Crystal balls are supposed to allow a viewer to gain an insight into the future. One allegedly can shake it up and glean information -- enough to shape behavior. Or so they say. I certainly do not believe such nonsense.
Conservatives of late have eagerly made predictions. Like oracles with crystal balls, they have issued dire warnings and prophesied tribulations. As time passed, however, the sky did not fall. Shaking of the earth was absent. Our financial system remained intact.
2014 must have been a disappointing year for those who exhorted gloom. Let's take a look at my favorite predictions gone wrong:
(1) ObamaCare will result in more people uninsured. During the debate of the Affordable Care Act, and actually up until today, despite positive numbers, opponents of health care reform have claimed that the law will result in a death spiral of coverage. It was said that no one would use the exchanges. In conjunction with the cancellation of illegal policies, more people would be without health insurance and out of luck. Not so. Tens of millions now have coverage.The uninsured rate in the country has gone down dramatically.
(2) Health care premiums will skyrocket because of Obamacare. Similar to the claims above, critics foresaw that premiums would increase substantially. Premiums rose only 2.8% nationally, which is much lower than the percentage increases years prior to the Affordable Care Act.
(3) Obama's economic policies will destroy the stock market. Matt O'Brien, a conservative pundit, opined that the market would crash due to President Obama. Quite the opposite has occurred. Both major indices, the DOW and S & P 500, have set records. For a Marxist, he should have to explain his economic track record.
(4) The President's war on coal and energy will mean astronomical gas prices. Perhaps no one saw this coming, but gas prices are extremely low -- with some parts of the country being able to purchase gasoline for under $2.00. While the causes vary, like the fact that global supply is up and global demand is low, the President's all-of-the-above energy policy has been helpful.
(5) The Affordable Care Act will make millions lose their jobs. 2014 was the best year of hiring since 1999. Unemployment is at 5.8% after the greatest recession since the Great Depression. No data suggests that individuals are losing their jobs because of ObamaCare. To the contrary, with more mobility, workers are now finding more fulfilling jobs.
(6) Hyperinflation is inevitable because of the Fed and Obama's monetary decisions. Inflation remains low despite quantitative easing and zero interest rates. Fiscal hawks in the GOP have cried foul but the Fed has not destroyed the dollar. Compared to other major currencies, the dollar's value has increased. Inflation cannot shoot up if there is insufficient demand, even if there is an increase in the money supply. Someone needs to teach that to our conservative representatives.
(7) Putin will outsmart Obama since he is a great leader. On Fox News, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani praised Putin for his leadership. Other conservatives discussed his masculinity and chess-like intellect. After Russia annexed Crimea and upset the sovereignty of Ukraine, the country is in free fall. The decreasing ruble has caused a run on banks and consumer goods. With an unbalanced national economy, gas prices have contributed to Russia's recession. And, western sanctions have resulted in deep pain to the economy. It appears that Putin was not so bright after all.
The new year is upon us. I won't make any predictions except this one: there will be more nonsense in 2015. It's time for the soothsayers to bring out their crystal balls. Let's toast to the hope that you will have better luck this year (not).
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Sunday, November 30, 2014
The Power of Love in Current Cinema
Enough with the politics -- or at least for this month. One of my other passions is the cinema. The large screen, surround sound, and popcorn, with butter (but not too much lest my fingers get greasy), are all comforting. It is a mini getaway where my wife and I can enjoy each others company and forget about work, and other obligations.
So far we have seen some good movies this year, including Interstellar, Fury, and Guardians of the Galaxy. A lot of action. Even more special effects than the year before. Topics have covered time manipulation, world wars, and comic book heroes. We also recently saw Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part I. It wasn't my favorite but I was touched by Philip Seymour Hoffman's last performance.
A common theme throughout a majority of the films that we have seen this year has been the capability of evil in mankind. Violence, pollution, and greed have been highlighted. Utopian societies with totalitarian leaders hungry for unlimited power is a favorite -- Divergent and Hunger Games.
There have been numerous films that are lighthearted. Do not get me wrong. Plenty of comedies and children-focused movies have graced the box office.
But of the top ten highest grossing films, eight have been about destruction. Moviegoers thirst for ruin. Godzilla grossed over 200 million. I forget how many cities were trampled upon.
Interstellar too, perhaps my favorite, was a perfect example of a world gone awry because of the actions of men. Earth was dying, because of the stewardship of humans, and the only hope to survive was Matthew McConaughey -- a resourceful astronaut and pilot. Even he was almost thwarted by a surprise actor who put his own interests ahead of the entire planet. One man nearly caused the extinction of man.
With every evil plot, there is the triumph of good men and women. Each movie that has shown great malevolence has also shown the powerful force of love. Take Interstellar, for example. The one constant motivation for the protagonist was the deep bond with his daughter. Similarly, Hunger Games, with its female protagonist, relies upon the personal affection that the character has with the other victors. The rebellion is collateral to her wanting to keep her family and friends safe.
Away from the theaters, we live in challenging times: civil war in a number of regions, Islamist terrorism in Iraq, divisive partisanship at home with biting disrespect. Film plays a part in our ability to deal with these negative stories bombarding our homes.
The movies also remind us of what is really important. Despite the wickedness in men, good will always prevail if we remember the golden rule. Strive to serve those around us no matter the cost. Be prepared to sacrifice your own interests if it will help those you love. As I sit next to my wife at the theatre, I am optimistic. The world can get ugly, but there is too much beauty in it to be afraid.
So far we have seen some good movies this year, including Interstellar, Fury, and Guardians of the Galaxy. A lot of action. Even more special effects than the year before. Topics have covered time manipulation, world wars, and comic book heroes. We also recently saw Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part I. It wasn't my favorite but I was touched by Philip Seymour Hoffman's last performance.
A common theme throughout a majority of the films that we have seen this year has been the capability of evil in mankind. Violence, pollution, and greed have been highlighted. Utopian societies with totalitarian leaders hungry for unlimited power is a favorite -- Divergent and Hunger Games.
There have been numerous films that are lighthearted. Do not get me wrong. Plenty of comedies and children-focused movies have graced the box office.
But of the top ten highest grossing films, eight have been about destruction. Moviegoers thirst for ruin. Godzilla grossed over 200 million. I forget how many cities were trampled upon.
Interstellar too, perhaps my favorite, was a perfect example of a world gone awry because of the actions of men. Earth was dying, because of the stewardship of humans, and the only hope to survive was Matthew McConaughey -- a resourceful astronaut and pilot. Even he was almost thwarted by a surprise actor who put his own interests ahead of the entire planet. One man nearly caused the extinction of man.
With every evil plot, there is the triumph of good men and women. Each movie that has shown great malevolence has also shown the powerful force of love. Take Interstellar, for example. The one constant motivation for the protagonist was the deep bond with his daughter. Similarly, Hunger Games, with its female protagonist, relies upon the personal affection that the character has with the other victors. The rebellion is collateral to her wanting to keep her family and friends safe.
Away from the theaters, we live in challenging times: civil war in a number of regions, Islamist terrorism in Iraq, divisive partisanship at home with biting disrespect. Film plays a part in our ability to deal with these negative stories bombarding our homes.
The movies also remind us of what is really important. Despite the wickedness in men, good will always prevail if we remember the golden rule. Strive to serve those around us no matter the cost. Be prepared to sacrifice your own interests if it will help those you love. As I sit next to my wife at the theatre, I am optimistic. The world can get ugly, but there is too much beauty in it to be afraid.
Friday, October 31, 2014
Will (or Can) the Republicans Govern?
Tuesday, November 4 is the date of the midterm elections. Unless you have tuned out and are unaware (like the majority of Americans), this vote is primarily about which political party will control the upper chamber of Congress. There are battleground states with close races. Come Tuesday we will know whether Mitch McConnell or Harry Reid is the senate majority leader.
Pundits, operatives, and politicians themselves have voiced their opinions about the importance of this election. Americans are not buying it, or at least they are not enthused. With record numbers of dissatisfaction, voters seem apathetic. Most cite gridlock and polarization for the cause of the discontent. They ask: does it really matter who wins control of the Senate?
The election will go on, however, and polls point to a Republican victory. "It is a good environment for the Republicans." The President is too unpopular to help the Democrats, it has been said. The wizards of statistics have generally agreed with these sentiments. Both FiveThirtyEight and the Princeton Election Consortium have given the advantage to Republican candidates in the battleground states, which are overwhelming located in the South and Midwest.
So more likely than not, we will have a Congress controlled by the Republicans, both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
What will they do with a majority? I am curious as to whether Republicans will be able to change their message and tone so quickly. Let us not forget that for years now they have been the opposition party. Instead of having to push forward legislation (which could make it to the floor for a vote), the dissenters have been able to criticize, and object. It's been the case that Republicans have been more focused on pointing out President Obama's "failures" than offering policy changes.
Indeed, even this election reflects the "attitudes" of the political atmosphere, rather than any substantive legislative proposals. "President Obama has been weak on Ebola." Even though there have been only a handful of confirmed cases of Ebola. "President Obama has failed on the economy." Despite the fact that their has been 56 months of job creation, and corporate earnings have been astronomical. "President Obama is weak on national security." Though there has been no outright terrorist attacks on our homeland."ObamaCare needs to be replaced!" By what, who knows.
Optics are important, yet it should not be the main concern of voters. Can Republicans govern, and put aside the rhetoric? With their likely new found majority, will they pass bills for the President to sign?
The statisticians should do some numbers on that question. Republicans favor less regulation (specifics?), low taxation on top rates (didn't work so well in Kansas), and less government spending (deficit to GDP ratio is historically low). It's unlikely that these goals will be signed off by the President. Not only on political grounds, but on the fact that these policies do not have a great track record.
Socially, Republicans are also going to face public opposition. On marriage equality, a woman's right to choose, and other "moral" issues, they advocate a position in conflict with a majority of Americans.
The Republicans will likely win on Tuesday, but they may not be ready for the win. Accustomed to their method of disapproval, legislators will have to change course: offer ideas, pass laws, and govern. It will be interesting to see what they will do once in the driver's seat. For the rest of us, let's remember to put on our seat belts. It could be a bumpy ride.
Pundits, operatives, and politicians themselves have voiced their opinions about the importance of this election. Americans are not buying it, or at least they are not enthused. With record numbers of dissatisfaction, voters seem apathetic. Most cite gridlock and polarization for the cause of the discontent. They ask: does it really matter who wins control of the Senate?
The election will go on, however, and polls point to a Republican victory. "It is a good environment for the Republicans." The President is too unpopular to help the Democrats, it has been said. The wizards of statistics have generally agreed with these sentiments. Both FiveThirtyEight and the Princeton Election Consortium have given the advantage to Republican candidates in the battleground states, which are overwhelming located in the South and Midwest.
So more likely than not, we will have a Congress controlled by the Republicans, both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
What will they do with a majority? I am curious as to whether Republicans will be able to change their message and tone so quickly. Let us not forget that for years now they have been the opposition party. Instead of having to push forward legislation (which could make it to the floor for a vote), the dissenters have been able to criticize, and object. It's been the case that Republicans have been more focused on pointing out President Obama's "failures" than offering policy changes.
Indeed, even this election reflects the "attitudes" of the political atmosphere, rather than any substantive legislative proposals. "President Obama has been weak on Ebola." Even though there have been only a handful of confirmed cases of Ebola. "President Obama has failed on the economy." Despite the fact that their has been 56 months of job creation, and corporate earnings have been astronomical. "President Obama is weak on national security." Though there has been no outright terrorist attacks on our homeland."ObamaCare needs to be replaced!" By what, who knows.
Optics are important, yet it should not be the main concern of voters. Can Republicans govern, and put aside the rhetoric? With their likely new found majority, will they pass bills for the President to sign?
The statisticians should do some numbers on that question. Republicans favor less regulation (specifics?), low taxation on top rates (didn't work so well in Kansas), and less government spending (deficit to GDP ratio is historically low). It's unlikely that these goals will be signed off by the President. Not only on political grounds, but on the fact that these policies do not have a great track record.
Socially, Republicans are also going to face public opposition. On marriage equality, a woman's right to choose, and other "moral" issues, they advocate a position in conflict with a majority of Americans.
The Republicans will likely win on Tuesday, but they may not be ready for the win. Accustomed to their method of disapproval, legislators will have to change course: offer ideas, pass laws, and govern. It will be interesting to see what they will do once in the driver's seat. For the rest of us, let's remember to put on our seat belts. It could be a bumpy ride.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Vote Your Interest
The election is not too far off now. Thank goodness. There will be less emails I am sure, or hope. Candidates will stop vying for attention, so we will see less gaffes. And our country will finally be done with political theatre -- at least until January, when the 2016 presidential campaigns will start.
Midterms, as I previously wrote about, are more of a headache than chance to voice our opinions about the best way forward for the country. Yes, it sounds apathetic. Indifference may be the only defense mechanism left for dealing with the political realities of today.
Take a look at the facts. Policies are not shaped by the will of the people. They are shaped by those affluent companies who can spend and lobby. Princeton and Harvard professors Gilens and Page stated in their study that: "[t]he estimated impact of average citizens’ preferences drops precipitously, to a non-significant, near-zero level..." Near zero? So you're saying that we (average citizens) have a chance!
Well, who cares about policy anyway. As long as we have the ability to earn and live our lives in peace.
As it turns out though, incomes are stagnant and even dropping. Economic growth is not widely shared as it once was. In fact, the numbers are bleak. Goldman Sachs' CEO even opined that income inequality is "destabilizing."
Americans should be aware of this phenomenon but it does not appear that they understand the depth of the problem. A recent survey showed that Americans think that the pay ratio between worker and CEO in the United States is 30:1. In reality, the ratio is 354:1 -- the highest of any country. Denmark's ratio: 48:1; and Japan's pay ratio is 67:1.
The CEO has much responsibility, and should be fairly compensated, but it is difficult to find a rational argument that 354:1 bears any resemblance of true marginal utility.
There has been a recent campaign to raise the minimum wage, but those pesky firms with deep pockets have lobbied against it. Share buybacks and dividend increases to shareholders are much more important than a wage increase.
But, Chris... you are not focusing on the aspect of opportunity some will counter. Instead of playing the politics of envy, should you not focus on making sure every person has a chance. Stop attacking those that have done well for themselves.
I am happy that you brought that up hypothetical devil's advocate, so I can engage in a dialectic. The truth of the matter is that average citizens are also losing opportunity. One has a better chance of moving up the income ladder in a monarchy (United Kingdom) than they do in the United States. Now more than ever, if you are born low-income, you will stay low-income.
All the gloom mentioned above is for a point. Despite these economic truths, we should fight apathy and indifference. The midterms do mean something, because it is our constitution coming alive. We, average citizens, can try to change the country with our vote.
One request though. Before you vote, ask yourself the question: who shares my true interests? Is it the candidate who is backed by one or two wealthy donors.
If we truly want the American Dream to be available for those in the future, we need to put aside our feelings of languor. Make your vote count and let your voice be heard.
Midterms, as I previously wrote about, are more of a headache than chance to voice our opinions about the best way forward for the country. Yes, it sounds apathetic. Indifference may be the only defense mechanism left for dealing with the political realities of today.
Take a look at the facts. Policies are not shaped by the will of the people. They are shaped by those affluent companies who can spend and lobby. Princeton and Harvard professors Gilens and Page stated in their study that: "[t]he estimated impact of average citizens’ preferences drops precipitously, to a non-significant, near-zero level..." Near zero? So you're saying that we (average citizens) have a chance!
Well, who cares about policy anyway. As long as we have the ability to earn and live our lives in peace.
As it turns out though, incomes are stagnant and even dropping. Economic growth is not widely shared as it once was. In fact, the numbers are bleak. Goldman Sachs' CEO even opined that income inequality is "destabilizing."
Americans should be aware of this phenomenon but it does not appear that they understand the depth of the problem. A recent survey showed that Americans think that the pay ratio between worker and CEO in the United States is 30:1. In reality, the ratio is 354:1 -- the highest of any country. Denmark's ratio: 48:1; and Japan's pay ratio is 67:1.
The CEO has much responsibility, and should be fairly compensated, but it is difficult to find a rational argument that 354:1 bears any resemblance of true marginal utility.
There has been a recent campaign to raise the minimum wage, but those pesky firms with deep pockets have lobbied against it. Share buybacks and dividend increases to shareholders are much more important than a wage increase.
But, Chris... you are not focusing on the aspect of opportunity some will counter. Instead of playing the politics of envy, should you not focus on making sure every person has a chance. Stop attacking those that have done well for themselves.
I am happy that you brought that up hypothetical devil's advocate, so I can engage in a dialectic. The truth of the matter is that average citizens are also losing opportunity. One has a better chance of moving up the income ladder in a monarchy (United Kingdom) than they do in the United States. Now more than ever, if you are born low-income, you will stay low-income.
All the gloom mentioned above is for a point. Despite these economic truths, we should fight apathy and indifference. The midterms do mean something, because it is our constitution coming alive. We, average citizens, can try to change the country with our vote.
One request though. Before you vote, ask yourself the question: who shares my true interests? Is it the candidate who is backed by one or two wealthy donors.
If we truly want the American Dream to be available for those in the future, we need to put aside our feelings of languor. Make your vote count and let your voice be heard.
Saturday, August 30, 2014
American Foreign Policy: Longing for Simplicity
When it comes to foreign policy, Americans must be confused. Exhausted from a decade of war in far away places, it appeared that public opinion favored less military engagement abroad. However, a recent Pew / USA Today poll puts that assumption to the test. A larger percent of individuals now, 31 percent, think that the United States is not doing enough overseas.
What has caused such a large number of citizens to become more hawkish? It certainly cannot be the tan suit that President Obama wore, which drew a stir of controversy on the Twittersphere. Perhaps it is the turmoil in multiple regions that has caused some anxiety. Truly, the world is a mess right now.
Civil war in Ukraine, Russian aggression, Israel and Hamas, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, are all conflicts; the bloodshed and turmoil is palpable.
The coverage of such events put to question America's role in foreign affairs. What should be America's role? And is President Obama implementing the right responses to such crises?
If you were to ask a Republican legislator, the answer would be: more involvement, and Obama is a failure. More specifically, the talking point oft quoted is that "Obama conveys weakness." Neocons, the advocates of the Bush II Iraq campaign, are enraged that we have not bombed Syria, invaded northern Iraq, and implemented a no-fly zone in Libya. They want harsh talk. They desire more "action."
Criticism is much easier than governing and policy-making. When pushed on follow-ups, the criticizers are usually short on strategy.
The Blame-Obama crowd offer no real alternatives or sound advice. They agree that ground troops should not be used in most conflicts. They even concede that an outright war with Russia over territorial disputes in Ukraine would be foolish. Much of the concern lies with the Administration's timing, optics, and proportionality -- more weapons should have been given to militant groups in Syria (like that worked so well in Afghanistan).
The world is a complex place, with complicated people inhabiting it. While the campaigners yell and scream about foreign policy negligence, evil men and women will continue to kill. A Republican in the White House would not change that.
Given the sociological and anthropological realities, i.e. that we can expect war, conflict, and bloodshed, let me answer the two questions that were posed earlier.
America's role should be the same as it was in the Twentieth Century: a beacon of hope, a template for how the rule of law should be supreme. When possible the United States should exert its strong influence by political, economic, and diplomatic means. The pen is mightier than the sword. It is possible that persuasion and diplomacy could thwart unnecessary war.
Further, America should recognize that other sovereign countries are in charge of their own fates. Yes, we can support and counsel, but ultimately it is impracticable to think that we can intervene in every unjust situation.
Finally, if we do use our superior military, it should be with a clear plan -- a long-term viable strategy. President Bush invaded Iraq but he did not think of the consequences of disrupting an explosive ethnic and political struggle. The Shias and Sunnis need to find a way to govern with an understanding of pluralism.
President Obama has used restraint and I admire that. The easiest thing is not always the right thing. As Commander-in-Chief, he could initiate another war without question. It certainly would be politically beneficial. However, it may not be in the United States' long-term interest.
Is Obama responding appropriately to the different hostilities abroad? For the most part, but he should definitely stop wearing the tan suit. Like they said on Twitter: he is not the President of Sears.
What has caused such a large number of citizens to become more hawkish? It certainly cannot be the tan suit that President Obama wore, which drew a stir of controversy on the Twittersphere. Perhaps it is the turmoil in multiple regions that has caused some anxiety. Truly, the world is a mess right now.
Civil war in Ukraine, Russian aggression, Israel and Hamas, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, are all conflicts; the bloodshed and turmoil is palpable.
The coverage of such events put to question America's role in foreign affairs. What should be America's role? And is President Obama implementing the right responses to such crises?
If you were to ask a Republican legislator, the answer would be: more involvement, and Obama is a failure. More specifically, the talking point oft quoted is that "Obama conveys weakness." Neocons, the advocates of the Bush II Iraq campaign, are enraged that we have not bombed Syria, invaded northern Iraq, and implemented a no-fly zone in Libya. They want harsh talk. They desire more "action."
Criticism is much easier than governing and policy-making. When pushed on follow-ups, the criticizers are usually short on strategy.
The Blame-Obama crowd offer no real alternatives or sound advice. They agree that ground troops should not be used in most conflicts. They even concede that an outright war with Russia over territorial disputes in Ukraine would be foolish. Much of the concern lies with the Administration's timing, optics, and proportionality -- more weapons should have been given to militant groups in Syria (like that worked so well in Afghanistan).
The world is a complex place, with complicated people inhabiting it. While the campaigners yell and scream about foreign policy negligence, evil men and women will continue to kill. A Republican in the White House would not change that.
Given the sociological and anthropological realities, i.e. that we can expect war, conflict, and bloodshed, let me answer the two questions that were posed earlier.
America's role should be the same as it was in the Twentieth Century: a beacon of hope, a template for how the rule of law should be supreme. When possible the United States should exert its strong influence by political, economic, and diplomatic means. The pen is mightier than the sword. It is possible that persuasion and diplomacy could thwart unnecessary war.
Further, America should recognize that other sovereign countries are in charge of their own fates. Yes, we can support and counsel, but ultimately it is impracticable to think that we can intervene in every unjust situation.
Finally, if we do use our superior military, it should be with a clear plan -- a long-term viable strategy. President Bush invaded Iraq but he did not think of the consequences of disrupting an explosive ethnic and political struggle. The Shias and Sunnis need to find a way to govern with an understanding of pluralism.
President Obama has used restraint and I admire that. The easiest thing is not always the right thing. As Commander-in-Chief, he could initiate another war without question. It certainly would be politically beneficial. However, it may not be in the United States' long-term interest.
Is Obama responding appropriately to the different hostilities abroad? For the most part, but he should definitely stop wearing the tan suit. Like they said on Twitter: he is not the President of Sears.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Numbers Don't Lie, Ignore the Scoreboard
Oh, math. Perhaps one of the most disdained subjects in school, but anyone in existence knows of its importance. Math is incorporated in our everyday lives. As the wise Jay-z once stated, "numbers don't lie." It's common knowledge, however, the same cannot be said of politics.
Policy should be shaped by the data -- the indisputable numbers. But, I can't remember the last time when that has been the case. Ideologues, on both sides of the spectrum -- let's be honest though, more so the Republicans -- have found a way to mislead and confuse. Conclusions are always up to debate. The truth is always relative, no matter what the experts say. And even if partisans are confronted with the truth, it doesn't seem to matter.
That is why I was not surprised when I read a study conducted by University of Michigan political scientists. They found that evidence contrary to a held position does nothing to change the opinion of the belief-holder. In fact, the belief-holders grew more adamant in their false beliefs! Brendan Nyhan summarized it as follows: "the general idea is that it's absolutely threatening to admit you're wrong...the phenomenon -- known as 'backfire' -- is a 'natural defense to avoid ... cognitive dissonance.'"
Okay, so we already knew that no one "likes" to be wrong. What's the problem though with admitting that you're wrong, when shown concrete conflicting evidence? I ask, because as you can probably guess, some matters of policy should not be open to much debate.
I preface my comments with the fact that people should not be ridiculed or mocked. Conservatives have rightly condemned the left (some in the cable news business exaggerate) at times for "elitism." Nonetheless, liberals should not concede on the facts.
Republicans still assert a few claims that I find disturbing. "The stimulus did not work." Actually it did, and economists, both conservative and liberal, agree that it prevented another great depression. So can the talking points stop?
Here's another one: "tax cuts on the 'job creators' will boost the economy and the tax cuts will pay for itself." No, not so much in reality. As I pointed out in an earlier blog entry, Kansas attempted to experiment with trickle-down policies and it failed. California raised taxes and the economy grew. When will the voodoo economics stop?
Let's take the controversial, and widely misunderstood, ObamaCare. "No one will sign up," and "premiums will rise exponentially." Both wrong. You may have read -- or probably did not read because of the media coverage -- that over 8 million signed up the first year. The uninsured rate is dropping fast, and even more fast in states that expanded Medicaid. And what about premiums... Yep, you guessed it: California premiums are expected to rise modestly, much lower than the average rate of growth over recent years. Other states are showing the same data.
I won't even opine about climate change. I'll spare you the "activist rhetoric."
If you are one of my conservative friends, odds are that you will likely dismiss these citations and evidence. That's too bad. I'm definitely not saying that my positions are always right. Yet, there needs to be an opposition that can accept these facts. One can still hold conservative beliefs and still accept the evidence.
In this age of polarization, I doubt anything will be agreed upon, It's too damaging politically. Well, maybe one thing can be agreed upon; The scoreboard isn't everything, it's all about how the scoreboard looks.
Policy should be shaped by the data -- the indisputable numbers. But, I can't remember the last time when that has been the case. Ideologues, on both sides of the spectrum -- let's be honest though, more so the Republicans -- have found a way to mislead and confuse. Conclusions are always up to debate. The truth is always relative, no matter what the experts say. And even if partisans are confronted with the truth, it doesn't seem to matter.
That is why I was not surprised when I read a study conducted by University of Michigan political scientists. They found that evidence contrary to a held position does nothing to change the opinion of the belief-holder. In fact, the belief-holders grew more adamant in their false beliefs! Brendan Nyhan summarized it as follows: "the general idea is that it's absolutely threatening to admit you're wrong...the phenomenon -- known as 'backfire' -- is a 'natural defense to avoid ... cognitive dissonance.'"
Okay, so we already knew that no one "likes" to be wrong. What's the problem though with admitting that you're wrong, when shown concrete conflicting evidence? I ask, because as you can probably guess, some matters of policy should not be open to much debate.
I preface my comments with the fact that people should not be ridiculed or mocked. Conservatives have rightly condemned the left (some in the cable news business exaggerate) at times for "elitism." Nonetheless, liberals should not concede on the facts.
Republicans still assert a few claims that I find disturbing. "The stimulus did not work." Actually it did, and economists, both conservative and liberal, agree that it prevented another great depression. So can the talking points stop?
Here's another one: "tax cuts on the 'job creators' will boost the economy and the tax cuts will pay for itself." No, not so much in reality. As I pointed out in an earlier blog entry, Kansas attempted to experiment with trickle-down policies and it failed. California raised taxes and the economy grew. When will the voodoo economics stop?
Let's take the controversial, and widely misunderstood, ObamaCare. "No one will sign up," and "premiums will rise exponentially." Both wrong. You may have read -- or probably did not read because of the media coverage -- that over 8 million signed up the first year. The uninsured rate is dropping fast, and even more fast in states that expanded Medicaid. And what about premiums... Yep, you guessed it: California premiums are expected to rise modestly, much lower than the average rate of growth over recent years. Other states are showing the same data.
I won't even opine about climate change. I'll spare you the "activist rhetoric."
If you are one of my conservative friends, odds are that you will likely dismiss these citations and evidence. That's too bad. I'm definitely not saying that my positions are always right. Yet, there needs to be an opposition that can accept these facts. One can still hold conservative beliefs and still accept the evidence.
In this age of polarization, I doubt anything will be agreed upon, It's too damaging politically. Well, maybe one thing can be agreed upon; The scoreboard isn't everything, it's all about how the scoreboard looks.
The
general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re
wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on
the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural
defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.” - See more at:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/#sthash.BlQmmnVn.dpuf
The
general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re
wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on
the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural
defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.” - See more at:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/#sthash.BlQmmnVn.dpuf
“The
general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re
wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on
the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural
defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.” - See more at:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/#sthash.BlQmmnVn.dpuf
“The
general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re
wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on
the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural
defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.” - See more at:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/#sthash.BlQmmnVn.dpuf
Monday, June 30, 2014
To Sue or Not to Sue, That is the (Politically Driven) Question
Hamlet is one of my favorite Shakespearean plays. It is a tragedy that ends in the demise of almost all the characters, but it addresses a range of deep themes and motifs. One such theme is inaction. Enter Speaker of The House, John Boehner.
Recently, Speaker Boehner announced that he was considering a lawsuit against President Obama. Yes, I'm serious (he has some time on his hands). In a press conference, Boehner bemoaned the executive actions of the President, but when he spoke, he failed to mention any particular violations with specificity. Despite this oversight, he was indignantly confident that Obama was failing to execute the laws of the land. Ergo a lawsuit is required; the king must be stopped in his tracks.
The media loved the drama of course -- being more akin to a reality show than an actual policy question.
But, in reality, it is quite sad that our conservative leaders have decided that this is the best course of action for our country. Instead of introducing any bipartisan (bills devoid of poison pills, i.e. amendments to repeal Obamacare, EPA requirements, and food stamps) legislation or allowing Senate-passed bills to come to the House floor, Boehner has elected for litigation.
There is a hint of bad faith here. The Republicans in Congress have refused to entertain any compromise whatsoever. It is a bad word -- and can hurt them in the primaries. Thus, it is in their interest to block, obfuscate, delay, filibuster, and complain. The added benefit is that it undermines the public's opinion about the federal government.
When you run on a platform that all government is bad, it is in your interest to clog any federal action. Not only does it stop the federal government from accomplishing anything, it harms the people's faith in public institutions. Private corporations and states get to fill the void -- just as they wanted and advocated for.
Moreover, the GOP's reasoning has been unsound on this issue. When Boehner said that he did not want to embrace comprehensive immigration reform, he cited the lack of faith that he had in the President to execute the law. Senate Schumer cleverly and quickly retorted that they could approve immigration reform now, but delay its implementation until after President Obama's second term. Boehner declined. He did not provide a justification.
Just like Hamlet, Boehner is plagued by his inability to act. He cannot control his conference. He is unable to pass anything at all -- although resolutions, symbolic gestures, are now popular. Further, Boehner cannot formulate a winning strategy for Republicans in Congress. In the end, he will end up hurting the party -- like when Hamlet stabbed himself with his own poisoned-laced blade.
You see, Americans are smart enough to figure out that intransigence is not beneficial for the country. To the contrary, if we do not compromise, we will fall behind the rest of the world. People, independents and moderates, will eventually see what the lawsuit is all about: faux outrage to get the die-hard conservatives to the polls.
There is truly something rotten in the United States. And I fear that lest we do something about it, it could end up bad for all of us. Certainly, that would be a tragedy.
Recently, Speaker Boehner announced that he was considering a lawsuit against President Obama. Yes, I'm serious (he has some time on his hands). In a press conference, Boehner bemoaned the executive actions of the President, but when he spoke, he failed to mention any particular violations with specificity. Despite this oversight, he was indignantly confident that Obama was failing to execute the laws of the land. Ergo a lawsuit is required; the king must be stopped in his tracks.
The media loved the drama of course -- being more akin to a reality show than an actual policy question.
But, in reality, it is quite sad that our conservative leaders have decided that this is the best course of action for our country. Instead of introducing any bipartisan (bills devoid of poison pills, i.e. amendments to repeal Obamacare, EPA requirements, and food stamps) legislation or allowing Senate-passed bills to come to the House floor, Boehner has elected for litigation.
There is a hint of bad faith here. The Republicans in Congress have refused to entertain any compromise whatsoever. It is a bad word -- and can hurt them in the primaries. Thus, it is in their interest to block, obfuscate, delay, filibuster, and complain. The added benefit is that it undermines the public's opinion about the federal government.
When you run on a platform that all government is bad, it is in your interest to clog any federal action. Not only does it stop the federal government from accomplishing anything, it harms the people's faith in public institutions. Private corporations and states get to fill the void -- just as they wanted and advocated for.
Moreover, the GOP's reasoning has been unsound on this issue. When Boehner said that he did not want to embrace comprehensive immigration reform, he cited the lack of faith that he had in the President to execute the law. Senate Schumer cleverly and quickly retorted that they could approve immigration reform now, but delay its implementation until after President Obama's second term. Boehner declined. He did not provide a justification.
Just like Hamlet, Boehner is plagued by his inability to act. He cannot control his conference. He is unable to pass anything at all -- although resolutions, symbolic gestures, are now popular. Further, Boehner cannot formulate a winning strategy for Republicans in Congress. In the end, he will end up hurting the party -- like when Hamlet stabbed himself with his own poisoned-laced blade.
You see, Americans are smart enough to figure out that intransigence is not beneficial for the country. To the contrary, if we do not compromise, we will fall behind the rest of the world. People, independents and moderates, will eventually see what the lawsuit is all about: faux outrage to get the die-hard conservatives to the polls.
There is truly something rotten in the United States. And I fear that lest we do something about it, it could end up bad for all of us. Certainly, that would be a tragedy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)