In one month’s time, America is most likely going to elect a liberal Democrat from a northern state as President; it will be the first time that’s been done in nearly half a century. The economic prosperity that made GOP conservatives so popular over this era is finally slipping away, and the swing voters who really don’t like liberal Democrats are finally ready to swallow some bitter medicine. They’re probably correct in their hunch that it’s time to bring big government back for a while, as to slow down and hopefully stabilize an overheated economy that lost control (self-disorganized, went over the boundary between sustainable equilibrium and chaos). We’re definitely at a point that will stand out in the history books.
I’ve been reading and pondering some of the punditry that’s being cranked out with such gusto this season. There’s a flood of it in the papers, on the blogs, on the radio and on TV these days; and most of it is pretty lame. But every so many days, some analyst says something cogent and useful about the American political system and its relation to our society and our economy. I think it was Peggy Noonan who observed the differences in tone between the more average and forgettable speeches at the GOP and Democratic conventions back in August and early September. The Democrats like to tell stories about struggling Americans, American families down on their luck, people who have fallen thru the cracks and need a hand to get back up. The obvious implication is that such a hand must be provided by government. The Republicans like to speak about people who have taken initiative and are living the American dream, or are darn near to it. They mostly want the government to get off their backs and leave them alone. I.e., cut out all the taxes and regulations and paperwork that takes their time away from making things and selling things and enjoying the fruits of their initiative and determination.
One of the conservative commentators noted that many Democrats aren’t far from being “poverty pimps”. They seek out examples of people in need, because such people give their own lives reason and economic usefulness. These are usually well-educated people with sensitive personalities, who just aren’t up to trading stock or inventing things or running their own businesses. They want to work for government or foundations or educational institutions; that’s pretty much the resume of Barack Obama. (And myself, actually.) So they focus upon the “glass half empty” part of America; they read books and magazines and newspapers that fulfill their hopeful contention that the country needs them to organize communities and write regulations and bring public-interest lawsuits and oversee grants that benefit “at-risk youth”.
The Republicans obviously see a different America; and in most election cycles over the past half-century, their view of America turned out to better fit the mood of the populace. Most struggling working class families don’t want government promises of protection; their plan is to get rich and buy their own protection. When the economy seems trustworthy, as it had for so many people for so many years, the average Jane and Joe accept the GOP blather about lowering taxes and shrinking government and maximizing opportunity for those with determination and entrepreneurial spirit.
But the economy is no longer trustworthy. It took more than falling home values and $4 gasoline and increasing unemployment and two wars that were dragging on too long; we had that 3 or 4 months ago, and McCain was still competitive. Only when the real scary stuff started happening, i.e. bank runs and bankruptcies and no more credit available, did America finally turn away from the Republican line. Ironically, if Obama does a good job and has the American economy stabilized and growing again by 2012, he may well set the stage for his own defeat in the next election. Of course, if we go into another Great Depression, perhaps the country will suspend the term limits and Obama will be the next FDR.
Even if Obama manages to stop the bleeding and stabilizes the economy, there’s still a much more fundamental problem, one that I doubt that the Democrats will tend to. (The Republicans haven’t tended to it either). And that’s the transition of our economy over the past three decades from a science, engineering and manufacturing base to a financial, legal and consumption base. Too many of our brightest young people today are encouraged to go to law school or study finance in an MBA curriculum, versus learning chemistry or computer science in a tech university. Everyone else now works in ‘service jobs’ assisting the consumer, instead of manufacturing jobs actually producing something. The potential rewards, both in terms of money and glory, are better for those who would run hedge funds and invent new forms of derivative debt instruments.
America still has a strong science and technology base, but that base is increasingly marginalized, shoved off into a corner to come up with better cell phone gizmos. It’s the lawyers and finance people who pull the levers in our nation, and what have they given us? A country of crumbling roadways and bridges, a country that can’t nearly produce enough energy to power itself, a country that cannot make so many of the things that it needs today, and a country that is falling behind in inventing what it will need in the future (it was Honda and Toyota, not GM and Ford, that perfected the hybrid vehicle). And recently, a country where loans can’t be had and debts can’t be paid.
Our country needs to get back to basics, to get its youth focused once again on learning how to make better things — real things — and not better ways to create financial illusions and spin nonsensical ideas (through industry lobbying, press releases, political sound bites, luring advertisements for consumer goods, etc.). Barack Obama came out of nowhere to fulfill the dream that a lot of good people have about America electing it’s first racial-minority President. Unfortunately, Senator Obama is ultimately another lawyer and spin-ster, and not a real-world techno-geek. He wouldn’t know a vanadium alloy from a voltmeter (neither would most other politicos). It’s getting late, but I still hope to live to see someone from the “techie” side find their way to the top. I.e., someone who could get elected JUST BECAUSE he or she talks like a techie, thinks like a techie, AND IS a techie. (Yea, I know that Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer and a nuclear engineer; but he sold-out his techie side during his political ascent, and never went back to it after his fall.)
Well, I can dream, can’t I ?
Jim,
There is one point that really bothers me about this election year–Sarah Palin–and not for the reason you might suspect.
I was disappointed that Hillary did not get the Dem nomination. However, when McCain chose Palin for his running mate, it seemed somewhat of a “gotcha” toward the Dems, rather than a sincere choice of her as a running partner. I found his choice of her a little cynical. A kind of: You want a woman? I’ll give you a woman–young and oh, so cute and just the way men think women should be. In fact, I’ve been somewhat taken aback at some of the comments I’ve heard by some of the conservative pundits about Palin. One guy I heard actually said of Laura Bush and Sarah Palin at the Rep Convention–“for all you guys who are ‘leg men,’ they both have terrific legs.” What a comment! Hardly professional, hardly any consideration of whether she would be a suitable candidate for VP.
I also had the thought that if (and now it seems when) McCain loses, Sarah Palin will be yet another woman who cannot be elected to the office of VP. Ferrero (sp?) was a totally different story in that she was definitely qualified, yet I think at the time she ran for VP the country just would not accept a woman for such a high office. (I realize that was not the only reason the ticket lost then.) Now the country may consider a woman acceptable for office, but once again she may lose. And rightly so this time as I do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be VP. However, it goes down in history as yet another woman not being able to be elected to the “heartbeat away.”
Yet for Sarah Palin I think it is a win-win situation. She is getting national exposure she would never, ever have gotten any other way. She has been able to place herself in a high position in the Republican party, which may put her in line for a Congressional office from Alaska.
Frankly, with all the mud slinging going on; it is a wonder that both men do not heed the aphorism: People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
One thing that does bother me about McCain is that I wonder if he is still trying to psychologically win the Vietnam War with his insistance that we stay in Iraq for as long as it takes. (And it seems he never really says what it is that is involved in “as long as it takes.”) Trying to win the Vietnam War is just not going to happen. I’m terribly sorry for his sacrifices in that war; he did what few people would do for his country. The problem with that war is that there was no way we could win it. Yet because of the sacrifice that he and many of his friends put into it, he has difficulty accepting the fact that of the “un-winnability” of that war.
As to the economy: I wonder at this last bail out that was so quickly pushed through Congress and approved by GWB. It may be an endless money pit where huge amounts of taxpayer money just get thrown after one another.
I have to say I was dismayed when I heard Paulson (I hope I have his name correct) say at the beginning of the request for passage of the bill that he had 3 (count ’em 3!!) pages to present to Congress. I tho’t: Three pages!?! Should there not be maybe 300 pages on this topic? And worst of all Paulsen seemed to give the indication that he tho’t he had actually done his job with the 3 pages. (This “3 pages” also tells us something about GWB and what he expects in his briefings from his advisors.)
I then heard a female Dem Senator (forget from where) being interviewed on the economic crisis by a reporter who was anxiously asking: “What can be done about this crisis?” “What is can we do about this situation?” He sounded like he was almost hysterical; and I should say this reporter was normally a sensible guy. The woman Senator said, “well, the first thing you can do is take the anxiety out of your voice. You are not helping the situation by reporting with that tone of voice.” I wished I could have reached thru the TV and shook her hand. A voice of calm and sensi
Comment by MCS — October 7, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
Jim,
There is one point that really bothers me about this election year–Sarah Palin–and not for the reason you might suspect.
I was disappointed that Hillary did not get the Dem nomination. However, when McCain chose Palin for his running mate, it seemed somewhat of a “gotcha” toward the Dems, rather than a sincere choice of her as a running partner. I found his choice of her a little cynical. A kind of: You want a woman? I’ll give you a woman–young and oh, so cute and just the way men think women should be. In fact, I’ve been somewhat taken aback at some of the comments I’ve heard by some of the conservative pundits about Palin. One guy I heard actually said of Laura Bush and Sarah Palin at the Rep Convention–“for all you guys who are ‘leg men,’ they both have terrific legs.” What a comment! Hardly professional, hardly any consideration of whether she would be a suitable candidate for VP.
I also had the thought that if (and now it seems when) McCain loses, Sarah Palin will be yet another woman who cannot be elected to the office of VP. Ferrero (sp?) was a totally different story in that she was definitely qualified, yet I think at the time she ran for VP the country just would not accept a woman for such a high office. (I realize that was not the only reason the ticket lost then.) Now the country may consider a woman acceptable for office, but once again she may lose. And rightly so this time as I do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be VP. However, it goes down in history as yet another woman not being able to be elected to the “heartbeat away.”
Yet for Sarah Palin I think it is a win-win situation. She is getting national exposure she would never, ever have gotten any other way. She has been able to place herself in a high position in the Republican party, which may put her in line for a Congressional office from Alaska.
Frankly, with all the mud slinging going on; it is a wonder that both men do not heed the aphorism: People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
One thing that does bother me about McCain is that I wonder if he is still trying to psychologically win the Vietnam War with his insistance that we stay in Iraq for as long as it takes. (And it seems he never really says what it is that is involved in “as long as it takes.”) Trying to win the Vietnam War is just not going to happen. I’m terribly sorry for his sacrifices in that war; he did what few people would do for his country. The problem with that war is that there was no way we could win it. Yet because of the sacrifice that he and many of his friends put into it, he has difficulty accepting the fact that of the “un-winnability” of that war.
As to the economy: I wonder at this last bail out that was so quickly pushed through Congress and approved by GWB. It may be an endless money pit where huge amounts of taxpayer money just get thrown after one another.
I have to say I was dismayed when I heard Paulson (I hope I have his name correct) say at the beginning of the request for passage of the bill that he had 3 (count ’em 3!!) pages to present to Congress. I tho’t: Three pages!?! Should there not be maybe 300 pages on this topic? And worst of all Paulsen seemed to give the indication that he tho’t he had actually done his job with the 3 pages. (This “3 pages” also tells us something about GWB and what he expects in his briefings from his advisors.)
I then heard a female Dem Senator (forget from where) being interviewed on the economic crisis by a reporter who was anxiously asking: “What can be done about this crisis?” “What is can we do about this situation?” He sounded like he was almost hysterical; and I should say this reporter was normally a sensible guy. The woman Senator said, “well, the first thing you can do is take the anxiety out of your voice. You are not helping the situation by reporting with that tone of voice.” I wished I could have reached thru the TV and shook her hand. A voice of calm and sensibility–not many of them around.
One thing that does bother me about this economic situation is that it took WWII to bring the U.S. out of the depression of the 1930s. But in this situation we are already at war–and a war that we should never have gotten into in the first place. The implications here are not good.
I think the country is going to have a serious and long time getting out of this economic situation we are now in.
I see that the SEC is now being investigated. And incredibly, I have also heard financial experts say they themselves do not fully understand exactly what it is that some of these large companies dealing in real estate and even the credit market have done. The words “hanky panky” make what is currently going on and has gone on in the economy of this country sound like child’s play. A whole new word will have to be invented eventually to actually describe the machinations of the experts in finance who will turn out to be those responsible for this economic situation we are in. I also heard that these “finance experts” were hiring physicists to write the mathematical equations involved in some of these financial machinations! Physicists may know physics; but I doubt they know much about finance.
I think we have barely seen the tip of the iceberg of this financial situation that has destroyed or at least laid waste our economy; there is likely 100% of the iceberg we have no clue about yet.
MCS
Comment by MCS — October 7, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
Jim,
There is one point that really bothers me about this election year–Sarah Palin–and not for the reason you might suspect.
I was disappointed that Hillary did not get the Dem nomination. However, when McCain chose Palin for his running mate, it seemed somewhat of a “gotcha” toward the Dems, rather than a sincere choice of her as a running partner. I found his choice of her a little cynical. A kind of: You want a woman? I’ll give you a woman–young and oh, so cute and just the way men think women should be. In fact, I’ve been somewhat taken aback at some of the comments I’ve heard by some of the conservative pundits about Palin. One guy I heard actually said of Laura Bush and Sarah Palin at the Rep Convention–“for all you guys who are ‘leg men,’ they both have terrific legs.” What a comment! Hardly professional, hardly any consideration of whether she would be a suitable candidate for VP.
I also had the thought that if (and now it seems when) McCain loses, Sarah Palin will be yet another woman who cannot be elected to the office of VP. Ferrero (sp?) was a totally different story in that she was definitely qualified, yet I think at the time she ran for VP the country just would not accept a woman for such a high office. (I realize that was not the only reason the ticket lost then.) Now the country may consider a woman acceptable for office, but once again she may lose. And rightly so this time as I do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be VP. However, it goes down in history as yet another woman not being able to be elected to the “heartbeat away.”
Yet for Sarah Palin I think it is a win-win situation. She is getting national exposure she would never, ever have gotten any other way. She has been able to place herself in a high position in the Republican party, which may put her in line for a Congressional office from Alaska.
Frankly, with all the mud slinging going on; it is a wonder that both men do not heed the aphorism: People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
One thing that does bother me about McCain is that I wonder if he is still trying to psychologically win the Vietnam War with his insistance that we stay in Iraq for as long as it takes. (And it seems he never really says what it is that is involved in “as long as it takes.”) Trying to win the Vietnam War is just not going to happen. I’m terribly sorry for his sacrifices in that war; he did what few people would do for his country. The problem with that war is that there was no way we could win it. Yet because of the sacrifice that he and many of his friends put into it, he has difficulty accepting the fact that of the “un-winnability” of that war.
As to the economy: I wonder at this last bail out that was so quickly pushed through Congress and approved by GWB. It may be an endless money pit where huge amounts of taxpayer money just get thrown after one another.
I have to say I was dismayed when I heard Paulson (I hope I have his name correct) say at the beginning of the request for passage of the bill that he had 3 (count ’em 3!!) pages to present to Congress. I tho’t: Three pages!?! Should there not be maybe 300 pages on this topic? And worst of all Paulsen seemed to give the indication that he tho’t he had actually done his job with the 3 pages. (This “3 pages” also tells us something about GWB and what he expects in his briefings from his advisors.)
I then heard a female Dem Senator (forget from where) being interviewed on the economic crisis by a reporter who was anxiously asking: “What can be done about this crisis?” “What is can we do about this situation?” He sounded like he was almost hysterical; and I should say this reporter was normally a sensible guy. The woman Senator said, “well, the first thing you can do is take the anxiety out of your voice. You are not helping the situation by reporting with that tone of voice.” I wished I could have reached thru the TV and shook her hand. A voice of calm and sensi
Comment by MCS — October 7, 2008 @ 3:06 pm