Morning Fog

Thoughts About The Current Political Standoff

As deadlock continues, some random thoughts about the tea party faction, its impact, its goals, and its tactics.

Notwithstanding widespread commentary, including my own, about the ignorance, stubbornness, or political or economic naivete of the current crop of freshman Republican legislators, one thing must be granted:  They have had a significant impact, by forcing more "experienced" politicians and the nation as a whole to focus on some of the problems of the antiquated process by which we formulate our country's fiscal policy.  Concern about debt levels, our deficit, and funding our social, health and military entitlements are not misplaced.  It may in fact be time for us collectively to review current practices and get serious about reforming some of them. 

Having achieved that, however, they need to be careful how they play their cards.  They're at the height of their influence now, they recognize it, and they are using it to full advantage.  They presumably want the impact they've had to be lasting, yet I suggest their current approach is more likely to guarantee that changes they succeed in making will be short-term.   

First, their advocacy of rather esoteric and impossibly extreme solutions puts them on the lunatic fringe.  I have in mind here the "balanced budget" amendment, which would make us all hostage to something that is unwise and probably impossible; and the idea that taxes can't be part of the solution, which is tantamount to a two-handed man fighting a dragon by purposely tying one hand behind his back.  Second, their unyielding attitude, and the negative effects it will have on the economy, will not redound to their benefit at the polls.  Many of them will not live politically to fight another day.  They may win a battle, but the war will go on and they won't be on the battlefield.

If we breach the August 2 deadline, we can expect to hear a lot of argument about the magnitude of the effects on the economy and who is to blame for them.  The conservative freshmen will proclaim that any economic downturn that occurs is not as serious as others predicted.  Indeed, it's possible that statistics won't show a huge dip right away.  Nevertheless, we shouldn't deceive ourselves about the effects of failure to reach agreement -- they will be deep and wide.  Some have already occurred, as the financial markets have factored in the increasingly glum prospects, and values have dropped.  Some may occur rapidly, but many more will take time to be felt, and will be felt for decades to come in terms of lost confidence in the U.S. economy, a slowdown in the already glacial pace of recovery, and the opportunity cost of putting off job-creating investment.

They Who Neither Know Nor Care

The political standoff over the U.S. debt ceiling continues.  Though House Speaker Boehner is posing as a problem-solver by jawboning his own party to pass a plan today, the problem is that it's his plan, a Republican plan, which makes no move toward awakening the more addled members of his party to the reality of the moment.  Further, it's only a House plan, which, by virtue of catering to the extremist wing of the Republican Party, stands no chance of passage in the Senate, so it seems unlikely to bring us any closer to a denouement of the current drama.

Some, including Senate majority leader McConnell, have suggested that the main thing separating the two sides from real compromise at this point is the question of extending the debt ceiling long enough to get us past the next elections.  I don't doubt that's close to the truth.  Republicans -- especially those who have so adamantly refused any compromise, but not only those -- have good reason to fear the effects their disinterest in the country's well-being will have on their electoral futures.  They will strive desperately to give themselves a chance to unpaint themselves from the corner they're in before the next elections and therefore (again, please note, with no regard for the state of the nation or its economy) hope to preserve a chance to revisit the debate again.

Rational people may wonder how it's possible to ignore the effects a default would have on the U.S. economy.  Some of the "tea-party" group claim  to know that the effects of a default will not be as dire as predicted.  A fellow named Judson, identfied as the founder of a shadow organization called the Tea Party Nation, attempts to defend tea party politicians' refusal to compromise, but nowhere in his screed will you find an iota of realism concerning politics as the art of the possible, nor a shred of understanding regarding the interdependence of national economies in the modern world.

True, we might conceivably work our way back into the good graces of international creditors over time, but in the meanwhile, how can anyone think the economy in its current state could stand the hit -- to interest rates, employment, business prospects, and many other aspects -- without driving us further into recession?  

The anti-tax gang stems largely from rural jurisdictions; they seem to live in a nineteenth-century bubble in which the health of the American economy is dependent only on what we do ourselves.  The bubble must soon burst but in the meantime, it's hard to care about something you think really doesn't matter, so their ignorance shelters them from the consequences of their dogma, and their weird obeisance to Grover Norquist, who's never been elected to anything.   

The real answer to our current political stalemate is for sensible policymakers on both sides of the aisle to jettison their extreme wings and come to an agreement unburdened by the wackos of either persuasion.  If there aren't some in Congress who can make this happen, we can only hope voters will do it for them in the next election. 

 

 

Smartphones Take Over For Personal Use

This recently published graphic about smartphone usage is very revealing. The accompanying article claims that adoption of smart phones is proceeding at a rate faster than any technology in history; and that minorities and young people are particularly likely to use them as their main connection to the internet (rather than a laptop).

Not at all surprising, I think.  Even I am actively considering getting one, and I am struck by the paradox of that.  I hardly use my cell phone, but believe I'd use the smartphone more.   Internet access on the go, a weather check, e-mail, the ability to look up a restaurant somewhere nearby, use GPS to find my way, reserve a hotel online, and many more - all these are attractive features I feel I'd probably use more than I use a plain cell phone.  That's the microparadox, involving just me.

The macroparadox is my recollection of the talk about 30 years ago, when the personal computer (yes, that big, clunky thing with its deep screen and giant tower) was emerging, and many people wondered if most people really needed such a device for home use.  I think today's news about smartphone usage really provides the answer:  No, they did not. 

Most people, then as now, wanted to do mainly personal things on the computer -- banking, photos, e-mail, and (later) music.  They had little use for the things the major office suites and the CPU power of a desktop could do.  An average home probably seldom even writes a letter these days, let along creating a huge database, or using mail merge to produce invoices.  In short, the computer started life as a business tool, was back-marketed as a consumer product, but was always a bit of overkill for the latter application.  Now it appears business and personal use can - already have - diverged again.  Yet the smartphone could not have evolved without the computer as a steppingstone.

I'll keep my current desktop.  I first learned computers in the office, and to me they're still a work tool.  They're much more convenient to use for my spreadsheets, databases, mailmerges, and even blogging.  If I acquire a smartphone, it will be for the unserious side of life.  Sure, it may come in handy for an occasional work use, especially on the go, but the real work will get done on a laptop or desktop.

 

 

South California

One Republican in California has proposed that some southern counties of the state secede, forming a new state of "South California."

I think this guy is onto something!  Surely everybody can see, reviewing the news today, that what we need in this country is still more self-sorting by political preference.   It's not enough for us just to live in neighborhoods of like-minded people; not enough for Congress to sort itself out into walled communities of left and right, with a no-man's land in between.  No, in order to assure complete paralysis, clearly we need to be able to be able to divide ourselves into entire states by politics, too.  And the bonus is that we could re-form new states every ten years or so, obviating the much less efficient method by which we just apportion a couple of representatives this way or that!

Actually there are a number of places that have already thought of this, so this "Republican pharmacist," whatever that may be, will have to get in line.  My own neck of the woods, northern Virginia, had an active if small new-state movement at least ten years ago, when I first researched the question, and every now and then it gets a little publicity.

 

 

Heads In The Sand Of Politics

Yesterday Sheila Bair published a good summation of the problems our politico-economic focus on the short term has yielded.

That's true, in spades, with political tension growing over the approaching default on the U.S. debt, while neither major political party has yet been willing to pull its head out of the sand (or wherever else it may be lodged) to honestly address key long-term issues.

On the Republican side, the key sticking point at the moment is "no taxes."  That's just plain dumb.  Tea-party novices made rash promises to get elected, and other Republicans jumped on the Grover Norquist anti-tax bandwagon.  Now they all realize how impossible those promises were, and that failure to deliver on them might turn some of them out of office in 2012.  Ultimately, this stone wall will have to cave.

On the Democratic side, there is strong resistance to any changes in social security and medicare; in fact, Pelosi and company appear to be staking their entire election campaign on maintaining the status quo in these entitlement areas.  Here again, the position is untenable, promises are going to have to be broken, and politicians fear the consequence to themselves.  This fortress is going to be breached as its weak foundation crumbles.

Who's concerned about the long term?  Well, Obama (finally) appears to be looking that direction by proposing some cuts in entitlements, but can't get the support of his own party.  Give Boehner and Cantor some tiny credit for seeming to lean in that direction too, briefly, conceding some tax increases and even looking prepared to snip a lock of hair off their sacred cow, military spending.  But they quickly succumbed to the fear factor too. 

Each side dreams that next year's elections will sweep it into a controlling majority in the House and Senate, with a President of their own party in the White House, obviating compromise or negotiation on their current platform.  Yet when those favored policies are so seriously flawed, such an outcome would be unhealthy, if not disastrous, for our long term economic and political health.  Fortunately, the actions of politicians in the current squabble almost guarantee that such an outcome is unlikely, and to hope for it, unrealistic.

I think the issue of the nation's debt ceiling will be resolved in a last-minute frantically-negotiated deal.  I hope it will, because I truly fear the consequences to the economy if it isn't.  Pundits clearly think it will, because I haven't seen any of those "how to prepare for the coming economic collapse" articles in the press yet.  But the downside of that is it's looking increasingly as if the settlement will be short-term, and we'll be revisiting this same divisive, time-wasting issue again within a year or so.    We badly need the longer-term solution that blew up on the launching pad last week.  Even that is but a down payment on what needs to be done.

Shorting the Short Term

Anyone who's been reading Morning Fog for a while has probably heard me complain more than once about the national (U.S.) tendency to take the short view.  Whether it's ending a war, looking to improvements in the economy, or just buying blinds for our home's windows, everybody seems to look for the immediate results, long term consequences be damned.

Thus, I commend Sheila Bair's well-argued piece from today's Washington Post regarding the effects this approach has had in our financial markets.  As I've said myself, we're not even out of the woods from having lost our way last time, yet many of those high-salaried financial wizards and certain of our political leaders are tossing away the map and eager to lead us down the wrong path again.

Recognition Proliferation

The other day on the internet somewhere I ran across an item asking people to express their opinions about a recent Congressional move to allow certain government awards for heroism, death in the line of duty, and the like, to be granted not just to military personnel (as has been the case up to now) but also to civilian government employees in the same circumstances.

Now I can't find it.  However, it was interesting because the opinions registered really covered the spectrum, from "no, never, these awards are for military" to "yes, civilians also serve with valor, often as much as servicepeople."  (Also interesting was that the first opinion came from a civilian - the daughter of a military man; while the second came from a retired military man.)

There are fair arguments on both sides of this question.  It's reasonable and traditional to reserve certain awards for the military.  On the other hand, the world is changing and frequently, civilians (including, but not limited to, my own foreign service brethren and sistren) often find themselves trying to carry out their mission in conditions of conflict, lawlessness, or the specific targeting of U.S. facilities.  One main difference is that the civilians aren't issued a weapon!

Still, though I suppose I should be "in favor," I actually oppose the idea of granting such awards to civilians as well as military personnel.   That's because it's just another example of a pointless and possibly unhealthy trend -- that everyone has to be "recognized" for everything they do. 

It begins in schools with silliness like middle school "graduations" and competitive events where everyone who competes gets a ribbon or trophy.  I understand the arguments people make for these trends, but I don't agree with them.  We teach the mindset that everybody can be a winner, and we foster the notion that whatever result is achieved is meritorious.  Both these concepts are false.

The issue of military awards for civilians is part and parcel of the same process, as is the latest proliferative event: President Obama reportedly has agreed to begin sending condolence letters to the families of military personnel who commit suicide.  And the word "hero," incidentally, has lost all meaning as it's commonly applied now to a wide swath of humanity who are just doing their regular jobs, tough jobs though they may be.

Some may argue that the recognition proliferation is harmless.  I would suggest instead that it reflects warped values.    So if asked, I would say "no military awards for civilians," let's stop the madness.  And while we're at it, the trade-off is that we have to stop misconstruing what military service is.  In the opinion poll mentioned above, one woman argued that civilians choose their professions freely but the military do not.  That's oldthink.  Our military services are - regrettably and to our detriment - all-volunteer now.  They're pretty well compensated, they choose their profession, they're aware of the risks going in -- and yes, they could have chosen something else. The myth of the citizen soldier is as errant in the twenty-first century United States as the myth of the small family farm. 

Of course, speaking of recognition, I recognize it does me no good to argue against the trend.  The train  of recognition entitlement has left the station headed for that valhalla where everyone gets applause for achievements even if there aren't any.  

Political Alibis

George Will's latest column, "Who Will Bat Against 'Alibi Obama'? " has elicited a surprising amount of comment considering it does little but muse inconclusively about which of the current front-running Republican candidates may eventually take on Obama. 

But most of the highly charged commentary relates to the subject of blaming Obama for his failures.  It was sparked not by Will's thin central theme, but by his initial references to "Alibi Ike" and by the newspaper's clever marketing of the piece with the subhead "who will run against Obama's excuses?"

On that last point, I might suggest that George W. Bush be nominated.  It would be only fitting.  But it's impossible.  As for the other GOP candidates, and the prominent Republican pols generally, they have one serious blind spot - they seem to have no alibis for the eight years when their party leader was murdering the country, and they're scared to even admit they were present at the scene of the crime.  So they don't mention "W", and they fail to explain how they're different from him. 

For me the most credible and potentially most successful Republican candidate would be he (or she) who would stand up and be counted, something like this:  "yes, we made mistakes, and the train wreck we caused was so bad we're still not back on the tracks yet, but we're going to do things differently."   That seems extremely unlikely, since they're all vying with one another to parrot all the "solutions" and policies that led us to where we are today.

Meanwhile, for the progressives, liberals, and commonsensicals who are so busy defending Obama's record, Will's column contains a very serious point:  Like it or not, many people will conclude that the current state of affairs stems not from the depth or intractability of the problems Obama inherited, nor from the refusal of Republicans to work constructively to solve them (Mitch McConnell: "Our goal is to defeat Obama."), but from the mistaken belief that Obama's measures haven't worked. 

It's this down-in-the-mouth feeling that is the crux of the next Presidential election.  Over the past several years, there has been only one economic certainty:  The economy will improve, regardless of what politicians do.  But when? If things start looking up in time, Obama will be unbeatable next year.  If recovery doesn't occur visibly at least a few months before the elections, it's anyone's game.   Republicans may reap benefits from their extreme failure; but that's politics!