The Single and The Many

X-Rayed: Politics

We use the elephant and the donkey as political party icons; but are they really that descriptive? Elephants are members of herds, while Republicans are individualists. Donkeys are stubborn, while Democrats are often conciliatory. What gives?

A more perfect fit for Republicans would be the lion, taking no guff and looking out for number one. And the Democrats? How about the zebra? A mix of color, with all equally endowed.

All of which makes one wonder what else is off-base with American politics. Do we really understand what makes us tick? Herewith something of a guess.

The body politic takes its cue from the geography of the human brain. Our brains have two hemispheres, one focused on logic and measurement, the other on a big-picture, emotional understanding.

Ah, but wait, you'll say, Republicans may be the party of the 'Right', but they prefer to 'feel' with their 'gut'. Likewise, Democrats may be the party of the 'Left', but they use 'egghead' solutions. This, even though 'Right' is all about cold, hard facts and mathematical proof, while 'Left' is the realm of our sixth sense. What's going on?

The explanation is simple. Each political party tends to be deficient in the other party's strong suit. Their failings (a president's reliance on his 'gut' for guidance; the imposition of a bureaucratic solution in lieu of personal responsibility) are all too telling.

To better understand where each side is coming from, let's look at the main source of inspiration for each:

*Republican: If you start with the

understanding that objectively, some

members of society are measurably

greater than others (whether leaders

in financial, social or intellectual terms),

they must be allowed to flourish in order

for society to do well. So, freedom is key.

*Democratic: If, on the other hand, you

begin with subjectivity, each member of

society wants to be recognized and allowed

to reach their potential. This requires an

inclusive message. The key here then is

equality.

We thus have freedom of the one contrasted with equality among the many.

Examples of politicians failing spectacularly at integrating the strengths of the other party are legendary. It could be argued, for example, that the Republican message of late has abandoned any pretense at visionary, bring-us-together reach; instead, using a term like 'the real America' divides us into 'us' and 'them'. Likewise, it could be said that the Democrats struck gold with Bill Clinton's welfare reform legislation, because it addressed their biggest perceived weakness: that they enable dependency.

In that vein, what would advance each party's electability, if their respective leadership could apply this analysis to their own party's direction?

For the Republicans, the way ahead is daunting. Not only should they reach out to incorporate elements of the other side's message ('home ownership for everybody'), more importantly, they should reconnect with their own philosophy. Frankly, the modern Republican party has lost its way. Their recent attempts at big-picture vision have relied on simplistic slogans, rather than careful consideration (tax cuts are always good; government regulation is always bad). This has, unfortunately, led the party into the hands of half-baked intellects (the abandonment of science for 'creationism'), which strikes at the heart of a party appealing to individual common sense experience.

For the Democrats, the path forward is much less problematic. Beginning with their core principals of equality and diversity they have embraced reason and the careful calibration of the logical mind. This has meant that wishful thinking in their own party has for the most part been abandoned. Critical examination, for example, revealed the pitfalls of 'socialist' approaches to effecting equality; thus, calls for a guaranteed income for all, that were heard in the '70s, are no more. To cite another example, instead of a hard or soft approach to crime, invariably, Ds should turn to what has been shown to work: in the case of crime, prevention and retraining.

More specifically, the Republican party would do well to ground itself in honesty, scientific understanding and fair-mindedness before it can expect to play anything but the role of spoiler.

The Democrats, on the other hand, should involve and educate their constituents. For the more each issue's specifics are aired and solutions underlined with logic and proof, the more likely flippant attack ads can be ignored.

Of course this is all assuming that a political party should simply follow the most popular way forward; and yet that is rarely where the country should go.

All Together Now ...

What's Up With The Whig -- 'Official' edition

Yesterday's Herald-Whig splashed a story across the front page suggesting that "officials" thought the Federal Reserve's Quantitative Easing, or Q.E.--which will see $600 billion printed over the next half a year to buy Treasury bonds--was meant to weaken the dollar, and that this is why gas prices have seen a double digit rise.

The 'official' cited was the head of the Illinois AAA. Hmmm, sounds more like an orchestrated 'talking point'.

First, let's review why the Fed is engaging in Q.E. When our economy gets into a funk, it's as if everyone is waiting for everyone else to get out on the dance floor, but not wanting to be the only one out there. The federal government usually steps in and announces over the PA system that it will be offering refreshments in the middle of the dance floor. Usually, this gets people moving. Another option is for the Federal Reserve to likewise announce that it will be offering dance lessons--not nearly as welcome, but usually enough to get a few feet moving.

Critics of having the federal government involved through the 'stimulus' of refreshments say that Uncle Same offers overly expensive refreshments. Why not just let the dance happen? This is a curious argument. Surprisingly, it relies on an almost Communist altruism to do something for the greater good that no individual would otherwise do. Why be the first one to walk out on the dance floor when it's much easier to wait for others to head out there? It's simply not in your best interests to do the right thing.

The effect of no government involvement is for the economy to wait...and wait...and wait for a war or some other reason to get cranked up, meaning that we all sit on the sidelines when we could be out there dancing to full employment.

And what's the best way to have a strong economy when we're in a recession with high unemployment? Government stimulus. That's because business has no reason to hire and the unemployed can't afford to buy when money is scarce. So, the government, using the PA system, is the only one who can say "Ok, I'm counting to three, and everybody take a step out there." This can only happen, though, if there is a political consensus to do so. Unfortunately, Republicans are more interested in proving their economic theories are superior and so have time and again filibustered an adequate stimulus.

And the second best way for the government to respond? Have the Fed lower interest rates. In our current situation, though, that is of course not possible since rates are already up against 0%.

And the third best way? Print money. Normally, this could be a gateway to inflation, but in a time of low interest rates, the great danger from a recession is that deflation will occur, resulting in businesses sitting on the sidelines, waiting for prices to fall even further. Unemployment simply gets worse...and worse...and worse. When that happens, or if inflation falls to close to 0%, there's a need for more money in the economy, especially if the economic downturn was caused by a run on banks (failed banks are exhibit A in both the 1929 Great Depression and the 2008 Great Recession).

That then explains why the government is printing money. So, what's this about intentionally devaluing the dollar? It's true that a weaker dollar can be an effect of getting the economy going again, but it isn't what the Fed is trying to do. Whether the dollar is trading at 100 or 98 Chinese Yuan--or whatever the exchange rate is--is secondary to getting our economy functioning at near peak capacity.

Is the Herald-Whig intentionally harping on the increase in the price of gas? Is this a sign of it pandering to the no-doubt popular notion of government over-reach? I prefer to think it's a simple ignorance of macro-economic policy.

Gentleman's Honor

What Would Buddha Do?

It's a remarkable fact that President Obama rarely seems angry. In fact, the only time I can remember him blaming political opponents was when he was joking--and even then, it wasn't personal. Instead, he merely describes his difficulties as taking office in difficult circumstances, or having to get to work digging ourselves out of a hole. No accusatory tone, no name-calling, no finger-pointing, nothing but a focus on the future.

Given the circumstances he faces, that's amazing. The Republican Senate minority leader, for instance, has said:

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

And does that out-rank doing what's good for the country? Apparently so. For the past two years, and presumably for the next two, the minority leader has flouted senatorial procedure to intentionally slow the legislative branch to a crawl, has collaborated in holding up government appointments and in general acted in bad faith.

If President Obama's disciplined calm weren't genuine, though, he'd occasionally crack, as his opponents got under his skin. But no....

Nor do I expect him to tout his reserve. That, too, would go against character.

But surely a pundit or vocal voter will eventually notice, that at least at the White House, the tone in Washington has indeed changed.

Take It To A Higher Level

Voting -- Stone Age To Modern

As a close observer of the political scene, it puzzles me why, in an age of on-line surveys and surprisingly accurate polling, some enterprising member of the House of Representatives doesn't choose to 'listen in' on and occasionally align him- or herself with the will of the people.

The first step might be to pick a high-profile vote that would attract lots of attention, say, the recent vote on health care reform.

Our representative would invite voters to register at a website that would verify their being residents in a legislative district, would introduce them to the subject to be polled, provide arguments for all sides, then poll the issue, with an opportunity for feedback that could be accessed and ranked by subsequent viewers. Registration would include several questions regarding the participant's socio-economic background, to be used by a polling firm to generate a representative sample of voter opinion. Our representative could then, at a minimum, say that he had listened to his constituents, and could even tout his ensuing vote as the will of the people.

Before we address the possible problems with this scenario, let's follow it to its conclusion. Our representative now invites civic organizations of all kinds to submit short videos on specific or more general topics tied to impending legislation; these are then chosen or rejected by congressional staff.  Other representatives would then follow suit, the universe of issues to be polled would expand, and soon the House of Representatives becomes an institution that listens, educates and shapes opinion, rather than propounds and fundraises.

While there would be, under this scenario, a minimum of candidate fundraising, an electoral challenger couldn't very well focus on an incumbent's votes, since many votes would be 'of the people'. This would tend to focus campaigning on issues, rather than the typical accusations aimed at an incumbent, which can all too often involve assertions regarding personal character. So, even though opponents could challenge the style or substance of video presentations, the charge: "stop lying about my record" would be much less likely.

Meanwhile, those representatives who didn't abide by the learned opinion of their constituents would be hard-pressed by challengers who promised that service.

And soon presentations would be 'signed on' to by any representative who agreed with the content (videos adapted for different legislative districts).  Eventually, as more and more issues were covered, voters would have a better and better understanding of the issues and would vote accordingly.

This, then, is the organic way for major progressive change to occur. When enough voters understand an issue well enough to see through deceptive ad campaigns, and vote accordingly, there is no hope for the dishonest politician.  A good example would be Climate Change.  Much of the opposition to resolving the problem comes from the fossil fuel industry, with its money and influence difficult to trace.  Low information voters are easy prey for campaigns that protest government meddling, red tape and exaggerated cost.  But the more one studies the issue, the clearer the science becomes and, one soon realizes, the more self-serving the motivation of those holding back progress.

And now for the problematic nature of our proposed scenario.

* Could tabulated opinions be nefariously 'adjusted' after being tallied, perhaps by hackers or by the representative himself?

The hang-up in moving to on-line voting has always been that unlike using a credit card, the receiving end of the equation must maintain voter anonymity, which is near impossible to do without compromising security. But, a representative hearing from her constituents is allowed to know how they feel on a given issue. So, the transaction is more akin to that involving a credit card, with secure, verified information, and thus very doable.

In fact, verification could also involve re-sending voter opinion back to the voter in question, automatically, the way one receives a confirmation e-mail when ordering something on-line.

* Could on-line voters simply lie about where they lived? 
Not likely. Once a voter's address is entered at the polling website, and checked against a database of residents, a 'pin number' could then be mailed to the address.

* Could poll-takers lie about their socio-economic identity? While this would seem to be an obstacle, polling could be based on both collected data and residency (the latter is the way congressional districts are often drawn, with census data used to identify subsections of the population).  In other words, the polling organization would use both reported information and a 'guesstimate' based on census data.

* Could polling organizations be trusted to get it right?

Polling could involve a transparent process of plugging in raw data that anyone could examine after the fact.  Thus, the polling firm hired by a representative would only come up with a formula that is then used when determining individual outcomes that the firm would have nothing to do with.
This formula would be a model that any other polling firm could examine.

And if this were a problem, the raw data could be crunched by multiple polling firms and the results averaged.

* Could important issues receive too few votes for the polling data to be meaningful? 
This would be a problem initially, and our representative could simply vote as they saw fit, when needed; but over time, there'd likely be enough participation.

One fun idea would be to sign up each opinion generator, by default (a box could be clicked to opt out), in a lottery that paid out, say, ten $10,000 prizes each month in each congressional district. This would encourage those less likely to participate.  The cost would be $1,200,000 x 438 = $523 million.

Update (8/24/14): There have been reports that the city of Los Angeles is considering a lottery idea to increase voting in local elections (it would be illegal for elections involving federal offices).  Luckily, our idea does not involve actual voting. 

* Wouldn't voters tend to skip over the presentation when voting, just to be entered in the lottery?
This would seem to be a problem until one realizes that all political activity is based on an educated electorate.  People can't be forced to understand an issue and The People receive the government they deserve.  Besides, there is probably a tech fix.

* Wouldn't the same voters, especially those who have plenty of time to vote, make up the bulk of the sample? 
Yes, but the beauty of a well-done poll is that it filters out bias. So, no matter how many issues you vote on, the 'formula' would randomly select your vote only when it needed a 43-year-old Native American female making between $30 - $50,000.

* What about those without a computer? 
By the time this idea is more than an experiment, computers at libraries and community centers would likely be able to handle those without one.  Besides, while the raw data might be missing for the computer-less, their racial, socio-economic and age groups would be adequately covered, thanks to census data. 

* Wouldn't Republicans disproportionately benefit? 
Since Democratic congressional districts are more apt to be overwhelmingly Democratic (in urban areas), it would seem that Republicans would tend to have more districts where a representative's persuasive power could be put to use. But, it could also be claimed that, to a degree, Democratic ideas tend to rely on knowledgeable voters able to understand in-depth issues, so, raising the level of voter education will likely be to their advantage.  Result: neither party benefits.

How long will it be before a representative opts to take politics to a higher level? And how long after that before the entire House of Representatives sorts through the issues of the day using polling input from constituents? Could the House become the thinking mind of the body politic in our lifetime?

What A Schock !

What's Up With The Whig -- part 2

The 50-year look back

The Quincy Herald-Whig has a reputation for endorsing candidates from both political parties. It tends to side with incumbents and the status-quo, but that isn't surprising for a newspaper that aims for the political center.

Seen from my thoroughly objective perspective, however, it is guilty of short-sightedness.

Take the HW's recent endorsement of Aaron Schock (R) for the US House from Illinois' 18th district. We'll dive right into their reasons for thinking he would be superior to his Democratic opponent, D.K. "Deirdre" Hirner:

"During his freshman term in Congress, Schock established himself as a respected voice for his district, a supporter of critical infrastructure and a vote for fiscally conservative government in the mold of [former Congressman and current Transportation Secretary] LaHood."

What to make of this? Well, do stifle any huzzahs for local pork, the "critical infrastructure" the endorsement cites. Pork is what any Congressman or -woman would bring home if they wanted to be re-elected. No, the real difference, assuming both candidates are adequate to the task, lies with the paper's term "fiscally conservative government". For that, we refer to the paper's article on the two candidates from the day before.

"[Schock] said government's role is to provide an environment that "minimizes risk and allows the private sector to thrive. However, Schock said that's not what has happened during the past two years under a Democratic majority in Congress."

"Legislation like cap-and-trade, record deficit spending, the health care bill and financial regulations have only added to the uncertainty in the private sector and caused entrepreneurs and businessmen to pull back and stop hiring."

Taking a first bite: Any objective analysis of the past two years can't ignore the intense anxiety that was the financial crisis and near-depression of '08-'09. So, the fact that the economy has been stabilized, with 1-3% GDP for the past year or so, and a financial sector that isn't bringing the world to a screeching halt, means, one would think, that "risk minimization" has been effected.

Strike one.

And what about "legislation like cap-and-trade"? We'll call this a "Ball". The legislation in question, once 'adjusted' by the Senate, would have had such things as taxpayer underwriting of the nuclear power industry, just when nuclear power has been left behind, price-wise, by other power sources. And considering nuclear power's history of cost escalations during construction, cap-and-trade could easily have amounted to an enormous financial liability, due to the need to horse-trade. The last thing this country needs is an army of white elephants sitting idle, while electricity prices go through the roof.

"Record deficit spending". This is strike two for Schock. The legacy of the years of Republican domination in Congress is a massive deficit fueled by an enormous expansion of Medicare (the addition of a drug benefit), a huge expenditure overseas (Remember when Republicans were quibbling with John Kerry about his $200 billion price tag for the Iraq war? How about five times that amount?) and of course the infamous Bush Tax Cuts.

Since Bush left office in January '09, with the economy shedding jobs at its fastest pace in the entire, sad recession, the Democratic majorities in Congress witnessed Bush's bailout of the financial sector paid back and the economy brought back from the brink. Though health care legislation was passed during this period, it will not take effect for another three years.

And the "health care bill"? We'll call that a foul ball. It hasn't come into being yet, so we can't be sure how it will affect the deficit. Except, this is where the serious money is. The status quo will mean deficits that are 2-3 times what we have now. So, something need be done. And it can be argued that the Democrats put in place some good deficit reduction tools that we all hope will work.

That leaves us with a 1-2 count and just 'financial regulation' left. And again, we'll call it a foul ball that Schock only just barely get's a piece of. Simply put, why would Wall Street fight so hard, opposing new regulations, if, as appears likely, their profits will be unaffected? Perhaps they simply prefer the old system that...whoops...just about crashed the world economy.

Ah, but what about Schock's contention that the above perceived failings on the part of the Democrats has led to "...uncertainty in the private sector and that this uncertainty has "...caused entrepreneurs and businessmen to pull back and stop hiring"? That, my friends, is strike three. For it just isn't true. Polls of business sentiment have shown that what is keeping business managers from hiring more workers is that people just aren't buying at the rate that would warrant greater production. "...uncertainty..." in other words, is perhaps a minor concern, but more like an explanation in service of the 'risk minimization' theory. When, in reality, the economy is in much better shape than it was in January '09.

It has become a cliche, but do we really want leaders who see things the way George Bush saw them? I think not, and in fifty years endorsements such as the Whig's of Schock will be seen as good examples of how conventional thinking had lost it's way.

What's Up With The Whig

Whiggin' It?

Today's Herald-Whig (Oct. 3, '10) contained an attempt at an overview of the electric car phenomenon from a local perspective.

The news that most likely precipitated the article was that the Chevy Volt would be sold on the coasts prior to being offered mid-country. This seems to have caused the writer to call a local dealership to get the scoop... and that was about it for his sources. I know it's been said many times before, but there is 'the google'.

Unfortunately for the reader, we learned that what is holding up the spread of the electric vehicle is the lack of re-fueling stations.

Most overviews I've read identify the commuter who can drive to and from work on an over-night charge as being the target demographic. Not the cross-country driver, although the vehicle does contain a 300-mile tank of gas in addition to the electric battery that will last for 40 miles (which is about right for a majority of commuters, I believe).

Significantly, the price of electricity is so much cheaper than the price of gas that the oft-quoted $41,000 price for a Volt, lowered into the low- $30,000 range by federal encouragement, is actually not that unlikely for someone who will do a vast majority of their driving to and from work.

Have to wonder whether a chart comparing the costs of buying a Volt, as opposed to an all-gas vehicle, might have piqued the general reader's interest. Instead, we get the "...nothing going on here, folks..." approach.

Hah, we are under no time constraints, and therefore, the urge to 'Whig it' can be resisted. So, let's look into the cost comparison:

*** Let's take a $20,000 vehicle that gets 25 mpg and add the price of gas

over a three year period.

Let's say $3.50 a gallon, average, over the next three years. And we'll say that

the owner averages 30 miles a day (shopping, entertainment, plus work).

So, that's 365 x 30 = 10,950 x 3 years = 32,850 divided by 25 = 1,314 gallons

meaning that gas costs 1,314 x $3.50 = $4,599.

That means the price of about $33,500 can be brought down to about $29,000.

Update: the next generation of Volts will qualify for California's

$5,000 tax credit rebate, as the battery will be guaranteed for either

10 years or 150,000 miles. So, if you live in CA, you're down to $24,000 !

*** But we're not finished. That's because GM is expected to lease the Volt for

a competitive price, thus being able to recycle the car's battery--the big ticket

item in an electric vehicle. Suddenly, the Volt becomes relatively competitive.

And is that government subsidy justified? Here's why it is:

** The eventual price of a mass-produced car like the Volt will drop as the price

of the all-important battery falls. But first there must be mass-production.

** The electric grid tends to be flush with extra electricity during the night, just

when people will be charging their electric cars (this is because power plants

are kept running 24/7). So, not only will we reap the environmental and

security risks of eliminating the need for more and more foreign oil, but we

won't necessarily need to build more power plants in the bargain.

The Rare Word -- Mark Twain Edition

The Rare Word -- An Occasional Series

In an interview given in Sydney, Australia in 1896, Mark Twain speaks thusly:

"It is not true that owing to my lack of humor I was once discharged from a humorous publication. It's an event that could very likely happen were I on the staff of a humorous paper--but then I'd never get into a fix like that. I'd never undertake to be humorous by contract. If I wanted my worst enemy to be racked I'd make him the editor of a comic paper. For me there must be contrast; for humorous effect I must have solemn background; I'd let my contribution [writing - ed.] into an undertaker's paper or the London Times. Set a diamond upon a pall of black if you'd have it glisten."

Note the words "fix", "solemn", "contract", "racked", "glisten", "pall" and "discharged".

Will Roger's -- on a roll

"The quickest way to double your money is to fold it and put it back into your pocket."