- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
- Jan 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Feb 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–29
- Mar 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Apr 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–30
- May 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Jun 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- Jul 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Aug 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30 31
- Sep 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–30
- Oct 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Nov 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- Dec 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Obama's Problem
Posted by on 3.22.08 @ 11:42AM
I had a very positive reaction to Obama's race speech, somewhere in the ballpark of Charles Murray's. A few days later, though, I don't think it really solved his Rev. Wright problem.
Consider the widespread handwringing over this controversial YouTube video, the one that got Soren Dayton suspended from the McCain campaign when he included in his Twitter feed. The editing tics are annoying, and the 60s timewarp images are unnecessary. It makes sense for the McCain campaign to keep this kind of stuff at arms length.
But treating it like it's irredeemably racist and beyond the pale is a pretty over-the-top reaction -- and it seems to be a surprisingly common one. What exactly is so unconvincing about the creator's statement that the video isn't meant to portray Obama as a "scary black man?" It portrays him as unpatriotic, and places him in a tradition of black nationalist radicalism. It may be an unfair critique -- Obama's speech made clear that he has a nuanced view of race that's different from Jeremiah Wright's (though I'm not so sure that gets him off the hook for indulging Wright and his church). But it's hardly the same thing as portraying him as a crack-addled mugger.
But Democratic superdelegates probably think that it is the same thing. If it sends them into a panic that the evil racist Republicans are going to steamroll Obama with evil racist attacks, that gives Hillary a leg up, doesn't it?
Friday, March 21, 2008
WSJ Gets Smart
Posted by on 3.21.08 @ 3:43PM
In one of the most important columns of the year thus far, the Wall Street Journal allows film critic Kyle Smith to pay homage to Maxwell Smart. I applaud Smith heartily. Much to my wife's puzzlement, I have always insisted that "Get Smart" was one of the greatest shows in TV history. Now I have validation!
Okay, would you believe one of the most important comedies ofthe 1960s? No? Would you believe it had an episode one time that made somebody laugh?
Okay, okay, that's the second worst approximation of a Smart routine anybody has ever tried. Sorry about that, chief. I just got carried away with the old dumb joke in the blog trick.
Stacy McCain Haunted By My Column
Posted by on 3.21.08 @ 2:49PM
The irrepressible Robert Stacy McCain must be eager to get into an argument with someone, since he is arguing with me about things I haven't said. He objects to my writing that Republicans have been "haunted" by Willie Horton for a generation, saying that the ad was legitimate, George H.W. Bush won the 1988 presidential election, and 1988 wasn't a generation ago.
Well. In geneaology, a generation actually can be as little as a 20-year interval, though given the age at which American women tend to have children, an average of 25 years normally applies. This is the only word I used that McCain decided to interpret literally. The rest he gives his own special interpretation.
I never argued that the Horton issue was illegitimate. I lived in Massachusetts under Michael Dukakis and am familiar with the facts of the case, the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune's award-winning coverage, and Al Gore's role in making it an '88 campaign issue. I do believe that the controversy surrounding the ads made Republicans more nervous about touching issues that can lead to charges of racism, even though Bush won the 1988 election. And I'm fairly sure that John McCain doesn't want a Willie Horton controversy. You can call that "haunted" or use another word if you prefer.
Nowhere do I defend or take any position on Soren Dayton's suspension. I only speculate as to why the campaign felt the need to suspend him. I don't defend the video in its entirety because it includes random images of what are supposed to be scary black people, muddling its legitimate criticisms of Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright with Public Enemy and black power salutes. But I note in the column that it was independently produced, as were the Horton ads.
Finally, the column is largely about (John) McCain's squeamishness in trying to do to Obama what George Bush did to Dukakis: "McGovernize him in the eyes of Middle America." It's an analysis piece, not news reporting. But (Stacy) McCain can click through to the links and re-read the news stories if that's not something he cares about.
And, no I'm not a big fan of (John) McCain, much less an unpaid adviser. My buddy (Stacy) McCain seems more interested in picking a fight than comprehending what I wrote. But at least he spelled my name right.
McCain's Gain
Posted by on 3.21.08 @ 1:29PM
We're starting to get some polling showing that John McCain is benefiting from Democratic infighting, as well as the Jeremiah Wright controversy.
Jake Tapper reports on the new Franklin and Marshall poll in Pennsylvania, which has Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama by 17, but contains bad news for both Democrats in the general:
Sixty percent of Obama voters say they'll go for Clinton should she win the nomination, with 20% opting for McCain, and three percent saying they won't vote.
In Alabama, Obama had been down 14 to McCain. Now he's down 27.
In Minnesota, Obama has gone from up 7 to down by 1 percent.
In Wisconsin, he's gone from up 11 to up by 4 percent.
In California, Obama's lead actually increased by 3 percent (to 14), but here's the biggest shocker. In Massachusetts � the state of John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, Barney Frank, etc. � Obama's gone from up 7 to a TIE.
Yes, we have a long way to go until November. Economic uncertainty coupled with Democratic money and organizational advantages still bode well for Democrats. But it's an utter marvel to watch the party do everything it can to self destruct. Coming into this year, the election was supposed to be a layup for Democrats. Yet now they are in a position in which either they nominate Obama, who is looking more and more beatable, or Clinton, who could only win the nomination in a way that would alienate a sizable portion of the Democratic electorate.
Re: Charles Murray
Posted by on 3.21.08 @ 12:01PM
Jim, I agree with a lot of what Murray wrote too, however, I refuse to let Obama off the hook by forgetting why he was forced to make such a speech in the first place. Many of its boosters claim that those of us who are still focused on the Jeremiah Wright issue are missing the bigger picture and minimizing the historical importance of the speech. To them, we're being petty and small-minded. But the racist and anti-American comments by his spiritual mentor are a legitimate issue, especially given the fact that Obama has such a thin public record. The speech may have been a great sociology lecture, but it was a grand diversion.
Bill Richardson To Endorse Obama
Posted by on 3.21.08 @ 11:37AM
This endorsement shouldn't come as a shock. Ever since Richardson caucus goers defected to Barack Obama in Iowa, it was pretty clear to me that this day would come at some point. The Richardson endorsement represents another experienced old hand in the Democratic Party getting behind Obama, suggests he thinks Obama is the likely winner, and is a possible preview of the general election ticket. But I think the timing of the announcement means that it will get lost in the shuffle. Had he endorsed Obama before Ohio and Texas, it may have had more impact by adding to the "Democrats rallying around Obama" narrative, and may have helped in Texas among hispanic voters. But at this point, I'm not sure it's such a huge deal. More here.
Clinton Spokesman Says Obama In Hot Water
Posted by on 3.21.08 @ 11:28AM
On a just completed conference call, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton said the Barack Obama campaign was getting desperate.
"At this point, it is no secret that the Obama campaign is in political hot water, given the news stories of the past couple of weeks, and is basically desperate to change the subject," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.
He chastised the Obama campaign for its efforts to "disenfranchise voters" in Florida and Michigan, "peddle photos with President Clinton shaking hands with Rev. Wright, less than 48 hours after calling for a high-minded conversation on race," and launch an "assault on (Hillary Clinton's) ethics."
"It's not a pretty site," Singer lamented. "He calls for high-minded debates, while practicing low down politics."
One aspect of the call that I found ironic was that Singer argued that by not supporting a way to count the votes in Florida and Michigan, the Obama campaign is "trying to advance strategy that will get Sen. Obama the nomination, but cost Democrats the general election."
Jeremy Lott, Meet Charles Murray
Posted by on 3.21.08 @ 11:20AM
Charles Murray offers a longer version of his thoughts on Barack Obama's speech. My reaction is not as unambiguously favorable as his, but I think Murray gets quite a lot right here.
Krugman's Depression
Posted by on 3.21.08 @ 10:00AM
Paul Krugman, not surprisingly, compares the current financial crisis to the Great Depression. Gosh, if I had a dime for every time a liberal commentator invokes the Depression, I could probably afford Bear Stearns myself. Krugman perpetuates the canard that the "banking crisis of the 1930s showed that unregulated, unsupervised financial markets can all too easily suffer catastrophic failure" and that's what turned an ordinary recession into a Depression. But in reality, what worsened and prolonged the Depression was government interference in the economy through regulation, protectionist trade policies, higher taxes, and mismanagement by a Federal Reserve Board that actually contracted the money supply in the early years of the crisis (see Milton Friedman's Monetary History of the United States and Amity Shlaes's The Forgotten Man for more). With all of that said, as I wrote on Tuesday, the fact that the Fed rescued Bear Stearns ultimately with taxpayer money, makes it easier for Krugman to argue that we need preemptive regulations.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Debating Obama
Posted by on 3.20.08 @ 6:03PM
I was on BBC World Service's Newshour this afternoon debating Barack Obama's race speech with David Corn of Mother Jones. Corn was a bigger fan. Audio here.
Joe to the Rescue
Posted by on 3.20.08 @ 5:08PM
The Associated Press is reporting that Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman has sent a letter to the IRS questioning the IRS investigation of the United Church of Christ's decision to invite Barack Obama to its 2007 General Synod. Lieberman says he is "concerned about the chilling effect on legitimate activity by religious organizations." The UCC's General Synod took place last year in Hartford, Conn.
Has Hillary Been Reading TAS?
Posted by on 3.20.08 @ 4:31PM
In my Tuesday column on the Fed's bailout of Bear Stears, I noted that "The Fed's actions will also give advocates of big government another argument to use against free marketers...if we'll spend billions of dollars to save wealthy bankers, why can't we afford to take care of average families?"
Sure enough, the Clinton campaign just sent out a press release calling for another stimulus package:
Do the so-called free marketers who approved of the Fed bailout have any credibility in criticizing those proposals?
Who's In First?
Posted by on 3.20.08 @ 2:29PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If the Democrats manage to blow this election, they ought to consider disbanding as a political party.
It's Opposite Day, Right?
Posted by on 3.20.08 @ 12:05PM
That Barack Obama piece by yours truly over on the Spectator main page was inspired by Jonathan Chait's famous feature article "The Case for Bush Hatred." I set out to do the exact opposite of what Chait had done, in terms of style, length, and intent. His piece concluded, "There. That feels better." Mine: "I'm mad as hell that I'm not mad as hell about that."
Wright And Obama's Foreign Policy
Posted by on 3.20.08 @ 11:43AM
What's most disturbing to me about Barack Obama's close relationship with Jeremiah Wright is what it suggests about how he would make decisions on crucial foreign policy matters.
In his speech, Obama argued that while he in no way excuses any of Wright's offensive statements, it is important to view them in the larger context of a black community that has suffered from oppression in America. But it's quite easy to see how Obama could translate this type of attitude to international affairs.
On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for instance, Obama has already declared that "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people." Given his attitude toward Wright, it's quite likely he's of the mindset that Palestinian terrorism has to be viewed within the prism of the suffering of the population. And if he's willing to embrace Wright, warts and all, is it that far off to wonder if he'd at least be willing to view the likes of Hamas in a more favorable light than they deserve? Would he be assuaged by Arafat-esque double talk in which the terrorist group makes phony overtures of peace while continuing to pursue violence? This isn't just about Israel. I was at a townhall meeting last year in which Obama embraced the view that there are only 10,000 "hardcore" terrorists in the world, and they are able to gain new recruits because of economic hardship. His solution was to double foreign aid.
Obama's defenders would argue that it's a wild stretch on my part to equate his attitude toward Wright to his views on terrorism, but herein lies the central challenge in assessing Obama's candidacy. Because he has such a thin public record, we have very little basis on which to judge how he would govern as president. As a result, we are forced to make educated guesses by looking at statements he's made and evaluating the company he keeps.
The biggest fear I have always had with an Obama administration is that he doesn't have much experience, so he would draw on what little he does have. Unfortunately, very little, if any, of that experience is relevant to being commander in chief during a time of war. When I heard him speak at the AIPAC conference last year, Obama declared that, "One of the enemies we're going to have to fight, is not just terrorists, it's not just Hezbollah, it's not just Hamas, it's also cynicism." So, when pressed to make a statement on one of the most complex and protracted conflicts of the past century, his reflex was to frame the issue in the terms of his standard stump speech about how we can solve any problem by replacing cynicism with hope. He could have just as easily been talking about passing universal health care or making college more affordable.
If you were to look at Obama's record in the most favorable light, you could paint the portrait of a man who is serious about trying to bring people together. A man who united different groups and churches around a single purpose as a community organizer, a man who gave a fair hearing to liberal and conservative viewpoints as a constitutional law instructor, a legislator who worked with Republicans in the Illinois state senate to pass a bill requiring the videotaping of confessions in capital cases, and a U.S. Senator who cooperated with staunch conservative Tom Coburn on earmarks transparency.
In all of those instances, Obama worked together with people who may not have agreed on everything, but of whom he could at least assume good faith. However, when you're dealing with terrorists and our other enemies on the world stage, you cannot assume the same level of good faith. And yet Obama has already promised to meet, without preconditions, in the first year of his administration, with a rogues gallery of international dictators. His willingness to embrace a hatemonger like Wright because of the man's manifest suffering just adds another piece to a rather disturbing puzzle.
Wright-Wing Racism
Posted by on 3.20.08 @ 11:32AM
That's a line that seems to be making the rounds, judging from my inbox. Not bad.
Bin Laden: Cartoons Worse Than Murdering Children
Posted by on 3.20.08 @ 10:04AM
A full translation of the new bin Laden tape is available here, but this passage, also noted by Power Line, is particularly striking:
This is the greater and more serious tragedy, and reckoning for it will be more severe.
If you were to grant bin Laden's accounting of American atrocities, you are left with the fact in the Islamist mindset, drawing silly cartoons of Mohammed is a graver offense that massacring women and children. Obviously, nothing that comes from bin Laden should shock us, but it's always jarring to be reminded of the evil disregard for human life exhibited by our enemies.Same Old Hillary
Posted by on 3.20.08 @ 9:51AM
Hillary Clinton has staked her claim on the presidency by arguing that she was intimately involved in the important decisions made during her husband's administration. But the release of her schedules as first lady now confirm what sane people knew -- she was nowhere near the action when important foreign policy decisions were being made, and her domestic role was greatly scaled back after the health care debacle. There is, of course, one thing Hillary gained a lot of experience in during the 1990s -- secrecy. So it should come as no surprise to anybody who has been following the Clintons that the much hyped release of her schedules as first lady have become a farce, omitting her private calendar, and deleting key parts that would have been of interest to journalists and historians, and that might of been damaging to her politically. But it's the same old Clintonian tactics. Under public pressure, they make a minor concession in disclosure, fail to disclose pertinent details, but still congratulate themselves for an extraordinary act of transparency. "The release of these documents underscores President Clinton's efforts to encourage public access to the record of his Presidency," a campaign press release boasted yesterday. "Indeed, his representative encouraged the Archives to release significantly more information than required by the Presidential Records Act - and more than the Archives originally designated for release." As horrible as the thought is of Barack Obama becoming president, the prospect of the country being dragged through another four to eight years of the corruption, lies, coverups and arrogance we experienced during the Clinton years is even worse.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Obama Wins Straw Poll Of Progressives
Posted by on 3.19.08 @ 5:32PM
The results of the "Take Back America" conference straw poll are in, and Obama trounced Clinton among the progressive attendees by a 72-16 percent margin. Perhaps even more interesting than the headline number that didn't come as much of a surprise, is the fact that 41 percent said they would be "disappointed" if Clinton were the nominee, compared to only 8 percent who would be disappointed by an Obama nomination.
Grandmothers and Government
Posted by on 3.19.08 @ 4:02PM
I have written about my grandmother many times, describing her as a fundamentalist Christian, the holder of what would be seen to be prejudices by modern lights, as an old fashioned talker (she said "extry" and "aig"). And I found Obama's description of his grandmother not the least remarkable or offensive.
As for Obama as President, which I am convinced will not happen, I remember a friend of mine who consulted to the president pro tem of the Rhode Island senate on a bond issue. The solon described Rhode Island politics like this: "It's a game of football. And the governor is the ball."
That's the position Obama would find himself in as President. Those old appropriations bulls will eat him alive. Foreign leaders would do the same.
Re: Conservatives for Obama
Posted by on 3.19.08 @ 3:44PM
Andrew Bacevich's attempt to make the conservative case for Obama that Jim linked to earlier is rather silly, even when viewed through his own anti-Iraq War perspective.
At the beginning of the article, Bacevich articulates his vision of authentic conservatism:
- a commitment to individual liberty, tempered by the conviction that genuine freedom entails more than simply an absence of restraint;
- a belief in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the rule of law;
- veneration for our cultural inheritance combined with a sense of stewardship for Creation;
- a reluctance to discard or tamper with traditional social arrangements;
- respect for the market as the generator of wealth combined with a wariness of the market's corrosive impact on humane values;
- a deep suspicion of utopian promises, rooted in an appreciation of the sinfulness of man and the recalcitrance of history.
He spends most of the article discussing how President Bush and John McCain are deficient in these areas, and no doubt there is plenty of fault to find in both Republicans. However, Obama would be far worse in any of these areas.
Bacevich wants limited government, and yet Obama wants to raise taxes, as well as drastically expand the role of the state in health care, education, energy, and so on. Any domestic problem to Obama requires a big government solution translating into more subsidies and regulations.
Bacevich has "a reluctance to discard or tamper with traditional social arrangements," but I'm not sure how he'd square that with Obama's invocation of the Sermon on the Mount to defend his support for same sex unions. Bush has not done enough for the pro-life cause for Bacevich (even though he vetoed increasing stem cell research funding and appointed Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Ct.) yet he makes the case for Obama, who is pro-choice, would appoint pro-choice judges, and would support increasing funding for stem cell research.
And seriously, Bacevich professes "a deep suspicion of utopian promises" and is willing to get behind a candidate whose entire candidacy is based on some vague pledges to initiate sweeping changes in Washington by restoring hope and bringing people together?
Ultimately, Bacevich's case for Obama boils down to the fact that "this liberal Democrat has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq." From Bacevich's perspective, an Obama victory would translate into "a definitive judgment of the Iraq War" and put an end to the imperialist fantasies of neoconservatives. However, there's no guarantee that Obama would be able to end the Iraq War as promised once he's in office, and even if he tries to, there's a decent chance that his inexperience would mess things up so badly that the resulting chaos would only serve to strengthen neoconservative arguments. Furthermore, as Bacevich himself seems to recognize, despite Obama's opposition to the Iraq War, his foreign policy in general in no way represents a non-interventionist mindset. Quite the contrary, Obama is all about foreign aid and is sympathetic to humanitarian intervention. While Bush argued that for Americans to be secure we needed to end tyranny in the world, Obama has argued that American security is linked to ending poverty in the world.
I could go on. And to be clear, I don't share Bacevich's vision of conservatism. But more than anything, I think the self-delusion exhibited by Bacevich in his article underscores how formidable Obama can be. Given that he has a genial demenor and such a thin public record, people tend to see in him whatever they like, even if the reality is quite different. But just because Bush or McCain don't fit into your definition of conservatism, it doesn't mean that Obama is defacto a better option.
The Turning Point, Ct'd
Posted by on 3.19.08 @ 2:12PM
Jennifer Rubin argues, "For Republicans, the speech shattered any illusion that for all his left-leaning views Obama holds the moral high ground against the Clintons." She offers a little encouragement to Republicans voting for Hillary in the open primaries.
The Conservative Case for the D.C. Gun Ban
Posted by on 3.19.08 @ 1:55PM
Well, not exactly. But Kevin Gutzman, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution argues that gun control laws are unwise, the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to keep and bear arms -- and that the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to overturn the D.C. gun ban because the Constitution is intended to limit federal power, not overturn state (or pseudo-state) laws.
Gutzman's argument hinges on the rejection of incorporation as a valid constitutional doctrine. I'm afraid that's a debate conservatives lost a long time ago.
Education, Iranian style
Posted by on 3.19.08 @ 12:27PM
To understand where Iran is heading, look at what its children are learning. That's the message at the core of Discrimination and Intolerance in Iran's Textbooks, a comprehensive new study that has just been released by Freedom House. The report - which covers some 95 compulsory textbooks now being taught in Iranian primary schools - finds that the radical political messages, gender, ethnic and religious stereotypes, and anti-Western sentiment contained within these texts "are neither accidental nor sporadic." Rather, they are "consistent and systematic throughout the textbooks at the core of the curriculum in Iranian schools."
The entire study is well worth a read. It can be found here.
Alexander Konetzki, Call Your Office
Posted by on 3.19.08 @ 10:35AM
A few conservatives still remain in the Obama camp, however. Andrew Bacevich makes the case in the American Conservative. It's a very thoughtful discussion of conservatism's challenges, though I find it wildly unpersuasive about Obama. But it does make this Washington Monthly article seem rather silly. Come to think of it, the Wright flap makes it look pretty silly too.
The Turning Point
Posted by on 3.19.08 @ 10:29AM
Barack Obama's speech has obviously failed in one key respect, where it might not have been possible for him to succeed. It did nothing to mollify Obama's conservative critics. That's not the end of the world, since these people weren't going to support him or vote for him anway, but it is interesting nevertheless.
Up until now, conservatives have been conflicted about Obama. They haven't been sure whether they should root for him as the Hillary slayer or fear him as a tough general election opponent. But many conservatives, especially elite conservatives, kind of liked him and sympathized with him as he was being attacked by the Clintons. I was listening to talk radio last week and some of the hosts sounded like their heads were going to explode talking about the Geraldine Ferraro incident: Do I attack Ferraro as a liberal racist or condemn Obama's campaign for playing the race card?
The Jeremiah Wright incident has changed all that. It has defined Obama in the minds of conservatives as a racially charged demagogue, a race hustler who would throw his white grandmother under the bus for votes, a man whose patriotism is suspect and whose commitment to racial equality is fake, at least as far as white people are concerned. I think some of this assessment is unfair and even a bit over the top. Conservatives used to be able to discuss thorny, nuanced issues without sputtering, "But, but, did you hear what that reverend said?" But I understand the visceral reaction to Wright's repugnant utterances and think the conservative verdict on Obama is at this point irreversible.
Unless there's more where "God damn America" came from, Wright isn't going to be the silver bullet Hillary Clinton hoped for. But he is a gift to John McCain. He can now rest assured that whoever the Democratic nominee is, it will be someone conservatives badly want to see defeated. The Democrats can rally the Republican base better than McCain himself.
Kind Of Stupid...
Posted by on 3.19.08 @ 9:14AM
...is apparently the new black so long as it comes accented with green
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Strict Construction Virtuosity
Posted by on 3.18.08 @ 4:07PM
Alfred Brendel is a great pianist, not a constitutional scholar, but he has a deep understanding of orginalism, properly understood:
The Fed Statement
Posted by on 3.18.08 @ 2:46PM
Here it is:
Inflation has been elevated, and some indicators of inflation expectations have risen. The Committee expects inflation to moderate in coming quarters, reflecting a projected leveling-out of energy and other commodity prices and an easing of pressures on resource utilization. Still, uncertainty about the inflation outlook has increased. It will be necessary to continue to monitor inflation developments carefully.
Today's policy action, combined with those taken earlier, including measures to foster market liquidity, should help to promote moderate growth over time and to mitigate the risks to economic activity. However, downside risks to growth remain. The Committee will act in a timely manner as needed to promote sustainable economic growth and price stability.
Waiting for the Fed (UPDATED)
Posted by on 3.18.08 @ 1:44PM
The Federal Reserve Board will make its interest rate announcement in less than an hour, and it is widely expected to cut rates yet again. This would be a huge mistake. As I noted in my column, excessive Fed rate-cutting in the years after the 9/11 attacks inflated real estate prices and is partially to blame for the prediciment we find ourselves in today. The difference is, when Greenspan began his rate-cutting campaign, the dollar was still worth more than the euro, but as of this writing, a dollar will only purchase you .63 euros. That's a stunning collapse in the value of our currency. While a strong or weak currency isn't necessarily a good or bad thing (a weak currency can help exports, for instance), there are certain economic enviornments wherein a rapidly deteriorating currency is problematic, and I think we're in one of those times. Given that we import most of our oil, a declining dollar will only mean that oil prices will continue to soar. Any wage gains that workers could make under the most idealized economic forecasts will be eaten up by inflation, not just in oil prices, but imports in general.
There are a few other things that trouble me about cutting rates. One is what Milton Friedman called the "fool in the shower" scenario. Just like the person who finds the shower too cold, and then overcompensates by turning the hot faucet to the max because it takes time for the water temperture to adjust, only to scold himself, economic indicators the Fed receives lag what is happening in the actual economy. We've now had a number of rate cuts, several other extraordinary steps by the Fed to pump liquidity into the market, and an economic stimulus package that hasn't fully gone into effect. The Fed should wait to see how these actions work out over the next several months before pushing the panic button by lowering rates yet again and quite possibly triggering inflation.
Furthermore, there are often diminishing returns to cutting interest rates. In certain circumstances, people's faith in the economy is erroded to the point where even very low interest rates won't be enough to intice them into investing. And I worry that by sending the signal to the markets that the U.S. does not care about the strength of the dollar, the Fed will just be making investors more concerned about the economic outlook. Stagflation, I think, should be a realistic fear if the Fed continues down this path.
In my view, the Fed would be much better off holding rates steady, and reassuring global markets that it's still committed to protecting the value of the dollar and fighting inflation. By taking a wait and see approach, it could always revisit this decision if the economy doesn't respond to steps that have already been taken, especially if the dollar stabalizes.
UPDATE: The Fed lowers rates 3/4 percent. At this point, they are more concerned about a slowing economy, but also monitoring inflation. I stand by my comments above.
Re: Obama and Reagan
Posted by on 3.18.08 @ 1:09PM
If Obama's speech worked, it's because he was able to address matters head on. Was Obama dismissing American ethnics resentful of welfare and affirmative action as racists? Or did he suggest that their resentments were understandable, no less so than the "anger in the black community" he mentioned? Jim is so right in his assessment of Obama's genius, not to mention the blinders many of the right are wearing in reaction to the speech (as I've noticed both on Fox and in listening to Rush). Let's not forget that conservatives were the last people he was addressing in his pre-Pennsylvania primary remarks. In purely liberal terms, he was saying things no other Democratic candidate would dare utter, and assuming a more intelligent audience than a pol normally does. Best of all for him, given time and the right forum, he was able to return to his strengths. He was the center of huge attention. When's the last time Hillary enjoyed such an unchallenged moment?
Obama and the Right (Not Wright)
Posted by on 3.18.08 @ 12:27PM
I'm seeing a number of conservative reactions suggesting that this speech will hurt Obama. This strikes me as wishful thinking. It would take awfully selective replays of the speech to make Obama look like a Jesse Jackson race hustler just because he acknowledged black anger. You'll be able to find that kind of stuff on some conservative talk shows, with audiences that are going to vote against Obama anyway. You aren't going to find it in the mainstream media, where the swing voters will find it.
Conservatives need a way of dealing with Obama. The polls might prove me wrong about his speech, but surely ignoring the fact that he has a broader appeal than Jesse Jackson isn't the answer.
Nit-picking Obama
Posted by on 3.18.08 @ 12:00PM
I have lots and lots of thoughts on Obama's speech, some positive, some negative -- and may not have time to publish them or to give the speech justice. So do NOT take this as my only reaction to the speech, which really was an admirably thoughtful (if at times very wrongheaded) address.
Okay, enough with the disclaimer. Here's what really bothered me, right at the start, enough (if I hadn't already read Ed Whelan, who handled the issue quite well on a more substantive level) to make it hard to take seriously Obama's claims to really care about the Constitution or to be an expert about it. To me, it showed profound ignorance for him to talk about the Constitutional Convention in 1787 meeting "throughout the Spring." Well, no, it was not throughout the spring. The convention didn't even get started until well into May, and it met throughout a long, stifling summer. The delegates literally suffered physically from the heat and the bugs, and from various ailments, in order to create this wonderful Constitution which created a country Obama is convinced still, even today, needs more effort to "perfect." ("Perfect" used as a verb.)
The summer and the uncomfortableness of the whole enterprise are important parts of the story -- a story that I still doubt Obama appreciates, much as I still doubt that he really appreciates the accomplishment that came from it.
Uniter, Not A Divider
Posted by on 3.18.08 @ 11:58AM
If that speech doesn't help Obama, I don't know what will. Intelligently written, movingly delivered. He engaged in a little bit of mixed messaging on affirmative action, welfare and crime, both acknowledging that they are legitmate issues while also implying that they tied the Reagan coalition to something illegitimate.
The genius of Barack Obama is that he is able to take the concerns of people who disagree with him, summarize those concerns fairly and eloquently, accept and affirm the goodness of their motives -- and then politely restate his original liberal position. That genius was on display today.
Obama and Reagan
Posted by on 3.18.08 @ 11:54AM
This was the most offensive aspect of the speech to me:
That Was Incredible
Posted by on 3.18.08 @ 11:49AM
I've been as harsh on Obama's relation to Jeremiah Wright as anyone. But I'll be damned if I didn't literally tear up during the speech he just gave (and which, incidentally, he wrote himself). His expression of patriotic love for the only country in the world where his story is possible, his praise of how far we've come on the issue of race, his faith that we can and will come further -- it was pitch-perfect.
Yes, the association with Wright still bothers me, and in a perfect world it would be disqualifying. But I think he just put it behind him, and maybe even turned it into a news cycle victory.
Barack Obama is the most talented public speaker we've seen in a long, long time. He should never be underestimated. And frankly, it kind of scares me. Almost every time he veers toward policy prescriptions, I cringe. His rhetorical talent threatens to make him all too effective at passing bad laws.
UPDATE: On the other hand, Mark Hemingway may have a point that the speech is only effective taken as a whole:
Race isn't easy to address - it required Obama to be extremely nuanced and offer up very complex arguments. Very few people are actually going to watch or read this speech all the way through. I'm not sure there's any ten second takeaways from the speech that will be replayed on cable news that will pacify voters or give a sense of what the speech was really about.I think I'll have to give it time and watch the coverage to issue a final verdict.
Re: Obama's Speech
Posted by on 3.18.08 @ 11:06AM
Reading through the text, there's plenty to please and displease everyone. A strong speech, better than Mitt Romney's Mormonism address, but one that will leave many of his critics unsatisfied.
Obama's Speech
Posted by on 3.18.08 @ 10:52AM
I just read through an embargoed transcript of the speech and my guess is that the press will eat it up. Heavy on his personal story, the black experience, and on his belief that we can still overcome racial divisions by working together. He condemns Jeremiah Wright's comments, and changes his story a bit by saying that yes, he has been in church while Wright made controversial comments--that ought to give him some wiggle room in case a video emerges of him present while Wright says something crazy. But Obama won't disown Wright, the man who introduced him to Christianity. There are also some barbs directed at conservatives, and so my guess is that the reaction to this speech will divide along ideological lines. I don't think this will hurt him in the Democratic primaries, and may even be turned to his advantage. But it has entered the national consciousness and will be part of the larger Obama narrative in the general election. More to come after he delivers the speech.
Forgot to Mention
Posted by on 3.18.08 @ 8:52AM
I was on Bloggingheads.tv over the weekend discussing my new book The Warm Bucket Brigade with a host whose name has come up a few times on this blog of late, Will Wilkinson. Here's the Spectator excerpt of the book.
The Repugnant Logic of Obama's Defenders
Posted by on 3.18.08 @ 2:47AM
Andrew Sullivan writes that whether Barack Obama can put the Wright controversy to rest will determine whether America "can allow for a black man - with all that entails - to become president."
So there you have it: Associating with a scumbag like Wright is just part of what being a black man entails. That's just how those people are.
Wow.
A Black or Wright Issue
Posted by on 3.18.08 @ 12:34AM
I think both Michael Crowley and Amy Holmes have half a point. Crowley isn't wrong that the sense of alienation from white America felt by Jeremiah Wright and his congregants is shared by many black Americans outside Trinity United Church of Christ, many of them middle-class or better. Holmes is right that many blacks, including many black Republicans, don't feel this alienation. But I'm not sure that Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, as much as I, white W. James Antle III, admire them, are representative of majority black opinion. There are many African Americans closer to the black mainstream who also reject Wright's views, but I'm not sure the best way to draw them out is through an appeal to the authority of Michael Steele.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Best News of the Week -- and It's Only Monday
Posted by on 3.17.08 @ 6:49PM
A major spammer will go to jail for a long time -- possibly 26 years. Personally, I think prosecutors wimped out by not pursuing the death penalty.
Sad News for Dancing Queens
Posted by on 3.17.08 @ 6:42PM
Abba's drummer has died in a freak home accident.
Re: A Little Good News
Posted by on 3.17.08 @ 6:38PM
How about when I'm true to my school? Or when school's out for the summer? Or when I carried that girl's books home from school because my eyes adored her?
Re: A Little Good News
Posted by on 3.17.08 @ 5:58PM
Jim, I do enjoy it when you sound like a kid out of school.
First They Came For The Bow Tie And I Said Nada
Posted by on 3.17.08 @ 3:50PM
Last week the dead-enders at Save Tucker, determined to rescue Tucker Carlson--definitely one of my favorite writers and television personalities--from what turned out to be an unavoidable cancellation, sent along an "action alert," which read in part:
MSNBC has chosen to become a propaganda machine for the far
left. MSNBC Executive, Phil Griffin, is leading the ideological cleansing by
canceling Tucker Carlson's show and banning major conservative commentators
from the air so no one challenges Olbermann or Abrams.
And then, finally:
Keep your emails constructive and respectful but let NBC know that MSNBC is off course if their goal is covering the political news.
Alas, I spent too much time trying to figure out the
respectful, constructive way to call someone a left-wing hit-man jerk who
should be fired and the whole thing got away from me.
Bonus Material: Tucker's farewell segment. Bow Tie Blues. My take on Tucker versus Stewart. Tucker's Ron Paul profile in the New Republic.You will be missed, Tucker! Come back full-time to the world of print!
Re: A Little Good News
Posted by on 3.17.08 @ 3:38PM
The luminary willing to ambivalently wander away from the spotlight while still relevant is a rare bird...
Shawn -- perhaps a "Snowbird" even? Sorry. I could tell "You Needed Me" to rattle off some Anne Murray songs. Everytime I get an opportunity to show off my knowledge of 1970s soft rock/pop, "I Just Fall in Love Again."
A Little Good News
Posted by on 3.17.08 @ 3:28PM
The luminary willing to ambivalently wander away from the spotlight while still relevant is a rare bird, indeed, but these fowl do exist as one quickly learns chatting with Canadian folk-rock institution Anne Murray, of whom I recently wrote a short profile. For those looking for a short break from politics.Â
The Coming of the Economic Illiterates
Posted by on 3.17.08 @ 2:56PM
According to this CNN report, three-quarters of the American people now believe we are in a recession. Even economically, perception can become reality. Politically, it can become a disaster. By the time the 1992 presidential election rolled around, the 1990-91 recession had technically been over for nearly eight months. Bill Clinton was still able to run as if we were in recession, pointing to lagging income and job growth as signs that we were faced with the worst economy since the Great Depression (even though technically we weren't).
So who do we have running for president? As syndicated columnist Stephen Chapman points out, three people who are basically clueless about fiscal and economic policy. What are we likely to get? A stimulus package here, a tax hike there, lots of new spending, and cries for more liquidity. Good times.
WSJ on the Dollar
Posted by on 3.17.08 @ 11:26AM
Forgive the repeated alarms sounded in this space for four
months now, but has anybody at the $@^%^@*^%(!!*!! Federal Reserve
Board, a place apparently full of $%&@%*^@#*%(&!!!!
ostriches with their heads in the %*@#%*@#*)!!! sand (and yes,
those are expletives NOT being deleted!), noticed that their "weak
dollar" policies are causing a vicious spiral of ever and ever
lower dollar strength that itself destabilizes the financial
markets even more and thus, by the Fed's utterly idiotic viewpoint,
leads the Fed to conclude that it needs even MORE weakness in order
to bail out the markets? Forgive the disgusting metaphor, but I
can't think of anything more appropriate: The Fed is doing to the
financial markets something similar to what a doctor would be doing
if he were faced with a case of bad diarrhea and treating it with
more and more Ex-Lax.
Today the WSJ weighs in with a superb editorial on the subject.
Read it. Now. And then start yelling at your
congressman to yell at the White House to yell at the Fed -- and,
best of all, to get rid of Bernanke and replace him with somebody
with a %*^#%*^ clue.
Separation of Churches I Disagree With And State
Posted by on 3.17.08 @ 11:11AM
This display of double standards is amusing but nothing new. Most liberals who claim to favor a high wall between church and state are perfectly comfortable with liberal religion. It's just conservative religion they don't like. When religion can be used to justify wealth redistribution, environmental regulations, or just being non-judgmental it is a-okay. And Rev. Pat Robertson running for president is scarier than Rev. Jesse Jackson doing the same.
Growing up in Boston, you would sometimes see the same liberals praising the moral authority of the Catholic Church when it opposed the death penalty or a welfare reform bill, and then condemn the theocratic implications of the Catholic Church opposing abortion or same-sex marriage.
Kossacks Learn To Love Religious Extremism
Posted by on 3.17.08 @ 10:34AM
After comparing the sermons of Jesus ("not the kind of preaching that nets you space on Fox News") to those of Jeremiah Wright, regular DailyKos contributor Devilstower explains:
Is the vision of a pastor standing in his pulpit shouting "God damn America" shocking? Yes. But don't mistake Wright's (or Jesus') statement for what some drunk in a bar would mean using the same phrasing. Wright isn't saying "FU America!" he's saying "these actions of America are worthy of God's condemnation." Â He's just saying it in a way that cuts through the Sunday morning sleepiness and makes people sit up in their pew.
And further:
A dangerous religion isn't one that challenges people and makes them squirm. Makes them angry. A dangerous religion is one that is too amicable to what you already think, one that pats you on the head and sends you forth in assurance of your own righteousness. If you want to search for "traitors" in the pulpit, turn your eye toward those who never find anything wrong in the actions of this nation.
Keep in mind this holier-than-thou kicker comes a couple paragraphs after the writer acknowledges, "Do I think that 9/11 was the 'chickens coming home to roost?' Yeah, I pretty much do." In other words, Devilstower defends Pastor Wright because...Pastor Wright's views are "amicable" to what he already thinks. The sentiment of seeking intellectual and spiritual combat is fine, of course, but I don't think we'll be seeing Kossacks flocking to midwestern evangelical churches or Catholic Latin masses to have their views challenged anytime soon. The "shocking" aspects of the religious right's beliefs are no doubt somewhat less thrilling to the religious left than they assume hating anyone in a higher tax bracket than them is to the rest of us.
In other words, more self-righteous blather of the sort Obama devotees and their Dear Leader will probably soon be able to trademark.
Waiting for Jindal
Posted by on 3.17.08 @ 10:34AM
On the main site Friday, James Lucier proposed that John McCain pick Bobby Jindal as his running mate. While I agree that Jindal would add much needed excitement to the ticket, I think it would be far better for Jindal, as well as for conservatism in general, were he to remain as governor for a few terms. Eight years from now, he'll still be young, but will have a lot more experience under his belt, and if he lives up to expectations, he'll also have an impressive set of accomplishments to tout. More importantly, if conservatism is to make any headway in regaining the confidence of the American people in the wake of the Bush administration, conservatives will not only have to make strong philosophical arguments or provide policy solutions to contemporary problems, but we will need to be able to point to examples of competent conservative governance. Having taken over Louisiana in disasterous condition, Gov. Jindal is ideally positioned to demonstrate how a place can be turned around by the application of conservative principles. That's something the movement desperately needs, and we won't get it if Jindal becomes McCain's running mate.
The Prescience Of Pastor Wright
Posted by on 3.17.08 @ 10:13AM
Nearly a year ago the New York Times
ran a story exploring some of the issues the Obama campaign
might have with the candidate's church leader--stressing the
progressive and social justice elements of the church, of course,
as is the media's wont whenever the hate-monger in the pulpit
happens to be a left-winger. The last few graphs are
instructive:
Despite the canceled invocation, Mr. Wright prayed
with the Obama family just before his presidential announcement.
Asked later about the incident, the Obama campaign said in a
statement, "Senator Obama is proud of his pastor and his
church."
***
Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama's audition for the ultimate establishment job. "If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me," Mr. Wright said with a shrug. "I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen."
And so it came to pass. If Pastor Wright foresaw this, perhaps
we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss his other contentions. Maybe
whitey is the devil...
Obama's Double Standard
Posted by on 3.17.08 @ 10:13AM
In trying to explain how he could remain a member of his church given Jeremiah Wright's hate-filled sermons, Obama explained to Major Garrett:
But most of the time, when I'm in church, he's talking about Jesus, God, faith, values, caring for the poor, those -- family, those were the messages that I was hearing.
And so you know, I think that the statements that have been strung together are compiled out of hundred of sermons that he delivered over the course of his lifetime. But, obviously, they are ones that are, from my perspective, completely unacceptable and inexcusable.
But just a few months ago, Obama was quoted in a speech about faith saying:
"But somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together," Mr. Obama said. "Faith started being used to drive us apart. Faith got hijacked."
He attributed this partly to "the so-called leaders of the Christian right, who've been all too eager to exploit what divides us."
But the controversial statements from prominent Christian conservative pastors that gain so much media attention are no doubt cherry-picked out of sermons delivered by the pastors over long careers, while most of their sermons focus on "Jesus, God, faith, values," etc. Is Obama proposing a new standard by which we judge religious leaders by their whole body of work rather than a few selected inflammatory statements? If so, he owes an apology to "the so-called leaders of the Christian right."
Wright Answer?
Posted by on 3.17.08 @ 9:13AM
Obama is supposed to be the smart one in the race, right? So why would he choose to go to a church pastored by Rev. Jeremiah Wright? I hadn't seen the Rev.'s sermonizing before this scandal broke; now I have and the guy is froot loops. What was it about Wright that was Obama was drawn to? Three possible answers spring to mind: (1) Obama is much more of a racialist than he usually lets on; or (2) he thought he needed the votes that a Wright endorsement would confer; or (3) George Neumayr is right and he went to that church because that's where his now proud-of-America wife wanted to attend.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Re: The Wright Stuff
Posted by on 3.16.08 @ 6:17PM
You're probably right that a white politician who went to an anti-black church would kiss his career goodbye. On the other hand, if Jeremiah Wright were a white liberal, he might have gotten a National Book Award or even a genius grant.
Re: The Wright Stuff
Posted by on 3.16.08 @ 4:54PM
I'm shocked -- not "shocked, shocked," but genuinely shocked -- at how many people are willing to give Obama a pass on his association with Wright. As is often the case, it's instructive to shift the races around. Let's say that a white candidate attended a church that preached that America was damned by the scourge of black people. Would it matter why he was attracted to such a church? For goodness sake, Obama's given tens of thousands of dollars to Wright's church -- which means that if Obama isn't an unpatriotic bigot himself, he's unquestionably a patron of unpatriotic bigotry. Shouldn't that be pretty much career-ending?
Wright vs. Hagee
Posted by on 3.16.08 @ 3:18PM
In a post Friday, I argued that Barack Obama's statement on Jeremiah Wright would not have been enough to end the controversy if he were a Republican attending John Hagee's church. Daniel Larison disagrees, saying "the mainstream media have shown relatively little interest in making much out of McCain's acceptance of Hagee's endorsement." I guess it depends on what you define as "relatively little interest" -- the Hagee endorsement seems to me to have gotten a fair amount of press, and predictably everyone who is worried about Hagee is downplaying Wright and vice versa.
I mentioned the Hagee connection with McCain and many other pols when Mike Huckabee was being accused (unfairly, I thought) of pandering to anti-Catholicism for attending Hagee's church. Republicans seek Hagee's endorsement because he is an interest group leader, not because they care about his theology. Barack Obama has a relationship with Jeremiah Wright as a pastor and personal spiritual adviser, which is very different. Obama is the one who has in effect endorsed Wright. Faith of My Fathers was not the title of a John Hagee sermon; Audacity of Hope is borrowed from Wright.
As I said earlier, that doesn't necessarily mean that all of Wright's views are a reflection of Obama's thinking. But it does make it worth asking the question. It reflects poorly on politically organized evangelicals that Hagee has become a major player among them, but there is much less evidence that Hagee is an influence on McCain in the same way that Wright has influenced Obama.
Larison argues that while Wright and Hagee are both kooks, it is only Hagee's kookiness that is actually going to influence policy, which makes him more dangerous. But Hagee's marginal views probably aren't going to influence McCain. His relatively mainstream views -- broad social conservatism and sympathy for Israel, regardless of whatever baggage he may bring to both positions personally -- will. Hagee's views are a legitimate campaign issue, but there is no evidence McCain opposes abortion or is pro-Israel because of Hagee's end times theology. Wright's views, in the event that Obama actually shares them, are disqualifying on their face.
An overwhelming majority of Americans would reject a presidential candidate whose thought process is influenced by "God damn America." Americans disagree about abortion and Middle East policy. We shun those who dissent from the first view. We engage the second group politically, through persuasion or electoral competition, even if we think their views are horribly wrong. That's how the system works, when it does.
The Wright Stuff
Posted by on 3.16.08 @ 2:06PM
My take on Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright is pretty close to Lisa Schiffren's. That doesn't mean Wright isn't a legitimate campaign issue -- he certainly is, especially as a reflection on Obama's judgment. But I can easily think of reasons Obama got wrapped up with Wright, and even became close to him personally, other than agreeing with the pastor's more noxious views.
- Advent Is Coming
- Two Weddings and a Demerol
- Obama's Foreign Policy Problems, Personified