!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuhUpiASBOU
I blundered on to your blog almost by accident and was stunned to see your masthead reference to being the "22nd Secy of Labor." Considering your endless Clinton bashing, I find that a bit much. Regarding your position on the gas tax suspension, didn't the people of Massachusetts indicate quite clearly what they thought of your political views (as in, don't call us; we'll call you)the one time you submitted your ideas to the electorate (as opposed to being appointed by friends)?
well here come the Clinton trolls, with their Karl Rove/Fox News-style ad hominem smear-the-messenger attacks in place of, you know, debating the issue at hand using facts.
I'm starting to feel sorry for ever having defended Hillary W. Clinton against the right-wing slime machine attacks on her.
I have no problem with any politician voicing their disagreement with "expert opinions", so long as they then explain clearly and specifically WHY they disagree. In this case, I simply would like to hear Hillary explain where she thinks economists err in saying that a tax holiday would likely result in higher prices and why it's a good thing to drain 9 billion from funds needed for road and bridge maintenance. If her aim is to put another $30-$70 in people's pockets over the summer, wouldn't it be easier to just go the Bush route and send everyone a check? And why favor people who drive a lot?
I don't know, Rynato. Charles Nau does make a good point when he mentions that it's "a bit much" that Reich's masthead says he was "22nd Secretary of Labor," yet speaks ill of Hillary. And seeing as how Reich didn't get to be Governor of MA pretty much refutes anything he has to say about anything. I'm convinced.
I'm not sure what this "ad hominem" you speak of is, but if it means that somebody loses the right to state their opinions based upon their personal imperfections, that sounds good to me. As Jesus once said, "Let he who is without sin tell the rest of us what to believe, and everyone else is a sucker MC who needs to step off." That may be a paraphrase, but that was the general gist of it.
So until Reich can prove that his poop doesn't stink, he has no credibility on anything and nobody even needs to explain why he's wrong. That's just how it works.
Paging Paul Krugman...
Now that Hillary is sounding just like Bush, and dismissing (economic) reality when it clashes with political expediency, will we finally hear some real criticism of her from Mr. K?
Mr. Reich, has anyone actually done research/modeling to show how a gas tax holiday "increases" consumption during a recession and an ongoing credit crunch?
Can you cite a single study that has shown this? Or are you simply offering a "political" interpretation favorable to Obama.
You were also against the Welfare Reform bill that Bill Clinton signed. And according to your learned opinion, it would cause great distress to the poor. Well you were dead wrong, and I am glad Bill Clinton didn't listen to you.
A gas tax holiday would save truckers, deliverymen, etc. a lot of money and help them adjust to the shock of a new high gas environment.
"We draw our economic lessons from our politicians only at our peril."
-- Joseph E. Stiglitz
Oh, go lock yourself back in your cabinet.
Dr. Reich,
Hillary Clinton's pandering, arrogant, "know it all" posture is disgraceful, disappointing, and deeply embarrassing. With every day that goes by in this campaign she stoops lower and lower, as does her husband. The idea of these 2 shameless, self-absorbed, power hungry, amoral individuals again holding the reins of the presidency is simply terrifying. How is it possible, I ask myself, anyone is willing to support her candidacy after hearing her talking about obliterating Iran? painting all economists who disagree with her regarding the gas tax moratorium as elitists? Who is she talking to?
As her constituent and her contemporary I am deeply embarrassed she represents the state of New York. I will never again consider voting for her for any public office. When I think my family represents, throughout the years, 16 votes for the Clintons, I ask myself how is it possible.
When we have such an extraordinary candidate in Senator Obama who offers us the once in a lifetime opportunity to vote for what promises to be a truly life changing great presidency, the possibility that we might be robbed of this chance, plunges me into deep despair. Watching him on Meet the Press today should have again convinced everyone he is in a class all by himself. It is not only a question of a brilliant analytical mind, eloquence, depth of knowledge but of character. Senator Obama's composure, temperament, transparency are truly something to behold.
Hardball politics is OK if it helps good people like the Clintons get into power? Is that it Mr. Art? I remember the fear and lies that Bill Clinton spread about Paul Tsongas in Florida in '92. It worked! Perhaps Prof. Reich remembers that one. And look what we got? Some good. Some bad. And no real change.
It's time for a change. Art is probably right that it won't happen. But if you don't try you're wasting brain cells following politics.
Haven’t we had enough of politicians who reject facts in favor of short-term poll-driven politics? Beats me.
Let's not forget that while the Hillary gas tax plan won't save the consumer any money, it won't cost a lot of revenue either, since she combines it with an extra tax on oil companies (and refiners? Who knows?)
Clinton's policy isn't bad, it's just pointless. This contrasts with McCain's disguised give-away to to the Oil Cos.
I'll take "Popular and pointless" over "Feel-good and harmful" any day.
The funny thing about all this is that this isn't really a policy question.
What it did was frame Obama as associated with intellectual specialists and Clinton as associated with the everyman.
Obviously, Hillary isn't going to suddenly start ignoring economists. As put in your post, this is politics as usual and has been the case for a long time.
Predictably, the blogosphere, largely composed of relatively well-to-do and educated people, disliked Hillary for distancing herself from them. On the other hand, your typical blue-collar found themselves a bit closer to Hillary. It's just more popularity-contest churning. It says very little about what either Hillary or Obama will do in office -- this isn't a question of the tax, but a question of the rhetoric used to defend it -- yet it's managed to shift blue-collar and white-collar sympathies.
It's the same thing with religion -- the GOP pulls in many votes for using religious references in its rhetoric, and alienates secular voters.
It's all a rhetoric game.
Dr. Reich,
When Americans are in such straights their vote is influenced by DUMB economics because it "resonates," then you realize how much trouble our social-economic system really is in. Noone ends up trusting anyone about anything with this process of communication.
Finger pointing and calling people stupid and blind, who propose a Deficit inducing tax gift of tiny real value, has limited usefulness. Hillary and McCain are both being advised by economists who want to throw a "bone" to sooth the masses. Everyone plays the win a vote game.
BUSH Jr. is already doing that with the recent Tax Stimulus and another one in the making. These will also have to be financed by China, but will certainly have a much stronger short-term effect than the tax holiday idea. So why add further to Deficits ... rationalized by another unthoughtout idea of a "Windfall Tax" on oil companies?
The general public wants to hear a reasoned, balanced, structural solutions to our many problems, not "ad hoc" solutions that create more problems than they solve...that are convenient political sound bites.
I just watched CNN's Wolf Blitzer spend almost two hours "with television's best team" beating the Rev. Wright event and the gas tax holiday idea to death. Blitzer superficially thinks these are examples of substantive differences between Obama and Hillary. The program self-fulfills its own illusions by the time it spends on such nonsense. Blitzer doesn't even realize a truly large difference between the Democratic candidates is their totally different approach to the housing mortgage bailout crisis, for example. And there are other differences of substance upon closer examination -- for example, concerning approaches to foreign policy; how to specifically help the working class; and how to generate new jobs over next 4 years; or what to do about Bush's tax cuts.
A McCain supporter erroneously claimed that the gas tax holiday would be a positive stimulus to the economy. CNN's Blitzer accepted this in a non-informed, non-probing manner because no research had been done by the TV station that would have shown such a suggestion is wishful thinking, to say it politely.
The TV media should engage some economists so they are better technically and factually informed when their guest speakers make wild assertions on economic policies or ideas that are just that...wild. Try for once to get away from the surface cliches and questioning that never exposes premises, historical facts or the station's own independent research.
The national TV media loves the game of asking someone a question and then mechanically ask the other his reactions with no indepth, informed opinion by the station spokesman (e.g. Blitzer) based on his/her own research --and doing so without always taking sanctity in pole results -- to sharpen the dialogue/ assumptions/reasoning with guest speakers.
In my next post, PART III Transition to a Stable Economy, I will try to become very specific about near and short-term solutions to our social-economic problems. But I will do it in a way that, hopefully, shows a non-contradictory, balanced framework of actions/policies for taking our economy forward and for reducing the severe economic stress and cultural decay of our lower-middle class... without exploding the Deficits further.
This will be a simple layman's observations about problem solutions. The politicians, media, and other higher brains would do all Americans a great service if they would go deeper and more cleverly in bringing forth near and long-term integrated, solution possibilities -- devoid of "quick fix" thinking and deceptive political dogma that substitutes for creative thinking in behalf of All Americans -- that structurally address our massive Tax/Spend choices noted in my last post to you, Dr. Reich.
I fully agree with Mrs. John Edwards recent critism of the media's laxity, trivial innuendos and reflections typified by poor, professional beneath-the-surface focus on the real issues confronting our nation. Frank Thomas, The Netherlands
I remember a president who did a great job at listening to the experts and also coming up with his own great ideas. His name was Bill Clinton. Now though, I see Barack as the person who will best be able to handle the complexities of the executive office.
btw, be sure to check out.
www.change-congress.org
Mr. Reich,
I wanted to congrat you on endorsing Sen. Obama.
I am curious over the recent statements being made by Hillary. She threatened to obliterate Iran, Told democrats re: the gas tax 'you're either with us or against us' which is the favorite threat by Bush.
She is going around telling gun owners she backs them but, Obama will take those away.
Ect., ect.
what is wrong with her? I know she is in war mode against rivals for the white house. But, she is now taking to backing and mimicing republicans, their tactics and policies.
It's like she's running for the republican nomination.
What happened to her or has she really always been this way?
While I agree that the proposal to suspend the gas tax is not just bad public policy, but utterly idiotic, I endorse not listening to economics.
Economics is a branch of theology, not science. Economists reasons backwards, from a set of assumptions which are demonstrably false, to a theory which has no connection with reality.
Anyone in the reality based community should support relegating economists to the museum, next to readers of entrails and necromancers.
I don't think we can afford to be cavalier.
Another President that is willing to disregard educated experts in favor of "politics as usual" may just spell an end to us all.
Robert says....
"That HRC now says she doesn’t care that what economists think is even more troubling".
It does suggest an anti-intellectualism which could prove to be very destructive. How many people needlessly lost their lives because our current president is incurious and failed to listen to
objective sources about what would happen when we invaded and occupied Iraq?
We don't need another president with similar characteristics. Better not even roll the dice with Billary.
This long primary campaign does give us a better glimpse of the candidates not possible with a quick nomination. Hillary's mediocrity can't be glossed over.
Although I won't vote for Obama, I hope you dems do get him elected president. He has far more potetential than Billary or McCain. We already know what these two bring to the table.
She thinks Americans are stupid. She probably is right. We get the goverment we deserve.
I'm a disgusted Republican - fed up with what has happened the last eight years. I would vote for Obama, because I think he would change the process. Based on stuff like this, no way I am voting for Hillary Clinton. If it comes down to her and McCain, it's McCain.
And all the folks out there who think being dumb is smart, who hated the smart kids in school, who like seeing economists and experts and reliance on facts get put down - they aren't going to vote for Hillary in any general election. She might outpander Obama, but McCain will take those votes without even trying because they will recognize at a glandular level that Hillary is exactly the overly bright striver they always hated.
In 1992 it was "It's the economy, stupid".
In 2008, "It's the economists who are stupid".
I really hope this backfires on her, big time. I'm tired of a President who doesn't have any respect for education and expertise. Enough, already.
Spot On!!! America be afraid, be very afraid
Much nonsense has been written about how Hillary Clinton is “toughening up” Barack Obama so he’ll be tough enough to withstand Republican attacks. Sorry, we don’t need a president who is tough enough to withstand the lies of his opponents. We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people. Any one of the candidates can answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom. I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV — at 8 p.m. — from the White House East Room.
Who will tell the people? We are not who we think we are. We are living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes. We still have all the potential for greatness, but only if we get back to work on our country.
I don’t know if Barack Obama can lead that, but the notion that the idealism he has inspired in so many young people doesn’t matter is dead wrong. “Of course, hope alone is not enough,” says Tim Shriver, chairman of Special Olympics, “but it’s not trivial. It’s not trivial to inspire people to want to get up and do something with someone else.”
It is especially not trivial now, because millions of Americans are dying to be enlisted — enlisted to fix education, enlisted to research renewable energy, enlisted to repair our infrastructure, enlisted to help others. Look at the kids lining up to join Teach for America. They want our country to matter again. They want it to be about building wealth and dignity — big profits and big purposes. When we just do one, we are less than the sum of our parts. When we do both, said Shriver, “no one can touch us.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/opinion/04friedman.html?hp
wouldn't it be more intelligent to repeal the 54 cent per gallon import tax on ethanol from Brazil. It would lower the run on corn and also lower food prices?? maybe
The United States needs a Ron Paul right about now. If Hillary was president, I have a feeling there would be more screw ups than George Bush.
Ron Paul?
Ron Paul is a nutty purveyor of crank-economics. His pushing of the gold standard places him well outside of mainstream economic thought.
No, we don't need another leader combining a weak grasp of empiricism with strong sense of his own ideological fortitude.
"Politics!" "Yeah, the President was just speaking to its 'destroy all humans' base"
I think economists lack credibility with voters because following their pro-globalization and anti labor policies has led to 30 years of declining wages and benefits. Other scientists, not so much.
What would it take to get Hillary to commit to shutting down the Federal Reserve?
We don't need a bunch of rotten bankers running our economy and making a killing off of fractional-reserve lending!
Art A Layman:
"Both Hillary and McCain know it ain't gonna happen..."
Then why is she bringing legislation: Gas-Tax Holiday Bill?
Just for fun?
"I’m not saying HRC is George Bush."
No, not yet, but she's moving in the Right direction.
Have you seen the new gun ad?
Media would spin anything to favor HRC - it is a rule.
The WaPo article does support the Mickey Kantor video.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/thewarroompghowe_a0b00d.htm
Quote form the article:
"a Mickey Kantor comment about the people of Indiana (when it looks as though Clinton's ahead in Dan Quayle's state) attest to ...".
Ironically, Hillary's husband is one of only two presidents who has actually paid any attention to his economists, the other was JFK. EVERY other president has only listened to politicians when drafting a budget.
But it’s so economically stupid (it would increase demand for gas and cause prices to rise
By this logic, gas prices can *never* go lower.
Better manufacturing, new oil fields, etc - *nothing* can make oil prices go down because "it would increase demand for gas and cause prices to rise".
But then again, what do I know? I'm just a simple economist.
Nice ARTICLE
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
!!!HILLMENTUM™!!!!
By this logic, gas prices can *never* go lower.
Better manufacturing, new oil fields, etc - *nothing* can make oil prices go down because "it would increase demand for gas and cause prices to rise".
But then again, what do I know? I'm just a simple economist.
Uh... no. New oil fields woudl increase the supply which would cause prices to fall. Also gas prices can go lower if something decreased demand (say, more people switching to greener forms of transportation).
Thank you Professor, I also find it refreshing to see that Obama is more interested in crafting solutions than trivial pandering. It's been a while since we had a president who could lead and listen at the same time.
While I agree with the poster who stated that one man isn't going to be able to fix the system, he's the only one making a convincing start at it, and his oratorical abilities are an important piece of the puzzle. One thing I'm pretty sure of: change isn't going to happen if empty, token gestures are what rule the day.
Barack Obama is the only candidate with any shred of integrity in this race.
No more Bush/Clinton please? It is getting so tiresome.
Obama will get my vote.
To Art Layman,
Did you consider who would end up paying for the $8.4 billion dollars that this gimmick would cost? Did you consider that this could cost 300,000 people jobs (and health care) and that their unemployment benefits need to be paid somehow? And did you consider that the oil companies might not pass on this price "reduction"? Did you consider that there might be enormous costs associated with infrastructure that is crumbling - just look at the cost in lives and reparation of the one bridge collapse? Did you consider the effect this measure might have on the environment? Please tell me, after taking these factors into account, who really cares about "we, the people"?
Paging Paul Krugman...
Now that Hillary is sounding just like Bush, and dismissing (economic) reality when it clashes with political expediency, will we finally hear some real criticism of her from Mr. K?
Doubtful. He's done his level best to ignore her backing of the McCain fantasy. (Oh, she says, but it's different! I'll make up the revenue shortfall from a windfall-profits tax that I'll never get through Congress!)
Meanwhile, Obama knows that the idea stinks because he was in the Illinois state lege when they tried a state gas-tax holiday in 2000; he even admits voting for it then. The price at the pump didn't budge because the oil companies sucked up the difference, but that didn't stop the Republicans from trying to make the "temporary" holiday a permanent one -- which Obama voted against.
Thank you
Apparently, the pen is still mightier.
In the last seven years, only a few like you, Dr. Reich, have been willing to stand up and speak real truth to power - thanks for your wisdom
and understanding of the larger truths that bind us all.
I'm not sure if it even matters who wins anymore. Are any of the politicians getting the fact that our material world is crumbling down? Basic necessities are not attainable for many Americans anymore. Our capitalistic society is breaking the foundations of life. Someone, somewhere, decided that we should pay $6.00 for a coke at a major league baseball game, so that some player can make $30 million a year. IS ANY ONE HUMAN BEING WORTH PAYING $30 MIL? How many people would $30 million feed? I will never waste another dime on such stupidity again. I don't want to give an HMO money so that they can deny someone coverage. We need a president who will slow our own demise. We are idiots with 4 car garages, granite countertops, big tv's, and parents of kids who are failing miserably. I don't want a bandaid on the gas tax, I want to be able to afford a hybrid car. I want Americans to build economical cars that last. I don't want to pay taxes to support state and federal workers who get the best health coverage in America. Everyone should get health coverage. This country is due for an economic quake of epic proportions or a civil war. I am ready for change. Bring it on Mr. Obama
Hillary's pandering is just incredible. Just cannot believe that yet again she is trying to pull a Clintonista. What a woman, how disappointing... just cannot believe my ears!
All I have to say is "wow". That's why I like Obama. I'm accustomed to stupid politics in my birth country of Pakistan, but it's hard to believe sometimes that a Western politician can get away with saying something like that.
Apparently, economists don't know as much about the economy as lawyers do.
-Shan
www.globallyrational.com
Gracious me! I'm not sure whose blog this is. I seem to be taking more heat than Dr. Reich and I might add, unjustly so.
I would love to respond to each by name but there are so many and especially so many anonymouses that I could be here for hours.
Suffice it to say that the gas tax holiday is a really stupid economic idea, I never suggested otherwise. As a political idea it ain't bad. The fact that Hillary proposed a bill to that effect means what? Nothing! She is playing the game to its fullest. Talk is cheap (read Obama) she is taking action by presenting a bill in the Senate. Do you know how many bills get proposed in the Senate and never see the light of day?
Many here have denied the stupidity of the American populace when it comes to voting and determining the best candidate. I offer in evidence, as Exhibit 1, the many posts here that substantiate the premise.
Along comes a handsome, articulate, well-educated, minority fella, full of promise and promises who hasn't the faintest idea of how the hell he will pull it off and do anything substantive. But in your frustrated zeal for anything approaching a different tone you are willing to accept that words alone will turn the tide. Apparently many of you don't bother to listen to the other side. Right now they are being very coy. Pronouncing him to be a nice guy but with questions. Questions, how existential. They are setting up to crucify him and when all is said and done you'll think that Hillary was Joan of Arc. Even if his insistence to "stay the course" and not meet fire with fire works and he should get elected he will quickly find out that life in the big leagues is far from beautiful, meaningful rhetoric.
Besides meeting a huge wall of resistance to any "liberal" proposals he will be pillaried as naive and inexperienced and foolish and ineffective. Movement conservative will have him for lunch and while many of you well meaning supporters will cry and complain, many other Americans will buy the program and he'll last one term.
Obama is a nice guy with a nice feeling message. That and a buck and a half will get him a latte at Starbucks and little more.
One could do a psychological profile of Obama and turn up many issues. Questions as to what really drives him; as to what his strengths are; as to what his weaknesses are. Rhetoric is a marvelous tool but if not backed up with a mean, take no prisoners style, it ends up a wonderful epithet. Bill Clinton was an eloquent orator exceeding even Obama. When it came to getting things done he didn't rely on rhetoric; he got down and dirty.
You can't be effective in the job if you never get the job. Hillary, as dumb as some of her ideas may be; as nasty as some of her campaign tactics may be (you ain't seen nothing yet); is fighting one hell of a fight. Anyone who appreciates the political game has to admire how well she has done. For all intents and purposes folks this primary is a dead heat. Yea, the crazy way we Dems define things probably ensures an Obama victory, but damn, she has been fantastic. You may abhor her tactics, her rhetoric, but as the game is played she has been masterful.
Look back over the political history of this country. Hell, she hasn't even scratched the surface of dirty.
Dr. Reich is pandering! He uses phrases like "old politics". Not to define things but to stir emotions. He professes shock at Hillary's denouncement of economists, not because he is shocked, but because he sees political advantage. Dr. Reich is truly a bright, learned scholar who deserves to be listened to when he speaks of those issues where his expertise shines. When he becomes just another political hack he deserves no more audience than any other.
There is a wake up bell folks. There will be a time when the campaign rhetoric is over and the proof will be in the pudding. My bet is Obama will not make the grade. It is a shame for he has much to offer and timed right, with the proper preparation, he may very well be the Valhalla you all think he will be. That time ain't now.
Chastise Hillary all you like; denounce her; critize her tactics; find her behavior abhorrent. If you want someone who can and will deliver, she is your best bet now. Obama is a wonder whose time is yet to come. Make the wrong choice and we will be awaiting the next reincarnation of Ronald Reagan sooner than you think.
Have at it guys/gals. I have broad shoulders and I can take a punch.
frank thomas:
Love ya guy! But I find, from your vantage point, your perspective on what Americans want; wanting.
Parts of this need to be in Barach's speech tomorrow in Indianapolis, IN.
"Ron Paul is a nutty purveyor"?? look it up, boy! everyone who ever heard of him and took a look at his ideeas, just LOVE him. He is the most popular presidential candidate on the internet, even with the MSM doing its best to not mention him. Go to www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/ and see for yourself
It seems some don't get the point but it's pretty clear for anyone willing to understand.
So to anyone that wants to complain : Before writing a comment 3 times the size of the article, try to understand what is beeing said please.
Stop pretending, stop supporting candidates that only know how to pretend. Don't say it HAS to be like that, it doesn't.
80% of Americans think God sent his son to earth to be crucified in order to teach us all a lesson about sin. Hillary's gas tax holiday should go over quite well.
@art a layman:
To send you back your words : "When he becomes just another political hack he deserves no more audience than any other."
You speak with so much certitude on things that cannot be know for sure, that either you're wrongly believing in your assumptions (or somebody else's), either you're "just another political hack". Think of it.
@doctor biobrain
"Hillary wants to keep people in the dark because it's the only way they'll continue to support her".
If you knew such things as well as you want to make it look, you would be president. You're juste there, stating that you know better than Barrack (and many more) how the american public reacts. What about a big plate of truth before coming here to give it ?
I have been closely following the whole campaign and I honestly have trouble finding a reason to call Hillary a Democrat. I have actually started wondering why other people think this is a "Democratic primary", while it is very clearly a contest between a Democrat (Obama) and a Republican (Hillary). No wonder Bill O'Reilly looked positively purring with her, why Richard Scaiffe Mellon endorsed her: Republicans are going to get their person into the White House under assumed identity. Somebody said here that she is doing "politics as usual" at the moment in order to be able to do greater good while in power. What grounds do we have for thinking so? To me, it looks like she is doing "politics as usual" (and then some!) to be able to continue with politics as usual when in power. Her program looks progressive but from the whole of the campaign a pretty sure prediction can be made that she is not going to deliver on it - just because actually fulfilling her promises would need the force to fight for principles, while she has a lot of strength, but only when it comes to fighting for her own power. There will be four more years of Bush under her and at least some of her supporters will shrug all of it off as "politics as usual". It is such a pity that not only are smart people like Dr Reich in a minority in this country but also that they always have to apologize for their smartness. A country that does not value thinking and education in today's world is in a downward spiral.
Hillary Clinton could be channeling Cheney et company whose highly successful political stance has been to always -always- be further to the right than most Republicans. In this case she apparently thinks the important middle ground lies to the right of Obama. But whereas Cheney tried to seriously push and pull opinion rightwards, Hillary is just doing it as a political tactic. I fear this is also playing into the current administration's hands by effectively giving their political agendas further credit, by giving the impression there is merit to their ideas.
It could of course be that Hillary Clinton sees herself as playing a game that Tony Blair perfected in the UK. That is to aggressively marginalize the right by co-opting their most popular policies. Of course, that would work better with McCain than Obama, whom she has to beat first.
"But when economists tell a president or a presidential candidate that his or her idea is dumb – and when all respectable economists around America agree that it’s a dumb idea – it’s probably wise for the president or presidential candidate to listen."
Free trade is a lousy idea yet practically every respectable economist around America agree that it's a great idea. So what are we supposed to do about free trade?
Or let me put it this way: how does economists' certainty that free trade is a great idea compare to their certainty that HRC's gas tax idea is a bad idea?
Sounds like more Clinton bashing from a guy whose career was made by that family. Even you stated, "The gas tax holiday is small potatoes relative to everything else."
Yet somehow, you lump Hillary in with Dubya over the issue. Talk about your Rovian tactics! Shame on you, Robert Reich.
Btw, what position have you been promised in the Obama administration, if he gets elected?
Hillary Clinton, 1/9/03: "I realize the President's economic advisors don't think long-term budget deficits are a problem, but just about every economist, textbook, policymaker, Wall Street analyst I've come across does."
Hillary Clinton, 8/8/07: "But instead of investing in the infrastructure of the future and growing our economy, we continue to make do. We patch and repair. We ignore the advice of our engineers, economists, businesses, unions, community leaders. We try to build our children's future with our grandparents' infrastructure. And we are falling further and further behind."
Hillary Clinton, 10/8/07: "I will also harness the power of innovation to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. This is a problem that if we don't deal with it we're going to be slowing our economic growth. Economists estimate that every $1 billion spent on fixing crumbling infrastructure creates nearly 48,000 new jobs. My Rebuild America Plan invests $10 billion over ten years in an "Emergency Repair Fund" to begin addressing the extensive backlog of emergency repairs needed in our country."
Iowa caucus, 1/3/08: Barack Obama wins. Sen. Clinton finishes 3rd.
Hillary Clinton, 1/11/08: "If you’ve lost your job because construction has slowed down, you don’t care what the economists are talking about, do you? What you care about is who is going to help me?"
Not only the courage to use his (or her) own brain, but the wisdom to know when he should listen to experts, and not force the science to comply with the party line.
From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/clinton-calls-for-bad-weather-holiday.html
Monday, May 05, 2008
Clinton Calls for "Bad Weather Holiday"
"When asked this morning by ABC News' George Stephanopoulos if she could name a single economist who backs her call for a gas tax holiday this summer, HRC said "I'm not going to put my lot in with economists.”
The gas tax holiday is...so economically stupid (it would increase demand for gas and cause prices to rise, eliminating any benefit to consumers while costing the Treasury more than $9 billion, and generate more pollution) and silly (even if she won, HRC won’t be president this summer) as to be worrisome. That HRC now says she doesn’t care that what economists think is even more troubling."
-Robert Reich, May 4, 2008
I know we've got those "intellectual", high-falutin', elitist meteorologists, those "forecasters" with their complicated charts and their mumbo-jumbo, their high fronts and their low fronts, their Doppler radars. But I've come to say that we're going to put an end to all of that.
When my daddy and I went out in the morning in (Scranton, Indianapolis, Durham, Hagåtña, Charlotte Amalie, San Juan), and he said "It's going to be a sunny day today", well, that was good enough for me.
And that's why, if you vote for me on (May 6, May 13, June 3), I will put into effect a "Bad Weather Holiday" running from the years 2009-2012--and potentially extendable for another four years.
That's right. We shouldn't have to eat our (hot dogs, barbecue, tamales, Chicken Estufao, Stewed Oxtail) under rainy skies. We've had enough of going off to work in the (streets, sands, seas) of this most beautiful (state, territory) only to face a cold, cloudy day. We know what it's like to rest our weary bones after a hard day of labor in the nearest (local watering hole, locale taberna, berlina) only to step out into a stiff, tiring wind.
The Weather issue is very real to me, as I've been meeting people across this nation who (walk, drive, sail, ride ox before stewing tail) to work, and would save precious sums if they did not have to spend their hard earned money on "umbrellas" and "rain coats" and other high priced, high class items of the upper crust. In my daddy's day, a newspaper held over the head by a worn, calloused hand was just fine.
So I say: Let the 'Umbrella Lobby' take the brunt--not our hard working citizens. Oh, sure. I know elite opinion and so called "academic experts" say that my plan would cause 12 straight years of hail, swarms of ravenous locusts, and a vortex of hurricanes ranging from the Mideast to the West Coast.
But I don't put stock in experts. And neither should you. And that's why you should vote for me on (May 6, May 13, June 3).
Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/clinton-calls-for-bad-weather-holiday.html
Shorter art a layman:
You're all stupid for falling for Obama's BS, unlike me, who knows that Clinton's BS is stupid but falls for it anyway.
I hope Senator Clinton reads your blog. After the gas tax remark I decided to stop sending her money.
To the many anons:
I am but an amateur observer of our political/economic/social scene. I certainly read and listen to the ideas of others but I establish my own viewpoints and though I enjoy those who agree with me, I really don't care whether anyone agrees or not.
I have quite a few years of experience in doing my observation. Those of you who have far fewer years of experience may classify me as a relic. So be it, you're entitled to your opinion. Understand that your opinion means no more than mine and when its based on some euphoric dream that politics is going to do a 180 just because a well-meaning, grand speaking, likeable guy says so, your opinion begins to fall short of valid.
The difference between Dr. Reich and I is that I haven't been making public statements condemning Obama as he has about Hillary. As I pointed out, his use of terms like "old politics" and governing with "short term polls" is the same "old politics" that he claims to disdain. His faked shock at Hillary's economist statement and then using it to label her as another GWB is "old politics". Further it does smack of some personal insecurities. Loaded words are emotional appeals, not intellectual appeals.
I have stated numerous times that I believe Obama is inexperienced and somewhat naive to believe that he alone can change the dialogue tone. I have expressed some anxiety about the Rev. Wright issues, not to condemn him but to point out that there are some incongruities in the story as he tells it. I don't view these as the assertions of a "political hack" but just those of a concerned citizen. I read and hear many assumptions from the pundits regarding Obama that I find inane. I find the same about Hillary. I do not glom onto these assumptions and mold them into my thinking or my dialogue. I am, above all else, a free thinker. I may at times espouse my own inanities but they are mine and not echoes from some other source.
No one has posited that political discussion HAS to be one way or another. I have, multiple times, suggested that I, too, would prefer a kindler, gentler approach. I have expressed my opinion of what WILL take place; far different from saying it HAS to be.
For those of you who believe that Obama will usher in some new Valhallic political discourse, you seem deficient in American political history. If you analyze the game. If you look at what is at stake and what each side seeks to attain, it is hard to imagine how the game could ever be changed. When policy ideas are only minimally different or when one side feels it is losing the policy argument, the only resort, if one cares about winning, is to attack whatever aspects of your opponent are available or that can be conjured up. Politics is not a competition controlled by a set of rules where fouls can be called and the opponent then gets a free throw. Appeals or tactics that cross some imaginary line often come back to haunt the offender; not from any referee or governing board but from John Q. Public. I'm not big on the whining and crying from supporters of either side.
If Obama was true to his vaunted new dialogue idea, he would not be attacking Hillary over the gas tax idea. He would merely state that he doesn't find it the best idea and then propose what visions he sees. He chooses to attack because, my friends, that is how you gain political advantage. Dr. Reich is dining at the same table.
For those of you who whine and complain about the length of my posts, I can only offer this advice: Don't read them!
As they say "If my opinion can not be backed by the facts, too bad for the facts."
My whole family used to support her. Now we have all shifted to the Obama camp. Reason? Her arrogance and her willingness to treat you as if you were dumb.
Well, I am not.
I have judged her as a political leader on the way she handles her bad days, or downfall if you like. She handled it disastrously. Others have found themselves at a low point as well, but with grace, honesty and competence, rose back up.
This is the style of thinking that got us into Iraq.
Eric Shinseki was an "expert".
I thank you for exposing yourself by having this blog for us to air our opinions. First, I would like to say that I am one of those people who's without a college degree, people like myself are being talked about as though we aren't intelligent enough to make an informed decision about anything. I do support Sen. Clinton over Sen. Obama and by the comments on this blog, that makes me a retard who likes business as usual. I don't believe Sen. Clinton will be that kind of President and I don't believe that Sen.Obama will create the change in Washington that he likes to tout. If Hillary is pandering with the gas tax suspension, than it's no different than Obama pandering about change in Washington. Just how many politicans have run on the pretense of changing the way government is conducted and can't and don't deliver. I know families that need the relief from high prices "NOW". The price of fuel isn't just about driving, but about food prices and the basic necessities. When you're paying $50to $60 a tank for gas to get back and forth to work and higher prices for groceries, then you're having to choose what bills you can pay. Maybe the educated folks in this blog who believe that long term solutions are the way out of this crisis can afford to wait that long for relief, the working class can't. By the way, you were Labor Sec., you should know that there is a large part of the population who don't make the kind of wages that allows them to weather the rising prices we are facing. Alot of these people literally live from payday to payday. The track record of our government is to cater to the wealthy and to big business and toss crumbs to the blue collar worker. I don't recall any major gains in wages for the blue collar worker when you were Labor Sec. You, more than most, should know how seriously the cost of fuel affects the lives of these families and how long term programs offer no relief for us. If what Sen. Clinton is doing is pandering, then it does tell us she is thinking about our needs. Long term doesn't provide relief when we need it nor help pay our bills. The comparison is made between Hillary and Bush not listening to the experts, she's not Bush, and the experts aren't having to live on SS income or minimum wages. I would like to see these experts try to make it on these wages, and don't say that we need to drive less or purchase cheaper products, just getting by is not living it's basic survival; why don't you try it, you won't like it.
I don't know about everyone else, I buy the same amount of gasoline each week, give or take a couple of gallons, regardless of the price. I go to work every day. The number of miles from my door to my work is the same. 18 cents a gallon won't save me any real money, and it won't suddenly make me start stockpiling gasoline. HRC's bill is just a gambit, meant to draw attention to her. The fact that BOH hasn't given us his solution, but just talks about his opponent doesn't bode well. I have yet to hear either of them give any specifics on what to do that may actually work. He is naive, she is jaded.
Who cares? We are going to be stuck with a politician, no matter which party wins. Same as always. We are just revenue sources for the gov'mint. They see us as milk cows to be led to the barn. None of the three has any real respect for the so-called "common man." I would love to see a person, either sex, any skin-color, who makes no more than a high-school teacher makes run for president. That person will be the first one to run that really understands what it is to grind through the day with only hopes that their children will do better.
As a biologist, I'm deeply offended by Clinton's dismissal of economists as "elite"; this is the same attitude expressed by those Republicans who can't handle the theory of evolution. Since they can't argue on the basis of scientific facts, they try to spread doubt about the integrity of the scientists who developed the theory.
Clinton has resorted to demagoguery of the worst sort--trying to turn the laymen against the experts, all in order to gain power for the politicians.
Bush's presidency convinced me that our government can be worse than no government, and Clinton is doing nothing to restore my confidence.
anon 8:17:
I am struck by your allusion to Hillary attempting to turn layman against the experts.
From the outset of our country the common man has exhibited a disdain for the elites. I would agree that it is ridiculous but it is not something that Hillary all of the sudden came up with. You don't win elections by telling people that their feelings about educated and knowledgable folks are absurd.
Dr. Reich,
I came from a poor lower-middle class family, worked and paid my own way through the difficult Ivy colleges. Success and some failures have not made me lose sight of where I have come from.
So, while I respect Hillary, I simply trust in Obama's integrity and family roots that he'll do the right and most effective thing for working class
America...just my opinion.
In the final PART III of my writing "Transition to a Stable Economy," I will discuss some short-term (not quick-fix )more permanent solutions to help the struggling lower-middle class in America.
In this regard, in an earlier post I made a big mistake in comparing the cost of one gallon of regular gas in Holland vs. the U.S.... forgot all about the correct Euro price and conversion as well as Government gas taxes here:
Here's the quite SHOCKING comparison:
1 Gallon of Gas In Holland:
Basic Price........$3.80
Government Tax.....$4.00
Total Cost.........$7.80
Ave. Mileage Efficiency: 33/miles
1 Gallon of Gas in the U.S.
Basic Price........$3.47
Federal Tax........$0.18
Total Cost.........$3.65
Ave. Mileage Efficiency: 24/miles
Holland is twice as high in total price per gallon and 22 times higher in the Government tax per gallon (all going to social-infratructure Investments). Yet, you don't hear a mad outcry or any panic here for lowering the Government gas tax of $4.00 per gallon!. The focus is on conservation; ever more efficient vehicles; heavy investments in mass transit; less use of cars; buying of smaller, compact cars that are well engineered with the special options available; older growing generation above 60 is buying small cars extensively since over 80% of their trips are for very short distances averaging less than 20 kilometers. hese trends will increase.
But Holland has no large budget Deficit and no accumlulated huge Deficits over the years; there is an intelligent safety net for displaced workers; an affordable required health care system; a union-employer process that protects workers for a fair living wage that rises with an inflation index; and a fair settlement for workers losing their jobs for any reason as well as retraining programs for employees.
Many of these benefits the States do not adequately have (or do not have at all) and that is why I can understand people jumping to a gas tax holiday -- not realizing or being informed or caring how it may put thousands of other people out of work and escalate the U.S. national Deficit situation which is already out of sight.
So there are other ways to handle these financial dilemmas that give more solid support to the spiraling, economic stress hitting lower-middle class Americans ... where I
come from.
More on these options soon in my final Part III post to you. Compliments on your recent CNN appearance, Dr. Reich, but it was too short, as usual.
Frank Thomas, The Netherlands
anon without a college degree: This "holiday" WON'T help you pay your bills or save you from bankruptcy, it just won't. Studies show that it'll save you maybe $40, if that. That is, IF the oil companies don't just raise their prices to suck up that difference, as has occurred when this has been tried in the past.
Is that really the difference between you starving and your survival? I most seriously doubt it.
It's foolish to think this will save you in any sense. It won't, period. What it is, is a shameless pander by a politician that depends on your ignorance of the issues to know any better.
Don't fall into that trap.
I really don't get this "it's great politics" argument. Sen. Clinton argued against this very tax holiday issue when she was a new senator. Now she says it's a good idea, knowing full well it won't work. Yes, it's pandering, plain and simple. But putting "it's great politics" aside, it's just plain lying. Why doesn't she just say Sen. Obama is a Muslim? It would be "great politics" but it would be a lie.
We love watching you fight the Republicans on Kudlow.
I am not a media person but I feel I deparately need to get a message through to the Obama campaign. Maybe you can do it
1. Barrack is absolutely right about the gas tax issue. But he may be badly hurt by it. It may be too late for Tuesday, but he needs to counter it by saying more than it is a gimmick. Even if it is.
There are 3 things driving up gas prices: world-wide and US demand for oil, OPEC, and speculators in the oil market. Most on Kudlow (even conservatives think that investors have moved to oil because of the rest of the economy).
The demand things will take time. We need a new policy to wean ourselves away from foreign oil. Barack has spoken about this.
BUT HE NEEDS some short terms ideas to sell to the voters. Tell them that he will go to Saudi leaders who are supposedly our friends and jawbone them about oil prices and supply. Do they really want to run our country's economy into the ground? Is it in their interests?
Many economists beleive that oil prices don't just reflect demand and OPEC. It is being "fueled" by speculators in a bad economy moving into materials. We can punish the speculators and drive down prices by "threatening" to release oil from the Strategic Oil Reserves. I am not saying we should do it. It may be that we shouldn't do it. But if we threaten, the price of oil futures will take a hit. Can we simplify this for voters?
Say in an ad "Here are 3 things that I, Barack Obama, will do short and long term to lower gas prices."
If any of this makes sense, get the message to the "bigwigs."
We need to counter the Hillary/McCain commercials with some CONCRETE proposals.
Bryce Jones
Prof. of Bus. Admin.
Truman State University
Kirksville, MO
Its real simple. If HRC cares so much for us and can accomplish the job, why doesn't she go back to the Senate and get the legislation through the congress.
This should be a lot easier to pass than health care.
She has more power to adopt legislation now than she will if she is President. So lets see her back up her words with some action.
According to Alex Birch, "It's nice to have a politician who will ignore the will of the populace, for sound reasoning." This is a false choice, as the New York Times reports this morning that the majority of people view the gas tax holiday as pandering. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/us/politics/05poll.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin. One does not have to hold a PhD in Economics to understand basic supply and demand, and I think most people understand that the gas tax holiday would do nothing fundamentally to address the energy crisis or high gas prices. As people respond to the artificially lowered price by consuming more gas, the price will simply rise again due to the inelasticity of supply. Whether this is significant enough to affect voters' decisions is yet to be seen.
To all you people that think Oil prices are high due to demand, think again. Oil prices are high because of the dollar value. The dollar value that Greenspan devalued over the past 15 years.
He did this to keep Clinton in office.
All of the economic issues that we are facing trace back to the Clinton period and his free-trade policies. Vote for HRC means more of the same.
Make HRC release the names of the donors to the Clinton Library.
Art, this is Anon from 8:17.
Hillary is not just allowing people to believe what they already believe--she is actively encouraging them to distrust experts. She is not just allowing the gas tax holiday to pass, she is actively promoting it.
Hillary is not just some fly floating down the river of history--she is one of the most influential people in the country and she has a big microphone in front of her. If she can't use it responsibly, she should have it taken away from her.
If her overriding concern is to obtain power, then she should not be allowed to have any.
Even if I am an expert in biology, I am still just a commoner when it comes to our political and economic establishment (just like the people she is supposedly pandering to). Hillary's demagoguery has lost my vote, and any goodwill that I may have had towards her as the Democratic nominee or President.
That's politics.
Here's the link to the CBS/NYT poll which includes a section on the Gas tax holiday (pdf).
Anonymous said...
"If her overriding concern is to obtain power, then she should not be allowed to have any".
Amen. Well-said.
It's hard to believe that both Clintons are not primarily selfishly motivated. Naked ambition seems to be a hallmark of their character. It creates questions about the credibility of things they say and do making it harder to achieve the positive things they do believe in. Obama has far less baggage in this area and given that their policy differences are insignificant, the choice between the two seems an easy one to make.
anonymous 9:52
The fuss with Wright was media-created with zero substance. By keeping asking questions about it the media keeps injecting into it some sort of "zombi" substance and a false sense of reality. I became sick and tired of listening to analyses of this "association" as if Wright was a Nazi criminal and as if Obama had been secretly funding him with moneys earned through illegal drug trafficking.
How many of us have associated ourselves with people who made occasionaly some wild comments? Many. And on a professional level we keep "associating" with them, we don't slam the door on their faces, for crying out loud. The logic that tells you that once you hear someone say something extreme, you cut off all ties, has not been adopted in human nor business relations, for the simple reason that humans tend to weigh things and look at "averages."
If I follow this stupid logic "why didn't he denounce him earlier" well, I have to deliver a blow under the belt. Why didn't SHE "denounce" HIM when he lied under oath?
Athena,
I linked to that PDF because it contained polls relating to the gas tax holiday.
You need to search for the word "tax" to find the section.
It shows that more respondents oppose the tax holiday than support it.
Make HRC release the names of the donors to the Clinton Library.
Regarding "polls vs. experts"
One danger in letting polls guide policy proposals is that respondents often haven't given any thought to the issue, and don't have particularly strong opinions.
Most people will reconsider their off-the-cuff opinions if they learn that experts disagree with them. They will listen to the explanations of the experts, and many of them will change their minds as a result.
Hillary may have shot herself in the foot by assuming that poll responses represented solid opinions. I'm glad Obama decided to fight on this issue, because it gives the experts an opportunity to educate the laymen (for everyone's benefit, but especially the layman's).
Anonymous
I understand that it was not your intention and that you were sharing info on the tax debate. Sorry if it looked like I was implying something else.
The poll was there and I could not hold back my indignation because it seems to be propping up everywhere. Even in unrelated matters.
Anonymous says "Paging Paul Krugman... "
I guess you missed it. Krugman's criticism was posted in his blog on April 29. He referred to her plan as "pointless and disappointing".
If you are going to put challenges up, you might want to get your facts straight first.
BTW, how do you feel about Obama's denouncement of Rev. Wright's comments in which Obama is offended that someone might think our war in Iraq isn't noble? Sounds like your candidate speaks with forked tongue.
Art Layman:
I was enlivened by your amusing closing retort ... but, as perhaps the naive optimist, I don't share your cynicism about ever reforming inherent flaws in our political system -- which I feel needs a good dose of 'Fresh Thinking'.
Young, lower+middle class people of all ages, race, and colors seem to be saying same thing. Obama is truly re-energizing our democracy. His time is now!
The general public wants the straight-talk, common sense, and kind of creative thinking Obama personifies. I'm glad he hasn't prostituted himself on Carville's altar of dirty character assassination politics that make us look like a third-world country.
He can handle all the personal war games of Republicans quite well.
Vast numbers of Americans want to take a risk on Barack Obama as one whose team leadership -- together with an expected Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress -- can make a real dent in our social-economic problems (e.g., cascading lower-middle class incomes and cultural decay). He's trying to do it the old-fashioned way -- "bottoms-up," with hands untied to lobbyists, and by compromise or merging the best of our liberal and conservative traditions.
The war-torn professional bureaucrat in the ugly stigmatizing game of "in-your-face" politics (I'd bomb... obliterate Iran" if they attacked Israel") is becoming an anachronism in the eyes of most as a credible basis for selecting our leaders. Eight years of Bush Jr. has proven how disastrous that confrontational, ego-centric leadership style is.
In contrast, Bill Clinton achieved a praiseworthy modicum of balanced policies and financial prudence (thanks to Rubin) by compromise and communication skills -- not by a preponderance of "down and dirty politics" (only down and dirty moral behavior). He and Rubin understood numbers and the value of financial solvency in government.
I'm less optimistic about Hillary Clinton's abilities to balance the Debits and Credits intelligently and cleverly given all her overreaching panaceas for solving our nation's problems. She promises too much! This plus her contrived, "in-your-face", divisive temperative, and pandering style will hardly make her any better in standing up to the Republicans in November than Barack Obama. Combine this with a person who receives high
"untrustworthy" national ratings, then I'm not so in wonder of her bonding and cooperative leadership talents. But, as a last resort, I do prefer her over the very respectable John McCain.
I'm hopeful Edmund Burke conservative principles of thrift, hard work, concern for the community as well as for the individual are slowly gaining ground and respectability over the "survival of the fittest and brightest" elitist conservative philosophy bankrupting our society culturally and financially the past three decades.
This explains the dramatic growth in Independent voters (including me) and cross-over Republicans -- most of whom seem to favor Barack Obama. More and more people are sick of the politically phony, banal epithets "Soft on Defense",
"Party of High Taxes", "Party of the Rich and Wall Street", "Party of High Taxes and Big Government",
"War Mongering Party', etc., etc.
I'm not proud to have to remind everyone that over the last 28 years (Carter through Bush Jr.) only in FOUR years did our Government produce budget Surpluses (Clinton). In all the other years, we experienced enormous annual Deficits (except during Carter's term). Main causes of this I have already talked about in earlier posts. Namely, they were due to the financially flawed policy combination of exploding Defense expenditures while also sharply reducing income taxes benefiting primarily the upper 10% of our society (who don't always reinvest much of their money in the U.S.)
Result? A gigantic DOUBLE HIT to annual Deficit levels that future generations have become burdened with. Then we add to everyone's economic concerns when we say, "By the way, Social Security will likely be unavailable in
2030."
Art, I'm totally in your camp with your basic message that our two-party system in America has steadily declined in past years into an inherently selfish, narrow-minded ideological correctness -- "a shoot-yourself-in-the-foot array of ultra 'ISMs'" -- that have compounded the social-economic dilemmas and imbalances we are seeing intensifying in our times. People today want problem solvers, not just ideologues.
The loyal and hardworking lower- middles classes (more than 70% of our population) have become pauwns in the global world of profit making... dispensable pawns. WE need to look much more INWARD to what we're doing to ourselves.
It's time for serious reflection and self-critique -- not qualities Americans are best known for. It's time we return again to honoring the historical reality that Mainstream American is the Foundation of Wall Street America.
Naively, I remain hopeful (from a distance) we Americans will come together sufficiently, after some very tough but civilly constructive debate, to develop sensibly balanced programs insuring hope for a more structurally stable economy, and a less stratified society.
This continuing debate will challenge our preconceived notions and biases to get the following "5 P's" in harmony with EVERYONE's interests:
1. Principles
2. Policies
3. Priorities
4. Programs
5. Prudence
Frank Thomas, The Netherlands
anon from 8:17:
Kudos! I'm not an expert in anything, unless you count which side the debits and credits go on.
It is clear that you are not a geologist for you seem to be making mountains out of molehills. She is not running TV ads or making speeches telling people that experts are to be ignored. She got a question for which she had no answer and in typical political fashion she came up with an answer. Obama does the same kind of thing - remember bitter and cling? In any political race, especially one for the Presidency of the US, it's not wise to answer, I don't know or there aren't any so I must be wrong.
Now that Dr. Reich was personally offended at her offhand remark should surprise no one. That he chose to make it the subject of a blog entry suggests, never pass up a chance to pander for political gain.
She gave a brief answer to a question. That does not a campaign against experts make. Given the conventional wisdom of the layman, making pleas to look to experts or elites for answers would be tantamount to political suicide.
Look at the haranguing on this blog. If she just stated the idea of a gas tax holiday and did not appear to be taking action or further promotion then even more fuel would be added to the inane screaming going on here. It ain't gonna happen, she knows it, you know it and I know it; and above all Dr. Reich knows it. If she is going to propose it, it makes sense that she would appear to promote it and even get it enacted into law. Consistency is seldom looked on as a negative in our culture.
Most of the folks entering the political arena do not seek power for power's sake. They do seek power for this is primarily an ego game but most of them seek the power to achieve good things. Even GWB, for whom I have no good regard, wanted to do good as defined by his ideology, or perhaps by the ideology of those promoting him.
Let us look for a moment at Obama's explanation. Now the economics of oil and gas is not a recent phenomenon. At least since the 70s we have known that supply and demand, along with less honest influences, controls the price of gasoline. It has always made sense then that cancelling or reducing the various taxes on gasoline would result in increased demand leading to higher gas prices until they once again reach equilibrium. This fact did not recently creep into the economic grabbag. Now, Obama, having this knowledge, or he should have, voted in Illinois to reduce or cancel the gas taxes in his state. He now points to that experience as argument against Hillary's proposal. Should we not be concerned that he supported that action when the same parameters were in place then as now? The complete overlooking of this point speaks volumes to the oft suggested ignorance of we layman.
I am struck by poster after poster railng about Obama and his better idea for a gentler tone in politics and then they proceed to exhibit the same old polarized words and vehemence that Dr. Reich defines as "old politics". The real shame? Most of them don't even realize it.
Hillary was well aware that her pandering would place some potential votes at risk but I'm sure that she and her staff felt that the gains would outweigh the losses. Most of her supporters would seem to have a little more resilience than you exhibit. Not a problem for she knows, as do I, that is your prerogative.
Net, net, net, there are a helluva lot more important things to worry about than a dumb idea posed for some political gain. We, as a political party, are blessed with two very viable, strong candidates. Let's not get our panties all in a knot over minutiae.
frank thomas:
Won't bother revisiting issues we have discussed before. Suffice it to say, as I alluded to in my last line previously, a great deal of your argument is predicated on the assumption that most Dems and/or Americans are in favor of a new, fresh, gentler approach to politics. I have stated before; look at the numbers, closely! Out of 30 million votes so far we have but a 500,000 vote differential between Hillary and Obama and that's not counting Fla and Mich. Further it includes a somewhat arbitrary allocation of the caucus votes. To paraphrase: Most should be made of sterner stuff.
You, as with the many posting here see a fresh face, a new player with a nice message, suggesting that the political arena is ready for a new Christian to fight the lions. As biological evolution would have it (anon?), we humans have yet to amass the physical tools to do battle with the King of Beasts.
OK, so show me the better idea that will help folks right now!
I was just reading the commencement speech by P.J. O'Rourke and although I disagreed with the major bulk of it, one part struck me as very relevant to the reasons why politicians choose to mislead.
I copy:
"But the problem isn't politicians -- it's politics. Politics won't allow for the truth. And we can't blame the politicians for that. Imagine what even a little truth would sound like on today's campaign trail:
"No, I can't fix public education. The problem isn't the teachers unions or a lack of funding for salaries, vouchers or more computer equipment The problem is your kids!"
I think he has a point.
artalayman -
the gist of my original post was to ask you to offer evidence of Professor Reich's "pandering", and being "disingenuous".
you completely ignored commenting on the latter, either because you never used your brain when making the original comment, or perhaps because you're an airhead on this issue.
with regards to the former, you wrote that "He [Professor Reich] professes shock at Hillary's denouncement of economists, not because he is shocked, but because he sees political advantage." Or just maybe, art, perhaps maybe, his shock is largely a part of an effort to do his small share at driving your country in a more responsible direction with regards to elections. if you read his writings, and observe the issues he's stood for over the years, you don't have to be a genius to figure that out. how anyone can object to this as "pandering", and go so far as to make accusations of being "disingenuous" is beyond me.
you also said, "Obama is a nice guy with a nice feeling message. That and a buck and a half will get him a latte at Starbucks and little more." ummmm... he has a good shot at being the president of the most powerful country in the world, has energized people who didn't care about politics, and has achieved fame in the world that has made Bill quite jealous. comparing this to a "latte" is something any sane use of the english language wouldn't allow for. its one of the many reasons its useless responding to some of the garbage you write, yet i felt compelled when you questioned the integrity of a respectable person.
cheers
aly k
I noticed that your story had been submitted at NewsTrust. If anybody want to add a review there, the link is:
http://www.newstrust.net/webx?14@@.fe7621e
If you're not already a member, you'll need to register, but that just takes your first and last name and email address and you'll be mailed a link to enter your password.
HRC sucks, BO ftw!
More than one economist would be willing to concede that economists as a whole are not much better than meteorologists in their predictions - sunny forecasts often end up in downpours.
That being said, what about the rate of change of the gas prices. After all, a lot of this price increase might be the result of hedge funds and the like speculating on oil rather than reactions to actual consumption (old-fashioned demand) versus supply. I'm no economist, but I do recognize that if prices go up quickly that can really screw the people who have made their plans based on past price trends - and also the people who just have little margin for error. So, while we probably should have had a 40 cent-per-gallon tax on gas for years, having a temporary holiday on the tax at a time when the price appears to have gone up very rapidly might just keep a few mom-n-pop taxi stands (or just moms and pops who have to commute to work) in business for a little while longer.
Once again, everyone is missing the point.
If Obama countered with suspending all payroll taxes for the next 5 months. Would you change your vote?
HRC is not going to push for this tax reduction as far as I can see. This is all just political rhetoric.
The point is this is not even a real tax porposal, this is just another phantom issue. She is not going to lift a finger to get this tax repealed.
This is a perfect example of people voting for people who promise something and never deliver. HRC could have pushed for this legislation last week, last month, how about last year. She didn't and she won't be in D.C. next week trying to get it passed.
You've been bamboozled and hoodwinked. Fighting of rhetoric on top of rhetoric.
The point is not the validity of her proposal, it is about the fact that she is proposing something that is fantasy just to get votes.
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe
the people with their own money."
- Alexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville (29 July 1805 - 16 April 1859)
Just want to point out after reviewing Mr. Reich's blogs and past that not once in 2003-2006 did he as a great economist discuss an impending credit crunch or housing boom. Any sound economist would have made this their focal point especially in 2005. Mr. Reich dismissed this as rhetoric back then and now he looks silly. I would not want him as my professor. Any good economist saw the current crunch coming but he did not. Stick to teaching thoise flakey 18 yr olds pal.
aly k:
There are two aspects to reading. The first is being able to read the words. The second, the far more important aspect, is the ability to comprehend what is being read. You seem somewhat lacking in the latter.
If you read all of what I wrote the answers to your questions are there. Given your handicap let me attempt to more explicitly elucidate.
Look at Dr. Reich's second paragraph. He was so astounded that he called two of the economists he knew who were advising Hillary.
Now were Dr. Reich a new scholar who knew little of Hillary Clinton this action might appear innocent enough. By his own admission he has known Hillary since her undergraduate college days. As we all know he worked in her husband's administration. The man clearly knows that she does not shun the advice of "experts". He even took her to task awhile back when she suggested she would establish an "expert" panel to review Social Security. He demeaned her approach because Obama had a "fix", a "fix" by the way which was not an epiphany of Obama's, without the need to consult any "experts".
Given this long familiarity with Hillary, to feign astonishment at her economist remark was "disingenuous". It was an outpouring that was designed to feed his audience of similarly inclined Obama supporters. This, my friend, is "pandering".
He goes into a brief harangue about "politics as usual" and this can be valid argument, although he should be thoroughly familiar the necessity of using politics to achieve objectives.
He then moves on to the "gas tax holiday". Once again valid criticism but he closes with; "That HRC now says she doesn’t care that what economists think is even more troubling." He returns to more "disingenuous" "pandering".
Let us discount the subtle comparison to GWB and then the brief disclaimer that HRC is not GWB. But, once again we return to the constant refrain; "When the president or candidate doesn’t, and proudly defends the policy by saying she's "not going to put my lot in with economists,” we’ve got a problem, folks." More of the same!
Then he closes with the coup de grace. In case all his other "pandering" has not had effect, let us turn to poll watchers.
Even though the summer gas tax holiday is pure hokum, it polls well, which is why HRC and John McCain are pushing it. That Barack Obama is not in favor of it despite its positive polling numbers speaks volumes about the kind of president he’ll be – and the kind of president we’d otherwise get from McCain and HRC.
Haven’t we had enough of politicians who reject facts in favor of short-term poll-driven politics?
Campaigning for office requires "selling" oneself to the greatest number of voters. This frequently involves spinning, sometimes innocent lying, creating political advantage. Politicians who don't attempt to appeal to voters don't make it very far.
Serving in office involves a different kind of "selling". Once in office one's appeal to a majority of voters is evident. To pursue solutions and responsible legislation it is often necessary, in order to overcome contrary opinions, to appeal once again to the voters. This is "selling" from the "bully pulpit". The only feedback mechanism that determines one's success in this form of "selling" is usually "polling". Emails and phone calls are indicative but "polling" presumes a larger statistical base and is frequently relied on by all politicians in deciding their vote, often predicated on their reelection ambitions. Between election cycles, polls are the only effective method for gauging the will of the people - supposedly the function of our government.
In serving, it is clear that deciding soley on poll results is poor leadership and would be foolish. The people are not always cognizant of what is in their best interests. As with all communication feedback loops it is an indicator, a factor to be considered in rendering final action but not an absolute determinate by itself. Dr. Reich is fully aware that "polls" are vital in figuring out which ideas fly or flop. I'm sure in his time in Bill's administration he refered to "poll" results to argue his side. To ignore them is as much folly as is soley relying on them.
Do you think that Obama's lastest speech about Rev. Wright was not driven by "polling" results?
In running for office the parameters are far different. In a grueling contest, such as we have now, time is the major constraint. There is not the time to cast every idea to the Congress or some other body for a full debate before espousing it. In campaigning, instant advantage in securing votes is the driver; not compromise or collective agreement. "Pandering" on the part of candidates is a part of the game. It is up to "we, the people" to accept or reject that "pandering". The fact that "pandering" has worked throughout the history of our politics does not provide a lot of incentive for a politician to discard it.
In net, there is a significant difference in responding to "polls" when campaigning versus when serving. Dr. Reich has melded the two very different scenarios to create a false impression and provide gratification to his audience. This is the very definition of "pandering". The fact that he knows the Clintons well enough to know that his statements are, to a great extent, invalid, and that his words are calculated to give a false impression is the definition of "disingenuous".
I hope that this long dissertation has completely satisfied your request for a further explanation. Given your derogatory post, I doubt it. In the vernacular your post was very unObama like.
I seriously doubt Dr. Reich needs a staunch defender. I'm sure he is quite capable of defending himself. I further doubt he could find much error in my analysis if viewed objectively.
P.S. The buck and a half/latte remark is what is known in the English language as a figure of speech. It is not intended to be taken literally. My point was that should he be successful, he will find that his ideas of accomplishing things with a better tone of dialogue will be met with stiff resistence from movement conservatives and to be effective he will need to engage in the "old politics". His new way appeals to the populace, at least the Dems and a few others, but as an observer and listener to both sides of the political spectrum, my guess is he will find more satisfaction from the latte.
athena smith:
With all due respect to P.J. O'Rourke the larger problem is with the parents of those kids.
Art a Layman
You are absolutely right!
Art Layman,
In your haughty reply to Aly K, you don't seem to realize that you're so taken in by OLD POLITICS that you yourself have become OLD POLITICS... whatever that term means.
A false premise in many of your arguments is : in U.S. politics we are permanently imprisoned by the principle that, "you can't fight a nasty, in-your-face full of lies, slogan election approach with a civil, equally tough in-your face-with-the-facts approach."... thus, your Obama as a hopeless reasoning Christian fighting a Killer Lion (Hillary) metaphor.
Are you really trying to say that Hillary is a better Presidential candidate because she's very adept at the "down-and-dirty" , pandering lying attacks of campaign tactics... but she'll of
course be transformed into debutant 'genteel' President courting the art of compromise, `get along with the boys´ pragmatisim once she's elected.
Come on. You're a bit carried away with your own exhuberant intelligence. To suggest that our system should prize the practice of "Anything Goes" (ironically, a musical our daughter once had the lead role in) to get elected is simply to endorse a SICK SYSTEM.
You can prefer Hillary for some concrete balanced reasons I respect -- other than for "morally despicable campaign practices"-- as I can for Obama.
This calls for an abundance of rational discussion of opposite ideas. Here, you are occasionally effective when you pose your thoughts tightly and economically with a minimum of ego, of finely interposed derogatory, demeaning sentiments that have not heard or respected the valid points of others. I call this listening to the imperfect spots of wisdom and shared concerns to refine and advance understanding of all.
We could do well to bear in mind one of Bill Clinton's LAWS of POLITICS:`
``If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is trying to get you to think; if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better Vote for the person who wants you to Think and Hope.´´
In this spirit, can we not keep the discussion by Dr. Reich and all others to a civilly and sensitively informed, human level?
Frank Thomas, The Netherlands
Dear Art a layman, my well-read moron,
I rarely engage in blog-battles. Nonetheless, let me briefly illustrate numerous examples of your most recent stupidity.
First, in an attempt to insult me, you start off by saying that the “more important aspect” of reading is being able to comprehend what you read, rather being able to read itself. I can understand 15th century western philosophy, but can’t for the life of me comprehend the logic of one being more important than the other. In an abstract sense, you’re saying that it’s more important to be able to perform a higher degree of task X, than being able to do task X at all. A suggestion: when youre attempting to insult someone else’s intelligence, it may not be effective to do so by accentuating a logical-flaw.
Second, you say that your “latte” remark is a “figure of speech”? I’m well aware of that. I was merely pointing out that it’s a RETARDED FIGURE OF SPEECH. Obama is close to being President of the most powerful country in the world, and childish comments that allude to speeches won’t make changes deserve to be laughed at. They are boring repetitions of what other boring (but paid) anti-obama spinsters on tv have said a million times, and usually the only people these comments have a voter-decision-effect on are people with half a brain. You shouldn’t be surprised for being laughed at as a result of making that comment.
Third, you say that my post was derogatory? I was insulting the comments you made – rightfully so, because some were completely idiotic.
YOU, on the other hand, accused someone of being “disingenuous”. This is a charge on what their INTENTIONS are. The onus for such accusations are extremely high, as the claim is based on the state of someone’s mind. And dare I say, you did a pathetic job in your response.
You state that “Given this [Reich’s] long familiarity with Hillary, to feign astonishment at her economist remark was "disingenuous". In other words, according to you, given that he knows her so well, his “astonishment” is political theater.
But what about the other possibilities? What about, for example, the possibility of being “astonished” because you can’t believe that a friend is stooping THIS low? What about being “astonished” that a democrat would go so low EVEN AFTER your country has lived through an 8 year nightmare? There are an indefinite number of possibilities, each that would be possible even given the history that Reich and HC know each other very well. Of course, you ignore this, and rather, provide an arbitrary and highly questionable sort of ‘psychoanalysis’ that you claim proves Reich’s is obviously being “disingenuous”.
It would be a piece of cake for me to elaborate, and provide further details in a short little essay on why your accusations are completely without merit. To tell you the truth though, I’d rather watch tv, get drunk, or talk to a girl. In fact, I probably won’t respond to any of your garbage after this, and I’ll be sure to apologize for my comments right after these snipers in Bosnia stop shooting at me.
Lastly, just so you know, I’m not a staunch defender of Reich. I’ve never met the man, and from a philosophical sense, some of our ideas are different. Yet I have a deep respect for ANY individual – him and many many others – who are concerned with creating a more just society & and respect the truth. And my obsession with the truth, my friend, is why I found the need to draw attention to some of your Clinton-like-fairy-tales.
aly k
Disagreeing with economists is not limited to HRC. No serious economist would oppose NAFTA or the Columbian Free Trade agreement. Yet, Barack Obama is out there talking nonsense on trade, yet Robert Reich doesn't point that out. A gas tax holliday may not be the best idea, but it is far less damaging than Obama's protectionism.
I don't think that a forty cent reduction in gas prices would cause a mad rush to the gas pump. What it might do is allow people to buy a gallon of milk for every fill up. There is no reson in the world for the price of gas to be what it is. I understand that we need to find alternative energy sources but have you tried to buy an electric car lately? The fact is that we still have to use gasoline to get to work, to go to the grocery store and function in our everyday lives. With the price of gas approaching $4.00 per gallon, people have reduced as much as they currently can. The government is in bed with the oil companies pushing for one more year of record profits to line some officials pockets. Gasoline should be treated like electricity or insurance, we currently have to have it to survive and it should be regulated instead kissing Arab ass and being in bed with OPEC.
Dr. Reich,
Just read today David Brooks'article, "Combat and Composure". It reflects closely the points I made in my blog above to Art Layman as well as to some remarks by Aly K. In many of
my writings, I've indicated my attraction to Obama's utter-at-peace with himself composure... qualities I think our country desperately needs now.
People favor the power of genuine communication over the dialogue of diviseness and distortion. People are tired of OLD POLITICS where truth comes often under the guise of politically "correct", in-your-face demogoguery.
It's time for the Clintons to crawl back under their rock. Chatter continues about her being Obama's running mate. Obama just learned a very good lesson about how people are judged by the company they keep. He's not going to make this mistake again by putting her on the ticket. Hillary as veep is doa.
aly k:
Given the lack of logic and the absurdity in your arguments, one can hardly be surprised that you avoid "blog-battles".
It would appear you are unfamiliar with the teachings of reading. We start in the early grades with "See Tom run.", "Watch Dick run after Jane". Now at this point comprehension is moot. The focus is on identifying the words and being able to read them.
As we progress in the primary grades much of our reading is of delineated facts which we are to memorize; comprehension is again a minor issue.
Later our reading is expanded to include expressions of thoughts and ideas, laced with nuance and sometimes seemingly oblique concepts.
At this point the exercise is no longer about reading the words but comprehending what is being said. As we progress through whatever level of higher education we seek it is presumed we can read words and the focus of judging our reading capacity is directed to the comprehension aspect.
One may be able to read and regurgitate the words read but if one doesn't comprehend the message being conveyed through the words then the reading exercise is for naught.
I read Paul Krugman voraciously. I do not always comprehend what he is talking about.
Ergo, the difference between reading and comprehending. I can't speak to your understanding of 15th century western philosophy but though your abilities for the reading may be excellent; for comprehension; well, not so much. Methinks you don't even want to go to the question of logic.
To your credit you do appear well-versed in neurology.
I also failed to consider the possibility that Dr. Reich was having a bad hair day, therefore my conclusions are invalid? Fatuousness! Dr. Reich is learned man. He is bright and well-versed in the practices of politics. He is quite familiar with Hillary and Bill and knows that they don't eschew input from experts. Being bright and learned folks themselves they may disagree from time to time with experts but he knows that they do listen.
The reasons for his astonishment may very well fall within the options that you suggest. Had he premised his post on the idea that Hillary was pandering and being disingenuous herself, perhaps including an acknowledgement that he knows her well enough to argue the point, then his exposition could have been viewed as more scholarly.
The approach he took, not even suggesting that her statement was inconsistent with his first hand knowledge of her previous practices, is a clear example of taking political advantage of an utterance.
We expect from our scholars, our experts, an objective critique of words and events. For those of us that give them credence it is what we expect and why we respect them. When they pick up on phrases and then spit them out in the same manner as those "tv pundits" you refer to, they have rendered themselves as nothing more than "political hacks" equal in stature to all the other "tv pundits". His actions make it clear what his "intentions" are. The motivation for those actions; the reasons for his "astonishment"; are not really germane to his analysis.
If one knows that a statement is false then a scholar's responsibility is to point out the fallacy. To pretend to accept the statement as true and condemn the expresser based on the wisdom, or lack thereof, of the declaration, is, clearly, presenting a political argument rather than an objective observation of the truth of the declaration. It is the essence of "political theater". It is a perfect example of the "old politics".
Now you can differ with my premises. I have no hold on absolute truth. I presented a reasonable and logical argument, and a very sound one, that Dr. Reich was being disingenuous; that he was pandering to an Obama supportive audience.
That you disagree does nothing to negate the valid logic of my conclusions. Nor do you present anything but the feeblest of premises in an attempt to dispel my argument.
History is replete with those that could or would have done something but failed to do so. To suggest that it would be a piece of cake to expose my argument as without merit is a powerful assertion: "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
Your vaunted opinion of your intellectual capacity is far from obvious to the rest of us and remains locked in the recesses of your peevish mind. By your own admission you present more as a drunken, tv watching, skirt chasing, caricature.
Hope your day goes well.
Dr. Reich,
Very well said. I cannot believe the arrogance of HRC shunning well respected economists of their disapproval of her "short-term gas tax fix". After squeaking by the Indiana Primary and getting blown out in Carolina, will she have the same aggressive push on this gas tax that she pandered? I think not- it would never pass.
HRC's thought process could reveal what her presidential administration would have been- overspending, blaming and finger pointing, exaggerated egos, gridlock, etc. She has already loaned $11 mil to a dying campaign because of mismanagement. What do you think she would have done if she had gotten to the White House?
The HRC show stopped at midnight May 7 after she was given Indiana. My advice, go out a winner HRC, ya won Indiana, YOUR LAST CONTEST.
Obama '08
frank, frank, frank:
You really should confine your blogging to your sober moments.
It is interesting that I am defined by you with a term that you cannot define.
That I am a proud and sometimes vain man is a surprise to you?
I generally do not posit what should or could be. My focus is more on what "is" and what "is" not likely to change instantaneously. I make no exclamations regarding the permanency of our political scene. I do suggest that it is going to take more than a new player, espousing a message which is not new - many others have run on the same message, it is common political fodder; hell, even GWB ran with the same message - to all of the sudden get conservatives to sing from a liberal hymnal.
I am old enough and experienced enough to know not to say something can never happen. That it won't happen in the short term I have 200+ years of US political history supporting me. What, beyond blind faith, do you have supporting your contention? The will of the people? Think again.
I love metaphors. Some of mine are lacking. My king of beasts reference was not to Hillary but to the politicians of movement conservative. They are beasts and in recent history they have been reigning supreme.
You seem to have aly k's comprehension problem. You have read, I assume, most of what I have written on this subject. I do not suggest that Hillary is the best candidate because she's a whore on the campaign trail but will be a lady in the White House. Quite the contrary I believe she will be a bulldog in the White House. She will fight conservative dogma with liberal dogma. She will end up having to compromise for that is the nature of our form of democracy but she would end up with legislation that bears a more liberal stamp.
I hope you aren't suggesting that she is ineffectual; that she is a poor candidate for the office. Even Dr. Reich is on the public record proposing that she would be a "good" president.
Obama has exhibited a reluctance to get "down and dirty" in the campaign. He has done it, frequently, but it is clear it is anathema to him. He clearly disdains political haranguing about nonsensical arguments. The real world is that he will be faced with it at every turn, once in power. How he deals with it will be interesting but my bet is that, hopefully, he will learn early on that fighting is how you get things done in our two party system. That fighting is seldom pretty. I harbor no thought that Hillary will change her stripes once in office. In fact if I thought she would I would change my vote.
I have expressed before that I don't believe we have a lot of time to turn this ship around and conciliatory chat takes time. Assuming that conservatives are going to do more than, I agree, I agree.
I am astounded that you would mention anyone else's "exuberant intelligence". You, who pose a gazillion ideas for solving all of our problems, from deficit spending to the silverwear settings for the White House. None of your ideas are profound! Though some are good they are not new ideas. They bring nothing to the table that a plethora of experts here don't already know. The issues here are not in what to do but in how to politically accomplish it. Again, it is your displacement from the reality that is America that tends you toward a myopic vision of the profoundness of your solutions.
I would have thought that an Ivy League education would find one more steeped in the history of American politics. It has always been damn near an "anything goes" game. I am amazed at your naivete.
I prefer Hillary for very concrete reasons. I prefer her in spite of some of her silly, dumb campaign tactics. I understand the rationale for some of those actions, to win, and I don't get all lathered up over minutiae. Claiming them to be "morally despicable" is just more emotional appeal ranting. It is a personal value judgment that sounds more like a conservative rant than a liberal one.
This calls for an abundance of rational discussion of opposite ideas. Here, you are occasionally effective when you pose your thoughts tightly and economically with a minimum of ego, of finely interposed derogatory, demeaning sentiments that have not heard or respected the valid points of others. I call this listening to the imperfect spots of wisdom and shared concerns to refine and advance understanding of all.
Frank, it is relatively clear that you have not engaged in a discussion with strongly conservative proponents. There can be nothing rational about such a discussion. You seem totally devoid of any understanding as to where the political dialogue has evolved.
You know, and have said as much, that our tax system serves mostly necessary and admirable goals. It is a system used to secure social goals as well as financial ones. As such it is necessary that taxes go up and down commensurate with the needs of the time. Conservatives have so poisoned the well that too much of the populace the only verb that is allowed with "tax" is cuts.
You fail to understand that come the general election campaign, the conservatives actions will make Hillary's "morally despicable" acts seem like a Sermon on the Mount.
I listen (read) other's thoughts and ideas far more readily than you appear to. You sometimes get all wrapped up in your expatriate role as being the only vantage point from which wisdom can emanate.
In true Hillary fashion I tend to meet fire with fire. I try to offer reasoned, logical debate but when faced with idiots I see little gain in ignoring their idiocy. I don't know everything, I don't pretend to. I am an observer and an analyst. Admittedly I am much more adept at telling you what is wrong with something than posing answers to solve it. That, my friend, is the essence of debate. If we all sit around and agree with one another we do not achieve anything near perfection. Debate can also be a presentation of two competing alternatives but it frequently is two sides debating one premise.
On the other hand, you propose listening and considering others ideas and melding a consensus of Valhallic proportions, yet to many of my naysaying retorts you label me a cycnic, incapable of comprehending your optomistic euphoria. "Physician heal thyself!"
Nice quote from Bill. Not quite sure where Hillary is appealing to fears, at least any more so than Obama. When Obama runs ads or pamphlets suggesting that Hillary's mandates in her health insurance plan mean that many will be forced to buy insurance they can't afford, is that not peddling fear?
When he says he will begin bringing troops home from Iraq and have all combat troops out in 16 months and then one of his highly ranked foreign relations experts goes on British TV and suggests that, well, we will have to assess the siuation at the time and may not be able to take all the combat troops out on that schedule, is that not lying?
Get over your overzealous dreaming and wake up to the fact that there are no virgins in this game. That Obama appears less a practitioner than Hillary, might speak to his kindler, gentler approach or it might speak to his inexperience at understanding the true nature of the game.
Define human.
Sober up and try again!
Maybe we should review Paul Krugman's thoughts on the gas tax holiday.
The full blog entry is worth a read. Suggest you visit the "New York Times" web site and read it all.
The closing thought from his blog: "The Conscience of a Liberal".
May 6, 2008, 9:19 am
Gas tax hysterics
Amid all this, the gas tax holiday is a real issue, but a small one; don’t let economist’s tendency to overemphasize their areas of expertise distort your view.
Art Layman,
Contrary to your obfuscations, I haven't come up with any final solution scenarios yet, merely been setting some background options for possible approachee to our problems ... with or without your Imprimateur.
I prefer the intelligent, determined, communicative, honest, creative fellow, called Barack Obama, over Hillary Clinton. He'll handle the Rebublican machine attacks quite well as he has the Clinton machine. I don't see him as a sheep going to the inevitable slaughter as you do. Your cynicism chokes debate off and limits your visions, for example, to the myopic obsession that only a ugly, fighting BULLDOG can succeed as President. Well, we've just had eight years of a BULLDOG's reign. That's enough of a "historical" lesson for me and the rest of the world, by the way.
I'm not too happy with this leadership model... neither apparently are the majority of those who voted for him in 29 out of 50 States sofar. Hillary does great attracting women over 65 ... and that's about it. The plant workers will not be ignored by a Obama Presidency.
Hillary concocts her not so subtle forms of fears by suggesting Obama is elitist and not interested in the working man's pains; that we are all Safer with her as Commander in Chief? ...Complete fear mongering nonsense! So my Bill Clinton quote does have applicability.
Obama hasn't sunk to the traditional "Anything Goes" election campaign ways and to date has achieved much by his approach. Why can't the same intelligent, genuine, persistent qualities that have got him this far not bring him further with his team's program for America... especially with a majority in both Houses of Congress?
We respectfully differ in our answers to this question for a whole host of legitimate reasons ... without labeling one or the other naive or irrational or some other cooked up label ... a disease symptom of the OLD POLITICS I abhor.
I recentrly saw the play "Pterodactyls" by Nicki Silver. It deals with a family whose members are in denial. In denial about themselves and about the others. In the end the family gets destroyed after causing grave harm to others.
I was reminded of the play after I watched the denial-speech she gave last night.
It's very sad.
Artalayman –
Ladies and Gentlemen, do you know what the definition of Irony is? It’s beginning this entry by conceding that I may have been a bit “disingenuous”. In my last entry, I said I probably wouldn’t respond to Mr. Layman. But I can’t resist the temptation :) So for those few who may be interested in seeing me debunk the quibbles of a guy more than twice my age, here goes…
In Layman’s latest rant, his first five paragraphs bore us with a lecture regarding the advancement of literacy skills during the early years of formal education. Any sane individual (even some insane people for that matter) would agree with most of things that he says in this part. It’s interesting to observe the main message that he concludes this section with: “One may be able to read and regurgitate the words read but if one doesn't comprehend the message being conveyed through the words then the reading exercise is for naught.”
AS IF!!!! He states this entire section AS IF I had some dispute with him on this final claim. What our arrogant well-read chap originally stated was that BEING ABLE TO COMPREHEND WHAT YOU ARE READING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN BEING ABLE TO READ. That’s like saying, for example, that it’s more important to be able to walk than have legs. Mr. Layman’s head is filled with so many big words that he is unable to comprehend, in terms of simple logic, that you CANT do task B without being able to perform task A. Thus, any talk about the superior importance of task B is non-sense, if we are to adhere to logic. Now, I didn’t pay much attention to his logical error when originally commenting on it; it’s such a trivial matter that doesn’t merit any serious attention. The original reason I made a small reference to it was because Art was attempting to insult my intelligence WHILE revealing a logically-flawed statement; I found this funny, and thought he should be aware that he would look retarded to those that noticed it. Again, here’s what He originally said:
“There are two aspects to reading. The first is being able to read the words. The second, the far more important aspect, is the ability to comprehend what is being read. You seem somewhat lacking in the latter.”
So lesson number one on tonight’s occasion is:
It’s ‘far more important’ to be able to swim than have arms and legs! (duhhhh!!)
But let me break for a moment, and thank our dear friend for praising me. He said, “To your credit you do appear well-versed in neurology”. I’ve never taken a psych course, and am actually about half way through my first psych book right now. Thus I can clearly understand why Art would think I’m ‘well versed’ in neurology. In fact, I suggest that all of you inferiors get into a circle and ask God why he hasn’t blessed you with my neurologist skills, and with Art’s shrewd judgement, which is evidently flawless. Maybe I should be taking his advice on Hillary after all?
SHUX, I just realized that I’m Canadian, and can’t vote! I couldn’t comprehend this well; I always knew that it said “Canada” on my passport, but wasn’t sure what this actually meant. But nonetheless, does she really need my vote? She had such an amazing day last night in Indiana and NC! We ought to congratulate you, Art. It’s amazing that the HRC campaign has “broken the tie, and thanks to you, its full speed on to the white house”. That was sooo close, EH? It looked like Obama might have had it for a second!
What a sigh of relief – the very type that I felt when I read that Art agreed with me when he said that the “reasons for his [Reich’s] astonishment may very well fall within the options that you [aly k]suggest”. In other words, Art is saying that I may very well be right, as I indicated in an earlier post, that Reich MAY be ‘astonished’ because he “can’t believe that a friend [Clinton] is stooping THIS low”… or that “a democrat would go so low EVEN AFTER America has lived through an 8 year nightmare”.
Here, ladies and gentlemen, it is our duty to congratulate our friend Art. In the first post, he wrote to Reich that, “But engaging in the same sort of political speak that you suggest is abhorrent comes across as somewhat disingenuous”. In other words, stop your political theater Reich, we know that youre not really shocked, and that you’re not being genuine. This is confirmed in Art’s second post, where he states that Reich “professes shock at Hillary's denouncement of economists, not because he is shocked, but because he sees political advantage”. Hence, we ought to buy a cake for our genius friend Art, because in his latest post, he tells me that I may very well be right about why Reich is shocked. In other words, HES ADMITTING REICH WAS SHOCKED! This is a blatant sign of confusion, sheer stupidity, or a sense of disingenuousness.
I could go on, but in the end, the practical question is whether we should bother with Art: is Art really smart? He failed to comprehend the logical error implicit in his ‘being able to adjust the volume on your speakers is more important that having a power source for them’ statement, and rambles about how other people can’t comprehend (like frank). He praised me for being well versed in neurology, when I can barely define the word itself. He changed his positions on his original objection to Reich, as explicitly illustrated in the two preceding paragraph.
So when he’s not surprised that I avoid blog battles because of my “absurdity”, I ask you who the one being absurd – in terms of argument – is.
And I could go on to destroy the fallacious idea that that Professor Reich may be disingenuous. But I’ll leave it to the readers to judge something that seems so self-evident to me. Rather, I’ll end by responding to Arts need to tell me the following, as a result of me informing him that I didn’t feel like wasting my time writing about these matters, “History is replete with those that could or would have done something but failed to do so”:
Indeed Art, no quote could be further from the truth. Thus I promise you that I will sit here depressed on this wonderful night, wondering why I failed to avoid giving too much attention to a barking dog. It is a sign of weakness on my behalf, and I promise you it won’t happen again.
with love, aly k
aly k:
Aha! We see the crux of the problem. Youth!!
In your post you took me to task for stating that comprehension was the more important aspect of reading. There is no doubt that comprehending is predicated on the ability to read, notwithstanding symbols. But if you can read the sign that says: Caution! High Voltage!; but you cannot comprehend what it means you will likely die. If you could not read, in that scenario, then you would also likely die. This renders your ability to read a nullity. Your continued existence is predicated on your ability to avoid the High Voltage. Though reading precedes comprehension, without comprehension the ability to read, by itself, means nothing. Thus, comprehension is the more important aspect; it is the only reason for learning to read.
Comprehension is a purpose; reading is a mechanism. Purpose always trumps mechanism.
The ability to read is fairly easy to learn. The ability to comprehend is far more difficult and some, like you, never seem to accomplish it.
My minor allusion to your knowledge of neurology was based on your reference to my having half a brain. Trust me it was faint praise. I like to inject humor into the process on occasion. That you wanted to take it to the bank speaks volumes.
If one were familiar with NC politics, one would not be astounded over the results. I harbor no allusions that Hillary will be the ultimate winner. I prefer her but better to go down in the arms of a any liberal than under the butt of a conservative.
Again, you exhibit your inability to comprehend (you really do need to work on that). I accepted your offering of options because, once again, they were inconsequential to my major premise. It matters not what caused Dr. Reich's supposed, false "astonishment". The facts are that he knew, or certainly should have, that any amazement was stupid. He full well knew that his experience with Hillary disavowed that which she was saying. He knew that she was bailing; she was responding in the only way that she could, given the question. Yet, rather than post on that issue, on her disingenuousness, he decided to take advantage of her guffaw and build a political argument around his, feigned, "astonishment". He knew it makes far better "political theater". Nothing better than anticipated respect unrequited.
Were I better at graphics I would draw you pictures so that you might better understand.
Ah! Once again we return to, "coulda, woulda, shoulda". It might be best to spare the good people of Dr. Reich's blog any more of your nefarious blather. You need a few more years to hone your debate skills before venturing further. Maybe after you complete your psych course, along with freshman English, you can venture beyond the hallowed halls of fantasy. A logic course could do you wonders.
One can only wish you the happiest of days.
aly k:
By the way, I addressed my response directly to you so as not to encumber the other good folks here with feeling a need to follow the bouncing ball.
I have no need for validation.
hey frank:
Need to review your, I'm sure, well thought out, worthy post. time is the problem.
In the meantime, you just keep thinkin' Butch!
frank:
I feel much more secure now knowing that Obama will handle the Republican attacks this fall because you say so.
I have stated before that Hillary's attacks are nothing when compared to the finely honed expertise of the conservative machine. It is highly possible that McCain, himself, will stay above the fray but between 527s and the many conservative voices that rise to the occasion during "real" elections the barrage will be like nothing Obama has ever seen or dealt with.
You'll see Rev. Wright on TV more often than Hollywood celebs (all of them). He'll get hammered for his plan to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq in 16 months. A plan, by the way, that I mentioned before, was negated by his, at that time, leading foreign relations expert. No doubt he'll get support from the antiwar faction but that is mostly Democrats anyway so there is no appreciable vote gain there.
His spending plans will be blamed for exacerbating the deficit problem. By my count I think he has spent the Bush tax cut expiration money two or three times already. They will beat him about the head and shoulders with your favorite, by claiming the only way he can secure additional funds will be by reducing military spending which will render us much less safe and at a time when McCain will argue we need to increase defense spending. Nothing gives the American public a warm fuzzy like defense spending.
They will go on and on but the coup de grace will be hammering Michelle Obama and her infamous, "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country", slip. It is hard for any man to endure an attack campaign against his wife and maintain his composure.
He will probably generate more black voter turnout than in recent years but he will lose a significant number of white voters bcause they will not vote for a black. Our closet is jammed with shames.
We do get a huge advantage against McCain. His record on bipartisanship and across the aisle communications could put Obama's to shame. He can't run on that record though or he will lose much of his base. His original views on the Bush tax cuts and immigration would have made it even tougher for Obama. But McCain had to ditch all that. Advantage Dems!
Ok. You can disagree with my bulldog metaphor but again, throughout our history, our most successful and renown presidents were bulldogs. In recent history the closest parallel to Obama would probably be Jimmy Carter. If conservatives begin to blow that horn they might cut off Obama at the knees.
Keep in mind that the general election is an Electoral College election. We full well know that popular vote totals are not the driver. Many of the states that Obama has won, from mostly Democrat voters, are solid "red" states. He will not carry them in November. Nor is it likely Hillary would either. She has won many of the so called "swing states" which are critical in the general election. She has won most all of the "big" states where the most electoral votes are. None of that guarantees her a walk in the park either but the "big" and "swing" states are very important in the general election.
In recent presidential elections two states have turned the tide for the eventual winner. In 2000, Fla was the bellweather state. In 2004 it was Ohio. In both cases they went with Bush. Hillary did much better than Obama in both states in the primaries.
I am surprised that with all your supposed "exuberant intelligence" and your unabashed desire to weigh into the debate, that you apparently don't follow the demographics of Hillary voters. Your statement is not simply absurd; it's flat out wrong! Her supporters reflect a far greater part of the typical Democratic base than his.
Again, I feel so much better knowing that Obama will look after the plant workers. If he should fail to do so I'm going to write him and let him know, "But Frank said!". You've picked up well Obama's tendency for hollow promises.
If you think your peevish little examples of Hillary's "fear mongering" will hold a candle to McCain's attacks on that issue I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in. You, as most Obama supporters, love to wallow in minutiae and make mountains, not out of molehills, but ant hills.
Obama has done his fair share of "anything goes" campaigning. You, being very unobjective, chose to ignore it and hold to the dream of purity.
Why can't the same intelligent, genuine, persistent qualities that have got him this far not bring him further with his team's program for America... especially with a majority in both Houses of Congress?
First of all because he has to win the general election. Secondly, right now he is preaching mainly to the choir. The Democrats have been the supporters of a friendlier dialogue far more than conservatives. Over the last 30 years conservatives have done quite well with their dog eat dog approach. Right now Obama is not speaking to the enemy, directly.
A Democratic majority in both houses seems a certainty according to conventional wisdom. The battle is yet to be enjoined so I'll remain skeptical until it starts. It will be explained, explained is a polite term consistent with an Obama aura, to the American public that the Dems have controlled both houses for the past two years and what have they accomplished. In American politics nothing is more certain than uncertainty.
One other difficulty he might face is that historically Democratic Congresses are much less rubber stamp than Republican ones. Many a democratic president has had to do "bulldog" battle with his own party to effect what he wants done.
Your proclamations of the demise of "old politics" is greatly exaggerated.
HRC displays a pattern of dismissiveness, especially when called on point. Her remarks about not listening to economists was a good example. The other, more serious display was when she was asked who was the new Russian President. Her response..."Medvedev...whatever," was not very presidential candidate-like.
Art layman,
Your long psychological treatise is wasted on me. You should direct it to the general American public for their reactions. Anything I write is not for your approval or for my seeking appraisal reviews, but to stimulate the discussion of our serious problems to a constructive and non-idealogical level of problem solving ... a very European style of thinking and doing which I have come to deeply respect.
You're so cynical, in my opinion, that you don't appear to give a damm what other people are saying ... whether they agree with you or not. This brings you in a massive psychology of self-assured critism, of denial of reality when you react to other perspectives and facts ... wherein you, cleverly but surreptiously, accuse others of taking refuge in ignoring reality.
Result? No give and take in discussion, no melding and refinement of ideas, no progress, only personal rebukes so often typical of your dialogue with so many on Dr. Reich´s blog.... only your value and assumption polemic matter. And I say this not denying for a moment your occasional perspicacious remarks.
Therefore, I must deal with your attack style that I am in love with my pronouncements ( but of course you are not with yours). Accept that this is not my approach in the least, and if I have given that impression I apologize to all readers. But, my efforts on Dr. Reich´s challenging web site is not about pronouncing final truths or naive illusions as you easily assume.
I try to respond to facts, personal intuition and a bit of historical evidence combined with a deep bicultural experience on two continents ... not with the slightest intention of suggesting that Americans can´t think for themselves. On the contrary, they've just honorably expressed themselves in a factual manner in Indiana and North Carolina... confirming their confidence and trust in Barack Obama despite his small, human missteps here and there recently.
WHY? Because they are sick of Old Politics. Obama has survived all the Old Political´ attacks because he's talking to us honestly about our excesses and giving us a sense of SHARING in the best of our ideals in overcoming our problems. He brings a global, unique life experience to the tasks. He´s rightfully questioning the conventional assumption that what we need is an experienced Bureaucrat who´s `War Tough´ for the Infighting game. This domatism is no longer so convincing for more and more Americans who are searching their souls for a better criteria to judge our leaders and the performance of our social-political system.
That´s what democracy is all about, as I was brought up to believe in Maine, namely... we can all disagree on What to do but let´s try to do the best for Everyone. This value was indelibly ingrained in my consciousness during my upbringing in one of the poorest (and yet richest in so many ways) States in the U.S. Our family feels the same values in The Netherlands.
I'll never forget a remark said to me by a dear friend in Maine when I was in high school, "Frank, the difference between you and me is that I know my limitations." This remark has always had a doubly wise message to me, which I'm sure you can see the deeper meaning of.
We Americans are in a stage where we need to `Know our limitations´ and I might add... concentrate on our Strengths and Weaknesses of our Internal society. That´s what this whole election is about...not idealogical slogans, or demonizing personal attacks,. but balanced insights-plans of Where do we go from here and How in the interest of ALL Americans.
Art, in Europe, discussion seldom if ever takes resort or starts on the basis of personally denigrating another's opinion. The basic cultural assumption is that one doesn't know everything and that through in/depth, calm, rational discussion with a bare minimum of emotion , each participant brings the understanding of what´s happening and what to do next to a higher level. Exceptional wisdom is always respected but is not necessarily given a dominating seat.
Four respectable political parties in Holland guarantee a productive interaction of ideas/policies/ programs that reflect the concerns of all parts of the general society. Because Americac has only two parties in a vast land, we have to work ever so harder to govern in a balanced way that preserves our ideals of a strong capitalism combined with a social construct that works effectively for Everyone, not just the top
10%.
You are at heart a good man, but you seem not the least interested in suggesting ideas for for solving our challenging dilemmas. You are already critizing my modest attempts at this before I have said anything in my final PART III discussion, Transition to a Stable Economy... still to come.
As I said to you long ago, it´s easy to critisize but not so easy to come up with balanced ideas to improve our serious situation. I think we are in trouble because most Americans have too passively left this discussion to our elected representatives. Obama is awakening us to this deep weakness in our much heralded democracy.
Art, The brain has two sides, the linear, logical side and the imaginative, postulating side... we need both in strong harmony to advance the special dynamic and community traditions of America, to keep them both alive and well going into the 21st century. Let´s address our future comments to Dr. Reich, Ok?
Frank Thomas, The Netherlands
Frank Thomas, The Netherlands
frank:
I'll address my comments to whomever I am responding to.
If you were to go back and review all our dialogue I believe you will find that you were the first to start with the derogation.
That you happen to be a little nicer than me is of no consequence.
Reich's comments reminded me of a passage from an old Russian book "12 chairs". Two crooks got on the ship cruise, pretending that they were artists. At some point they were asked to paint a drawing. One crook asks another "I've got a question for you, as one artist to another, can you paint?".
Anyway, here is a nice passage that surprised me:
..(it would increase demand for gas and cause prices to rise, eliminating any benefit to consumers while costing the Treasury more than $9 billion, and generate more pollution).
I would like to understand why would the consumers have zero benefit if the proposed tax cuts stimulate the demand? In other words, if the prices were not lowered by the tax cut, why would the demand rise? And if prices are lowered, wouldn't the consumers benefit from it?
To put it bluntly, liberal economists (nice oxymoron) would greatly increase their understanding of economy if they mastered the law of supply and demand. Mr.Reich, when are you going to take Macroeconomics 101 class? Seriously, this is embarrassing.
Frank Thomas:
Though I disagree with some of your analysis, I share your attitude with regards to wanting to do your small part to help solve problems in society.
As I’ve said before, I wouldn’t go so far to say that there is indeed an entirely “New Politics”. BUT, and this is a big BUT, one would have to be a complete fool to deny what we’re witnessing: MANY OF THE ‘OLD POLITICS’ RULES AREN’T WORKING!!! IF it was ‘politics as usual’, Clinton would be WELL AHEAD. The black (Christian) man with a first name like “Barack”, and a middle Muslim name “Hussein”, would have been thrown in the garbage long ago. In fact, Chris Matthews got it exactly right after the first primary (I believe it was the first). He said something along the lines of (don’t quote me) ‘we’re witnessing something that only happens at rare moments in this country’s history’.
Our duty is to celebrate these moments in history, and keep doing what you speak so highly about. Think about these issues, have a positive attitude, and hopefully get out there and do some tangible stuff that advances society.
AND, I have no right telling you who to ignore and who to talk to, but I ask you to take caution in engaging with fellows in your species who say to you “That you happen to be a little nicer than me is of no consequence”, right after you end a post by complimenting their heart.
These are the types of people who will claim, with utter certainty and useless ‘evidence’, of the malicious intentions of Reich – a man who chose to put loyalty to his former employer and great friends aside, in an attempt to do what he feels is best for the country.
And what’s best, my friend, is not a continuation of a Presidency held in the hands of two families for at least 24 years. It’s not to allow the reign of someone whose judgement allowed Bush to go to war, and create a catastrophe that has ramified into MILLIONS of Iraqis who have lost homes, hundreds and thousands murdered (maybe even more than a million), and the strengthening of Iran. I hope enough American are disgusted at lady who has the audacity to lie about being shot at; too many people in the world are going through real misery for some liar to beg for sympathy as she pretends to be one of them.
I can only keep my fingers crossed though. The most recent news (from the mainstream media; take with grain of salt!) is that they’ll be ‘debate’-like-discussions amongst superdels regarding the democratic nominee. Its completely appropriate, seeing the your country prides itself on democracy, and Obama has the pledged delegates and popular vote on lock. You can’t blame us pessimists for having at least some cynism haha
aly k
aly k and frank:
Solving problems is a multi-layered process. First you must define the problem. Frank has done a good job of that, although the volume of his problem areas is too large to enable solutions in one or even maybe two terms of the presidency. The second layer is to select solutions, Frank also has some good ideas there as well - but I repeat they are not profound.
The third layer and the one that it is imperative to overcome if success is to be attained is defining the extent of the resistence to the solutions and where that resistence is centered and how will it be manifested and how to deal with it. In the business world the third layer is less a problem because the CEO ultimately decides and the resistence dissipates or the resisters disappear.
In government there is no CEO; no one person who can commence the solution process and eliminate those who resist it. Voila! Politics! In government the third layer takes on far greater importance in defining your opposition and the arguments they will present.
In business there is usually a common goal, that of furthering the welfare of the company. In government there is seldom a collective agreement, regardless of party, as to how to best further the welfare of the country.
The governmental process is further encumbered by 535 individuals many with their own ideas of the best solutions. Except when there is strong party control of the majority, creating a rubber stamp group, proposed legislation emanating from the White House often returns to the White House bearing little resemblance to the original proposal. Even with strong party control of the majority, the Senate rules provide a myriad of ways for the minority to block or slow down proposed legislation.
Admittedly to pass legislation does not require that all the opposition be convinced. By identifying those of the opposition, usually the opposite party, who might easily be swayed to your arguments, you can target them and secure the votes necessary to pass your solutions.
There are a few independent minded individuals in both parties of Congress who will be amenable to reasoned debate and vote their convictions rather than hold the party line. They are few in number. McCain was likely the most significant of those. Many others, though perhaps leaning in your direction, will be controlled by the respective party apparatus due to the power that the party maintains over their careers and they will cave to the party line.
For the opposition to rally strong support for their side they will not be using the politics of hope and change, of conciliatory dialogue. They will bring out all the typical conservative sound bite vitriol. They will apply immeasurable pressure on their party members to stand strong against any, "liberal", "socialist", "tax and spend", "making America less safe", Democratic initiatives.
McCain's recent statements about Hamas supporting Obama is just the tip of the iceberg.
In fairness to the conservatives their stance is predicated on their view of what is best for America, no matter how perverted we might feel that view is. That their view is diametrically opposed to the liberal view is not likely to make for strange bedfellows, no matter how sweet the talk.
Can Obama, with a sufficient majority in Congress get some liberal legislation passed? I'm sure. But any successes he has best produce good results quickly or the conservatives will be loaded for bear in 2010 and 2012. The complexity of much of the proposed legislation fixes, tax reform, education reform, immigration reform, universal health care, getting out of Iraq; many of these will be slow to effect visible improvements.
The patience of the American people is akin to their attention span. It is very short. If they don't see real improvements early on, jobs, better wages, affordable health care, they will start looking for the next savior. And he may come in the shape of a conservative. Reagan comes to mind. Even GWB's victory in 2000, though handed to him by the Supreme Court and our convoluted Electoral College system, was to a great extent a knee jerk reaction to Clinton's sexual philandering. GWB promised to bring back respect and admiration to the White House, yeah, right.
The American people have always been a conundrum. They are easily lead by eloquent speeches appealing to a better more conciliatory way. Yet we are by nature a very competitive, combative people. We are a profanely proud people. I agree with Frank that there are many lessons we could learn from our European counterparts. One of the reasons that our infrastructure is in a shambles is because we don't impose the kinds of restrictions on contractors that they do in Europe, especially when constructing roads. But to suggest a solution is based on a better European idea is political suicide. Look at the uproar when Justice Kennedy argued in a gay civil rights decision that he relied on foreign laws to influence his vote.
We have been indoctrinated to believe that our social and economic success over the last 200 years is because we know better. Hillary would do a lot better if she suggested that Obama was preaching a European way of governance.
In American politics you have to fight back. Obama's reference to McCain losing his bearings is the "old politics". He did it humorously but it clearly was a dig at McCain's age. Not consistent with a better way. Politics is politics, it's neither "old" nor "new". Hillary engages in it; Obama engages in it and McCain engages in it. There will be a lot more of it as November approaches. You don't make the grade in political aspirations by merely stating that your opponent is entitled to his opinion.
There is no semantic or rhetorical correlation between "disingenuous" and "malicious". I did not accuse Dr. Reich of "malicious" intent, just of taking political advantage of a statement and then deriving a post full of emotionally loaded terms that he knows to be untrue. "Malicious" means a desire to inflict pain or injury on another. I never suggested that Dr. Reich intended that. His intent was to use the statement to "pander" to Obama supporters. The evidence I offered was valid and factual.
Not making great headway on that comprehension issue are you, aly?
aly, frank:
One other note I forgot.
Both of you propound on the will of the American people and how their support for Obama proves that they want a new way.
Look at the numbers; among Dems he has a little more than 50% support for his positions and the conservatives have yet to weigh in to the process. In general Republicans make up about 50% of all voters in the US. Not all of them are hard core conservatives but most follow the lead of that faction. That means that Obama, currently, has about 25% of the voters in America behind him.
It's a little premature to suggest what the American people want.
Far more detrimental to our political process than the "old politics" is the advent of 24/7 cable news.
To Alyk,
Thank you. Your words of advice are on the mark because their underlying message is that we must Stop and challenge ourselves to Think about Where we are and How to go forward from here.
This requires a determined, constructive frame of mind that brings our country more sensibly together... perhaps not ideallly but certainly better than the recent years have seen.
Americans for decades have been bludgeoned with the propaganda that an active Government is per se a "Socialistic Government."
For years, our family has lived in a country, Holland, where Government insures a fair playing field; provides for an equitable, well-mamaged protection of general welfare concerns such as health care, mass transport, solid social security system, support for those hurt by market mechanisms beyond their control, etc., without in any way seriously undermining the commercial dynamic and entrepreneurial character of the society.
Unemployment is a consistently stable 5-6%, income levels and dispersion are reasonable, economic ups and downs are not too frequent nor extreme; financial crisises are practically non-existent (and if they occur, mistakes are corrected immediately and are not repeated); annual national budgets are planned based on not generating Deficits; the accumulated national Deficit over past years is relatively small; an intelligent social system helps those for an appropriate period who are in trouble in difficult and good times, thus making it possible for these people to continue Consuming; society Saves 5-6%of GDP, which supports continued Investment in downturns thereby contributing acting as an stabilizing "cushion" when things get tough; health care is obligatory for all at an annual premium cost of at least one-half of that in America and with a far better coverage; etc., etc.
Of course, people here are willing to pay higher taxes for all this, but they get something in return. It´s a shared culture concept when it comes to basic infrastructure and social needs.
What does this all add up to? As I have said many times, we Americans have a HUGE Archilles Heal: we neglect to learn from others who are far more advanced in the management of social systems than we are. We are the unquestioned leaders in scientic/medical technology, landing on Mars, commercial innovation, but we remain a third class nation when it comes to general welfare and social-infrastructure benefits.
A Dutch friend of the family just returned from a four month tour of the States by bus and train. She was astonished at the very low quality design, comfort ambience and features of the busses-stations and many of the old-fashion trains still running on steam.
I love my country. But we are out quite out of balance with our founding principles of economic prudence, progress and concern for the community as well as the individual.
Trapped in these realities and priorities, we cannot survive the illusion we can afford being the world´s military protector and enforcer. The result of ignoring our INWARD social obligations is an uncontrollabe self-interest value system that is dividing and destroying any sense of our being...ONE NATION under God.
Americans want balanced solutions to problems now, not the old steriotyping dogma of the past that gets us nowhere ... except into costly wars, massive Debts and a growing (potentially very dangerous) Social Stratification between the HAVES and the HAVE NOTS.
We desperatly need to tame the virus of ideological correctness and propaganda to come to terms with the best of our common-sense conservative and liberal ideals-ideas... to become the pragmatic, fair DOER people we once were in the interests of Everyone.
This comes from one who has been an independent businessman and trainer in different cultures almost his entire life.
Thanks again, Alyk. for your thoughtful, well-taken remarks.
Frank Thomas, The Netherlands
Let's face it. Gas will be $5 per gallon in less than 5 years. So lets just slap a $2 per gallon tax on gas right now (or gradually over the next 2 years) and use the money to reduce federal income tax. This will definitely slow the rate at which the oil companies can raise the price of gas. Less money for oil companies means more money for you and me.
Please, please tax my gas !!!
Dr. Reich,
For all the cynics and victims of inflexible ideological purity who also believe constructive, human change in our social-political system is impossible or not needed, please read DAVID BROOK's article,"Conservative Revival" in the IHT today -- referring to England's conservative tranformation to the reality of these times ... the same transformation the Democrats have a unique opportunity to achieve under Barack Obama.
The Conservative Party is making quite a comeback in England. David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader believes the great challenge for the next decade or two is not just economic revival, but "social revival." In his own words,
"We used to stand for the individual. We still do. But individual freedoms count for little if society is disintegrating. Now we stand for the family, for the neighborhood --in a word, for Society."
This is a revitalized Edmund Burke conservatism I've been talking about so much...personified by balanced social conservatives in our society today in the persons of, Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg (admired by Cameron as well as by yours truly). It´s the same pragmatic approach we need to halt the spiraling economic stress and cultural decay afflicting our lower/middle classes, as I´ve been saying for some time now.
These men are concerned that social inequities and our infrastructure/education system improverishments be addressed using creative conservative and liberal ideas that advance the welfare of ALL (in the face of being smeared with the old phony demogogic calls of Socialist,Tax-Spend crazy, Big Government, etc., etc.)
Change for the betterment of ALL is possible just as Obama has been staking his entire credibility and integrity on. In England, it´s happening to the Conservative Party which is reforming its principles in exactly the opposite direction of out-of-touch ultra-right conservative movement in the U.S.
Great article by David Brooks!
Frank Thomas, The Netherlands
Frank
I have lived in Europe extensively myself (mostly in Greece and Belgium) and my perception is a bit different.
I do think that the notion of social justice is better served and I would like to see their NHS somehow find its way (in an improved form of course) into this country. But this is where I draw the line.
I perceive that their societies have stagnated, entrapped in the aftermath of socialist overtones that have minimized individual responsibility and shifted it onto the state. I have seen many young people demonstrate for social security for their old age of all things. I have seen an unprecedented wave of anti-Muslim sentiment that has been accepted as an "academic" view while in the US it would have been labeled as hate speech. I have seen an alarming rise of the far right, at times coming second in national elections in France and Belgium if I am not mistaken, that I believe could not have happened in the US. I have seen an anti-American hysteria prevail and anti-western sentiment dominate as the young consider the old continent the mother of all evils -after the US-(they usually refer to colonialism policies), while they forget that although Europe created the monsters of fascism and world wars, it also created the brilliant thinking, philosophies and policies that rescued us from these monsters.
What strikes me the most is exactly that: The attitude of the young. In the US, the young, even the poor, like their country and are optimistic. They have a certainty that if they work hard, they will make it. In Europe, they don't like their countries, they don't like immigrants and worst of all they are so pessimistic. Efforts will not be rewarded I was told by a Sorbonne graduate who is looking into emigrating. He also described a favoritism system controlling the university teaching establishment that I found a bit shocking.
So, I don't think emphasis on family values will cure Europe of the far right, anti-Muslim hysteria and the high unemployment rate among the young, often reaching 23%.
A sound economy based on innovation that is allowed to grow free of state strangulation (I don't want to mention the huge bureaucratic obstacles that businessmen face) might be a good starting point.
Dr. Reich (for it has been suggested that retorts be addressed to you instead of specific individuals, akin to the practices of the Congress of the US):
David Brooks did in fact write a fine article which he does, not infrequently. His appeal is to his conservative brethren. It is an appeal likely based on the strong possibility that they will lose their power grip on Washington after many years.
That potential loss is due to many things not the least of which is the fairly steady decline of our society, especially as concerns the plights of the middle and lower classes.
The Democratic party has always been the party, in my mind, of reason; of equality of opportunity for all; of, not equal wealth but a parity, a sharing, of the bounty of plenty this nation has always produced. We have been the party of relativity. A party that accepts that we cannot all aspire to the same mores and as long as we don't tread on anothers we are each entitled to go our own way.
Obama espouses that idea; he is not the creator of it. To the extent that he wants to embellish and further that which has always been the Democratic way, I applaud him. The argument I have made here, ad nauseum, is that he does not represent the conservative mantra. All the kind words in the world will not cause the conservatives to alter their tactics. This is especially true when they have suffered few defeats in recent years while employing those tactics.
For Obama'a proposed new way to work for the betterment of our economic and social survival, it is the conservatives who will need to, as in the UK, change the emphasis and goals of their ideology. The Democrats have always been behind the curve in mastering politics as practiced in the last 30+ years. In our zeal to present the big picture with fuller explanations we have fallen behind in the sound bite creation game.
When in a competition you create great disadvantage to the ultimate goal of winning, if you pledge to never foul but your opponent makes no such promise.
Mr. Brooks quoted many pleasant sounding words and political speak from Mr. Cameron. This does not a turnaround make. The proof will be in their governing actions not in their words. Espousing a new set of goals, a new way of appealing to the populace is often a precursor of nothing more than the same old politics. I don't believe that Mr. Cameron spoke of a kindler, gentler dialogue.
In his admiration for Mssrs. Schwartzenegger and Bloomberg what he is really expressing is a centrist approach to government. Bill Clinton tended to govern that way and it did bring him kudos from many Dems and Reps. It also brought him condemnation from many liberals, those more left leaning Dems, and if I'm not mistaken you, at times, were one of those condemnors.
When faced with severe cultural problems as we currently are, a centrist government approach often falls far short of solving those problems. The centrist approach is more akin to portioning out the dessert, a little to each side. Not an approach tending toward "real" solutions.
In the UK, the conservatives finally woke up to the fact that their old arguments were losing again and again and again. They had to adopt some change, if nothing else but superficially, in order to get back in the game. A bland Prime Minister probably didn't hurt them and the continued rumblings of Blair and Iraq certainly were not a hurdle they had to overcome.
Mr. Brooks, although a fine writer, like most professional opinion writers, gets paid to put words on paper. If there is true validity, true honesty, true wisdom, all the better, but the first priority is to write; about something, anything.
Those who read the writers of our day and either jump on the bandwagon or suggest they have had those same thoughts for eons are a dime a dozen. Those who impress us with their references to great thinkers like Edmund Burke, a fine mind that tended to straddle fences at different times, tend to cherrypick their references. We are given an obscure reference to Burke's philosophical conservatism but it is never mentioned that he, like many of the great thinkers of the time, often filled their speeches and writings with venom and vitriol, villifying their opponents.
It is easy for those living outside this country to assume simple fixes; to offer prescriptions for all that ails us but with no real hands on knowledge of what ails us nor of the views of the various sectors of our society and their views of solving our problems. And of course to their advantage they do not live here and have to suffer should their ideas prove fallacious. Standing outside the forest and viewing it does not guaranty a better vantage point for the creeping vines choking the forest than the vantage point of the one inside the forest who readily sees the problems but can't quite see the forest.
I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from the great state of Holland.
Dear Athena Smith:
I enjoyed your last entry, especially given that I know absolutely nothing about Europe.
Your profile says that youre a phd candidate in international relations? Given the knowledge that you must have in the field, I’m curious about whether youre surprised about the sense of “anti-Americanism” all over the world today, given some of Bush et. Al’s use of American foreign policy in the past few years? I can readily acknowledge that much of the hate towards America is misplaced; you shouldn’t hate the entire country for the policy choices of a few. But are you surprised? Is the hate completely illegitimate?
aly k:
Europe is not the only thing you know nothing or little about.
Sorry couldn't pass that up.
Keep smiling.
Aly k
There was always anti-Americanism in Europe, way before Bush. This article makes that point actually.
Not at the same level however. Although people will tell you that they are against America because of policies, I have come to believe that anti-Americanism is greatly a product of jealousy and an inferiority complex. It is a natural feeling when someone who started after you, whose history goes back only 300 years and not 3000 years, became so much richer and more powerful.
It's the magnitude factor.
Yes, after Bush it exploded. But it was not a new phenomenon. Either obvious or latent, it was there. I could see it in the stereotypes, in the interpretation of political events, in the efforts to shift the blame onto the other side...
In the article that I cited there is an interesting point about the Muslim world who hates America as well because of its support to Israel. Well, I consider that quite hypocritical given the fact that most of the Arab countries will not even give citizenship to the Palestinians.
Also many Europeans cite the US support for Israel as a cause for anti_Americanism. But when you observe the unprecedented anti-Muslim sentiment that is sweeping the continent, you wonder where exactly the empathy for the Palestinians is hiding.
This is one of the many reasons that led me to believe that their concern for the "oppressed" is a masque that humanizes and justifies an ugly feeling, which they themselves do not want to investigate any further.There are other factors as well, but it would take an essay to discuss each one.
Dr. Reich, (cc: Athena/Art)
The Dutch, Irish, Danish realized in the 80's that an OVERDOSE of unemployment protection makes labor markets more sclerotic, i.i., vulnerable to a lower flow of workers through the market. Sclerotic markets exhibit much higher long-term unemployment. They also lead to a higher unemployment duration.
Arch-prototype examples of this problem have been some of the very countries Athena refers to: France, Germany, Belgium, Greece, Spain -- although France and Germany are now changing course dramatically. For example, France now has an unemployment rate of 7.5% compared to +10% for over a decade under Chirac.
What happened? In 1988, Holland and Ireland initiated policies of wage moderation in exchange for greater job stability and a financially sensible, human Safety Net (combined with a tougher deadline for benefits). Both started early to encourage high-tech, high-knowhow engineering, products and services. It worked. In 2007, unemployment in Holland and Ireland was at respectable levels of 3.3% and 1.3%, respectively. This compares to 8.3%for Greece, 7.5% for Belgium, 1.9%for Denmark (the latter under a conservative government).
In recent years, most of the major European countries have followed suit with their own variation of the Dutch/Irish policies - particularly the Scandinavian countries where unemployment rates are now below 6%, including 2.1% for Norway. As stated, France and Germany are at much higher levels of unemployment of 7.5% and 8.4%, respectively -- but still recently experiencing greatly improved trends after more than a decade of stagnant 10-12% annual unemployment levels.
America is at the opposite extreme of having extremely low unemployment protection and deplorable retraining/skills upgrading for lower-middle class displaced workers.
So stories which blame slower economic growth or high unemployment on the rise of the European welfare state simply rewrite history. There's no factual basis whatsoever for such a broad conclusion. For example, America is 9th in GDP per capita, and guess who is first??...IRELAND, with Holland 19th well ahead of the UK, Germany, and France (28th,31st, 33rd)
A generalization that 23% of Europe´s employable youth are unemployed (assuming the 19/29 age group is being referred to here) is quite off the mark -- although possibly valid for France, Greece and Belgium which have added problems of excessive immigration with poorly managed integration efforts. Ironically, most of Europe with its low birth rates and existing relatively very small pool of employable people in the 19-29 age group, has a substantial shortage of qualified young people. Europe needs immigrants... but more immigrants with specific trade skills and some higher education. Many mistakes are being made here.
To put the European immigration dynamic in perspective, let's take Holland's situation. It's a country one-half the size of my State of Maine. It has 16.6 million people (495 oer sq. kilometer) vs. 1.2 million people (15 per sq. kilometer) in Maine. (All of the EU has a density well over twice that of the U.S.) Given each European country's separate nationalistic history (and high population density), this means when 1 million Muslums (6% of Holland's population) and 1000 mosques arrive in tiny Holland over a relatively short time, an extremely senstive matter of cultural absorption occurs -- perhaps a little like (but far more complicated than) the U.S. absorption of floods of Mexicans.
But Europeans don't in general "hate" Muslums and certainly they do not "hate" Americans. They abhor fundamentalists (by the way, Americans should realize Europeans are mush closer to possible extremist horrific actions than Americans are today). Holland has a hate mongeror, Geert Wilders, who somewhat correctly wants immigration from the Middle-East to slow down drastically (to give space to solve current problems of integration). BUT, at the same time, he demonizes the entire Muslum faith and indirectly all good-citizen Muslums with his wild, dogmatic rhetoric.
Believe me, when I say the vast majority of the Dutch people (the nation of the great free thinkers Spinoza and Descartes) don't agree with Wilders stimatizing approach by any stretch of the imagination. But, everyone respects his right of free speeech.
The same goes for comments I've heard about an "alarming anti-American" outcry in Europe. Absolute nonsense. I have in all my years in Europe never heard anyone say they "hate" Americans (but, of course, I've never met a fundamentalist). There's a natural disgust with the Bush Administration, some pockets of condescension and ill-favor about the American quality of life.
But, in general, Europeans really like Americans ... the Dutch to an extent that they were among the first in contributing troops to Iraq (with many misgivings) and later to Afghansistan.
In short, Europeans have a high respect for our society. Certainly there is no "hysterical" anti-American sentiment here on a people to people basis. The same applies to the good Muslums who are doing their best to integrate into the Dutch norms and values.
France is having big problems in this area because they have been managing their social integration clallenges very poorly. But they finally realize that and are doing something about it.
Sarkozy is hardly a wildly right conservative of the American ultra right genre... far from it. David Brook's article about the softer, more socialogical Conservative Party overtones gaining popularity in the UK has not occurred so evidently for Sarkozy. But Sarkozy ideas are in the right general direction for France after 10 years of the "do-nothing" elitist Charic -- during whose term serious social issues just fermented unattended, much like the has happened under the Bush´s Presidency. It should be no surprise that each society is at a new and different time in its evolutionary cycle -- France and America being clear examples of this.
SUMMARY
I have said before that Europe's social-economic model is not transferable to America, and America's model is not transferable to Europe. BUT ... in my humble opinion, the magic lies in studying and selecting the best of each society's experiences -- without preconceived notions or fears (stirred by politicians, of course) that one society's economic-cultural-political values are superior to the other and/or nothing can be learned from each other. On the contrary, there's a lot to be learned from each other like,for example, Why can Holland provide better health care to all with a public-private combination system that results in insurance premiums at least 50% lower than those charged throughout the States?
Learning from others is not a very profound statement, but for American political leaders it is profoundly difficult.
If the U.S. people can come together more to correct the imbalances/inequities inherent in the country's social-economic paradigm, it will remain a nation of people who have faith in the system's allocations of wealth and opportunity.
Europe, on the other hand, will remain the society of reflectiveness, shared sacrifice and shared benefits, concern for a fair playing field, preference for stability, in place of recurring economic shock waves and fast growth that brings volatile swings and unnecessary pain. Quality of life values and patience will remain the priorities in Europe (as they should in the U.S.). These are basic European traits.
Little wonder, the Europeans took 30 years building the European Community construct -- starting in 1954-- with Mansholt and his team (including, I'm proud to say my Dutch father-in-law, long passed away).
America's strengths are in its innovation, broad opportunities for self-fulfillment, unique entrepreneurial processes and risk taking. But the rest of the World
is not standing still as Fareed Zakaria so-well outlines in his recent book, "The Rise of the Rest", the post-American world.
In closing, most Europeans think Barack Obama has all the personal qualities needed ... a new generation President who has the gift to make most of us feel we are an important part of the dialogue for the really New Changes essential as we enter the 21st century.
He knows quite well what "ails" America and wouldn't have come this far if he didn't. His life experience, genuine openness, and calm intelligence will be more than adequate to overcome the Republican `Hit Machine.´
Frank Thomas, The Netherlands
Dr. Reich,
Correction: the statement `Guess who is first´ should be:
Guess who is 10th?
frank et al:
I have tried to explain before, and Paul Krugman does it best, that America's political polarization comes, simplistically, from the Dems(liberals) who believe that government can be instrumental in solving problems and the conservative belief that government is the problem.
Ronald Reagan spelled it out clearly for Americans: "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
That statement is the essence of the conservative ideology. They have sold it sufficiently to the American populace to have created this long slow death spiral we are on. It is the crux of their argument against universal health care. They rail about "socialistic" programs, employing a 'hot button" phrase that riles the American personna. They love to point out that these kinds of programs are European in nature and thus are to be rejected outright. It is odd that you rarely ever hear a conservative use the Japanese health care system as an example of "socialistic" policy.
Their real resistance, however, is couched in the quote from above. Should health care, or any other large government run program prove successful they have lost the argument and they have little else to offer. Social Security is not an urgent problem, It is a "socialistic" program and therefore is fair game for attack. Again, Bush's privatization was intended as nothing more than removing the first brick from the foundation. Others would be removed slowly until the whole system was gone. Medicare/Medicaid is a much more urgent problem and if left to conservatives it will be gone in short order as well.
It is for these and many other cultural reasons that we need to return to Democratic leadership in this country. In my opinion the more populist the better. Hillary has negatives. She is certainly not new on the scene. Even if she were to govern in Bill's manner, he produced pretty good results.
Obama is like a newborn. He's cute and cuddly and warm and loving. We don't know however what surprises lurk in the crib tomorrow morning. Could he end up being the best thing since sliced bread? Perhaps! Could he end up as ineffectual as Jimmy Carter was? Also possible. We don't know and therein lies the crux of the problem. Much needs to be done and quickly. Inexperience requires learning and adapting time; not sure we have it.
If you think our retraining efforts are abhorrent wait till you gander at our presidential training program.
A note on unemployment in the US. I'm not sure how numbers are compiled in Europe but in the US our data collection is garbage.
Currently we have about 7.5 million unemployed, by definition. We have another 1.5 million working part-time for economic reasons, they are not counted as unemployed. We have, numbers range from 500,000 to 1 million, persons who have dropped out of looking for a job because they don't feel there is anything out there for them. They are not counted as unemployed. To count as unemployed you must be unemployed and actively seeking work in the last four weeks. Our 5% unemployment rate is, at best, a loose approximation of the problem.
We have, over the last decade or so, seen many people taking jobs at far lesser pay rates than they had been making. American industry has fallen in love with "independent contractor" status. Offering jobs, sometimes at decent pay, but with no benefits and no security that the job will be there tomorrow. There is a large, I don't know if there are estimates, underground labor economy. Workers working for cash or some other unrecorded payroll process. The employment picture here is much worse than the published numbers would imply.
It would sound like European propensities fit the age old economic model that suggests given a choice, working folks would rather collect government handouts than work. There would be many in the US that might fit into that model. My belief is that model would not be true for most working class people in the US. First, most that I have known, at all spots on the employment spectrum, really enjoy working and would feel a void if they did not have a job to go to and friends to interact with. Second, our insatiable desire for "stuff", more and more "stuff". As arguable as it is that this desire is a serious part of our problems, it is also this propensity that drives our people to seek more than just a government handout that meets basic needs.
Athena and Frank:
I won’t comment on the any issues to the European economy. Even if my lazy ass decides to take a look at the statistics, I’ve only been to Europe once (to check out the girls, not analyze the economy), so I’ll leave it for both of you, and perhaps others, to offer insight.
What I wish to raise questions about, Frank, is your opinions regarding anti-Americanism. I mean, I wouldn’t be surprised if you were correct that many Europeans don’t hate “Americans” per se. But, I tend to believe that “anti-Americanism” has more to do with policy grievances. The article that Athena referred to was very interesting (thank you for posting the link, Athena). And it would be an uphill battle to argue that a certain sense of this type of anti-Americanism doesn’t exist, based on the statistics in this article, and numerous other academic studies.
That said, Athena, I wonder if you would extend your views about “inferiority” and “jealousy” to the non-European world; that is to say, is the majority of the rest of anti-Americanism a result of such reasons?
Though I don’t know your opinions on the matter, I would conjecture that it’s not. Consider the parts of the Muslim world that you reference, for example. Numerous Arab countries hate American policy because of Americas support for Israel in the Israel-Palestinian conflict (Iraq is of course a major influence on attitude now as well). If we’re referring to the countries People by ‘anti-Americanism’ (which is what the studies are based on), then I fail to see how the idea that their government’s won’t grant Palestinians citizenship makes them hypocritical. If, Athena, you were referring to the governments Themselves of these Arab countries, I’ll keep my mouth shut, because it’s a much more complicated matter; one in which your opinion regarding hypocritical behavior becomes highly relevant to discussion.
aly k
Anti-Americanism:
My own observations on this are somewhat different. I’ve traveled to roughly 15 countries in Europe(eastern & western), Central America and South America. Jealousy and envy of the U.S. seems rather insignificant. Whether someone has these feelings is highly individualistic and depends upon their own psychological makeup rather than the characteristics of some foreign country no matter how rich and influential.
What many do seem to resent is the U.S. when it asserts itself as a nation with a missionary destiny. In other words, when it tries to spread “freedom” and “democracy” around the world. Here’s a few quotes from Samuel P. Huntington:
"What is universalism to the West is imperialism to the rest."
“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-westerners never do.”
These observations most appropriately apply to the U.S. and not so much to others with Western culture and traditions.
Aly k and others:
As someone who has worked for European firms and lived in Denmark, Belgium and Holland over 30 years, any "anti-Americanism" I've experienced has taken the form I described, namely, a deep dislike for Bush type Presidential leaders who act as if they are infallible, who don't listen, who think and act as if America's social-democractic model is God's gift to mankind, and who support dangerous doctines of pre-emptive war and global social engineering of democracy, for example, to prove their bizarre beliefs. Notsofast's quotes from Samuel Huntington, especially as they relate to Bush's Rambo act in Iraq, have keyed up a deep European disrespect and dislike of America's leadership policies concerning such problems.
Again, Europeans -- including the French -- are not anti-American in the sense of a person to person anti-Americanism. They look down upon a perceived arrogance; the "I know it all" attitudes; a certain naive provincialism (one out of 6-7Americans have a passport) whereby many are easily persuaded by demogoguery; the relatively fast, "survival of the fittest" lifestyle overly focusing on money as opposed to quality of life factors, etc.
But this kind of critism does not mean Americans are not genuinely liked and respected. Nor does it mean that Europeans are not aware of the unique qualities Americans bring to the table. They know far more about how our country works than we do about theirs.
An example is a remark by Art,
"It would sound like European propensities fit the age-old economic model that suggests given a choice, working folks would rather collect Government Handouts than work."
Nice comfortable generality, but quite far from the truth of how public and private mechanisms interplay in most mature European countries showing stable GDP growth and employment. (One has only to look at Canada for another example of a society with a good work ethic and many of social values and benefits of most mature European countries). As noted in my prior post, Unemployment levels in the better managed European countries are relatively stable and low.
So, in general, Europe is not a "handout" society deadly afflicted to welfare doleouts... slight historical exceptions being France and Germany that have been in a stranglehold too long with their social-welfare systems (and France with its preponderance of Publically owned enterprises as compared to Privately owned firms)... but both countries are finally taking major reforms to find a new balance that's more realistic with the 21st century global world of competition.
That's why their unemployment rates have been falling in recent years. Both have studied Holland's economic model very carefully and have been adapting parts of it to their cultures (and perhaps they will eventually improve on the Dutch model). It's called "learning from others."
But other countries like, Holland, Scandinavia, UK, Ireland, Austria are ahead with their sensible, human public-private balance in social welfare policies.
Also, don't forget labor movements among European countries (an Italian plumber or marketing manager with a career in Holland or vice-versa) is very low compared to labor mobility in the States for a number of reasons. This factor alone has had and will continue to have a strong impact on how each society looks after its own people... has refined strong programs and incentives to get the displaced properly retrained (if necessary) and back to work. The work ethic here has nothing to be ashamed about compared to the States. The Dutch and Europeans in general, however, don't necessarily equate long hours of work with being Productive.
SUMMARY
It depends on the meaning one gives to that word "anti-Americanism." Some synonyms of this word for Europeans would be: dislike, disgust, distaste, aversion etc., but certainly not animosity, enmity, malice, jealousy or envy, etc.
The latter words might better reflect emotions toward the U.S. of countries in the Middle East. But I prefer to leave this subject to others.
Frank/Notsofast
Frank, that’s exactly what I would guess: the anti-Americanism (‘anti’ as in ‘dislike’) in Europe is a bitter attitude towards arrogant leaders who currently occupy the white house (and have tremendous influence on official policy), and more generally, the arrogant mentality that drives some current idiotic policies. I’m sure it’s the case for Britain, with their involvement in Iraq. And I agree that there has always been a sense of anti-Americanism (as Athena said), but there has been a HUGE SURGE of it in the past few years, and the major impetus is quite obvious: Bush and company.
I don’t know if any of you caught the daily show tonight, but Douglas Feith (second in line after Rumsfeld at the time) was on it, defending the administrations ‘honesty’. He said something along the lines of: despite the administrations mismanagement of communication to the general public, they’re honest…. Well thanks for clearing that up Doug! I’m sure youll have a lot of warm Christmas presents from Iraqis later this year.
God, just thinking about Bush gives me a headache. Do you realize that even after a tragic crime like 911 (an act that wasn’t simply a crime against humanity, but also the first time the US was attacked in sooooooo long), Bush didn’t officially visit Palestine/Israel till 2008!! I don’t think any social scientist in your entire country (and your country has many of the greatest thinkers in the world) could have been able to predict that on September 12th 2001…. LITERALLY!
So yes, I would guess that what you and notsofast propose in terms of ‘anti-Americanism’ is correct. And those are some cool Huntington quotes, notsofast, but I hope you realize that Huntington is DEAD WRONG when he talks about a ‘clash of civilizations’ (too long to get into).
Lastly, Frank, I would agree about Art’s overgeneralization; in fact, he does it a lot. What struck me most was not what you quoted, but what Art wrote immediately after: “There would be many in the US that might fit into that [European economic] model. My belief is that model would not be true for most working class people in the US. First, most that I have known, at all spots on the employment spectrum, really enjoy working and would feel a void if they did not have a job to go to and friends to interact with.”
I’ve promised myself not to respond to a guy who barks about Mr. Reich being disingenuous, about Krugman not making any sense a lot of the time, and about my inability to comprehend what I’m reading. Thus I will address my question to you, Frank. Considering my disability, I was wondering if you could kindly explain to me the “friends” part of the aforementioned paragraph. As I understand the ‘friends’ part of the sentence, Art has known many American workers who ‘would feel a void’ if they didn’t have ‘friends to interact with’. Can you explain to me how this has ANY relevance to the idea that Europe’s economic model would not fit in America (which I happen to agree with to a certain degree)? Furthermore, can you explain to me why a European wouldn’t ‘feel a void’, or wouldn’t feel as much of ‘a void’ as an American, if they didn’t have ‘friends to interact with’?
Until then, I’ll be trying to figure out why it’s ‘more important’ to think, than to have a brain.
aly k
I’m not saying HRC is George Bush.
Okay, I'll do it for you.
Granted, she has some policy differences, but I've been saying it for a year now: temperamentally, in terms of how she does business, HRC is virtually indistinguishable from George W. Bush. She chooses her staff based on their loyalty to her, rather than on their competence. She doesn't listen to experts if they're telling her something she doesn't want to hear. When presented with a choice between doing the politically expedient thing and doing the right thing, she picks (what she thinks is) the politically expedient thing (hello, flag burning, anybody? Iran? *Iraq*?) And now, what do you want to bet she's got aides completely insulating her from what's being said about her campaign in the media? We already know she doesn't know how to work a coffee machine (shades of Bush the First and his amazement at that newfangled supermarket scanner thingy), because, you know, she's such a Woman of the People, just like Poppy Bush.
In all seriousness, this absolutely is the reason I rejected her candidacy in the beginning, last year, back when everyone still thought she was the presumptive nominee, long before all of this nasty campaigning got under way. How relieved am I that I don't have to vote for her in November? (I probably wouldn't have done it. I probably would have just stayed home.)
To start with the causes of anti-Americanism, I found the articlethe politics of rage: why they hate us very interesting.
As far as the economic indicators in the EU and US are concerned you may see unemployment rates of 2007 here and the
youth unemployment 2007 here
Dramatic differences exist in the long term unemployment in men and women
Here you may see theProductivity growth rates in U.S. and Europe
As far as the rise of the far right in Europe is concerned, here is the info
The far right in Europe
I would like to emphasize the case of the Netherlands. The name of the party refers to the late leader Pim Fortuyn, an open homosexual , with powerful anti-islamic and anti-immigrant positions who once said “I have nothing against Muslims. God only knows how many of them I’ve been to bed with.” He shocked the Dutch establishment with a call for the repeal of the first article of the constitution which forbids discrimination. Recently the Dutch voted him as the most important Dutchman of all ages. The country of tolerance? I doubt it.
From the EU monitoring service on racism and xenophobia , strarting on p. 90, you may see the number of hate crimes in each country. Here are the US rates
Dear Aly k,
The answer to your question is quite simple: Art's knowledge of how the unemployment protection system works in Europe, particularly with reference to Holland, is understandably quite limited.
Of course, some people take advantage of the Dutch system. BUT, by and large the unemployment protection system --and general welfare program for that matter-- has some rather intelligent, strictly enforced control points that prevent excessive exploitation of it. The system, constantly refined, has a balance of human and financially pragmatic norms and values all supporting the philosophy of shared benefits and shared sacrifices ... while at same time insuring a healthy, innovative business development climate. It's not an "either or" policy choice that America's two political parties starkly confront voters with on many social issues.
And, of course, it follows that people here enjoy working and all the healthy interelationships this brings, as much as Americans do. This is a Universal phenomenon reflective of the basic need of most humans for self-fullment/self-realization ... a principle argued well by Francis Fukuyama in his book "The End of History."
Americans have no monopoly on this fundamental human need. In everyday concrete terms, this need is also dramatically substantiated macro-economically by, for example, Holland's/Ireland's GDP per capita figures being 10th and 19th in the world -- higher than Germany, France and the UK (not to mention a few other large world countries).
Please understand I'm not trying to raise Holland to the pyramid of economic perfection... merely trying to give relative comparisons for the reader to put bland, incorrect statements about European economic dynamics in proper perspective.
Part of the confusion and slowness in learning from others in America is a two-party political system that drives thinking to opposite poles with an ideological correctness thta sadly ends up undermining Real, Objective Thinking. Maybe this explains the recent rise in large numbers of Independent voters who want common-sense answers to the huge social-economic problems that are affecting the lives of Everyone.
aly k:
I can tell you're not working on your deficiencies.
Your statement of my statement:
Lastly, Frank, I would agree about Art’s overgeneralization; in fact, he does it a lot. What struck me most was not what you quoted, but what Art wrote immediately after: “There would be many in the US that might fit into that [European economic] model. My belief is that model would not be true for most working class people in the US. First, most that I have known, at all spots on the employment spectrum, really enjoy working and would feel a void if they did not have a job to go to and friends to interact with.”
My statement:
It would sound like European propensities fit the age old economic model that suggests given a choice, working folks would rather collect government handouts than work. There would be many in the US that might fit into that model. My belief is that model would not be true for most working class people in the US. First, most that I have known, at all spots on the employment spectrum, really enjoy working and would feel a void if they did not have a job to go to and friends to interact with. Second, our insatiable desire for "stuff", more and more "stuff". As arguable as it is that this desire is a serious part of our problems, it is also this propensity that drives our people to seek more than just a government handout that meets basic needs.
Suffice it to say that my prose is not always what it should be nor what I expect it to be but as most I do much of this writing on the fly. Were I writing a paper subject to grading or some sort of professional peer review I would hope I would always be precise. Nevertheless most of what I write is discernible to those not comprehension impaired.
If you notice I said "sound like". Now to most, especially those without an emotional block, that phrase would imply that I am speaking from the basis of what I was reading here and was not based on any empirical evidence that I was privy to.
Everyone posting here relies heavily on "generalization". " Overgeneralization" is in the eye of the beholder and surely comprehension ability can be a delimiting prism.
Could I have phrased it better, perhaps. But I spoke to "European propensities" and an "age old economic model". I was not referring to a "European model". Economic thought, and much of it originates from Europe, but I was speaking about economics in general, holds a premise that people must be pressured to work; that if left to their own devices and provided a sufficient stipend they will avoid working. I have never accepted that premise based on personal observation and my own feelings.
In reading Athena's posts I interpreted that maybe it holds more true in Europe than my perception of US workers. That was the reason for my phrasing. If I were speaking to a "European model" I would have specifically stated that.
I am not familiar with the day to day actions or thinking of Europeans or Canadians for that matter. My assertions in the "friends" section were directed at US workers. I did not say nor did I imply that the same might not be true for European workers.
Many Americans, let me paint a picture for you, not all, socialize with those "friends" they work with everday. Not being familiar with European culture I was making no inference to whether they employed the same social connections. Your lack of ability to discern is amazing.
The most glaring example!
I’ve promised myself not to respond to a guy who barks about Mr. Reich being disingenuous, about Krugman not making any sense a lot of the time, and about my inability to comprehend what I’m reading.
Here is what I said:
I read Paul Krugman voraciously. I do not always comprehend what he is talking about.
To get from my statement to your interpretation requires a leap that only a feeble mind can make. It has nothing to do with Krugman not making sense but with my inability to understand the subject matter at times' not, a lot of the time.
Your closing:
Until then, I’ll be trying to figure out why it’s ‘more important’ to think, than to have a brain.
Let me reference one of Frank's favorites and one of mine as well.
Descartes premised: "I think, therefore I am"
He argues that the process of thinking proves his existence. Logically it follows that if you don't think you don't exist. If you do not exist then you do not have a brain.
You figure it out.
P. S. Dr, Reich was being disingenuous!
Frank,
Thanks for answering the question (Athena, ill look at the articles you posted later).
But first things first, Frank, I demand that you apologize! How dare you claim that Art’s knowledge on the ‘unemployment system in Europe’ is ‘quite limited’. I’m appalled that you have audacity to state that Art’s mind has ANY limitations in terms of knowledge, or sophistication of thought. I mean, do you think that anyone would voluntarily look down on others the way he does, if they knew they indeed weren’t perfect? His superpowers not only let him sense Reich’s intentions with absolute certainty (among many stupid things, he references Descartes.. I can’t figure out why, but its important to note that Descartes was so humble that he said that almost EVERYTHING could be doubted, even what your senses perceive, thus ‘existence’ being the only absolute certainty. Art on the other hand, is absolutely certain that he can see into peoples minds) . He is most recently sensing my ‘emotional blockage’ by simply reading what I wrote (which wasn’t addressed to him): the CIA should recruit this guy. And dare I say that he is one of the few well read men on the planet that ridicules others and tells them to take an introductory logic course (which I have), and at the same time, ATTESTS TO THE LOGIC of a statement such as ‘being able to walk is ‘more important’ than having legs’ (notice that I never argue that having legs are more important than being able to walk; Ive only claimed that logically, arts statement is useless in its own right). This man knows something that logicians across the world have yet to figure out. Such a man is surely infallible, and Frank, I demand an apology! As soon as I get the apology, I’m going to find a psychotherapist, and ask why my stupid mind would interpret his previous statements as implying something about Europeans: I must be insane.
On another note, yes, I hope that more of these ‘common sense’ people begin to vote, and influence policy. You know, the type of ‘common sense’ people that find it highly strange that America is the only post-industrialized nation without adequate health-care access for all, even though you pay taxes. ‘Common sense’ that defines it peculiar that only 2 parties exist in a democratic system. The same type of ‘common sense’ that many people seem to have employed when they rejected that stupid-ass-gas-tax-garbage HRC tried to pull.
… In fact, I’m watching Hillary’s ‘victory’ speech right now. I’m almost feeling a level of intoxication that I felt when I used to drink a lot and get high… I mean, shes almost out, I can see it in her eyes… I got my fingers crossed, and im throwing a party the day she announces it.
Affiliate Program Dictionary | Auto Credit Information | Beach Exotica USA | Best Casino Information | Best Finance Information | Best Finance News | Best Hotel Search | Best Life Insurance Information | Best Lifestyle Information | Best Loan Information Online | Money Market Information | Personal Finance Information | Refinance Information | Car Loan Information | Casino Dalasvegas | Change The Fortune | Chicago Hotels Information | Cruise Holiday Planning | Dating With Madeeasy | Easy Estate Loans | Easy Web Adverting | Endless Health Informations | Exotic Holiday in India | Health Fitness | Free Online Dating | Casino Gamble | Herbal Information | Holiday Party Planning | Hotels Information | I Love Gambling | India Holiday
aly k:
I owe you an apology. Your confusion and inability to understand is not because you can't comprehend, it's because you can't read.
President of Shimmering Resumes Offers to Write Free Resume for Hillary Clinton, to Help Her Gain VP or Job in the Obama Administration
FOR RELEASE: June 4, 2008
SAN MATEO, CA — The president of one of the nation’s leading professional resume writing services has offered to write a free resume to help Hillary Clinton pitch her qualifications for an eventual position in the Obama Administration. So far, there has been no response.
Shimmering Resumes, a professional resume writing service for executives, is concerned about job prospects for the former First Lady and believes it can help her take that big next step up in her career.
Freiberger says Clinton should not blame herself for her faulty strategy or public distaste for her attacks on Senator Obama. “Self-blame, even when fully justified, will harm her morale,” said Freiberger, who includes morale-boosting among his services along with resume writing. “The past should not exist for her, except when it serves her purposes. Maintaining morale is key to her quest for power,” he added.
Freiberger recommended that Clinton take a look at his website, http://ShimmeringResumes.com, which offers plenty of career development and resume writing guidance. “If she calls,” he said. “I’ll tell her: ‘This resume is the most important document of your life.’”
Freiberger said he is not advising Clinton about abandoning her quest for the Presidency. “The numbers don’t look good,” he said. “But she wouldn’t listen to me any more than she listens to the newspaper columnists, so why try to persuade her?”
Nevertheless, Shimmering Resumes’ president said that he could foresee a role for Hillary in an Obama administration. “And not as Michelle Obama’s speechwriter,” he said. “With the right resume and proper interview counseling, Hillary could actually get an official position in an Administration. I would target her resume toward Secretary of Health and Human Services or Secretary of State.”
What If McCain Wins?
And should John McCain win the Presidency, what could Hillary do? “She could take full credit for his election,” said Freiberger. “She wouldn’t need a resume. She could name her job.”
Shimmering Resumes periodically offers its services free to noteworthy public figures facing career challenges. If you are such a person, send a note to info@shimmeringresumes.com.
About Shimmering Resumes
Shimmering Resumes is a nationwide resume writing service and career counseling business, with its website at www.ShimmeringResumes.com.
Contact:
Paul Freiberger
President, Shimmering Resumes
1-877-796-9737
Paul@ShimmeringResumes.com
GASOLINE PLAN Rev B 5/1/08
Robert Riech is correct we need more and better mass transit. Here is how we can get it
It is an interesting time. We have some serious challenges ahead. It is rare that one plan has a goal of addressing many of the problems that are at hand. The difficult point is that people are creatures of habit, and change is painful. However, some good opportunities await us, and some of the results might be appreciated after some of our habits are broken.
The problems we face are:
1)Overdependence on imported oil.
2)Excess greenhouse gas emissions
3)The high cost of gasoline.
4)Terrorism as a result of very large sums of money flowing to the Middle East. (see NRDC report which shows the correlation)
5)A lack of good, highly fuel efficient cars made in the USA
6)The need for improved mass transit systems
The best way to have Detroit produce high fuel efficient cars is to create a situation where the consumer, and not the legislature, makes the demand for such a product.
The plan described below strives to solve all the problems listed above, and more. Yes, there will be some inconveniences, but nowhere as many as will result if we don’t make this bold move. Is it a mere coincidence that the current US auto fleet was designed and produced when oil was $20.00 a barrel, and now that these large cars are common the cost of that oil has jumped to $120.00 a barrel?
We each should be allowed a base usage of driving 5000 miles a year with a car that gets 25 miles per gallon. That allows us each a use of 200 gallons a year at no additional cost. In the first year we each get a check for $200.00 and add a tax at the pump of one dollar a gallon. Anyone 18 years or older gets a check whether or not they have a drivers license. The second year we get $400.00 and have a two dollar per gallon tax, and the third year we have a $3.00 per gallon tax and each get $600.00.
A family of two adults get twice the cash back. A senior can take a cab once a month to his doctor if needed and a non driver can a good bicycle if wanted. The cash raised goes to mass transit building and perhaps
very good research in making a more fuel efficient car
By year three people will be really demanding more fuel efficient cars. They can and will be produced. We can still have our “Town car” and our cruiser. The Town car will get 70+ MPG and be easy to park. Congestion on our city roads will be reduced. Yes we will be doing more carpooling as well as mass transiting and perhaps more tele-commuting if appropriate.
If we increase our fleet fuel efficiency by 7 MPG that would equate to all the oil we import from the Middle East. ( that is the analysis from Robert F Kennedy jr NRDC) There will be more mass transit - more carpooling
less road congestion - and more parking available. Some believe that the huge cash windfall flowing to the middle east is the primary fuel for extremism.
Just think how good we will feel hen we see that huge SUV roll by us on the road knowing how much he is contributing to the coffers for the public good.
People can drive any car they wish, but the fleet average can be easily increased by 30% using existing technology. This plan WILL drive the cost of oil sharply down.
Please send me your comments >>>>> algoldspiel@gmail.com
nice post
Hillary Clinton Supporters Launch 100 Anti-Obama Websites
http://www.judiciaryreport.com
升降机 升降平台 登车桥 升降机 铝合金升降机 液压机械 升降台 高空作业平台 升降机 升降平台 无缝管 升降平台 弹簧 升降机 数据恢复 升降机 RAID数据恢复 北京心理咨询 服务器数据恢复 液压升降机 无缝钢管 升降平台 博客 升降机 Google排名 网站优化 心理咨询 升降机 升降平台
Cheap WoW Gold, World Of Warcraft Gold,the best WoW PowerLeveling and other MMORPG Power LevelingWOW Gold WOWGold World Of Warcraft Gold WOW Power Leveling WOW PowerLeveling World Of Warcraft Power Leveling World Of Warcraft PowerLeveling
Our company's products are Gas Alarm,Gas Detector,Breathalyser,Breathalyzer,Alcohol Tester,Co Alarm.Breathalyzer Gas Alarm Breathalyser Co Alarm Co Detector Alcohol Tester Alcohol Tester Gas Detector Please select one of our product categories to find out more.
zz
Good Job! :)
1.
Welcome to enter (wow gold) and (wow power leveling) trading site, (wow gold) are cheap, (wow power leveling) credibility Very good! Quickly into the next single! Key words directly to the website click on transactions!
2.
Welcome to enter (wow gold) and (wow power leveling) trading site, (wow gold) are cheap, (wow power leveling) credibility Very good! Quickly into the next single! Key words directly to the website click on transactions!
3.
Welcome to enter (wow gold) and (wow power leveling) trading site, (Rolex) are cheap, (World of Warcraft gold) credibility Very good! Quickly into the next single! Key words directly to the website click on transactions!
If you wow gold were in wow gold any doubt buy wow gold that the buy wow gold God Wars cheap wow gold Dungeon was cheap wow gold challenge enough wow power leveling for you, wow power leveling look no further power leveling than the giant power leveling demon, K’ril wow gold Tsutsaroth. Once buy wow gold thought of as cheap wow gold nothing more world of warcraft gold confirm his existence.
徵信, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 感情挽回, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信,
Please help me _i am in serious danger _ c.i.a and Clinton threatened me _my English isnot good enough _ my blog in Arabic explain everything
My blog
http://www.494949.blogsome.com
The name of my blog
Dirty and fucked clinton
Post a Comment
<< Home