I heard a pretty simple but amazing thing today on Fresh Air, while I was driving to pick up my new suit from the tailor, for my brother's wedding this weekend. (You may email me with congratulations.)
The guest was talking about how important it is for children to get a good night's sleep. He said that while adults spend only 4% of the night in what is called "low-wave" sleep, kids spend 40% of the night in low-wave sleep. Makes you want to know what's going on in low-wave sleep, right? You're not alone. According to his research, this is when your brain is chemically converting short-term memories into long-term memories.
Sick, right? Way to go humans!
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Putting the public in option
I thought that only two things were clear from the New York Times poll on the front page of yesterday’s paper. First, everyone is confused. Second, people want the public option.
I was shocked by the second part (not the first part – I am also confused). Asked “Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan like Medicare, that would compete with private insurance plans?,” 65% or respondents favor such a program, 26% oppose, and 9% have no opinion. And to the first point, that is the only concrete statement about health care reform that more than two-fifths of respondents were able to answer. Has Obama explained it well enough? 37%. Do you understand what’s under consideration? 37%. Does the GOP have an articulated alternative? 14%. 14% is a coin flip among the 28% who weren’t listening to the question. And on all specific details, the preponderance of answers are “don’t know enough.”
But people seem to want the public option. From this poll – and it is only one poll – that strongly emerges as the only conclusion that people have drawn about what’s on the table. Seems like we should do it, then, huh?
By the way, 26% still think there are death panels.
I was shocked by the second part (not the first part – I am also confused). Asked “Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan like Medicare, that would compete with private insurance plans?,” 65% or respondents favor such a program, 26% oppose, and 9% have no opinion. And to the first point, that is the only concrete statement about health care reform that more than two-fifths of respondents were able to answer. Has Obama explained it well enough? 37%. Do you understand what’s under consideration? 37%. Does the GOP have an articulated alternative? 14%. 14% is a coin flip among the 28% who weren’t listening to the question. And on all specific details, the preponderance of answers are “don’t know enough.”
But people seem to want the public option. From this poll – and it is only one poll – that strongly emerges as the only conclusion that people have drawn about what’s on the table. Seems like we should do it, then, huh?
By the way, 26% still think there are death panels.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Big is Beautiful
Paul Volcker says the administration is planning to continue the policy rationale of "too big to fail," implicitly promising future bailouts should the need arise.
I'm slightly disappointed, but that sentiment is starting to have a certain gnawing familiarity. There is an obvious public interest in keeping private institutions from becoming "too big to fail," but these megacorporations make so much money just based on scale - and spend so much of that money on Democrats - that I know I'm kidding myself to think anything would or could be done about it. By the way, donde estan Republicans on this? Where is your budget freakout about exposing taxpayers to these potential outlays? Where are your costumed nutjobs and their misspelled signs protesting government takeovers of things? You're really missing out on some out-of-power minority rock-throwing here.
On balance, I am actually okay with keeping the rationale - so long as the administration comes through on some kind of banker compensation rule such that it rewards long term growth as opposed to short-term stock price gains. Otherwise, bankers are just playing with house money.
If bringing up "excessive" banker compensation serves a polemic purpose in this fight, then fine. And if we have to ridicule the banking establishment's claims that the market is rewarding "talent," which I do find rankling, then so be it. But there's no real public interest in forestalling "objectively" high compensation, whatever that may be. If compensation is a market price arrived upon within bounds of the rule above, then great.
I'm slightly disappointed, but that sentiment is starting to have a certain gnawing familiarity. There is an obvious public interest in keeping private institutions from becoming "too big to fail," but these megacorporations make so much money just based on scale - and spend so much of that money on Democrats - that I know I'm kidding myself to think anything would or could be done about it. By the way, donde estan Republicans on this? Where is your budget freakout about exposing taxpayers to these potential outlays? Where are your costumed nutjobs and their misspelled signs protesting government takeovers of things? You're really missing out on some out-of-power minority rock-throwing here.
On balance, I am actually okay with keeping the rationale - so long as the administration comes through on some kind of banker compensation rule such that it rewards long term growth as opposed to short-term stock price gains. Otherwise, bankers are just playing with house money.
If bringing up "excessive" banker compensation serves a polemic purpose in this fight, then fine. And if we have to ridicule the banking establishment's claims that the market is rewarding "talent," which I do find rankling, then so be it. But there's no real public interest in forestalling "objectively" high compensation, whatever that may be. If compensation is a market price arrived upon within bounds of the rule above, then great.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Obama's "correct and brave" decision
The Obama administration’s decision to scrap missile defense in Eastern Europe has shed some light on the following items of note:
--Despite claims to the contrary, the missile-defense shield, as originally conceived under the Bush administration, was intended to counter Russia, not Iran. Or at least that was the understanding of the Poles and Czechs. How else are we to explain their vehement objections to losing this supposedly anti-Iranian defense-shield when everyone agrees that Iran has zero intention--now or ever--of threatening Poland or the Czech Republic with missiles? Clearly, and somewhat understandably, the Poles and Czechs are worried about their historically not-so-friendly neighbor to the east.
--The right-wingers in America have been forced to show their hand that they, too, intended the shield to counter Russia. How else are we to explain the hissy-fit they are collectively throwing given that Obama’s new missile-defense plan will, in theory, be better suited to the Iranian threat than the former Eastern Europe-based shield, though it will be useless against Russia? If they really were worried about Iran--and Iran only--they should be cheering this change in course.
--The right-wingers have also revealed the degree to which they are still trapped in Cold War thinking. Their favorite word for describing Obama’s shift in policy is “appeasement.” They employ this highly-charged word so as to harken back to another “retreat from Czechoslovakia,” when Neville Chamberlain handed over the Sudetenland to Hitler’s Germany in 1938. The use of the word “appeasement” implies that the party being “appeased” is uncompromisingly aggressive, as Hitler was leading up to WWII. To assume that today’s Russia is belligerent in the same way as Hitler, or in the same way as the Soviet Union was during the Cold War, shows a poor understanding of the nature of Putin’s regime.
--This near-hysteria displayed by the neocons brings me to, perhaps, the most interesting aspect of this episode. It centers on Putin’s description of Obama’s decision as “correct and brave.” Why “brave?” To my mind, Obama’s decision displayed more common sense than bravery. Because I assume that Russia has zero interest in attacking or otherwise threatening Poland, because I’m dubious of the shield’s technical viability, and because I’m disgusted by the shield’s cost (both financially and in terms of pissing off the Russians), missile-defense in Eastern Europe strikes me as worse than useless, and its scrapping as a no-brainer decision. Putin likely agrees with my above assessment, yet he recognizes the decision as “brave.” The bravery comes in when we consider the intensity of the heat Obama is getting from the “appeasement”-crying crowd. Putin knows how difficult it is to stand up to “appeasement” talk because he has his own neocon-types in Russia to deal with. The Russian paranoids, like their American neocon counterparts, assume that America is Russia’s enemy, and that if Russia gives America an inch, it will take a foot. With the Cold War still dominating the mind-set of these paranoid brains (in both countries), it takes serious balls to unilaterally make a change in policy that will incite these folks’ ire. Thus, the “brave” comment.
Regardless of whether or not Russia reciprocates by dropping its opposition to possible sanctions against Iran, Obama’s decision to scrap the Eastern Europe missile shield was, indeed, “correct and brave”. The Bush administration had set American-Russian relations on a track towards a renewed Cold War. With this act, Obama opens the door to much friendlier relations between the two countries, which if achieved, will pay great dividends in the years to come.
--Despite claims to the contrary, the missile-defense shield, as originally conceived under the Bush administration, was intended to counter Russia, not Iran. Or at least that was the understanding of the Poles and Czechs. How else are we to explain their vehement objections to losing this supposedly anti-Iranian defense-shield when everyone agrees that Iran has zero intention--now or ever--of threatening Poland or the Czech Republic with missiles? Clearly, and somewhat understandably, the Poles and Czechs are worried about their historically not-so-friendly neighbor to the east.
--The right-wingers in America have been forced to show their hand that they, too, intended the shield to counter Russia. How else are we to explain the hissy-fit they are collectively throwing given that Obama’s new missile-defense plan will, in theory, be better suited to the Iranian threat than the former Eastern Europe-based shield, though it will be useless against Russia? If they really were worried about Iran--and Iran only--they should be cheering this change in course.
--The right-wingers have also revealed the degree to which they are still trapped in Cold War thinking. Their favorite word for describing Obama’s shift in policy is “appeasement.” They employ this highly-charged word so as to harken back to another “retreat from Czechoslovakia,” when Neville Chamberlain handed over the Sudetenland to Hitler’s Germany in 1938. The use of the word “appeasement” implies that the party being “appeased” is uncompromisingly aggressive, as Hitler was leading up to WWII. To assume that today’s Russia is belligerent in the same way as Hitler, or in the same way as the Soviet Union was during the Cold War, shows a poor understanding of the nature of Putin’s regime.
--This near-hysteria displayed by the neocons brings me to, perhaps, the most interesting aspect of this episode. It centers on Putin’s description of Obama’s decision as “correct and brave.” Why “brave?” To my mind, Obama’s decision displayed more common sense than bravery. Because I assume that Russia has zero interest in attacking or otherwise threatening Poland, because I’m dubious of the shield’s technical viability, and because I’m disgusted by the shield’s cost (both financially and in terms of pissing off the Russians), missile-defense in Eastern Europe strikes me as worse than useless, and its scrapping as a no-brainer decision. Putin likely agrees with my above assessment, yet he recognizes the decision as “brave.” The bravery comes in when we consider the intensity of the heat Obama is getting from the “appeasement”-crying crowd. Putin knows how difficult it is to stand up to “appeasement” talk because he has his own neocon-types in Russia to deal with. The Russian paranoids, like their American neocon counterparts, assume that America is Russia’s enemy, and that if Russia gives America an inch, it will take a foot. With the Cold War still dominating the mind-set of these paranoid brains (in both countries), it takes serious balls to unilaterally make a change in policy that will incite these folks’ ire. Thus, the “brave” comment.
Regardless of whether or not Russia reciprocates by dropping its opposition to possible sanctions against Iran, Obama’s decision to scrap the Eastern Europe missile shield was, indeed, “correct and brave”. The Bush administration had set American-Russian relations on a track towards a renewed Cold War. With this act, Obama opens the door to much friendlier relations between the two countries, which if achieved, will pay great dividends in the years to come.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Card Playin'
Certainly there were ample displays of racism during the so-called "9/12" protests - Maureen Dowd brought to our attention
In our attempt to explain certain anti-Obama statements, I suspect we are led to racism in part because of a phenomenon called the "solipsism of the present moment." This is the feeling that whatever is happening right now is way more intense, way more revolutionary, way CRAZIER than anything we've ever seen before. We're appalled by what we take to be the extraordinary coarseness of political rhetoric and are driven to think there must be some extraordinary, previously unseen cause at work. To be sure, much of the "criticism" of Obama is straight-up racist, like the bits cited above, and much of the "criticism" is pretty much racist, i.e. the "birthers" movement. But a lot of it - the bulk of it - fits in with the generally ugly tone of the way we've historically talked about politics. Bush was constantly compared to Hitler. His legitimacy was constantly questioned. (Not to conflate those claims with birther claims - they're obviously not in the same ballpark - but they are the same sport.) Oh, and Andrew Jackson's wife was called a prostitute.
such classy placards as, with a picture of a lion, “The Zoo has an African and the White House has a Lyin’ African;” “Bury Obamacare with Kennedy;” “We came unarmed (this time)” and “ ‘Cap’ Congress and ‘Trade’ Obama back to Kenya!”But I don't agree with President Carter that "You lie!" involved racism (at least, it didn't involve racism against Obama, as Carter suggested - whether or not it involved racism against Mexican people is another matter). And to any extent that it did, Carter was not being particularly strategic in making this charge, a point very cogently made by Michael Tomasky in the Guardian.
In our attempt to explain certain anti-Obama statements, I suspect we are led to racism in part because of a phenomenon called the "solipsism of the present moment." This is the feeling that whatever is happening right now is way more intense, way more revolutionary, way CRAZIER than anything we've ever seen before. We're appalled by what we take to be the extraordinary coarseness of political rhetoric and are driven to think there must be some extraordinary, previously unseen cause at work. To be sure, much of the "criticism" of Obama is straight-up racist, like the bits cited above, and much of the "criticism" is pretty much racist, i.e. the "birthers" movement. But a lot of it - the bulk of it - fits in with the generally ugly tone of the way we've historically talked about politics. Bush was constantly compared to Hitler. His legitimacy was constantly questioned. (Not to conflate those claims with birther claims - they're obviously not in the same ballpark - but they are the same sport.) Oh, and Andrew Jackson's wife was called a prostitute.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Squaring the Circle of Two Rigged Elections
It increasingly looks like the Afghan elections were rigged by Karzai and his cronies. While that fact doesn’t surprise (newsflash shocker: Afghanistan is full of corrupt politicians and does not have the social and political infrastructure to support free and fair elections!), the reaction in Washington and in the media to Karzai’s rigging does serve as a useful reminder of the hypocrisy that infuses our differing treatment of different regimes.
I’m comparing, of course, the differing treatment of the rigged election in Iran and the rigged election in Afghanistan. While the two riggings are certainly not perfectly equivalent (there was no widespread protest and subsequent violence in Afghanistan, for one), it is almost laughable how different the two election frauds have been presented to us by politicians and by reporters. The rigging in Iran was, by and large, treated as an affront to all humanity that deserved, at the very least, strong rhetorical intervention from Washington. The Afghanistan rigging, on the other hand, has been decidedly under-reported, and has inspired barely audible mumbles and grunts from some of the same folks who were on the rooftops calling for Ahmadinejad’s head. Something has got to give here.
But it’s hard to say where, exactly, the consensus view of these two events went awry.
One possible way to square the circle would be to loudly denounce Karzai for being the corruption machine that he is, suggest that Obama withdraw support from the Karzai administration, and call for new elections in order to restore legitimacy to the fledgling democracy of Afghanistan. But no one is suggesting we go down that path, and for good reason. It doesn’t make a whole lot of practical sense, given that Karzai’s opponents are no better than Karzai in the corruption department, and another go at an election in Afghanistan is unlikely to result in a more legitimate outcome anyway. The democracy infrastructure is simply not up to the task.
A second possibility would have been to treat the Iranian rigging with the kid-gloves we are using in Afghanistan, and to greet the Iranian fraud with the same deafening silence we are hearing from the chattering class after the Afghan elections. This also doesn’t feel right, particularly in light of the inspiring and brave protests that erupted in reaction to the rigging injustice in Iran.
The only somewhat satisfying way to justify this differing treatment requires a cold, hard look at when and where democracy is a useful way of government. I would suggest that having an election in Afghanistan was a bad idea from the beginning. It was never going to accomplish anything positive on the ground, and was useful only for window-dressing purposes. Afghan society may one day be ready for a legitimate and functioning democracy, but that day is not near. A warlord-driven, pre-industrial, poverty stricken country with a drug-based economy and a tribal-based political infrastructure is not a good place to suddenly have an election. The failure of those elections, while unfortunate, was to be expected, and can therefore somewhat justifiably be greeted with cynical resignation rather than principled outrage.
Iran, on the other hand, is a wholly different story. With its large, young, highly educated, and technologically savvy middle-class population, Iran provides fertile ground for legitimate democracy. The crushing of that democratic spirit was rightly perceived as unjust, even tragic.
But because it is highly unpopular to suggest that democracy might not be appropriate in every circumstance and in every country and at any time, many pundits and politicians are left embarrassingly tongue-tied when asked to talk about Karzai and his election fraud. And the rest of the world can be forgiven for criticizing the U.S. for its hypocrisy: outraged when its “enemy” rigs an election, but silent when its “ally” does the same.
I’m comparing, of course, the differing treatment of the rigged election in Iran and the rigged election in Afghanistan. While the two riggings are certainly not perfectly equivalent (there was no widespread protest and subsequent violence in Afghanistan, for one), it is almost laughable how different the two election frauds have been presented to us by politicians and by reporters. The rigging in Iran was, by and large, treated as an affront to all humanity that deserved, at the very least, strong rhetorical intervention from Washington. The Afghanistan rigging, on the other hand, has been decidedly under-reported, and has inspired barely audible mumbles and grunts from some of the same folks who were on the rooftops calling for Ahmadinejad’s head. Something has got to give here.
But it’s hard to say where, exactly, the consensus view of these two events went awry.
One possible way to square the circle would be to loudly denounce Karzai for being the corruption machine that he is, suggest that Obama withdraw support from the Karzai administration, and call for new elections in order to restore legitimacy to the fledgling democracy of Afghanistan. But no one is suggesting we go down that path, and for good reason. It doesn’t make a whole lot of practical sense, given that Karzai’s opponents are no better than Karzai in the corruption department, and another go at an election in Afghanistan is unlikely to result in a more legitimate outcome anyway. The democracy infrastructure is simply not up to the task.
A second possibility would have been to treat the Iranian rigging with the kid-gloves we are using in Afghanistan, and to greet the Iranian fraud with the same deafening silence we are hearing from the chattering class after the Afghan elections. This also doesn’t feel right, particularly in light of the inspiring and brave protests that erupted in reaction to the rigging injustice in Iran.
The only somewhat satisfying way to justify this differing treatment requires a cold, hard look at when and where democracy is a useful way of government. I would suggest that having an election in Afghanistan was a bad idea from the beginning. It was never going to accomplish anything positive on the ground, and was useful only for window-dressing purposes. Afghan society may one day be ready for a legitimate and functioning democracy, but that day is not near. A warlord-driven, pre-industrial, poverty stricken country with a drug-based economy and a tribal-based political infrastructure is not a good place to suddenly have an election. The failure of those elections, while unfortunate, was to be expected, and can therefore somewhat justifiably be greeted with cynical resignation rather than principled outrage.
Iran, on the other hand, is a wholly different story. With its large, young, highly educated, and technologically savvy middle-class population, Iran provides fertile ground for legitimate democracy. The crushing of that democratic spirit was rightly perceived as unjust, even tragic.
But because it is highly unpopular to suggest that democracy might not be appropriate in every circumstance and in every country and at any time, many pundits and politicians are left embarrassingly tongue-tied when asked to talk about Karzai and his election fraud. And the rest of the world can be forgiven for criticizing the U.S. for its hypocrisy: outraged when its “enemy” rigs an election, but silent when its “ally” does the same.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
What Should Be Done About Afghanistan?
My man, Anatol Lieven, has some interesting ideas that make a lot of sense to me. They are particularly worth considering for those of us who want our troops to get the heck out of there because we believe more troops do more harm than good, yet we have no good plan for how to leave responsibly.
Afghanistan is such a mess, it's almost too depressing to think about. Is the earliest we can safely get out of there really 5 years from now, as Lieven suggests? It sure looks that way...
Afghanistan is such a mess, it's almost too depressing to think about. Is the earliest we can safely get out of there really 5 years from now, as Lieven suggests? It sure looks that way...
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Blast Off with Reggie Watts at Spaceland
Angelenos, next Friday, Sept. 11th, one of my favorite performers will be performing a performance at Spaceland. That's the only word I can use, because it's very difficult to explain what Reggie Watts does - it's a blend of music and comedy that are both improvised at facebreaking speed. I guess that was a pretty good description. Check out this video as well as the live performance on the 11th.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
In Defense of Obama
Obama has bungled health care and the left is pissed. Many heavy-hitting, left-leaning pundits—including Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, and our own Luvh Rakhe—have all voiced strong and reasoned reservations about Obama’s handling of health care, and have even gone so far as to float the idea that other like-minded lefties should contemplate open revolt against the feel-good, faux-reform, bipartisan-at-any-cost presidency. But this rash abandonment of Obama, or even just a loss of faith in him, would be a big mistake.
I never imagined I would find myself on Obama’s side of this particular debate. After all, I was one of the original Obama skeptics back in the primaries when it was already apparent that he wanted to please all peoples, all of the time, and was willing to sacrifice his principles to do so. And I certainly do not want to defend Obama’s pathetic political strategy for health care reform. I whole-heartedly agree that deferring to Congress and seeking bipartisanship was a big mistake. He should have been out front on the issue and using his rhetorical skills to their fullest potential.
But I do want to defend Obama’s presidency more generally, forgive him his political failings, and try to put the political jockeying around health care in the proper perspective.
Frankly, I’m puzzled that the left has decided to place almost all of the blame for the watering down of health care reform on the shoulders of Obama. Why not blame Congress!? While Congress is packed to the gills with spineless, clueless, compromise-obsessed Neanderthals, it’s clear to me that Obama’s heart is in the right place. Obama’s failure is not one of intention, but one of execution, which is a much lesser transgression.
And the left’s expectation that real universal health care reform was within reach because of big Democratic majorities in Congress was always a little pie-in-the-sky. The U.S. government is an inherently conservative body--not in terms of ideology, but in terms of its ability to legislate sweeping changes. The game is essentially rigged against radical reform, and always has been. The idea of universal health care has been around since the original Progressive Era; and back then it was stymied by the same forces Obama is struggling with today—a do-nothing Congress that is beholden to special interests and beholden to local, parochial constituents.
Teddy Roosevelt, the “radical reform” president of that Progressive Era, was able to pass a number of important reforms (including strong regulation of the then-powerful railroads, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and strong environmental protection policies), but could do so only in his second term after much of the conservative opposition within his own party had been neutralized (sound familiar?). And even in that second term, he was unable to pass other reforms that would have created an eight-hour workday, inheritance and income taxes, and would have regulated the stock market. In short, Obama’s difficulties with instituting sweeping reform are to be expected, and any reforms that are hard-hitting enough to satisfy today’s progressives will likely come in a second term—if Obama gets one.
We should also recognize that, when it comes to foreign policy, a political arena in which Congress has very little sway, Obama is delivering the goods (with the notable exception of Afghanistan). The fact that he has stumbled out of the gate on the domestic front is no reason to abandon him. Liberals should, instead, rally around him, recognize that Rome wasn’t built in a day, make sure he gets re-elected (especially because the likely alternative to an Obama second term is too horrifying to even contemplate), and then make a big push for more radical reform in 2012 and beyond.
UPDATE: Ross Douthat has an interesting piece that places blame for the bungling of health care on the Democratic Party's "inability to govern." I blame Congress more generally (the special interests, that power is skewed towards non-populous states, etc.--and after all, it's not just the Democratic Party that has shown an inabilty to govern!); but he is right that it makes no sense for Obama to take all the heat for a failure that is not entirely of his making.
I never imagined I would find myself on Obama’s side of this particular debate. After all, I was one of the original Obama skeptics back in the primaries when it was already apparent that he wanted to please all peoples, all of the time, and was willing to sacrifice his principles to do so. And I certainly do not want to defend Obama’s pathetic political strategy for health care reform. I whole-heartedly agree that deferring to Congress and seeking bipartisanship was a big mistake. He should have been out front on the issue and using his rhetorical skills to their fullest potential.
But I do want to defend Obama’s presidency more generally, forgive him his political failings, and try to put the political jockeying around health care in the proper perspective.
Frankly, I’m puzzled that the left has decided to place almost all of the blame for the watering down of health care reform on the shoulders of Obama. Why not blame Congress!? While Congress is packed to the gills with spineless, clueless, compromise-obsessed Neanderthals, it’s clear to me that Obama’s heart is in the right place. Obama’s failure is not one of intention, but one of execution, which is a much lesser transgression.
And the left’s expectation that real universal health care reform was within reach because of big Democratic majorities in Congress was always a little pie-in-the-sky. The U.S. government is an inherently conservative body--not in terms of ideology, but in terms of its ability to legislate sweeping changes. The game is essentially rigged against radical reform, and always has been. The idea of universal health care has been around since the original Progressive Era; and back then it was stymied by the same forces Obama is struggling with today—a do-nothing Congress that is beholden to special interests and beholden to local, parochial constituents.
Teddy Roosevelt, the “radical reform” president of that Progressive Era, was able to pass a number of important reforms (including strong regulation of the then-powerful railroads, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and strong environmental protection policies), but could do so only in his second term after much of the conservative opposition within his own party had been neutralized (sound familiar?). And even in that second term, he was unable to pass other reforms that would have created an eight-hour workday, inheritance and income taxes, and would have regulated the stock market. In short, Obama’s difficulties with instituting sweeping reform are to be expected, and any reforms that are hard-hitting enough to satisfy today’s progressives will likely come in a second term—if Obama gets one.
We should also recognize that, when it comes to foreign policy, a political arena in which Congress has very little sway, Obama is delivering the goods (with the notable exception of Afghanistan). The fact that he has stumbled out of the gate on the domestic front is no reason to abandon him. Liberals should, instead, rally around him, recognize that Rome wasn’t built in a day, make sure he gets re-elected (especially because the likely alternative to an Obama second term is too horrifying to even contemplate), and then make a big push for more radical reform in 2012 and beyond.
UPDATE: Ross Douthat has an interesting piece that places blame for the bungling of health care on the Democratic Party's "inability to govern." I blame Congress more generally (the special interests, that power is skewed towards non-populous states, etc.--and after all, it's not just the Democratic Party that has shown an inabilty to govern!); but he is right that it makes no sense for Obama to take all the heat for a failure that is not entirely of his making.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The only mistake was calling it "Public"
It must be tough being a Republican wading into the health care debate. How are you supposed to know which of your ideological guideposts to navigate by? On the one hand, your whole life you’ve been convinced that government can’t do anything right – that everything government does is bloated, inefficient, ineffective, and wasteful. On the other hand, you just know in your heart of hearts that there’s scarcely a problem that private markets can’t handle, if they are truly allowed to roam like the grass-fed, free-range bison that we would all subsist off of if Washington hadn’t screwed it all up.
But here in the midst of the health care debate – and seriously, can you ever imagine a time when we’ll be talking about anything else? – the ideologically pure Republican finds himself in a bad quandary.
The Public Plan. The second word is “Public.” Let’s go burn down a town hall meeting. And we’re not too wild about the word “Plan” either.
If the machinery of public process were ever about anything other than partisan warfare, for just a day, wouldn’t we see that the rationale behind The Public Plan seems to be exactly the coin of compromise in which we’d all rather be trading? As far as I understand it – which maybe I don’t – here’s the basic idea:
• Make a health insurance company.
• Have the government run it like Medicare (which is one of the best-run insurance companies in the country).
• Let people stick with their existing policy, but give them the choice to switch to The Public Plan if they so choose.
Insurance companies hate it. They – some of the most fantastically profitable private companies in the country – say that they can’t compete against a low-cost government-run new market entrant. But here’s where the ground begins to give way underfoot for the ideologically pure Republican. If you don’t think government can ever do anything right, then the insurance companies are wrong – they can compete against the government, because the public sector won’t be able to provide what people want, and even if it could, it wouldn’t be at a price that beats the private sector. But if the insurance companies are right, and they can’t compete with The Public Plan, well then I’m giving that one of my all time biggest WTFs. What ideology is it that tells any elected official to protect insurance companies from a cheaper plan to which people choose to switch?
There are two answers, as far as I can tell. First, and obviously true and part of the answer, is that it’s the ideology of getting campaign contributions from rich people who require government intervention to stay rich. Second, though, maybe some people think that the end of that story is that we are again left without competition and choice – that some people would rather not be on Any Public Plan, but that they would have no choice after most or all insurance companies are driven out of business (again, by a government insurer that offers quality care for less). In that sense, those who cry foul when President Obama says “if you like the insurance you have, you can keep it” may be right. You may have to switch to a plan that is cheaper and better, run by your choice of the government or a new insurance company that can, through American-style creative destruction and innovation, compete with a cost-effective, science-based, market-driven alternative, probably by being cost-effective, science-based, and market-driven itself.
The Public Plan is such a sensible compromise. It essentially says, OK, let’s not be deterministic about whether The Public Plan is right for none or a few or most or all Americans, let’s just dip the public toe into the marketplace, and let’s let the market figure it out.
Shouldn’t this appeal to the ideologically pure Republican? Perhaps co-ops could do this just as well. Hopefully we’ll get to at least try something.
But here in the midst of the health care debate – and seriously, can you ever imagine a time when we’ll be talking about anything else? – the ideologically pure Republican finds himself in a bad quandary.
The Public Plan. The second word is “Public.” Let’s go burn down a town hall meeting. And we’re not too wild about the word “Plan” either.
If the machinery of public process were ever about anything other than partisan warfare, for just a day, wouldn’t we see that the rationale behind The Public Plan seems to be exactly the coin of compromise in which we’d all rather be trading? As far as I understand it – which maybe I don’t – here’s the basic idea:
• Make a health insurance company.
• Have the government run it like Medicare (which is one of the best-run insurance companies in the country).
• Let people stick with their existing policy, but give them the choice to switch to The Public Plan if they so choose.
Insurance companies hate it. They – some of the most fantastically profitable private companies in the country – say that they can’t compete against a low-cost government-run new market entrant. But here’s where the ground begins to give way underfoot for the ideologically pure Republican. If you don’t think government can ever do anything right, then the insurance companies are wrong – they can compete against the government, because the public sector won’t be able to provide what people want, and even if it could, it wouldn’t be at a price that beats the private sector. But if the insurance companies are right, and they can’t compete with The Public Plan, well then I’m giving that one of my all time biggest WTFs. What ideology is it that tells any elected official to protect insurance companies from a cheaper plan to which people choose to switch?
There are two answers, as far as I can tell. First, and obviously true and part of the answer, is that it’s the ideology of getting campaign contributions from rich people who require government intervention to stay rich. Second, though, maybe some people think that the end of that story is that we are again left without competition and choice – that some people would rather not be on Any Public Plan, but that they would have no choice after most or all insurance companies are driven out of business (again, by a government insurer that offers quality care for less). In that sense, those who cry foul when President Obama says “if you like the insurance you have, you can keep it” may be right. You may have to switch to a plan that is cheaper and better, run by your choice of the government or a new insurance company that can, through American-style creative destruction and innovation, compete with a cost-effective, science-based, market-driven alternative, probably by being cost-effective, science-based, and market-driven itself.
The Public Plan is such a sensible compromise. It essentially says, OK, let’s not be deterministic about whether The Public Plan is right for none or a few or most or all Americans, let’s just dip the public toe into the marketplace, and let’s let the market figure it out.
Shouldn’t this appeal to the ideologically pure Republican? Perhaps co-ops could do this just as well. Hopefully we’ll get to at least try something.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Health Care: Change We Can...Not Do?
I was shocked the other day to find myself IMing the following to a friend: "I'm on the verge of wishing I had voted for Hillary."
You could be forgiven for thinking I'm just trying to be provocative, and - full disclosure - I was totally delighted by my dad's reaction to my complaint: "You brought me to Obama-land! Don't leave me here." But it's true. I am on the verge. To me, the single best reason for nominating Obama over Clinton was his ability to wield the soft power of the presidency, to control the national conversation, to be teacher-in-chief - stuff that would be especially helpful in a health care debate. Instead, Obama's relative silence in the debate (until recently) has been deafening, and the "public option" is getting skeletonized before our very eyes.
I am unwild about the "learn from 1993, majorly defer to Congress" idea. This isn't 1993. The Democrats have surged back into power, and Americans are mighty disgusted with the corporate behavior they've seen over the past ten years. It would have been a great time for Obama to be out front on this issue, not to ram a bill down Congress' throat, but to give weaker members of the donkey herd some cover. Instead, we're waiting for Senator Baucus, who represents about 450,000 people, to make up his mind about a few things. Frankly, I'm not even sure what is being referred to when the press mentions the "Obama health care plan."
Things do seem to be changing now, but I think it's too late. Obama gave speeches in New Hampshire and Montana, but now they just seem to be responses to the town hall yahoos. He's sharpened his rhetoric against the insurance companies - and I do give him credit for bringing them in and neutering the Harry and Louise threat - but they seem to be getting what they want (a dead public option).
P.S., Tom Daschle, I've never wished more that you had remembered to pay your taxes.
You could be forgiven for thinking I'm just trying to be provocative, and - full disclosure - I was totally delighted by my dad's reaction to my complaint: "You brought me to Obama-land! Don't leave me here." But it's true. I am on the verge. To me, the single best reason for nominating Obama over Clinton was his ability to wield the soft power of the presidency, to control the national conversation, to be teacher-in-chief - stuff that would be especially helpful in a health care debate. Instead, Obama's relative silence in the debate (until recently) has been deafening, and the "public option" is getting skeletonized before our very eyes.
I am unwild about the "learn from 1993, majorly defer to Congress" idea. This isn't 1993. The Democrats have surged back into power, and Americans are mighty disgusted with the corporate behavior they've seen over the past ten years. It would have been a great time for Obama to be out front on this issue, not to ram a bill down Congress' throat, but to give weaker members of the donkey herd some cover. Instead, we're waiting for Senator Baucus, who represents about 450,000 people, to make up his mind about a few things. Frankly, I'm not even sure what is being referred to when the press mentions the "Obama health care plan."
Things do seem to be changing now, but I think it's too late. Obama gave speeches in New Hampshire and Montana, but now they just seem to be responses to the town hall yahoos. He's sharpened his rhetoric against the insurance companies - and I do give him credit for bringing them in and neutering the Harry and Louise threat - but they seem to be getting what they want (a dead public option).
P.S., Tom Daschle, I've never wished more that you had remembered to pay your taxes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)