I’m six feet, four inches tall. I’m often asked to retrieve items from high shelves. My height, I suspect , has made me the accidental background of stranger’s photos (ed note: I try to smile a lot so I don’t ruin them). Height does have some advantages, though. Case in point: I (A-50) was standing in line to board a flight this morning and my elevated perch afforded me the opportunity to read over the shoulder of A-49. He was reading “A Detailed Summary of Proposed Healthcare Legislation”—it was six pages long.
Unless this document had been washed, waxed, buffed and armor-alled, I guarantee it was not a “detailed” summary of the 1900 page document our nation’s Congress has been fiddling with lately. We chatted briefly about the insanity of such a title for this committee-generated propaganda, much to the amusement of folks queuing up as B 1-30. This brief improvisational riff on the work of federal legislators reminded me of something, though.
Living in D.C., I occasionally find myself at New York Avenue Presbyterian Church (I’d tell you why, but decorum encourages me to do my good deeds in secret) where Abraham Lincoln frequented. In the Lincoln Room on the first floor there is, behind some very thick glass, the original piece of paper on which President Lincoln wrote the first draft of legislation to emancipate the slaves and end slavery in America. It was one page and, it goes without saying (well, it would if I didn’t say it) handwritten.
President Lincoln’s plan to end slavery, fundamentally alter the economy of all the southern states, and provide new human rights to tens of millions of people was on ONE PAGE. Yet the 111th Congress finds it necessary to wax poetic for nearly 2000 pages to effect payment for my boo boos. (Obviously, that’s not a fair simplification of the legislation, but it WAS kinda funny and the point remains….)
Maybe the 16th President’s succinctness was laziness or perhaps just an unwillingness to tolerate the tedium involved in penning lengthy legislation. Then again, maybe there existed a general predisposition to legislative brevity that said what needed saying and left implementation details to the states and citizens. Today’s legislative process generally involves attempting to anticipate every possible reaction to the intended legislation and proactively formulating a response to those possibilities effectively creating a jobs program for attorneys. (Does anyone want to make the case that this is a welcome consequence?)
I think honest Abe was on to something from which we can learn: it should be a requirement that all legislation be hand written by the bill’s sponsor and all amendments must also be done by hand. (Neatness counts.) I think this would be an effective way to limit the voluminous mischief emanating from the hallowed halls of Congress.
Critics of their efforts, however, can continue to type until our hearts are content.
(Those wishing to disagree with the author, please mail your handwritten letters to PO Box 1234, Washington, DC, 2345X)
I’d like to share a therapy moment: I’m a failed entrepreneur. There are, of course, many stories accounting for my failure as a businessman but let me tell you my favorite. Fundamentally, I object to the marketing practices that are the fuel for America’s economic engine. Marketing and advertising exist to entice me to fork over my hard-earned dollars in exchange for products I often don’t need and previously didn’t know I wanted. I view marketing is a form of brain washing. Naturally, industry experts will tell us that all they are doing is presenting us with one side of a story and we are free to act on that information any way we want. But consumers are often blissfully unaware that they are being sold to and are seldom presented with objective views against making a purchase.
Because I have such a visceral response to being marketed to, I struggled to effectively position my own product line in a manner which attracted venture funding and, more importantly, customers. I simply couldn’t spend my days telling people they had to have a product I knew full well they were already doing just fine without.
Let me reiterate my understanding of the importance of marketing, however. I fully comprehend the necessity (and the efficacy, much to my dismay) of marketing in order to fuel our economy. And marketing, advertising and product placement are everywhere. Ralph Lauren wants you to believe that the Polo Pony on your shirt is for your benefit, yet you walk around all day as an unpaid billboard for his products. Few people question the silver name plate of JOHNSON CHEVROLET on the back of their new car, yet the dealership has surreptitiously enlisted you as a pro-bono spokesman for their business.
Television is the sneakiest of all the marketing media though. If you are under the impression that the purpose of television is to air visual entertainment to the public with commercials being a necessary interruption in order to facilitate delivery of the product (the TV show) to the consumer, you’d be sorely mistaken. Rather, the purpose of television is to deliver consumers to the products. Entertainment programming is the bait on the hook that brings consumers to a place where advertisers can attempt to manipulate our purchasing habits. In effect, all TV actors are paid henchman for the companies that advertise during the shows on which they appear. Hollywood’s elite are well compensated for their ability to deliver the rank and file to a common location where corporate America can appeal to our covetous nature.
N.E. Marsden, in the October 30 Washington Post, rails against the increased frequency of product placement as the newest attack on America’s fiscal sensitivities. Her chief complaint appears to be that product placement occurs without the audience’s knowledge: “People have a right to know when someone is trying to sell them something.” (Note to America: if you are watching TV, someone is trying to sell you something.) Television has no moral obligation to attend to the public benefit. TV is a for-profit industry and its motives should be a surprise to no one. TV’s one obligation is to move product (yes, while operating within the confines of public decency) and the tactics used to achieve that strategic objective have and will continue to evolve. To TV executives, commercials are the most important programming and the very expensive programming in between them is a necessary evil.
We’ve come a long way from the catchy jingles of the 60s to the subtle practice of product placement (though alarmists should take heart: the reality of The Truman Show is still years away) and Ms. Marsden, a volunteer coordinator of Fairness and Integrity in Telecommunications Media, is calling for government intervention. “Because media providers are blurring the lines between advertising and content, FCC action is critical. Parents have a right to know who is doctoring programs their children watch….” she says.
A better idea than expanding the reach of government regulators would be to encourage Hollywood producers to incorporate themes of public interest into the behavior of their characters. As green house gas emissions are becoming increasingly important to citizens of 21st Century America, when have we seen a program where the main character goes to an auto dealership and wrestles with the choice between the gas-guzzling, man-affirming SUV he wants and the Honda Insight his conscience tells him he needs? As U.S. communities and military installations remain tethered to an aging, frail, and vulnerable electrical grid, when was the last time a prime-time, major-network character turned off a light on his way out of a room?
Malcolm Gladwell wrote an entire book (The Tipping Point) on how trends get started and go viral. Trendsetters emerge in unique places but can have tremendous effects on individual behavior as the public views the behaviors of early adopters as risk free and socially acceptable. This is where engaging Hollywood as a force for good comes in.
We can ask TV producers to do that which is counter to their purpose—eschew revenue generation from creative and innovative marketing strategies—or we can petition Hollywood to deploy those well developed skills of consumer manipulation to model strategies that contribute to solving the problems that face Americans, a technique TV has occasionally been happy to embrace –portraying the normalcy of homosexuals in society, for instance 
(like Will and Grace’s Jack was “normal.” Hah!)
Naively pretending that we aren’t being manipulated by what we see on TV and feigning offense when confronted with flagrant manifestations of that manipulation ignores our responsibility to be savvy consumers of the medium. Ms. Marsden wants to turn out lights on Hollywood’s sneaky and nefarious manipulation. I’d prefer Hollywood use their sneaky and nefarious manipulation to get Americans to turn out the lights.
I met Jack at my local Starbuck’s Saturday night. I was reading Ain’t My America by Bill Kaufman and he was writing something on his computer. Proximity led to conversation which eventually led us to climate change. I shared with Jack my dilemma on not just the issue itself but my dilemma in not wanting to even discuss the issue with people anymore: there are many smart, professional scientists who cannot agree on the cause of rising average global temperatures, so how then are common people supposed to discuss the topic?
American social protocol often involves quiet small talk about the weather. Beyond that, more in-depth discussion of global temperatures often involves nothing more than one person parroting the thoughts of his favorite TV or radio talk show host. Every time I hear someone share “their” feelings on the matter I’m reminded of 
Matt Damon’s famous intellectual bar fight scene in Good Will Hunting in which Damon’s character says to an obnoxious Harvard grad student, “Yea, I read that too. Were you going to plagiarize the whole thing for us—or do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter?”
If scientists can’t come to a reasonable consensus on the matter, how are those of us who wiled away the hours in Science class practicing our signature or flirting with insanely cute Cari Londal (or both) supposed to advance the discussion in any appreciable manner?
So it was with my discussion with Jack fresh on my mind that I was reading today and again across the head-shakingly-stupid Republican platitude “drill, baby, drill.” For a Republican Party so comfortable telling us that they are pro-business, support of a policy that squelches innovation and the creation of new businesses and new economies seems highly ironic. It seems an odd juxtaposition of positions.
“Drill, baby, drill” is not about finding solutions to America’s energy problems. DBD is about partisan politics—it’s about telling the Democrats “No” on global warming. Global Warming is Al Gore’s issue. Denying Global Warming is the sad effort of non-Democrats to assert their independence from Democratic policies and positions. If the U.S. pursues drilling, it not only taps into a resource the United States has at its disposal to help address our dependence on foreign oil (an indisputable fact) but it also says to the Democrats “there is nothing wrong with oil.” If Congress allows drilling, it’s akin to a national consensus that Global Warming is a hoax and we are free from the meteorological propaganda begun by the Democrats. We should not let the Democrats off the hook here, either. NOT drilling is their opposite assertion that Global Warming is indisputably the result of human behavior, primarily linked to fossil fuel consumption.
“Drill, baby, drill,” as it is understood by those advancing the position, represents the very worst of the Republican Party. If Republicans want to describe themselves as “conservative” then they ought to begin finding progressive, innovative ways to conserve America’s greatest natural resource—the ability of Americans to turn challenges into opportunities and opportunities into new businesses rather than letting playground squabbles over who’s dad’s the better bowler dictate long-term strategies for economic growth and American success in the 21st century.
I need some help from Dr. Frank Luntz. Dr. Luntz is a sought after pollster, but he is much more than that. He is a wordsmith—a man who understands the importance of placing a message in a small box and wrapping it properly(and author of WORDS THAT WORK: IT’S NOT WHAT YOU SAY, IT’S WHAT PEOPLE HEAR). In short, he creates language that affects people. He was responsible for changing discussion about the Estate Tax to discussion about a Death Tax. Small linguistic changes have an incredible affect on how people respond to messages.
The GOP needs rebranding. The GOP needs Dr. Luntz; but Dr. Luntz has already worked with the Republicans. The Republican problem is not the packaging. The packaging is beautiful, in part because of the work of Dr. Luntz. The Republican problem is that the contents of the package have al the relevance of a turntable. But, more importantly, “conservatism” needs rebranding and that’s where Luntz comes in.
Hope may be at hand, though, and the message may be getting out. By way of evidence, I offer Doug Hoffman. Hoffman is a self-described conservative running for Congress in New York’s 23rd District against a Republican and a Democrat. Several high profile Republicans have taken notice of Mr. Hoffman’s campaign, including Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin, the latter having endorsed his candidacy. Moreover, Mr. Hoffman is getting national media attention from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck.
But this article is more about Limbaugh and Beck than Hoffman. In an October 2 Op-Ed, New York Times columnist David Brooks shared one of the most encouraging paragraphs I’ve read in a long time. Having chronicled Republican Talk Radio’s unsuccessful attempts to mobilize the GOP base to various endeavors, from supporting Fred Thompson for President to voting for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries in order to “bloody Obama,” Brooks penned this about the radio hosts: theirs is the “…story of media mavens who claim to represent a hidden majority but who in fact represent a mere niche—even in the Republican Party. It is the story as old as the ‘The Wizard of Oz,’ of grand illusions and small men behind the curtain.”
Talk radio hosts are entertainers—and apparently very successful ones at that. These hosts attract a huge listener base (for Rush the number is as high as 4-5 million listeners a day) that advertisers are eager to reach. But their shows are about affirmation, not information. Their listeners tune in to have their own ideas validated, as opposed to looking for informative data on which to make independent decisions. The fact that they are listening doesn’t mean the audience is taking marching orders from the hosts. Brooks’s research indicated that despite the calls from the mic to mobilize in support of the host’s agenda, listeners remained idle (I’m sure Limbaugh’s sponsors were none too pleased with Brooks’s findings).
I, however, am tickled pink. The Republican Party for too long has designed their message and based their strategy on appealing to the messaging from the mic of these various hosts (also including Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Michael Medved and Michael Savage) assuming it to be representative of the feelings held by listeners and, thus, the party base. In fact, we now see that listeners may be more closely aligned with “orthodox” conservatives (as opposed to big government, interventionist, profligate Republicans who rule the day). The fact is that while the hosts have polarized the political discussion, they have not effectively polarized the country.
The fact is that reasonable discussion is seldom entertaining and often not affirming. Like sports-talk radio in Dallas that lives and dies by berating the hated Redskins, Republican Talk Radio profits immensely from identifying Democrats as the enemy and affirming a victim mentality in their audience.
The GOP’s first step in rebirthing itself must be to follow Hoffman’s example and untether its policy making from the strident opinions of radio celebrities. Talk radio holds less sway than audience numbers would suggest and the real base of the party–authentically conservative people—as well as America’s middle and independent voters would find greater purchase in policies more consistent with America’s core values as opposed to the extreme right positions advocated by talk radio’s versions of Leonardo DiCaprio, George Clooney and Susan Sarandon.
The Republicans have stolen the word “conservative”– it now being a widely accepted synonym for Republican. As an authentic conservative, I want my adjective back, but I’m smart enough to know that it’s gone forever, to be tossed on grave of the GOP like flowers from a funeral guest. So, Dr. Luntz, what words should we orthodox conservatives now use to describe where we fit on the political stage? An anxious nation needs an answer.
The Obama Administration specifically, and the Democrats in general, continue display a lack of trust in the American people. Repeatedly, Obama’s speeches and White House policies are laced with rhetoric advocating increased federal government activity, over reach and regulation. Notwithstanding what I believe to be a general predilection towards this position by the Democrats, it’s fair that we pose the question, “Are Americans worthy of being trusted, in the first place?”
Trust is a two way street. “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,” the old saying goes. It is foolhardy optimism to continue to put your trust in people who make a habit of abusing that trust. As easy as it is to hurl stones at the Administration, it’s a fragile structure, indeed, from which we pitch them.
Being trustworthy means being able to acknowledge and act responsibly with the truth. Candidates from both parties tell us that they are for small government. Both will say they want to decrease taxes. Knowing that government revenue is down during these tough economic times, Americans ought to expect and embrace fiscal responsibility from Washington. Yet I’ve never heard a candidate from either party telling a crowd that he or she proposes to make cuts in the programs on which the onlookers have come to rely. I have yet to hear a candidate say, “I believe in small government, but small government will place a greater burden on you.” 
Though no one wants to hear it, that is precisely the truth. Nor have I heard a public outcry calling for significant cuts in programs that favor our budgets or public proclamations of readiness to take on work shed by the feds.
Since its inception, our federal government has failed to effectively check itself by learning to say “no” to citizens. In the interest of appealing to the electorate, candidates have relied on bribery to secure the promise of votes—“Give me your vote and I’ll give you public policy that pads your wallet,” they tell us. Americans have been all too eager to believe campaign pledges can become reality, taken in by their appeal of immediate gratification. Our “30 minute fast or free/drive through” lifestyles have permeated our expectations of our policy makers. We want what we want and we want it now. 
There has been scant little emphasis on fiscal discipline, budgeting and long-range planning at the expense of today’s comfort. We’ve become content compartmentalizing the truth while we hear what we want to hear from politicians.
Implementation of public policy consistent with ideologies the candidates confess to believe and what the people say they desire would shrink the size of the government, but it would also add commensurate burdens on everyday citizens. The message America needs to hear from Washington is, “In order to make your life better, we must make your life harder.” Americans are making a habit of choosing the path of least resistance, forgetting that resistance builds strength. Now encumbered with government entitlements that have become critical to our lifestyles, we vociferously object to the prospect of their disappearance. In fact, many Americans ask for more (see healthcare).
At some point it will be necessary for our elected officials to provide real leadership, which will entail the effective application of discipline for our own good. When an easier path is so readily available, the busy and difficult reality of living within our means and assuming additional responsibilities is not a choice people often make by themselves. Buckling down need not be a message of dismay like Carter’s “Crisis of Confidence” speech. Rather, it needs to be based in the hard truth that living lives of excess cannot be perpetuated forever but that our hope is that Americans can be trusted to endure any tribulation.
I believe in Americans. When faced with a challenge, we hunker down and meet it head on like no other people on earth. That American spirit is the hope of our future. What has made us weak now provides the context for our return to greatness. Individually, one family at a time, we are already doing this. We are tightening our belts, making budgetary cuts, downsizing our lifestyles and our expectations. We are finding more creative approaches to funding college and retirement. We are leaning on our families and our communities to help us navigate difficult circumstances. These are all good things for America’s future.
Leadership requires the administration of discipline even when—no, particularly when—it is unpopular. But Washington must be able to trust Americans to accept prudence and frugality as necessary measures. Americans must be willing to do more for themselves and their communities in the absence of government programs. Government programs exist where there is need and removing the program doesn’t remove that need. If we get the smaller government most Americans say they want, can we be trusted with the responsibility of filling the void, or will we be dragged along like the dog that caught the car?
In an absence of leadership, someone will always fill the void. Washington is operating on an assumption I fear Americans have too long perpetuated—that excessive government involvement is needed and desired because Americans are poor trustees of their own well being. Personally, I am looking for a leader who will challenge us to become trustworthy stewards of a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
At the zenith of wishful thinking we have President Obama’s recent Nobel Peace Prize. (On a side note, word is that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, will be awarding this year’s Best Actor Oscar to the President for his superb viewing of “An Education.”) This honor, though, could be one of the great win/win situations in U.S. history if American leaders have the chutzpah to pull it off.
I’m going to assume Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s October 6 admonition against publicly airing advice to President Obama on Afghanistan doesn’t extend to me. His comments came less than a week after General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, publicly expressed his opinion on strategy proposals for the troubled country in advance of a stated strategy from the White House.
McChrystal, or someone near to him, has released a 66 page assessment of the situation in Afghanistan and has laid out several proposals that assign varying degrees of risk to varying levels of troop increases. The least risk comes from increasing the U.S. troop presence by 40,000, up from the current level of 68,000. The primary focus of the debate sparked by his comments has been on resource allocation: should we send more troops to Afghanistan? This debate, however, is obscuring any broader discussion of what it is the troops would be doing.
Afghanistan is an unwinnable conflict using historical U.S. military tactics. As a matter of fact, the traditional model of nation-building undertaken by America has never worked. Not once. At no time have we moved into a troubled region, ousted the government, helped write a constitution, installed a functioning democracy and departed to see the new government grow and prosper. Yet this apparently remains the M.O. of U.S. administrations wishing to engender peaceful stability in other nations reflecting the American democratic experience. It may have been Albert Einstein who said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results,” but this hardly represents one of Einstein’s more difficult concepts to grasp. Yet here we are.
Doubtless, given the full might of our Armed Forces, the United States can enter any country (including Afghanistan) and fashion any alternate reality the President so desires–but only temporarily. The rubber band will only hold its shape as long as U.S. troops remain to arrest a relapse. The instant the American military lets go, Afghanistan will snap back to its original condition. What’s lost in the palaver over a troop increase is discussion of implementing tactics that transform people not just governments. A look to the creation of our democracy might be relevant.
As a newcomer to northern Virginia, I had not yet been to Monticello, Thomas Jefferson’s well preserved home near Charlottesville, Virginia. I decided to make the trip last weekend. Autumn’s full embrace of the Virginia countryside was still a few weeks away as I made my way down rural US-29 contemplating the coalescence of events and ideologies that birthed our nation. Any disappointment I had in Mother Nature was immediately vanquished on arrival by the sagacity of this Founding Father.
Touring the grounds, I could not escape Jefferson’s emphasis on the importance of education and knowledge as fundamental building blocks of representative government. His thoughts unlocked the importance of educating citizens in order to invent and secure their own self-government. The wonder of the American genesis is not that it was a successful power grab or coup d’état that, luckily, had a happy ending. America’s creation was the result of radical and progressive ideas held by a few scores of men. These ideals of liberty and self-government, in the face of British oppression, were so powerful that they moved common men to arms. It was not the arms that defeated the British, it was the values that were ingrained in the fabric of the colonists.
Jefferson noted that, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. . . . Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right.” For policy-makers looking at Afghanistan, the U.S. strategy behind nation-building must move away from the violent creation of drive-thru democracy and become the intellectual empowerment of the people to be governed.
Once citizens become enlightened to the possibilities of self-rule and are given access to pursue such a course, oppression has no home. Learning the lesson from our own revolution, there can be no more effective weapon against Al Qaeda and radical Taliban than empowering Afghans with information. And in a globalized and interconnected 21st century, this has never been easier. A village given a small array of solar panels, a small wind turbine, a light bulb and a laptop becomes connected to the world in new ways: access to electricity provides access to education, the price of wheat in Jalalabad, the availability of micro-credit programs and tele-medicine programs that can mean the difference between life and death. The phenomenon of the revolutionary spirit we saw in Iran this summer is that the fuel for their discord was information.
Here’s the win/win proposition afforded by Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize: Obama gives McChrystal his 40,000 soldiers but does so to facilitate effective implementation of a new U.S strategy: de-emphasize traditional counterinsurgency tactics in favor of using the military’s distribution network and proximity to literally empower Afghan citizens with village-size renewable energy systems, communications infrastructure, and information sharing.
From many veiled words we might intuit that Obama and McChrystal are on this like a fat boy on a cupcake. But it’s also possible that they are thoughtlessly conspiring to perpetuate a model of nation-building that’s batting .000. Clarity, vision, and decisiveness are required to chart a new course for sharing the wonders of self-government with those living under oppressive regimes. Manifesting those attributes would establish the Nobel Committee’s sobriety and go a long way to securing next year’s Peace Prize for General McChrystal.
Two weeks passed between major speeches by President Obama. On Wednesday, September 9, the President addressed the nation to talk about healthcare. Fourteen days later he addressed the United Nations General Assembly about his vision for the U.N. and for the relationships between nations.
In response to his healthcare speech, I wrote at length about what a disaster I thought the speech was. Of course, there were several parts of his U.N. speech that I disagree with—whether by degree or function. However, I’d like to eschew comment on those disagreeable details today, but rather I wish to show my support, rooted in America’s Core Values, for the general tenor of his U.N. speech.
The United States is, without question, the most prosperous nation on earth today. And despite the fact that we have been victorious in war after war, conflict after conflict, we have taken no land (native Americans need not comment—objection noted). Despite our often-arrogant attitude about our prosperity, no nation is more generous with its wealth than the United States. Whether typhoon or famine; despot or disease, the United States sends more people and more money to nations in need than any other.
Yet, the United States remains the scourge of global public opinion. We, much like the baseball’s Yankees and college football’s Fighting Irish, are easy to resent, to hold in contempt and to hate. What we often hear at home from the lips of leaders worldwide is that the United States is arrogant. The global perspective apparently is that we travel the world cramming our will down the throats of nations gagging on our generosity.
I firmly believe in American Exceptionalism and its first corollary–to whom much is given, much is expected. I am comfortable with our national benevolence because I fundamentally believe it is right to care for those in need. I would not want to live in a country that flaunted its prosperity and avoided its responsibilities.
If the US is guilty of anything it is that we have been TOO generous for TOO long while asking for TOO little in return. We have benefacted the global community in accordance with our founding principles: that all men are created equal and that all people have a right to self-government. We have assumed that the people world-wide share these values and we have acted thusly.
Many nations over the years have objected to US over-reaching, but I have never heard a collection of nations stand up to us. I have never heard a union of like-minded countries advocating a Plan B and insisting we stand down. I honestly believe that if other countries were to ever coalesce their opinions in support of active policy alternatives, the United States would gladly step aside, even if we disagree with those alternatives. The global community has too long taken the easy course of vocalizing their dissent for American policy while benefiting from its implementation.
Now, President Obama is saying, No More: “ Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone…. we recognize that all nations have rights, but all nations have responsibilities as well.” These are sentiments I whole-heartedly share. It is time for those reaping the rewards to accept their share of the responsibility in pursuing peace in the 21st Century. (We should note the odd but, in this case, agreeable dichotomy at work in the President’s global policies. At the same time that he tells the American people that only Washington, D.C., can solve their healthcare problems, he is telling the rest of the world that they must now participate in solving global problems. If only he had as much trust in Americans as in the rest of the world, we might have ourselves a mighty fine president.)
Accountability and responsibility: major tenets of America’s Core Values. “Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences….they must be held accountable”, the President told the General Assembly. It is time for a new model of American engagement, dealing more with leadership than proxy. America will remain the world’s leader: we couldn’t shed this responsibility if we tried. Despite global perceptions, we are the most credible and respected global actor, but our leadership must now recognize the necessity of delegation. Delegation is to OUR benefit (as others share the burden of arms in global hotspots) and the benefit of the world, as they become more invested stakeholders in global outcomes.
President Obama noted that other nations should be allowed to pursue economic growth the same way the US has over the years. It is, likewise, proper that they share the same burdens we bore during our growth.
America is an exceptional place. Exercising humility in entertaining the opinions and efforts of other countries is not a sign of weakness, but is witness to our moral strength which compliments our military strength. I dare say this policy will cause more problems than it will solve, but they’ll be different problems, and better problems. New opportunities will arise out of collaboration. The US cedes nothing in this ambition, but rather gains legitimacy.
President Obama informed the General Assembly, “We’ve also re-engaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills. We have joined the Human Rights Council. We have signed the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals.” Normally I might object to these actions, but if they are intended to demonstrate our willingness to take the first steps in cooperative compromise, then I welcome them. Now Obama must continue to demand the rest of the world steps up (and having someone else—not Israel—carry out the forthcoming bombing of Iran would be a good place to start).
Leadership entails creating opportunities for The Led to grow through experience. The greatest leaders are not those who acted for their charges, but rather those who taught and enabled their charges to do for themselves. Good parenting involves training our children in the way they should go and then releasing them to apply what they’ve learned.
Obama’s speech, perfect by no measure, represents an appropriate, legitimate and strong advance of foreign policy—not just for America but also for the world at large. Conservatives should rejoice that the foreign policy talked about in New York dealt with insisting on individual responsibility and accountability and not with Washington handouts.
The Monday (Sep 21) edition of the Washington Post contained the headline “Democrats Target Bank Overdraft Charges.” Headlines like this frequently grab my attention because I’m interested in the point of view that causes the paper to specifically identify the Democrats. Is the Post saying that it is the Democrats who are doing the right thing by protecting consumers and, by implication, that Republicans are guilty of inaction? Or is the Post saying that the Democrats are meddling once again in business practices in which they have no business meddling?
It turns out to have been neither: it was just a statement of fact. It’s the Democrats who are taking on this issue as a follow up to the new credit card restrictions placed on card issuers.
I remain dissatisfied with both political parties. The Democrats continue to manifest their distrust of citizens through policy proposals and legislation that advances the reach of the federal government. Yet the most interesting thing I’ve heard from the Republicans since last November is, “Nuh uh.” I certainly don’t look to the GOP to initiate any policy based on genuinely conservative values.
What should be the conservative response to overdraft fees? Conservative ideology notes that the role of government is not to protect the people from themselves, but to protect the people from each other. So my first thought as I read the Post’s article was about personal responsibility. American’s spend too much time whining about how we’re getting screwed by the system and not taking responsibility for our own actions and how, if we simply acted like adults instead of petulant children, we could avoid overdraft fees in the first place. Notwithstanding the veracity of that statement, Americans may well be spot-on in this case: the system is sticking it to us.
The purpose of technological advances is to generally make life easier, to automate processes that previously were done without technology requiring the inefficient use of human capital. ATM cards are just such an advance, removing the need to plan trips to the bank to get cash or to pop into the Piggly Wiggly to cash a check. 
Automatic Teller Machines theoretically allow us to leave our money in the bank earning interest until we need it. ATM cards are advertised as working just like cash.
Let’s extend the metaphor by recalling a time when cash was king. When I had cash in my wallet, I had money. If I didn’t have cash, I didn’t have money. If I was set to make a purchase and I opened my wallet to a leather chasm, I simply couldn’t make the purchase. The natural consequence of not having money was not being able to make the purchase.
Not so with today’s ATM cards. If an ATM card worked like cash, when the account had insufficient funds for the purchase, the transaction would be declined. However, the majority of banks will allow the purchase, pay the merchant and charge the underfunded consumer an overdraft fee, often in the $25 to $35 range. The banks will tell you this is a loan fee—they provide a service, loaning you the money, and the fee is their remuneration for that service. Here’s where the banks are trying to stick it to us.
Prior to receiving any other loan consumers are required to read and sign disclosure documents and policies. If there was a pop-up screen that said, “You currently have insufficient funds for this transaction, to complete this transaction via bank loan and accept a $35 loan processing fee, press 1” most consumers would decline. This would be analogous to ATMs that notify users of the $2.50 service fee for withdrawing from the bank that which is ours in the first place (that’s another article). The Post reports that, “Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) plans to introduce legislation requiring banks to get permission from customers, rather than allowing overdrafts automatically. If customers decline and then try to overspend, the transaction would be rejected. A similar bill is pending in the House.”
Banks are marketing ATM cards as cash-equivalents but not treating their use like cash but rather like payday loans in which documentation and transparency aren’t required. Some consumer advocate groups are commenting that banks are trying to generate revenue through overdraft fees to make up for lost revenues in other business sectors.
Banks and some consumer groups tell us that it’s our responsibility to monitor our accounts and know their status. The Director of the Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs John Berlau says that “Consumers using debit cards need to keep track of their accounts.” Here again we have a problem created by technology.
In an increasingly internet-based world, many consumers are logging in to their banks’ websites to monitor their account activity, to pay bills and to track investments. However, as I discovered investigating this article, those websites are not kept up to date in real-time and often do not accurately reflect banking processes. The complex machinations of what charges are processed at what time and on what day are not available to consumers. Rather, consumers see an overview or a synopsis. For families who are operating near zero, even responsible daily viewing of their online activity may be insufficient to facilitate informed decision making on their spending. The banks I spoke to said that it is the consumer’s responsibility to keep a record of their spending in order to avoid problems created by inaccurate website/banking interfaces.
Such a use of the technology, then, represents an additional burden to the consumer not a time-saver. If we’re required to keep a paper record of our activity, then viewing online activity is redundant. Consequently, if we’re not online to view our statements, then we’re not online to pay our bills. The very responsibility the banks tell us we are required to exercise to compensate for the fallacies of their technology, drive us to not need the technology at all.
The banks want to have their cake and eat it too. They market automated products but provide insufficient data for the effective utilization of those products and hold the consumer financially responsible for what amounts to nefarious activity. Is that too harsh an assessment? Given the financial industry’s record over the last few years I don’t think they’ve earned the benefit of the doubt.
Your car is the only piece of technology that gets more expensive, rather than less expensive, over time. Calculators can now be found in a box of cereal. Computers become less expensive every year–desktops can now be purchased for under $500. Automobiles however continue to increase in price.
I’m an anachronism, I know; I think ten THOUSAND dollars is an outrageous sum of money for a car. Think about $10,000—think about what you could do with ten grand if I handed you that money today—the bills you could pay, the Christmas you could have, the sigh of relief you’d feel with that kind of money deposited into your checking account.
Yet you can scarcely get a new vehicle for $10,000 these days; in fact, you need to virtually double that number to purchase any decent family vehicle. But imagine if Ford was still making that 1974 Country Squire your mom schlepped you around in 30 years ago. What if economies of scale were applied to vehicles? What is new since 1974 that I need? Not “want,” but “need.” Anti-lock brakes, shoulder strap seat belts and air bags, should definitely be included, but do we need anything else?
Do we need GPS, on-star, DVD systems, six disc CD changers, power locks and windows (and yet making a small, circular swirling motion with your hand still means “roll down your window.” Do today’s kids know why?), navigation systems, and self-parking systems?
Like most technologies, improvements would eventually be included from extra stock and when economies of scale made it practical. (For instance, today’s new inexpensive computers come with “only” one GB of RAM and 160 GB of storage. You can certainly over pay for the newest technologies, but most buyers don’t do that.) The 2009 Country Squire’s technology might resemble it’s cousin born in 1999, yet it would probably cost around $1000. How about that—a new car, with a warranty for $1000?
Yet the lunacy continues. Today, Lexus is offering technology that will keep a vehicle in the center of your lane. VW offers similar technology. From the Lexus website, “An available Lane Keep Assist system applies steering torque to help the vehicle stay in the center of the lane (provided of course you’re on a road with clearly marked lines).
To help keep you from drifting out of your lane when cruise control is in operation, an available Lane Departure Warning System gives an audible warning. After this warning, it takes corrective steering action to help keep you in your lane. When cruise control is not engaged, the system sounds a warning if you drift out of your lane.” Is there any doubt that Detroit will follow suit? Ford is now offering side-view mirrors that can you give you a digital representation of a vehicle in a blind spot (sure, that was easier and less expensive that just removing the blind spot).
Unless you’re still doing bong hits while you drive and steering with your knee (or asking your friend to steer from the passenger seat—don’t ask me how I know; I just do) this seems, once again, like an extreme technological advance. Starting at $34,200 those who would benefit most seem the least likely to be able to afford it.
We rightly criticize Detroit for their current predicament—not because they didn’t know what they were talking about, but because they didn’t have the gumption to be proactive. Let’s face it—they gave us exactly what we wanted. It’s not as if SUVs were sitting on new car sales lots for years and years longing for buyers like the sad pathetic Charlie Brown Christmas tree. SUVs were in demand and Detroit built us SUVs. Detroit said that Americans didn’t want small cars. 
To a great extent they were right. Every Japanese import gets bigger every year. 
Note the 1980 and 2009 Honda Accords, pictured. Japan made in-roads with a niche market, not by appealing to the broad desires of Americans.
Detroit’s mistake was in not foreseeing these eventualities. Do you think the Big Three Automakers are discussing a possible ceiling for what Americas will pay for a car? Do they anticipate a day when consumers will revolt and turn to foreign makers who anticipate a paradigm shift in American automotive purchasing? Are they afraid that mass-producing a new vehicle and allowing economies of scale to drive the cost down to nearly impulse purchase prices will spell the end of other product lines? Or is their business model to keep adding technology to the car to continue to drive the price of the vehicles skyward in order to progressively add to corporate profits? (The only technology for which I wait is a car that folds up like George Jetson’s into a briefcase—until then, mommy says I’m a big boy and I can park and stay in my lane all by myself.)
Who’s the moron, though? For now, we are. GM, Ford and Chrysler perpetuate a business model that has wrung profits from the wallets of consumers during the boom years and we keep getting stuck with vehicles that don’t serve our needs. Once again, Detroit’s lack of ingenuity and low tolerance for risk serves the public desire—for now. But if there’s any lesson to be learned from the recent stint in automotive hospice, it’s that giving consumers what they want may not be the best business model after all.
According to a report on CNN this morning (September 17) and in the Wall Street Journal, Senators are considering a one-cent per ounce tax on soda. This tax happy administration and Congress, I fear, is just getting started.
This will come as a shock to precisely no one: the entire tax code is manipulative. Congress uses tax law to incentivize and punish a broad range of behaviors—home ownership, savings plans, and smoking, to name a few. But taxing soda is a new reach for our government.
The benefits of home ownership may be debatable but it’s difficult to argue that there are significant downsides. Saving money is almost universally accepted as a good thing—who doesn’t benefit from saving and fiscal responsibility? Smoking, while an individual choice, has indisputable negative health consequences for everyone who smokes (and some of those keeping frequent company with smokers).
But soda?
Of course, I know where Congress is coming from. I understand the (deluded) sense of duty to help Americans address the growing rates of obesity and diabetes in our country. Yet the scope of this tax is such that it extends the burden even to those who do not feel the POTENTIAL negative consequences of soda consumption.
I count myself lucky and blessed that weight issues have yet to affect me. And I still have all my teeth (despite a youth playing hockey and ex wife). Despite my three cans a day coke habit, I remain comfortably svelte. Blessed indeed, but I am hardly a freakish exception. Many Americans don’t grow fat from drinking soda. Most Americans don’t become diabetic. Why then should a significant number of citizens be punished for a behavior that has no negative consequences for them?
Are we now REQUIRED to be our brother’s keeper? Of all people, I will laud the conservative nature of Americans—give us a tragedy and we will rally like no other people to help our neighbors put their lives back together. Despite Hatfield-and-McCoy-like differences, hard times draw sympathetic Americans together with a sense of shared identity and duty.
This, as they say, ain’t that. Obesity is not a national tragedy requiring shared sacrifice and the mobilization of America’s collective compassion. Robin Hood has apparently been elected to the highest office in the land. Many Americans suffer from peanut allergies. Perhaps we ought to put a one-cent per ounce tax on peanut butter to create a financial disincentive to purchasing that which is bad for the health of some people? Such preposterous measures fail to account for the fact that it’s a personal responsibility to avoid that which is bad for you. ([patient] “Doctor, it hurts when I do this.” [Doctor] “Then don’t do that.”).
The very consideration of this tax, is indicative that the Democrats in power don’t trust Americans to be responsible or capable of solving their own problems. (It might well be argued, though, that in this case they’d be right—obese people can often be found in aisle 11 puzzling over the 23 flavors in Dr. Pepper or the limony zest of Sprite). 
We see this in the healthcare initiatives proposed by the Democrats and the bailouts approved by this administration—government action is apparently the answer; the people don’t know what’s good for them.
There are proper roles for government, one of which is to make it easier for people to do the right thing. But “what’s right” in this case for some doesn’t have the same imperative for everyone.
Ultimately, this is a poorly disguised cash grab. This is government cloaking their propensity to tax the masses behind a thin veil of benevolence. I fail to see how my not pulling a root beer out of a soda machine because I’m three pennies short of 62 cents is going to slim my portly neighbor.
Columbus Day
How did you spend your Columbus Day? I had no luck talking my family into caroling through the neighborhood singing traditional Italian sailing songs of Indian oppression. Sigh.
MNF: Jon Gruden
I like what Jon Gruden is doing on Monday Night Football tonight. Sure it's only the first night, but I like his perspective, his input and his delivery. Let's see if it lasts.
House Resolution 204
Yes we can. Yes we can. Yes we can.
Just when you thought your Congress wasn't doing anything. When you thought them inept, embroiled in bureaucracy and piddly partisan politics, they came together--424 to nothing. That's right. Zip. Nada. Nothing. No dissents. No food for thought. Just unanimity.
What, pray tell, could bring about such consensus? What could cause bitter enemies to set aside their rancor and think of the country first and not their own selfish interests?
I give you House Resolution 204. Introduced March 3. Passed May 13. Sponsored by Republican Michael Simpson from Idaho.
Doesn't he have a lovely smile?
The full text is here http://www.govtrack.us/congress/ billtext.xpd?bill=hr111-204.
But let me summarize. Our Congress is, Congratulating the American Dental Association for its 150th year of working to improve the public's oral health and promoting dentistry, supporting initiatives to improve access to oral health care services for all Americans, and emphasizing the benefits of prevention of disease through support of community prevention initiatives and promotion of good oral hygiene."
Isn't change good?
The Lasting Effect of Sarah Palin
I, for one, have been wondering about the LASTING effect of Sarah Palin.
Would she have any lasting effect on the American political landscape or would she just be the political equivalent of Max Headroom?
Ms. Palin was probably beginning to think, based on her speaking slot at CPAC, that she was losing all her momentum. Au contraire. I have noticed a new trend in men's fashion eye wear that I hope Ms. Palin will be happy about.
Given the fickle nature of fashion, I seriously doubt that this is the kind of thing the GOP can turn into increased voter turnout or use to create crossover appeal with democrats. But given the state of the GOP today, they should be happy with any influence on American lives, no matter how trivial.
DUPLICITY
Just a fun thing to look for. I recently went to see Duplicity starring Julia Roberts and Clive Owen. I enjoyed the movie but what I enjoyed most was the portrayal of two rival CEOs, the heads of Companies Burkett and Randall and Equikrom being fashioned in the likeness of Cosmo Spacely—Spacely Sprockets
and Henry Cogswell—Cogswell Cogs.
The Duplicity CEOs were played by Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson.
As for the movie, let the memory of your childhood guide your prognostications.
Joe Biden: Oh Dear, What a Mess
For thinking people, I can't imagine any favorable response to Joe Biden's acceptance speech Wednesday night. First off, compared with the quality of speech making skills, former President Bill Clinton and Senator Clinton are clearly the cream of the crop. President Clinton's speech, like his wife's, was a flawlessly delivered effort and deserves much praise in that regard. If you make public appearances, tape and dissect these efforts. Joe Biden stumbled through his speech like an amputee in quicksand by comparison.
But on the more important substantive issues, it was full of contradictions and misleading statements. He talked about being knocked down as a child and how his mother taught him to pick himself up. (Great lesson) Later, though, he lamented that at a time when so many Americans have been knocked down, Washington has done so little to help them get back up. (I thought, Senator, the point was to learn to pick YOURSELF up.)
He talked about how the most important aspect of work is that it provides the benefit of dignity and respect to Americans; but he then prattled on about how the work people have doesn't pay enough.
He talked about how tax breaks for corporations, which McCain supports, send jobs overseas. No, Joe, they don't. Tax breaks for corporations brings jobs home; companies have been sending jobs overseas because it already costs TOO MUCH to do business within the US.
He talked about a "promise that their tomorrow will be better than their yesterday." Who is making that promise, Senator? Only we can make our tomorrow better. Government can't and if government is promising that, and Americans want that, then this is the discussion that we should be having in America.
He quoted John McCain on Afghanistan from 3 years ago and Barack Obama on Afghanistan from 1 year ago. Why not break out a quote from McCain on Georgia from years ago and a quote from Obama on Georgia from last week?
Viewers of this speech who pay attention to his words, will not have been impressed with the content or the medium. Hillary’s DNC Speech
You've got to give credit where credit is due: Hillary Clinton is an excellent orator. She DELIVERED that speech extremely well. James Carville seemed ready to serve papers on his wife Mary and propose immediately to the NY Senator. Gushing though he was, Mr. Carville was dead on. Hillary Clinton can give a speech and she made those who preceded her look amateurish.
However, the speech itself probably did little. She certainly had nothing to say that might sway Republicans to rethink their party affiliation. Furthermore, absent too were talking points that independents might find attractive. The speech seemed to have two purposes. First, convince her supporters to vote for Obama. But who else were they going to vote for? Those people involved enough in politics to be at or watch on tv the DNC convention are also likely to be people who will value their vote and not stay at home. Those who might elect not to vote at all, certainly were not in attendance and might well have been watching America's Got Talent and missed the speech completely.
Secondly, and more importantly to Mrs. Clinton, the speech was littered with reminders of why she should remain relevant in the Democratic Party. This was a "You Picked the Wrong Guy" speech.
Will we remember her or this speech in 4 or 8 years? I suspect not. The speech didn't brand itself with any tag lines that might survive the next few years. But it was a hell of an effort.FREEDOM and LIBERTY
Bert Hornbeck had an interesting blog recently. In it he noted that, “Free” is a very important word, and “freedom” is very different from “liberty.” The immediate root of “liberty” is the Latin LIBER—which also gives us “libido” and “libation.” “Libido” has to do with desire; “libations” are outpourings, from the Greek.[ii] “Liberty” is a do-my-own-thing word; it has nothing to do with the idea of society. “Free,” however, is a friendly word—literally, historically. “Friend” comes into English from the Germanic FREI, which means dear, or beloved. “Free,” remarkably enough, comes into English at about the same time—in perhaps the eighth century—from exactly the same root. The understanding in both “friend” and “free” is what we call love: the relation of self with what self holds dear. As “friend” becomes “free,” it makes the idea of freedom social. It says that you can’t be free by yourself.
I believe not attending to these differences is the cause of the apparent divide in American thought. True conservatism (not that practiced by the Republicans) understands the importance of relationships between people and values those relationships over the individual. The whole is indeed greater than the sum of the parts. Liberal ideology seeks to raise the needs and desires of the individual above the collective good. This is where the Libertarians lose most Americans. Intuitively, Americans sense the error of the "my liberty is more important than the collective good" ethos and shun the movement. Neither the modern Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has found a way to tap into the American belief in Freedom while simultaneously bonding us to society. This is the time for Democratic and Republican ideologies to be replaced by less "me" centered thinking and our nation should return to its ideological roots, which means that we understand our obligation to each other to value and defend each other's freedom, not just our own.National Democratic Do-over
If the Democrats were acting rationally as Democrats, the super delegates would quit dancing for the man and look seriously at Hillary Clinton at this point.
The Democratic support that the super delegates are so keen on being a part of should be viewed as something of a mirage. What would the delegate count be if the events of the last month had taken place in December? Would Obama have as much support as he does now? Would he be the presumed candidate? And yet the Obama of today is the one the Democrats are likely to insist represents their party. The Obama that sees middle America as "clingers," the Obama that wouldn't repudiate Wright but is now quite right to repudiate, this is the Obama that will face McCain in November. For a party as down on America as this one, an Obama nomination seems awfully optimistic. Perhaps, it's not just Michigan and Florida that need a do-over: perhaps the Democrats ought to have a national do-over.Obama’s Global Poverty Act
It might be too strong to say "All things" global bother me, but it's not far from the truth. Obama's support of this bill is indicative of my major concern of his candidacy.
Sure he's liberal. Liberal we can handle. Heck even socialist we can handle. We have systems in place to deal with presidential initiatives which we ultimately don't approve of. But relinquishing any control to any kind of world organization is very troubling. Being outside of our borders and constitution, we could find ourselves subject to a body we don't agree with and yet have few ways to get out from under its jurisdiction. This is a slippery slope. I fear Obama's need to be liked and validated will prompt him to try to enter the U.S. into many global initiatives.Talk of a Declining Obama Campaign
For all the talk of the demise of the GOP, this campaign seems more and more to foretell the demise of the Democrats.
Hillary, despite her belief that her ascension has been preordained, has a low ceiling and a high floor. Obama continues to manifest himself as a divisive candidate, creating his own new voting demographic within his party, one that surely will never be as influential as, say, the evangelicals have been for the GOP. It is no wonder that Clinton supporters would sooner vote for McCain, the two have significantly more in common and, to their credit, Clinton supporters can see through the audacity of hype. The sad fact for the democrats is that these two represented the best the Democrats had to offer. Perhaps it is a tacit admission of poor policy that the Democrats chose two candidates who are best known for their celebrity status and not their policies or experience. If the policy postulates of the democrats had more merit, a "celebrity" wouldn't have be needed to endorse those policies.Cynical on Cyrus
Miley Cyrus is apparently now "embarrassed" about her Annie Liebovitz. photo in the upcoming Vanity Fair.
I'm afraid I just don't believe that her feelings are the result of poorly timed contemplation. My understanding is that the family was present for the photo shoot and got to see the picture in advance. They liked it and moved on. NOW all of a sudden Miley is embarrassed? These are smart people familiar with the media. I, of course, have no inside information, this is just my opinion, but it would appear she wants to have her cake and eat it too: do the photo shoot (be edgy, become known to new demographics) and then make a heartfelt apology to appease the core fan group.The Democrats Jimmy Carter Problem
To extrapolate from Carter's experience, an intelligent Democratic candidate might surmise that meetings with despots around the world is a bad idea, at home and abroad.
Is Obama smart enough to see the error of his proposal to meet with such foreign leaders? Probably not. Too impressed with his own palaver, he'll stand by his words. But can McCain and the GOP make the same connection and exploit Carter's follies as empirical evidence that they were correct in postulating what such visits from US dignitaries would bring about?Faustian Economics by Wendell Berry
If you are not a subscriber to Haper's Magazine, I highly recommend you venture out to the book store of your choice and pick up a copy of the May issue so you can read Wendell Berry's excellent article "Faustian Economics" which is no where near as boring as the title would imply (sorry WB).
His words address the inherently conservative values (not republican--conservative) most Americans believe in. But he also points out that while we believe in them, we don't LIVE them. His article can be, and should be, a call for personal change. It will be an exciting read for the number of times you exclaim (too loudly for those sipping coffee nearby) "Yes!" Although, if I'm honest, it is depressing on a national scale because I know most Americans act on their immediate desires and not on the values they hold most sacred. But, in the end, change starts at home.
Drexel Kleber
-
-
