Steven Pinker, in The Better Angels of Our Nature, about which I blogged recently, argues that the civilizing process of the modern era is one of the main reasons for the massive decrease in violence in the world.
Pinker does not treat the change in marriage norms specifically in his consideration of the civilizing process. I have long thought, though, that one of the great social benefits of monogamy is that it should reduce the violence by groups of unmarried men that is a predictable by-product of polygamy. This, I think, is why monogamy is nearly universal in developed nations, despite the wide variety of religious and cultural traditions that these different nations developed from.
A new study by Joseph Henrich and others at the University of British Columbia found "significantly higher levels of rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygymous cultures found in Asia and Africa." By contrast, monogamy leads to more paternal investment, long-term planning, economic productivity, savings, and child investments.
These social advantages explain why even those who benefit the most from polygamy - rich, high-status men - are willing to switch to a monogamous social norm. The civilizing process leads to monogamy because of its greater peace and social investment for society as a whole.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Low IQ Correlates with Racism Through Social Conservatism
A fascinating study by Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Canada, found that people with low intelligence in childhood were more likely to be racist adults. This was expected, given earlier research on education and racism.
The new finding tried to answer how, exactly, the two became connected. Hodson's conclusion:
The researchers speculate that conservative ideologies offer a more black-and-white worldview, which would be more appealing to people who finding it hard to take the position of the Other.
These findings correspond with Hetherington and Weiler's studies of authoritarianism and polarization which I blogged about before. Hodson's psychological study does not really look at the political mechanism by which low-IQ people find out about socially conservative ideologies. Political scientists Hetherington and Weiler, on the other hand, point to the fact that conservative organizations and parties have, over the past generation, actively sought out fearful people.
It seems a reasonable step to me to suppose that low-IQ people are more fearful than others. That would be an excellent subject for the next study.
The new finding tried to answer how, exactly, the two became connected. Hodson's conclusion:
The factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias.
The researchers speculate that conservative ideologies offer a more black-and-white worldview, which would be more appealing to people who finding it hard to take the position of the Other.
These findings correspond with Hetherington and Weiler's studies of authoritarianism and polarization which I blogged about before. Hodson's psychological study does not really look at the political mechanism by which low-IQ people find out about socially conservative ideologies. Political scientists Hetherington and Weiler, on the other hand, point to the fact that conservative organizations and parties have, over the past generation, actively sought out fearful people.
It seems a reasonable step to me to suppose that low-IQ people are more fearful than others. That would be an excellent subject for the next study.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Sovereignty vs. Majesty
I am participating in the Christian Life and Witness conference at Georgetown College on the subject of "From the Academy to the Church." Nicholas Wolterstorff, a distinguished Reformed philosopher from Yale, was drawing a distinction between the Reformed approach to higher education and a conservative Baptist approach (Georgetown is a Baptist college). In the course of presenting an ideal type of the Reformed approach, he was asked about what is often considered the key Reformed doctrine, the sovereignty of God.
Wolterstorff surprised me by saying that Calvin does not seem to speak of the sovereignty of God. Instead, Calvin promotes the idea of the majesty of God.
Wolterstorff thought this difference presented Calvinism in a more hopeful light, because he reads the idea of God's sovereignty as the foundation of the most notorious Reformed doctrine, double predestination.
I, however, have always favored the idea of the sovereignty of God. I do not, though, connect it with predestination. Instead, I see it as a claim by the Reformed that all of Creation has one order, which we can investigate by reason.
We agreed that "sovereignty" and "majesty" are clearly similar ideas. It may be that they are simply different translations of the same word.
My question to you is this: Which term you find resonates better with your understanding? It seems to me that sovereignty is a concept better adapted to a democratic culture, whereas majesty is a more monarchical concept.
Still wrestling. Very fruitful conference, though.
Wolterstorff surprised me by saying that Calvin does not seem to speak of the sovereignty of God. Instead, Calvin promotes the idea of the majesty of God.
Wolterstorff thought this difference presented Calvinism in a more hopeful light, because he reads the idea of God's sovereignty as the foundation of the most notorious Reformed doctrine, double predestination.
I, however, have always favored the idea of the sovereignty of God. I do not, though, connect it with predestination. Instead, I see it as a claim by the Reformed that all of Creation has one order, which we can investigate by reason.
We agreed that "sovereignty" and "majesty" are clearly similar ideas. It may be that they are simply different translations of the same word.
My question to you is this: Which term you find resonates better with your understanding? It seems to me that sovereignty is a concept better adapted to a democratic culture, whereas majesty is a more monarchical concept.
Still wrestling. Very fruitful conference, though.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Children as a Happy-Making Gift.
I have been synthesizing two lines of happiness research.
People who give more are more likely to report that they are very happy.
People who have children are more likely to report that they are very happy, even though children typically diminish their marital happiness.
I think it is very fruitful to think of raising children as a gift, a gift to society.
Giving the gift of raising children should make it more likely that you will be very happy.
People who give more are more likely to report that they are very happy.
People who have children are more likely to report that they are very happy, even though children typically diminish their marital happiness.
I think it is very fruitful to think of raising children as a gift, a gift to society.
Giving the gift of raising children should make it more likely that you will be very happy.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Facebook is Not an Echo Chamber
Some people fear that social media creates an echo chamber in which we only hear opinions from like-minded friends which confirm our own.
Eytan Bakshy, a researcher at Facebook, conducted a fine, huge experiment. Facebook normally shows you links that your friends have posted. Using a modest sample of 253 million users, Bakshy suppressed some of that sharing, to create an experimental and a control group. He wanted to see how much people shared links, whether they shared links that were kept from them but that they found some other way, and whether they shared more from their strong-tie or weak-tie friends.
If Facebook were an echo chamber, we would mostly be sharing links from friends and from strong ties more than weak.
What Bakshy found is that we do share links from our close friends. And we do share links that we would have gotten from our close friends - Bakshy hid them, but we found them anyway. So far, so echo-y. But we also share links from our weak ties, ones we would not have seen otherwise. And the number of links we get and share from weak ties overwhelm the number we get from close ties. Weak ties bring us novel information.
My experience confirms this finding. I share opinions with close friends every day on Facebook. But I also get contrary information all the time. Some comes from a few close friends who do not agree with me. But most comes from weak ties - acquaintances who are "friends" but not really close friends. Even more often, people I do not know contribute comments to a friends' post disagreeing with that friend. Almost daily I find myself reading and checking a contrasting idea that someone I sort-of know put on Facebook.
This keeps me honest. Good for busting the echo chamber.
Eytan Bakshy, a researcher at Facebook, conducted a fine, huge experiment. Facebook normally shows you links that your friends have posted. Using a modest sample of 253 million users, Bakshy suppressed some of that sharing, to create an experimental and a control group. He wanted to see how much people shared links, whether they shared links that were kept from them but that they found some other way, and whether they shared more from their strong-tie or weak-tie friends.
If Facebook were an echo chamber, we would mostly be sharing links from friends and from strong ties more than weak.
What Bakshy found is that we do share links from our close friends. And we do share links that we would have gotten from our close friends - Bakshy hid them, but we found them anyway. So far, so echo-y. But we also share links from our weak ties, ones we would not have seen otherwise. And the number of links we get and share from weak ties overwhelm the number we get from close ties. Weak ties bring us novel information.
My experience confirms this finding. I share opinions with close friends every day on Facebook. But I also get contrary information all the time. Some comes from a few close friends who do not agree with me. But most comes from weak ties - acquaintances who are "friends" but not really close friends. Even more often, people I do not know contribute comments to a friends' post disagreeing with that friend. Almost daily I find myself reading and checking a contrasting idea that someone I sort-of know put on Facebook.
This keeps me honest. Good for busting the echo chamber.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Big-Time Sports Did Not Eat Division III College Life
"How Big-Time Sports Ate College Life," by Laura Pappano in the New York Times, is an excellent and sad story. Two interesting statistics that she reports:
The good news is that this is only a problem at Division I schools. Division III schools, like Centre College, do athletics right. And not all Division III schools are small, like Centre. The University of Chicago, for example, or Washington University, are full-scale research universities. But they keep sports in proportion.
Physical activity is a fine part of a well-rounded education. Athletics is a good addition to academic education. For those who don't want their academic priorities totally distorted by semi-professional sports teams operating near their academic institution, Division III does academic/athletic balance right.
Between 1985 and 2010, average salaries at public universities rose 32 percent for full professors, 90 percent for presidents and 650 percent for football coaches.
A study of University of Oregon students found that for every three games won by the football team, the grade-point average for men dropped 0.02, widening the G.P.A. gender gap by 9 percent.
The good news is that this is only a problem at Division I schools. Division III schools, like Centre College, do athletics right. And not all Division III schools are small, like Centre. The University of Chicago, for example, or Washington University, are full-scale research universities. But they keep sports in proportion.
Physical activity is a fine part of a well-rounded education. Athletics is a good addition to academic education. For those who don't want their academic priorities totally distorted by semi-professional sports teams operating near their academic institution, Division III does academic/athletic balance right.
Friday, January 20, 2012
World Population Pyramid Shows Some Big Declines Coming
This world population pyramid is fantastic.
Want to see something scary? Look at the population of Japan, Russia, and Italy now, vs. 2030.
I think world population is likely to stabilize. But some countries are looking at a demographic shrinkage so large that their societies will be fundamentally changed.
Want to see something scary? Look at the population of Japan, Russia, and Italy now, vs. 2030.
I think world population is likely to stabilize. But some countries are looking at a demographic shrinkage so large that their societies will be fundamentally changed.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Have the Republicans Run Out of Protestants?
With Rick Perry's withdrawal from the presidential nomination race, the Republican Party is down to Romney the Mormon, Santorum the traditional Catholic, Gingrich the newcomer Catholic, and Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is a libertarian. Libertarians are mostly unreligious, and a strong segment, like Jesse Ventura, regard religion as a crutch for the weak.
But Ron Paul also attends a Baptist church, is pro-life, and has been on both sides of the gay marriage issue.
I think Paul has not fully worked out the relationship between his religious views and his political views. He is clearly against the federal government being involved in moral and religious matters, as a strict libertarian would be. But whether he would support or oppose the Christian Right position at the state level is not clear.
In any case, the Republican Party, which has made evangelical Protestants the foundation of its base for a generation, has now run out of any clear socially conservative evangelical candidates for president.
Ron Paul is a libertarian. Libertarians are mostly unreligious, and a strong segment, like Jesse Ventura, regard religion as a crutch for the weak.
But Ron Paul also attends a Baptist church, is pro-life, and has been on both sides of the gay marriage issue.
I think Paul has not fully worked out the relationship between his religious views and his political views. He is clearly against the federal government being involved in moral and religious matters, as a strict libertarian would be. But whether he would support or oppose the Christian Right position at the state level is not clear.
In any case, the Republican Party, which has made evangelical Protestants the foundation of its base for a generation, has now run out of any clear socially conservative evangelical candidates for president.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
We Should Err on the Side of Internet Freedom
Today many internet sites, my daily tools and haunts, are protesting proposed legislation. The intent of the legislation - to prevent stealing intellectual property - is noble. The proposed method of control, though, seems so burdensome on internet content transmitters that it could really cripple this wonderful tool.
I am not expert enough on the details of the legislation to say more than that about this law or that. And I am confident that our legislative process will work out to a compromise that is not as bad as the proposed law. The political forces are divided and the economic forces are divided. This is the circumstance that makes for compromise.
The internet needs regulation. Every human institution needs rules and regulation. The question is whether our presumption is to err on the side of freedom or on the side of tight control. To take two extreme examples: we need very little regulation of how the rules of children's games work; we need strict regulation of how nuclear power plants operate.
The flow of content on the internet is, I submit, more like the rules of kids' games than it is like nuclear power. Light regulation is appropriate.
I am not expert enough on the details of the legislation to say more than that about this law or that. And I am confident that our legislative process will work out to a compromise that is not as bad as the proposed law. The political forces are divided and the economic forces are divided. This is the circumstance that makes for compromise.
The internet needs regulation. Every human institution needs rules and regulation. The question is whether our presumption is to err on the side of freedom or on the side of tight control. To take two extreme examples: we need very little regulation of how the rules of children's games work; we need strict regulation of how nuclear power plants operate.
The flow of content on the internet is, I submit, more like the rules of kids' games than it is like nuclear power. Light regulation is appropriate.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
School Your Passion Toward a Real Problem, and Thus Find Happiness
Oliver Segovia has a fine piece on the Harvard Business Review blog with the unfortunate headline "To Find Happiness, Forget Passion."
His main point is that if you want a meaningful life, find a big problem to work on. Since it is a big problem, you will probably find a way to make a living at trying to solve it. And working on something worthwhile is likely to make you happy.
Segovia frames this point with a story of a woman who "followed her passion" into something liberal artsy (subject not specified), who ended up unemployed and depressed. This story, no doubt, is what led the headline writer to say "forget passion."
I think Segovia's point, though, is that working on a big problem that you have an initial interest in tends to engage your passion. Thus, his real message is not "forget passion," but try to school your passion toward something the world can use.
That way does lead to happiness, fulfillment, and probably enough income to live on.
His main point is that if you want a meaningful life, find a big problem to work on. Since it is a big problem, you will probably find a way to make a living at trying to solve it. And working on something worthwhile is likely to make you happy.
Segovia frames this point with a story of a woman who "followed her passion" into something liberal artsy (subject not specified), who ended up unemployed and depressed. This story, no doubt, is what led the headline writer to say "forget passion."
I think Segovia's point, though, is that working on a big problem that you have an initial interest in tends to engage your passion. Thus, his real message is not "forget passion," but try to school your passion toward something the world can use.
That way does lead to happiness, fulfillment, and probably enough income to live on.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Sunday, January 15, 2012
The Vocation to Discern Vocations
In Sunday School we have been talking about the Presbyterian calling to teach. Everyone in the class is or has been a teacher of some sort. I think this is pretty typical for a Presbyterian Sunday School. I think I would not find the same thing in a random sample of adult Sunday School classes in most denominations.
Being called to teach has also meant that Presbyterians are disproportionately involved in creating schools. The stewardship of society means that these schools are meant to serve everyone, not just Presbyterians.
One point that came out in the class that I had not fully appreciated before comes from putting the call to teach with the call to create schools. Having a vocation to teach in institutions that serve everyone means that we also have a vocation to help everyone find his or her vocation - whether that includes teaching or not.
The vocation to help discern vocations vastly multiplies the social effect of the Presbyterian call to teach.
Being called to teach has also meant that Presbyterians are disproportionately involved in creating schools. The stewardship of society means that these schools are meant to serve everyone, not just Presbyterians.
One point that came out in the class that I had not fully appreciated before comes from putting the call to teach with the call to create schools. Having a vocation to teach in institutions that serve everyone means that we also have a vocation to help everyone find his or her vocation - whether that includes teaching or not.
The vocation to help discern vocations vastly multiplies the social effect of the Presbyterian call to teach.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Christian Right Leaders Give Obama a Gift
Leaders of the Christian Right, a once-important bloc within the Republican Party, have endorsed Rick Santorum.
I believe this action will have two consequences.
First, evangelical Christians will not follow these once-powerful leaders, but will split their votes among many candidates, including Mitt Romney.
Second, the split within the Republican Party between the establishment wing, which backs Romney, and the evangelical wing, which does not, will widen.
The Republican Party has been effective in blocking a few of President Obama's policies, but seems to be unable to unite around any effective positive idea for governing, nor do they support an effective candidate to bear such an idea. By further splitting the party, the Christian Right leaders have handed President Obama another gift.
I believe this action will have two consequences.
First, evangelical Christians will not follow these once-powerful leaders, but will split their votes among many candidates, including Mitt Romney.
Second, the split within the Republican Party between the establishment wing, which backs Romney, and the evangelical wing, which does not, will widen.
The Republican Party has been effective in blocking a few of President Obama's policies, but seems to be unable to unite around any effective positive idea for governing, nor do they support an effective candidate to bear such an idea. By further splitting the party, the Christian Right leaders have handed President Obama another gift.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Twins Up Nearly 100% in a Generation Due to Old Mothers
The birth rate for twins has nearly doubled in the past generation in the U.S.
One third of this growth in twinning is due to more older mothers, who tend to have twins at a higher rate naturally than younger mothers do.
Most of the increase in twins - and triplets, quadruplets, etc. on to Octomom - is due to more women waiting so long to have children that they need fertility drugs.
One third of this growth in twinning is due to more older mothers, who tend to have twins at a higher rate naturally than younger mothers do.
Most of the increase in twins - and triplets, quadruplets, etc. on to Octomom - is due to more women waiting so long to have children that they need fertility drugs.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
"The King of Bain" is a Very Bad Film
"When Mitt Romney Came to Town," also known as "The King of Bain," the long-form attack ad that Newt Gingrich's supporters are running, is a very bad documentary. It is the kind of sensationalist fear mongering that the right wing hates when Michael Moore does it.
The film, which was originally made by Romney employees, was sold to a pro-Gingrich political action committee.
The film shows Romney and his firm, Bain Capital, buying up several companies, firing most of the workforce, making huge profits by getting other people to loan the companies money, and then shutting them down completely. In one case they started a technology firm, got favorable ratings from Lehman Brothers, made a huge pile from the initial public offering, then sold off all their stock just before the company went bankrupt.
In each case - and the film says there are many more - Bain acts like the vultures that Rick Perry says they are.
What the film does not do is investigate whether the companies could have been run profitably at all. The film-makers did not even ask whether anyone could have saved these firms.
I do not know the answer to that question. So far, no commentators on the film have tried to answer it. It may be that Bain Capital, and Mitt Romney, are indeed "vulture capitalists" or "mafia capitalists," buying profitable companies, suckering investors into giving Bain lots of money in exchange for worthless debt, then destroying the firms. It may also be that Bain Capital bought failing companies, performed necessary creative destruction, and saved the fragment that would otherwise have failed.
I would really like to know which kind of businessman Mitt Romney is. But "When Mitt Romney Came to Town" is a very bad way to try to answer the question.
The film, which was originally made by Romney employees, was sold to a pro-Gingrich political action committee.
The film shows Romney and his firm, Bain Capital, buying up several companies, firing most of the workforce, making huge profits by getting other people to loan the companies money, and then shutting them down completely. In one case they started a technology firm, got favorable ratings from Lehman Brothers, made a huge pile from the initial public offering, then sold off all their stock just before the company went bankrupt.
In each case - and the film says there are many more - Bain acts like the vultures that Rick Perry says they are.
What the film does not do is investigate whether the companies could have been run profitably at all. The film-makers did not even ask whether anyone could have saved these firms.
I do not know the answer to that question. So far, no commentators on the film have tried to answer it. It may be that Bain Capital, and Mitt Romney, are indeed "vulture capitalists" or "mafia capitalists," buying profitable companies, suckering investors into giving Bain lots of money in exchange for worthless debt, then destroying the firms. It may also be that Bain Capital bought failing companies, performed necessary creative destruction, and saved the fragment that would otherwise have failed.
I would really like to know which kind of businessman Mitt Romney is. But "When Mitt Romney Came to Town" is a very bad way to try to answer the question.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
What You Get If You Ask the Web If It's Cool to Be a Virgin
The website "First World Problems" had this intriguing item:
I am in little danger of being fired or divorced for pursuing such a question, so I did.
The first answer that Google yields is, surprisingly, a Yahoo! Answers Q & A from 2006 (!). The lead answer given then was "it's up to you."
A query from last year is a little scarier: "Is it OK to be 16 and a virgin?" This, I am happy to report, brought several sensible and well-reasoned "yes" answers.
A similar query brought this response from TheSite.org, a British advice site for young adults:
My daughter wants to know if it's cool to be a virgin. I'm not sure, but I know that if I Google the answer, it'll result in firing or divorce.
I am in little danger of being fired or divorced for pursuing such a question, so I did.
The first answer that Google yields is, surprisingly, a Yahoo! Answers Q & A from 2006 (!). The lead answer given then was "it's up to you."
A query from last year is a little scarier: "Is it OK to be 16 and a virgin?" This, I am happy to report, brought several sensible and well-reasoned "yes" answers.
A similar query brought this response from TheSite.org, a British advice site for young adults:
I'm 78, still a virgin and so cool, I piss ice cubes.
You're doing the right thing.
You're doing the right thing.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The Pay It Forward Coffee House
I like good news, coffee houses, and Good magazine. This story has all three.
At the Corner Perk, a coffee house in Bluffton, SC, one anonymous customer started leaving money to pay for other people's drinks and food. This custom caught on, and now many people do it.
As psychologist Jonathan Haidt has so interestingly demonstrated, seeing other people do good things fills most people with a desire to do good things, too.
At the Corner Perk, a coffee house in Bluffton, SC, one anonymous customer started leaving money to pay for other people's drinks and food. This custom caught on, and now many people do it.
As psychologist Jonathan Haidt has so interestingly demonstrated, seeing other people do good things fills most people with a desire to do good things, too.
Monday, January 09, 2012
Utopian "Third Party" Movements are the Bane of Centrism
I am grateful to Solomon Kleinsmith to participate in his blog collective, The Rise of the Center.
Recently I got to voice a pet peeve about something that has bedeviled every centrist forum I have been part of: the desire to create a third party between the Democratic and Republican Parties.
I think that in this country third parties are always utopian, sectarian, and do more harm than good. In particular, they hurt the party that they are more in sympathy with by splitting the vote in an election. Not all third parties are centrist, by any means. But the effect is the same: third parties are a gift your enemies.
Moreover, like all utopian endeavors, they take up too many evenings with too little to show for it.
The Republicans and the Democrats have nearly all the governmental action. If you want to actually affect government policy, as I do, then you have to work within the big tent of one or the other major party.
There are many other ways to build up the world besides government policy, of course. Those other sectors allow for many fruitful centrist paths. But American politics does not.
Most of the other participants in the Rise of the Center discussion, including Kleinsmith, disagree with me on this.
I would be interested in the thoughts of Gruntled Center readers on this topic.
Recently I got to voice a pet peeve about something that has bedeviled every centrist forum I have been part of: the desire to create a third party between the Democratic and Republican Parties.
I think that in this country third parties are always utopian, sectarian, and do more harm than good. In particular, they hurt the party that they are more in sympathy with by splitting the vote in an election. Not all third parties are centrist, by any means. But the effect is the same: third parties are a gift your enemies.
Moreover, like all utopian endeavors, they take up too many evenings with too little to show for it.
The Republicans and the Democrats have nearly all the governmental action. If you want to actually affect government policy, as I do, then you have to work within the big tent of one or the other major party.
There are many other ways to build up the world besides government policy, of course. Those other sectors allow for many fruitful centrist paths. But American politics does not.
Most of the other participants in the Rise of the Center discussion, including Kleinsmith, disagree with me on this.
I would be interested in the thoughts of Gruntled Center readers on this topic.
Friday, January 06, 2012
Why President Obama Will Be Re-Elected
This first week of the year is devoted to posts on the big political picture.
The main reasons that I think President Obama will be re-elected is that:
a) he is the incumbent, so the sizable majority that voted for him last time will want to vote for him again;
b) the economy is improving; and
c) the Republicans will be unable to unite around an exciting and unifying candidate.
President Obama has been a very good president.
Conditions in the country and in the world are improving.
Obama is playing the long game of politics very well. When he was first elected, he knew he had about 18 months to pass the main pieces of his positive agenda. He did, most importantly by passing universal health care. He has also been relentlessly bi-partisan, working with any Republicans who were willing to help, compromising the way any competent politician must, and keeping his eye on the ball. He has had even greater successes in foreign policy. And he has waited until the turn into his re-election year to push back harder against the Republican leadership's intransigence.
The Republicans have played into Obama's hands. They have positioned themselves as against health care for millions, against saving the auto industry, against regulating the investment "banks" that nearly destroyed the world economy, against regulating the payday lenders that batten on the poor and working class, against supporting democratic movements in the Arab world, against reducing payroll taxes for people who live on their earnings, against raising taxes on the hugely rich. Most importantly, they have positioned themselves against compromising and working together in the way that government absolutely requires.
To take a signal example, I think universal health care will be a pillar of what most Americans appreciate about government, as they do Medicare and Social Security. Republicans also opposed Medicare and Social Security, but at least some of them voted for it. Not universal health care, though - the Republican leadership made sure their party was unanimously against it. And they call it "Obamacare." This short-sighted intransigence will come back to bite them for years to come.
The Republican Party is also suffering a three-way civil war among its establishment, social conservative, and libertarian wings. The Tea Party, in particular, is almost as much anti-Republican as it is anti-Democratic. I believe the Tea Party has shot its bolt and will be irrelevant after this election. But in the mean time, they will exacerbate the intransigence that is undermining the Republican Party as an actual instrument of government.
The main reasons that I think President Obama will be re-elected is that:
a) he is the incumbent, so the sizable majority that voted for him last time will want to vote for him again;
b) the economy is improving; and
c) the Republicans will be unable to unite around an exciting and unifying candidate.
President Obama has been a very good president.
Conditions in the country and in the world are improving.
Obama is playing the long game of politics very well. When he was first elected, he knew he had about 18 months to pass the main pieces of his positive agenda. He did, most importantly by passing universal health care. He has also been relentlessly bi-partisan, working with any Republicans who were willing to help, compromising the way any competent politician must, and keeping his eye on the ball. He has had even greater successes in foreign policy. And he has waited until the turn into his re-election year to push back harder against the Republican leadership's intransigence.
The Republicans have played into Obama's hands. They have positioned themselves as against health care for millions, against saving the auto industry, against regulating the investment "banks" that nearly destroyed the world economy, against regulating the payday lenders that batten on the poor and working class, against supporting democratic movements in the Arab world, against reducing payroll taxes for people who live on their earnings, against raising taxes on the hugely rich. Most importantly, they have positioned themselves against compromising and working together in the way that government absolutely requires.
To take a signal example, I think universal health care will be a pillar of what most Americans appreciate about government, as they do Medicare and Social Security. Republicans also opposed Medicare and Social Security, but at least some of them voted for it. Not universal health care, though - the Republican leadership made sure their party was unanimously against it. And they call it "Obamacare." This short-sighted intransigence will come back to bite them for years to come.
The Republican Party is also suffering a three-way civil war among its establishment, social conservative, and libertarian wings. The Tea Party, in particular, is almost as much anti-Republican as it is anti-Democratic. I believe the Tea Party has shot its bolt and will be irrelevant after this election. But in the mean time, they will exacerbate the intransigence that is undermining the Republican Party as an actual instrument of government.
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Obama Is Mostly Doing an Excellent Job
This first week of the year is devoted to posts on the big political picture.
Yesterday I wrote about my main criticism of President Obama. Today I want to say that, on the whole, I think he has done a masterful job under very difficult circumstances.
President Obama first had to clean up the gigantic mess left by the previous administration. He prevented a major depression, ended a misbegotten war, is winding down a more justified war, killed bin Laden, ended torture, restored America's stature in the world, saved the auto industry, resumed regulating the finance industry, and started protecting the environment again.
Obama also came in to office with a positive agenda. His main achievement was to create universal health care, an objective of Democratic administrations since Truman. He started investing more in alternative energy, rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, working with our allies, and shifting our military focus toward Asia.
He also made the most of some unexpected opportunities, most importantly the Arab Spring. President Obama supported indigenous revolutions against Arab dictators, without sending American troops, spending a trillion dollars, alienating our allies, or creating loathing for America among the "liberated" people. The contrast with the Iraq war is striking in this regard. And the chances of successful democracy are greater than in Iraq, though still iffy in both cases.
One great achievement of the Obama administration is something it did not do: it did not make our enemies do worse things by threatening them. The President did not invent an "axis of evil," pushing them to invest in nuclear weapons against an American threat.
And President Obama achieved all of this in the face of a determined foe whose sole objective was to deny the president any achievements: the leadership of the Republican Party. As Senator McConnell said at the outset of the current administration, the main goal of Republicans is to deny President Obama a second term.
Obama has been a very good president. I hope in the coming year he will prove to be an excellent one.
Yesterday I wrote about my main criticism of President Obama. Today I want to say that, on the whole, I think he has done a masterful job under very difficult circumstances.
President Obama first had to clean up the gigantic mess left by the previous administration. He prevented a major depression, ended a misbegotten war, is winding down a more justified war, killed bin Laden, ended torture, restored America's stature in the world, saved the auto industry, resumed regulating the finance industry, and started protecting the environment again.
Obama also came in to office with a positive agenda. His main achievement was to create universal health care, an objective of Democratic administrations since Truman. He started investing more in alternative energy, rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, working with our allies, and shifting our military focus toward Asia.
He also made the most of some unexpected opportunities, most importantly the Arab Spring. President Obama supported indigenous revolutions against Arab dictators, without sending American troops, spending a trillion dollars, alienating our allies, or creating loathing for America among the "liberated" people. The contrast with the Iraq war is striking in this regard. And the chances of successful democracy are greater than in Iraq, though still iffy in both cases.
One great achievement of the Obama administration is something it did not do: it did not make our enemies do worse things by threatening them. The President did not invent an "axis of evil," pushing them to invest in nuclear weapons against an American threat.
And President Obama achieved all of this in the face of a determined foe whose sole objective was to deny the president any achievements: the leadership of the Republican Party. As Senator McConnell said at the outset of the current administration, the main goal of Republicans is to deny President Obama a second term.
Obama has been a very good president. I hope in the coming year he will prove to be an excellent one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
