Re: Townhall.com – 2/25/2009 – “Judging Obama” – John Stossel

Stossel says “How will we know if President Obama's must-have "stimulus" program succeeds?” Good question. The success of Obama’s program will be judged most by the shape of our economy at the conclusion of the program. If the economy is better than it is now the program will be judged a success and if the economy is not better, it will be judged a failure. But that judgment will not be based on any real scientific measure the success of the stimulus program because we cannot simultaneously have results of a no stimulus or different stimulus program for comparison. While most of us will defer our unscientific judgments on Obama’s programs to give them time to take effect, it is clear that a majority of the politicians have made up their mind one way or another and are unlikely to be swayed by future facts.

Stossel is right that “Politicians grab credit for everything” although he should also add that politicians also throw blame at least as often. So no matter how good or bad things actually turn out to be, half the politicians will claim things would have been worse and the other half of the politicians will claim things would have been better without the stimulus.

Stossel says “[the stimulus advocates in Congress] excuse is already prepared: The stimulus was too small”. Based on my interpretation of the results of government intervention to “cure” the Great Depression and WW-II’s success in actually so doing, if we are headed into a Great Depression, we probably need a stimulus as large as WW-II, and by that measure, Obama’s proposed stimulus package is probably too small. On the other hand, if we are heading into a mini-depression (or a super recession, take your pick), then the size of Obama’s stimulus package might be large enough. Time will tell.

Stossel says “Since monopoly bureaucracies are not as efficient as competitive businesses, government efforts won't get as much bang for the buck as private efforts. They will likely destroy wealth”. I wonder why Stossel thinks that. The idea of the stimulus is to get cash into circulation to replace the credit lost in the bursting of the financial bubble --- in effect creating controlled inflation to just balance an on-going deflation. The government won’t shred paper currency with the stimulus, it merely prints money to hand over to private citizens to do with it what they will do. If projects planned and/or paid for by government, say to improve transportation, are not as effective per dollar as private projects to improve transportation, that means that on a per transportation project result basis, government gets more money into circulation than private industry could, right? Wouldn’t that be a plus for a stimulus where we need to inject more money than there are planned projects? Seriously, government can be inefficient at times, efficient at other times --- the proof is in the execution and not some philosophical prejudice.

Stossel has the quaint idea that people held back on spending and investing because “they don't know what activist government will do next. Will it prop up housing or other prices? Will it nationalize the banks?“ But until well after the economy began to nosedive, neither people nor the government had even thought of propping up the then robust housing market and/or intervening in what were then thought to be healthy banks. Stossel apparently believes that the effects predate the cause --- a belief most of us recognize as fallacious. Banks failed not because the government planned to intervene in their finances but rather government is intervening in the banks’ finances because it was feared by the government and by the banks themselves that without intervention, the banks would go bankrupt. Banks stopped lending because they didn’t have sufficient financial strength to make loans on their own coin and couldn’t get other banks to make loans to them. That’s why government opened its credit window wider and injected capital directly into banks. Not vice versa.

Re: Townhall.com – 2/24/2009 – “The Presidency as a Series of Tele-Prompter Speeches” – Michael McBride

Although there are some basic principles of leadership that are beneficial to all leaders, some of the attributes of successful leaders are personal --- what works best for one person doesn’t necessarily work best for another. And the demands of leadership are different depending on situations --- leadership under great uncertainty requires different skills that are unnecessary or even counterproductive when little uncertainty exists and leading a small group (say 5 people) is different from leading a moderate group (say 50 people) is different from leading a large group (say 5000 people) is different from leading an entire nation.

Leadership by example is always a beneficial skill for leaders. For small to medium sized groups, direct but unthreatening demonstration of lower level job skills to workers one-on-one is a marvelous leadership skill. But for larger groups, such one-on-one demonstrations with each worker are impossible, and leadership by example consists mainly of demonstrating more abstract personal abilities such as dedication, honesty, intelligence, the ability to listen to and understand the problems and needs of others, etc, skills that of course are beneficial to small group leadership as well.

Like it or not, Joe the plumber (or 5 or 10 Joes) is not the only constituency of the President of the United States. The President leads hundreds of millions of Joes, some plumbers, some electricians, some file clerks, and, for that matter, some bank robbers and investment swindlers. Personally leading each and every Joe is not a feasible basis of Presidential leadership. But the President more directly leads politicians, bureaucrats, and all sorts of technical wonks, and demonstrating his competence in these areas is not only possible but hugely beneficial.

If McBride prefers leadership by one-on-one example, I suggest he stay out of politics or get used to doing things he doesn’t like to do. If McBride likes to speak without tele-prompter, I suggest he not speak where millions are listening to each and every word he says and world wide every word in and out of context will be analyzed and discussed, and where a single misspoken word could bring the world to the brink of war or financial crisis.

We all can disagree on Obama’s abilities as a leader, and we can all be correct in at least one way; no one can be a successful leader of all the people. Successful leadership requires a lot more people follow than oppose the leader’s leadership. Right now Obama’s got me and a majority of US citizens as followers --- he seems to me to have as good an understanding of the issues that face us all, as good ideas as anyone in how to approach our current problems, a lot more commitment to his ideas than most other leaders in the public arenas, and sufficient intelligence to execute his ideas, all to a much greater extent than the administration that preceded him. I guess McBride feels differently. But if McBride thinks his feelings about Obama’s leadership are based on inescapable conclusions based on principles of leadership, then McBride doesn’t understand leadership in spite of whatever personal success he may have had as a leader himself. And at this point in time, McBride’s opinion of Obama is a minority opinion, even a minority among successful leaders.

Re: Family Security Matters – 2/19/2009 – “Bush Lied, People Died – But Did Bush Really Lie?” – Herbert London

The answer in short is yes, Bush lied, but not about what London says liberals say he lied about. What London says that liberals said was a lie was not an illustration of lying but of a general incompetence that characterized the Bush administration. Incompetence is not a very good trait for a President, but it is probably better than being a liar and having the lie come back and bite him.

Where Bush lied was when, in order to get legislative approval for an authorization of the administration’s discretion in using force in Iraq, he promised to use that force only if all peaceful means were exhausted and only if the danger of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to the US was imminent. In fact, he hardly tried any peaceful means, rejecting, for example, further weapons inspections that Iraq had already agreed to, under the pretence of an immediacy which he and his administration knew did not exist.

I see an unfortunate trend in conservative columnists to ascribe any disagreement with their position as prejudice arising from hatred, which is neither better nor more justified than the liberal’s predilection to ascribe disagreement with them to conservative’s stupidity and/or ignorance. The left did not personally hate Bush and was not prejudiced against him because of hatred; rather the left hates many of the things that Bush did or did not do, and if they hate him at all its only after-the-fact for the results of those things. Personally, Bush seems to me like a nice guy with reasonable values (although not always in line with my own), and a traditional American concept of ethical conduct based on his “gut” feeling. But being a nice guy with a basically ethical gut does not alone qualify one for the Presidency. Hatred of what happened under Bush’s tenure and blaming him for those things hardly constitutes what I would call the personal hatred of Bush, but I must admit that because of his attitude of accepting little blame or showing little remorse for what happened under his watch, Bush himself makes a very good symbol for the hatred of what happened under his watch.

The issue of Bush’s lying demonstrates that for many, ideology trumps facts; for liberals some of the facts of Bush’s performance and for conservatives, other facts of Bush’s performance.

In the end, Bush will be remembered for the same kind of things all Presidents are remembered for. They all set objectives (partly on their own and partly dictated by the situations that occur during their tenure) and use whatever means are available to achieve their objectives (including lying) but they are remembered mainly for the change of the state of the union under their tenure. If under their tenure great problems were solved and/or great impending problems were obviously avoided, they are remembered favorably. If little good was accomplished or problems appeared under their tenure, they are remembered unfavorably. Bush will be remembered on the positive mainly for his managing public distress following 911 and his administration’s handling of the early part of the Afghanistan and Iraq military involvement, and remembered on the negative for his administration’s failures in responding to the Gulf Coast weather disaster, loosing focus on Afghanistan while pursuing Iraq, incompetence in reconstructing Iraq, the legacy of a huge national debt, and most of all for the contracting economy under his tenure.

Whether Bush did or did not lie, and what any lie he might have made was all about will not long be part of the American memory.

Re: Townhall.com – 2/6/2009 – “Where Have All the Tough Guys Gone?” – Dan Kennedy

Most any philosophy pushed too far is absurd. Real life is complex and no single solution solves all problems --- the real trick is to know what solutions are most likely to work for each specific kind of problem, and to know at what level of abstraction a philosophy becomes just dogmatic verbal pronouncements rather than a reliable guide to action.

Assuming that everyone else is incompetent so you (the only person who is competent) must make all the decisions for others is dumb --- if everyone else is incompetent, chances are you are too, and even if you are more competent than most, chances are your not more competent every person at every single thing. Clearly the liberal attitude of helping people who cannot help themselves, taken to the extreme where everyone needs help in everything from everybody, is absurd.

But the conservative position that people helping themselves is always better than people being helped, taken to the extreme where no one needs help in anything, is just as absurd. If people should just help themselves (and others should not help them help themselves) then charity would be a sin and a good Samaritan would be a bad Samaritan and police protection would be unconstitutional. No reasonable conservative actually believes that in some cases people should not act to help others by providing temporary assistance to those who are temporarily unable to help themselves. In my experience, conservatives are just as likely to support charitable causes as are liberals. And in my experience, conservatives generally consider themselves even more charitable than liberals, but this is something I have not observed to be true. And even on issues of private vs government control, conservatives have issues that they like government to decide rather than leave the issue to the private sector, especially issues enforcing their views on religious and personal behavior and in actively supporting business over labor and consumers.

No liberal believes anything like “charity and/or government can fix all problems”. No  liberal believes that personal responsibility is not a necessary component of a successful society.

Liberals and conservatives differ mainly at drawing the line where self help alone becomes inadequate in solving problems and where public and/or private charity becomes necessary, and of course, how much of that help should be provided by government and how much by private charity.

A football team requires the individual physical and mental skills of the players as well as the coordination of individual actions imposed by the coaching staff. Jim Brown could not have run unimpeded thru a defense without offensive blocking, nor could he have run at all if the coaches never called on him to carry the ball in their plays or the quarterback never handed him the ball. In some ways, society is like football. Individuals in society need to use all their physical and mental skills, but even for the most able of us, such skills are insufficient. There must be a structure of rules (football’s rules and the coaches’ plays) and support (the “blocking” his offensive line gave Jim Brown), and it is to provide a structure of rules that “Governments are instituted among Men”. Too much structure and players become unmotivated and the team looses. Too little structure and you’ve got a lot of people running around with no observable unified purpose and the team looses. Winning teams have a delicate balance between structure and individual performance, and so to do winning societies.

Non-extremists conservatives and non-extremist liberals should get together to find that proper balance rather than sit around and listen to the extreme conservatives and extreme liberals hurl insults at one another. Both non-extremist conservatives and non-extremist liberals should stop letting the extremists speak for them.

Re: Townhall.com – 2/6/2009 – “Where Have All the Tough Guys Gone?” – Dan Kennedy

Most any philosophy pushed too far is absurd. Real life is complex and no single solution solves all problems --- the real trick is to know what solutions are most likely to work for each specific kind of problem, and to know at what level of abstraction a philosophy becomes just dogmatic verbal pronouncements rather than a reliable guide to action.

Assuming that everyone else is incompetent so you (the only person who is competent) must make all the decisions for others is dumb --- if everyone else is incompetent, chances are you are too, and even if you are more competent than most, chances are your not more competent every person at every single thing. Clearly the liberal attitude of helping people who cannot help themselves, taken to the extreme where everyone needs help in everything from everybody, is absurd.

But the conservative position that people helping themselves is always better than people being helped, taken to the extreme where no one needs help in anything, is just as absurd. If people should just help themselves (and others should not help them help themselves) then charity would be a sin and a good Samaritan would be a bad Samaritan and police protection would be unconstitutional. No reasonable conservative actually believes that in some cases people should not act to help others by providing temporary assistance to those who are temporarily unable to help themselves. In my experience, conservatives are just as likely to support charitable causes as are liberals. And in my experience, conservatives generally consider themselves even more charitable than liberals, but this is something I have not observed to be true. And even on issues of private vs government control, conservatives have issues that they like government to decide rather than leave the issue to the private sector, especially issues enforcing their views on religious and personal behavior and in actively supporting business over labor and consumers.

No liberal believes anything like “charity and/or government can fix all problems”. No  liberal believes that personal responsibility is not a necessary component of a successful society.

Liberals and conservatives differ mainly at drawing the line where self help alone becomes inadequate in solving problems and where public and/or private charity becomes necessary, and of course, how much of that help should be provided by government and how much by private charity.

A football team requires the individual physical and mental skills of the players as well as the coordination of individual actions imposed by the coaching staff. Jim Brown could not have run unimpeded thru a defense without offensive blocking, nor could he have run at all if the coaches never called on him to carry the ball in their plays or the quarterback never handed him the ball. In some ways, society is like football. Individuals in society need to use all their physical and mental skills, but even for the most able of us, such skills are insufficient. There must be a structure of rules (football’s rules and the coaches’ plays) and support (the “blocking” his offensive line gave Jim Brown), and it is to provide a structure of rules that “Governments are instituted among Men”. Too much structure and players become unmotivated and the team looses. Too little structure and you’ve got a lot of people running around with no observable unified purpose and the team looses. Winning teams have a delicate balance between structure and individual performance, and so to do winning societies.

Non-extremists conservatives and non-extremist liberals should get together to find that proper balance rather than sit around and listen to the extreme conservatives and extreme liberals hurl insults at one another. Both non-extremist conservatives and non-extremist liberals should stop letting the extremists speak for them.

Re: Townhall.com – 11/30/2008 – “In open contests, voters beat politicians” – Paul Jacob

Jacob doesn’t understand the American voter. Although voters say they are for term limits in principal, voters’ actions say that voters really mean that they are for term limits for those legislators who represent voters other then themselves --- legislators who represent their constituencies interest well are overwhelmingly reelected again and again in spite of what the same voters may say about term limits in general.

Arguments for term limits seem equivalent to the following: voters are incompetent to tell when the performance of their elected legislators fail to warrant their reelection and thus keep reelecting incumbent legislators who in someone’s opinion (other than the legislators’ constituency) should not be reelected; and to insure these incumbent legislators get kicked out of office (regardless of what their constituency thinks), voters should not be allowed to reelect them. Power does corrupt, and I guess Jacob feels that the power to reelect legislators gives the voters too much power, and suggests that voters be relieved of that power.

What are the arguments against term limits? Below are three.

Argument #1: Term limits is too blunt a sword; it removes not only those incumbents whose performance is deficient but also the ones whose performance is superior. It’s like reducing pork by cutting the budget across the board --- 10% of the pork goes as well as 10% of the defense budget and 10% of the repayment on our national debt. 10% less pork hardly makes a difference. 10% of our military budget might permanently cripple our national security. 10% less on repaying our national debt means the country is technically in default.

Argument #2: If voters are too incompetent to determine when those who represent them should not continue in that role, how can voters be competent enough to determine who should represent them at all; after all, evaluating incumbent legislators on their performance is much easier than predicting legislators performance prior to their being legislators.

Argument #3: Long time incumbents carry with them knowledge and skills that takes years to acquire, and having a legislative body of perpetual rookies means no such knowledge and skill base will reside in the legislators but instead would lie in the professional staffers. I’d rather have enough experienced legislators around to act as a counter weight to unelected professional staffers. Reforming the seniority system seems to me to be a more sensible plan than firing all the senior legislators.

Corruption is not the only reason to explain how so many legislators who are elected to office with the promise of establishing term limits change their views once in office. Perhaps after getting some on the job experience, they realize that term limits is a terrible idea that is attractive only to those who don’t understand what it takes to be a good legislator.