Beyond Peace 4

I finished Richard Nixon's 1994 book, Beyond Peace.  This book was published in the same year that Richard Nixon passed on.

Getting a handle on Richard Nixon's political ideology is not an easy task.  He often talks like a conservative in this book, and he quotes favorably such conservative lions as Rush Limbaugh, Thomas Sowell, and Charles Krauthammer.  Nixon also expressed skepticism about global warming.  Yet, Nixon unapologetically takes certain positions that can be characterized as liberal, particularly on the issues of gun control and abortion.

I don't have much of a problem with Nixon being his own man, for why should we require people to subscribe to the usual banal Left-Right polarization, where one either has to be a liberal or a conservative, as if either "side" has a corner on the truth?  But there were a couple of times when Nixon seemed to me to be contradicting himself.  For example, he waxed eloquent about the failure of rehabilitation when it came to criminals, advocating punishment instead.  Yet, in the very next paragraph, he referred to drug rehabilitation programs that were effective.  At times, I got the impression that Nixon opposed the Great Society because it entailed the government getting involved in areas that it had no business being in.  And yet, Nixon tries to make clear that he's for a social safety net for the very poor----those who cannot support themselves.  Nixon criticizes a progressive income tax that taxes people based on what they make, preferring instead a consumption tax.  Yet, when it comes to entitlements, he is for means-testing, which enables the poor to receive more benefits, while shifting the cost more to the middle and upper income people.

There are times when Nixon attempts to explain what may strike people as an inconsistency.  For example, Nixon is critical of Bill Clinton's health care plan because it would require employers to provide health insurance to their employees, a heavy cost that could have bad economic consequences.  But did not Nixon have a health insurance mandate for employers within his own health care proposal, back when he was President?  Nixon acknowledges that he did, but he says that health insurance was not as financially burdensome back then as it is now.

There was one time when I wished that Nixon provided more detail, in an attempt to answer potential objections that one could raise to his position.  Nixon supports a consumption tax, since that could encourage saving, which would later be used for capital.  That makes sense to me.  In fact, reading Nixon has sensitized me more to why saving is important for the economy.  But I still have a question.  Let's say that I've saved, and I then decide to use my savings to start a business.  How would I benefit, and how would I be able to benefit other by employing them, if there is a consumption tax discouraging people from buying my products?  I agree that saving is important for the economy, but so is consumption.

In addition to the importance of saving, there was something else that this book by Nixon further sensitized me to: on the need for a strong economy to support a social safety net.  Communism preached equality, but people living under it were not better off whenever its policies inhibited economic growth.  Granted, some of the countries that Nixon praises as capitalistic, such as Taiwan, came to adopt a single-payer health insurance system, the sort of system that Nixon criticizes.  (Whether it did so before or after Nixon died, I do not know.)  See this article.  And yet, Taiwan did so after it had become wealthy.  Then, it could afford a single-payer system.  I hope that there is some way to combine the free market with an adequate social safety net, or any government action that can provide people with a hand-up.  A while back, I was reading a New York Times article on the legacy of Hugo Chavez, and it noted that, while Chavez made things better for the poor, economic growth in Venezuela was not that great when he was its leader.  The article said that some are looking to Brazil as a better alternative: it is capitalistic, yet it has a strong social safety net.

Change, or Just Playing for Another Team?

Carson Clark of the blog "Musings of a Hardline Moderate" recently had an insightful post, Miniblog #137: How Did I Break from the Fundamentalist, Pentecostal Republican Mold?

While Carson's post is about how he left his fundamentalist, Pentecostal, Republican mold, I think that his thoughts can apply to a number of "us vs. them" mentalities, not only those on the Right.  I'll quote from this part of Carson's post:

"Spanning the spectrum from politics to religion, so many conservatives and progressives seem fueled by sheer anger toward one another. It’s as though there’s something about them–something deep down in the recesses of their hearts, minds, and souls–that resonates with a spirit of opposition and is driven by a desire to defeat one another.  It’s this thirst for an intoxicating brew of power, control, and victory. When I was a fundamentalist I felt that elemental, competitive fire. Yet it was never a good fit. There was always something that felt innately amiss. It’s as though the perpetual conflict produced physical energy while simultaneously sapping my emotional, intellectual, and spiritual vitality."

I can identify with what Carson is saying.  When I was right-wing, I was angry at liberals.  I felt that they were smug, condescending know-it-alls who looked down on everyone who disagreed with them, while assuming that they somehow spoke for most people.  And I wanted for them to be defeated, not just because I thought that their agenda for the country was dangerous, but also because I wanted them to feel the pain of knowing that most of America did not like them.  And so I rejoiced when George W. Bush won in 2004, or when anti-gay marriage measures passed in a bunch of states.  I was in-your-face about my conservatism, for I wanted the liberals I knew to realize that not everybody shared their views----that there were other ways to see the issues.

To be honest, a lot of my ideological change occurred when I was away from actual liberals, when I did not have to be physically at my academic institution and could do a lot of my work at home.  During that time, I got to reflect more on issues, without bringing into consideration personalities, whom I liked, whom I disliked, etc.  I began to believe that winning elections is not so much a matter of telling off the "other side", as it is of crafting policies that help the country, which includes people of different perspectives.  I especially felt this as I attempted to navigate my way through America's health care system, with the health insurance premiums, the copays, and the fact that my health insurance company often left me with a lot of the bill.  I also was hearing and reading the horror stories of those who suffered at the hands of health insurance companies, or who struggled to pay off their student loans.  Moreover, in 2008, I was reading Barack Obama's Audacity of Hope, and, while I disagreed with Obama on a number of issues, I admired his thoughtfulness and his ability to acknowledge valuable points in conservatism.
 
What I often wonder, though, is this: Am I all that different now from how I was as a conservative, only I'm on another team?  There is currently a part of me that cannot stand conservatives and conservative Christianity.  I hate conservatives' judgmental attitude towards those who receive government aid, as many conservatives claim that such people do not want to work, when there are actually a number of people who do work yet remain poor.  I have also resented the spiritual bullying that I and others have received from conservative Christians, and so, while I remain a person of faith, I tend to gravitate towards atheist blogs and the religious blogs of people who are critical of conservative Christianity (i.e., Rachel Held Evans) because I am elated when conservative Christianity is criticized.  When conservative Christians get on their high horse and say that everyone should believe and behave in a certain way, and set themselves up as people's judge, I get a lot of satisfaction when an atheist says, "Yeah, says who?"  I'm hoping (perhaps in vain) that this will take the wind out of conservative Christians' sails, the same way that I hoped as a conservative (equally in vain) that political defeats would knock arrogant liberals off of their high horse.

So I'm not entirely different now from when I was a conservative.  And yet, there are some differences.  Nowadays, I don't dismiss every criticism of my side with "the other side does the same thing" (or at least I try not to do so----it's tempting to resort to that when the other side gets self-righteous).  I don't assume that my side is perfect whereas the other side is utterly flawed.  I identify heroes in both sides, conservative and liberal, and I read stuff from both sides----well, not everything, for both sides produce stuff that is malevolent, bitter, and sometimes just plain nutty, but I appreciate a thoughtful (preferably three-dimensional) analysis of policy and politics, regardless of whether the person doing the analysis is a liberal, a conservative, or something else. 

Moreover, while there is still a part of me that relishes competition and the other side being taken down a few notches, there are times when I need something more nourishing.  I learned that back when I was a conservative.  I was in a bitter mood one day, I turned on Rush Limbaugh, and he was ranting about the inconsistency of the Left in criticizing Arnold Schwarzenegger's alleged indiscretions with women while giving Bill Clinton a free pass.  As much as I enjoyed listening to Rush, I found that I needed to turn him off at that time because he was not helping my mood. 

Mitt Romney's No Apology 9: Energy and Climate Change

In my latest reading of No Apology: Believe in America, Mitt Romney talked about energy and climate change.  In my opinion, Romney was all over the place in this chapter, as he went into different angles of the issue.  But my impression is that he's for reducing dependency on oil, for our oil supplies will not last forever, and our dependence on foreign oil leads us into compromising situations internationally.  Romney thinks that we can drill safely in offshore areas and in ANWR, but he talks a lot about the need to reduce our dependency on oil, and he supports nuclear energy, coal (whose carbon can be removed and stored, he said), and natural gas.

Romney wants to incentivize fuel-efficient cars through the tax system, and he's open to working on a proposal to impose a gas or carbon tax while balancing that off with some sort of tax cut----such as a reduction of the payroll tax.  Romney states that "The higher energy prices would encourage energy efficiency across the full array of American businesses and citizens."  Romney acknowledges that such a proposal could hurt people on fixed incomes, people who have to travel over sizeable distances, and people "in certain energy-intensive industries" (page 262), and so that's why he believes that the plan needs work.  This discussion stood out to me because I remembered Rush Limbaugh criticizing President Obama's energy secretary for reportedly saying that high gas prices are okay (see here).  Apparently, Romney and the conservatives who devised the plan see an upside to high energy prices.

Romney prefers alternative energy and incentivizing fuel-efficient cars to cap-and-trade and the government spending a lot of money to counter climate change.  According to Romney, cap-and-trade and government spending cost a lot of money that can be used for other things.  There are businesses that use a lot of carbon, and having to buy credits to do that would cost them a lot, and so they'd either pass on the cost to the consumers or locate to a country that does not have as many restrictions on carbon.  (Romney believes that cap-and-trade for other pollutants has been more workable and effective, yet he sees downsides to that as well, such as the unstable price of credits.)  And there are foreign regions that prefer to prioritize tackling other problems over climate change because it costs a lot to address climate change, and they feel that money can be better spent on other necessary causes.  Moreover, Romney does not believe that spending a lot of money to reverse climate change even succeeds in attaining its goal, at least not at the level that would justify the cost.

I did some online reading to see where we stand now on climate change.  Cap-and-trade was defeated.  The White House's current policy on climate-change did not strike me as overly rigorous, for it appeared to focus on reducing carbon emissions by the government while not discussing the private sector so much (see here).  The White House's web site does talk about clean energy, but I hope that we're actually going somewhere with that, rather than merely investing in companies that fail.  The web site says here, though, that renewable energy generation has doubled in the U.S. since 2008. 

And, according to this article, U.S. carbon emissions are at a 20-year low, due to such factors as "a mild winter, reduced gasoline demand, and the scaling back of coal-fired power in favour of new gas capacity", and those who support the gas industry contend that "America's shale gas boom has delivered environmental benefits by replacing more carbon-intensive coal-fired power" (the article's words).  But the article goes on to say that "climate scientists and green groups remain deeply concerned that while the switch to gas will deliver reductions in overall emissions it will fail to deliver the deep cuts necessary to curb climate change risks, arguing that new investment in gas infrastructure will lock the US into high levels of emissions for decades to come."

Although Mitt Romney has a history of supporting fuel-efficient automobiles, I tend to trust Barack Obama to be more committed to the issue of combating climate change, since Romney seeks to appease the right-wing.  But, to be honest, I'm not sure if enough can be done to combat it, especially in the current political climate----where so many people have to be appeased and radical measures are dismissed because they may have an adverse effect on the economy.  But, hopefully, something can be done----to reduce emissions and to prepare for the consequences of climate change.

Schumer Could Have Been a Hero...

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York was on ABC This Week this morning (click here for the transcript). One of the topics that he addressed was controversial left-wing comedian Bill Maher, who has donated a million dollars to Barack Obama's super-PAC. Many Republicans are saying that Obama should give back the money, since Maher has called Sarah Palin derogatory names. This is currently an issue because right-wing talk radio host Rush Limbaugh has received flack (and even drops in advertisers) for calling Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute", and Obama and others on the Left have criticized that as uncivil discourse. Republicans are responding that Bill Maher is uncivil in his discourse, too, and so the Left should criticize him as well.

When asked if the Democrats should return Bill Maher's donation, Charles Schumer said the following:

"Well, no. I mean, look, the bottom line is that Rush Limbaugh's comments were just nasty and directed at a particular young woman who had a particular point of view and was expressing herself. Bill Maher is a comedian. It's much different. Rush Limbaugh has tremendous weight in the Republican Party. No one will rebut him. Bill Maher's a comedian who's on at 11 o'clock at night but has very little influence on what's happening here."

Schumer's response is understandable, but it's sad. It's understandable because Schumer does not want to make headlines by openly demanding that the Democrats return Maher's money, since that would place the Democrats in an awkward position. (I've watched enough of The West Wing that I can picture Josh Lyman arriving at that conclusion!) But it's sad for a variety of reasons:

1. Contrary to what Schumer says, Bill Maher does have political influence, for Maher is giving a million dollars to the Democrats.

2. Schumer's attempt to downplay Bill Maher as a mere comedian while he criticizes Rush Limbaugh is quite a stretch. Both Rush and Bill Maher are comedians in that they try to be funny, but they also claim to be presenting legitimate points-of-view on politics and policy. In my opinion, Rush and Bill Maher are in the same boat.

3. Right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of who is doing it. Unfortunately, in U.S. politics, people tend to give a free pass to their own side while condemning the other side. One result of that is Schumer's poor logic (at least on the issue of Rush and Bill Maher) that he displayed this morning.

4. Due to pressures on politicians to be team players, it's rare to find a politician who stands for what's right, even when it creates an awkward situation. Chuck Schumer could have been a hero this morning by declaring that Democrats should support civility and thus return Bill Maher's check. Instead, he chose to be a team player and to engage in silly partisan games.

This is not to say that Schumer hasn't done good things in the area of civility. He has appeared on right-wing shows and has discussed issues in a respectful manner. After the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, he and Republican Senator Tom Coburn sat next to one another to show their commitment to transcending political polarization. I just wish Schumer was more of a hero this morning.

Two Perspectives on U.S. Energy Policy

I listened to two talk radio shows today. The first was that of Rush Limbaugh, the controversial right-wing host. And the second was that of Thom Hartmann, a progressive.

I was especially intrigued by their different points-of-view on energy policy, which they talked about today because President Barack Obama has released proposals on energy.

Rush said that Obama is against drilling for oil because he is anti-American and believes that the United States has exploited the world. Rush also said that Obama desires to shift America to green energy (i.e., replacing oil with algae). Rush referred to Energy Secretary Stephen Chu's remark that the Administration is okay with high gas prices (see here), as well as Obama's lament that the United States has two percent of the world's oil reserves yet consumes twenty percent of the world's oil. For Rush, the United States has much more oil than that, but it has been untapped due to Obama's anti-oil policies. Rush also expressed doubt that anything can replace oil, for the success of oil in the marketplace is an example of the best product winning. Moreover, Rush affirmed that the Keystone Pipeline (which Obama opposes) would create jobs in the United States.

Thom Hartmann's take on these issues was different. First of all, Hartmann denied that Obama has been anti-oil in his policies or has supported high gas prices. Hartmann played the part of Obama's speech in which Obama lamented that Americans have paid so much at the pump. Hartmann also stated that drilling for oil has dramatically increased during Obama's Presidency. Why, then, do we still have high gas prices? Hartmann says this is because oil companies have exported the surplus oil, in an attempt to keep gasoline prices in the United States high and thereby maintain their high profits. Regarding the Keystone pipeline, Hartmann stated that it would create jobs while it was being built, but afterwards those jobs would disappear. Hartmann also said that the pipeline essentially exports oil to another country, meaning that the oil is not even for people in the United States.

Who's right? I agree with Rush that Obama is trying to weed us off of oil, since Obama is a strong proponent of green energy. I am also interested in learning more about Secretary Chu's comments. But Hartmann makes sense when he says that the oil companies are trying to keep their prices high. That's why I doubt that giving tax breaks to oil companies will lift us out of our current state of high gas prices: we've been doing that, and it hasn't worked.

That's my opinion, and I'm far from being an expert. I was pleased to listen to two sides on this issue. What's your view?

Kucinich and Kaptur; Rush and Hannity on Inconsistency

I have two political points for today:

1. I read that Congressman Dennis Kucinich lost to Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur in the race for the Democratic nomination in Ohio's ninth district. I think it's sad that redistricting put both of these fine leaders against each other, for I like them both. For one, both are solidly committed to the middle class, and they're not afraid to stand up to special interests. And second, at least compared to other Democrats, they're fairly pro-life on the abortion issue (though Kucinich has moved away from that). Marcy Kaptur will go up against Joe the Plumber. (Oh brother!) I've written about Marcy Kaptur and Dennis Kucinich in the past on this blog. See here and here.

2. I listened to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity yesterday. Essentially, they were arguing that the Left is hypocritical to lambaste Rush in the name of civility, when prominent figures on the Left are themselves uncivil. Rush said that President Barack Obama laughed when Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. referred to Tea Partiers as "sons of bitches", and when Wanda Sykes at the White House Correspondents' Dinner expressed hope that Rush Limbaugh's kidneys would fail. And Hannity reported that Bill Maher----who has used derogatory terms for Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann----has donated a million dollars to Obama's super-PAC. Hannity asks if Obama will return the money.

I think that these points are legitimate. My impression has been that, when many liberals and Democrats are confronted with this information, they give the obligatory response that Bill Maher is also wrong to be uncivil. But do they then proceed to e-mail HBO and to tell it to take Bill Maher off of its programming, the same way that they have gone after Rush's sponsors with a vengeance? I don't think so. In my opinion, there is bias, and people tend to give a free pass to their own side for things that they condemn on the other side.

I said that I think that Rush and Hannity make a legitimate point. But is it a valuable point? And where exactly does it leave us? All it does is encourage more squabbling and us vs. them. Yes, life is unfair. I may be criticized for things that others get a free pass for. The people who criticize me may not even have the moral authority to do so, since their own lives are out of order. But I'm still responsible for my own actions, and it is my responsibility to clean up my own side of the street and to try to be as civil as I can.

John Avlon on the Decline of Rush Limbaugh

John Avlon of The Daily Beast has an excellent article about the decline of Rush Limbaugh, both in terms of the number of his listeners and the quality of his program. Here are some of my favorite quotes from Avlon's piece:

"'This controversy will no doubt give Rush a temporary ratings lift, but it won’t be worth the damage that’s been caused in terms of loss of revenue and advertiser confidence,' says WTOP program director Laurie Cantillo, who previously directed Limbaugh’s flagship station, WABC. 'It is perceived by many as an attack on young women who represent the holy grail for ratings. Women 25–54 is the prize demo for most advertisers. Rush’s remarks strike at the heart of the audience they’re trying to reach, hence the apology. This is an audience that’s already been in gradual decline on many right-wing radio stations, so Rush’s gaffe compounds the problem.'"

"'There’s been a lot of research done on women and talk radio and while women are keenly interested in issues and politics, women tend to reject the in-your-face conflict and combativeness of politics. That’s just not how women are wired,' says Cantillo. 'We prefer more civil discourse on the issues. And that’s why all news and talk programming that’s more even-handed are gaining popularity.' While Rush is still a giant of the talk-radio industry, there are signs of erosion. Right-wing talk-radio ratings have been declining, at least in part because of PPMs, a new, more accurate way of measuring listenership. In Chicago, Boston, and Minneapolis, local talk-radio stations outperform the station that airs Rush and his national conservative-talk cohort. In San Diego, Philadelphia, and Washington, the local NPR station outranks the Rush affiliates."

"In what might be another ominous sign for Rush & Co., Mike Huckabee will be starting a nationally syndicated radio show in April for the Cumulus network, which could be positioned to displace Rush in some markets. A former preacher, governor, and presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee is highly conservative, but he is also unfailingly civil."

"There is an irony in the spot Rush has put himself. His career first took off when he was hired as a replacement for the professionally offensive Morton Downey Jr. at Sacramento’s KFBK. 'Rush was hired because he was passionate but polite—a nice Midwest guy. The agreement was that he would not be rude or cruel,' says Valerie Geller, his former program director at WABC, director of Geller Media International and author of Beyond Powerful Radio."

Some will probably doubt that there was ever a time when Rush was civil and polite! After all, he used the terms "feminazis" and "environmental wackos" even in his early days. But, in my opinion, whenever Rush focuses on discussing and debating the issues rather than calling people names, he can be quite effective, even logical at times. And there was a time when he was more willing to dialogue with people about the issues in public, for he appeared on news programs and talk shows (i.e., Donahue) and debated people who disagreed with him. He still does that sort of thing on his radio program, on some level, but I remember when he had more of a public profile in terms of discussing issues.

I'm pleased that there is a growing number of people desiring a civil discussion of issues----an exploration of differences and policies as opposed to name-calling and "us vs. them."

It's Not Censorship (Technically-Speaking), But It Still Stinks

This will be a rambling post.

In a sense, I can identify with the companies that have pulled their sponsorship from Rush Limbaugh's radio program. These companies support such values as civility and respect for people, and they do not feel that Rush practices those values. Consequently, they choose not to support Rush. I understand and I respect that.

But I myself have no intention of trying to get Rush kicked off the air. In fact, I'm getting sick of conservatives getting kicked off of programs, period. I think of Pat Buchanan being fired from MSNBC due to pressure from a left-wing group. In my opinion, we lose out when voices are silenced. And, while we may think that society would be better off if certain voices were simply not heard, I believe that those voices should be addressed and countered through debate, not silencing them. (I'm refraining from using the word "censorship" here because the government did not remove Pat Buchanan from MSNBC, and I define censorship as the government repressing freedom of speech.)

"But you're a right-winger, James." Well, I'm more middle-of-the-road nowadays, maybe even center-left. But let me say this: I'm not going to join right-wingers to get things kicked off the air, either! The conservative American Family Association has long liked to target sponsors to get certain programs kicked off. I have not joined them, for I happen to like the shows that the religious right dislikes (i.e., Desperate Housewives, Picket Fences, Brothers and Sisters, etc.). L. Brent Bozell (nephew of William F. Buckley, Jr.) has for years sought to remove Family Guy from television. I happen to like Family Guy. I think it's funny. It goes too far at times, but I'm not going to support getting it kicked off the air.

Another pet-peeve I have: When someone expresses an opinion, people act surprised and outraged that he has expressed that opinion. I have in mind Kirk Cameron's recent comments on homosexuality, which GLAAD has criticized. Look, criticize away, for this country is all about debate! But should we really be surprised that Kirk Cameron made those comments? He's a conservative Christian! Of course he feels that way! There are many people in the United States who still believe that way! I hope Kirk Cameron is not pressured to contrive some phony apology. People are still entitled to their opinion, even if that opinion is wrong and (in the eyes of some, such as GLAAD) outdated.

I tend to admire people----on both the Left and also the Right----who acknowledge and respect that there are people with different points-of-view, whether or not they agree with those viewpoints. Let's go a step further. I admire those who also try to understand why other points-of-view exist.

The Rush-Sandra Fluke Debate

Here are some links regarding the Sandra Fluke and Rush Limbaugh controversy:

Sandra Fluke’s submitted testimony: here.

Rush Limbaugh’s explanation of his position and defense of his controversial remarks: here and here. (On the first Rush link, there is a video of Sandra Fluke’s testimony.)

Both are worth taking a look at, in my opinion. For one, Sandra Fluke and Rush disagree about whether or not contraception is affordable and accessible. Rush argues that condoms are cheap and that Planned Parenthood’s own figures demonstrate that contraception is not as expensive as Sandra Fluke says. Fluke, however, responds to this sort of argument and provides reasons that contraception is so expensive.

Second, Rush sees the debate primarily in terms of sex. He asks why women can’t limit when they have sex, rather than demanding that society pay for their contraception (either through taxes or premiums). Fluke, however, argues that there is much more to the issue than that. There are women with problems that can only be redressed with contraception. She refers to a 32 year-old friend who had “to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries” (Fluke’s words). Because her insurance would not cover this medication, it got to the point where the doctor had to remove her ovary. Now, she experiences early menopause, which can lead to “increased risk of cancer, heart disease [and] osteoporosis” (Fluke’s words). Plus, she can no longer have children.

As many of my readers know, there is more to the debate than this: Rush calling Sandra a “slut”, people trying to get Rush kicked off the air, etc. But I’m choosing to focus on the parts of their arguments that have a degree of substance.

Nixon's Civil Rights 18

In my reading of Dean Kotlowski's Nixon's Civil Rights right now, I am in Chapter 6, "A Cold War: Nixon and Civil Rights Leaders". The chapter is about how President Richard Nixon had a tense relationship with civil rights leaders. Part of this was because civil rights leaders disliked Nixon's focus on providing African-Americans with economic opportunity rather than integration, and they criticized Nixon for favoring a slow approach to the desegregation of Southern schools. Moreover, Nixon's continuation of the Philadelphia Plan to empower minority businesses took a bit of time to produce results, and so civil rights leaders labeled it a failure. On Nixon's side, Nixon did not care for Ralph Abernathy preaching to him. Nixon preferred to reach out to the African-American silent majority, which actually was not a majority of African-Americans at the time, but which consisted of African-American ministers and businessmen.

Something that stood out to me was what Kotlowski narrated on page 173. Nixon adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan suggested in a memo that the "issue of race could benefit from a period of 'benign neglect'" (Moynihan's words). Kotlowski states: "Moynihan protested that the phrase 'benign neglect' was neutral, coming from a 130-year-old report on British policy toward Canada. In Nixon's opinion, reporters had given Moynihan a 'bad rap.' Neither Moynihan nor the president realized that they implicitly had compared civil rights policy to British colonialism."

This makes me wonder if the controversial things that public figures say necessarily mean what people think that they mean. When Rush Limbaugh said that the Obamas were "uppity", for example, did he really mean that they were not acting in a manner that was fitting for their race, as people claimed when they looked at the history of the use of "uppity"? Or did Rush simply mean that the Obamas think and act like they are superior to others? I'm not saying that I agree that the Obamas think they're superior, but it does seem to me as if many project onto people's words things that the people may not have meant.

Haiti

I’m having another fit of insomnia, and my slight headache is still annoying me. One of my tasks tomorrow: get some Tylenol!

I’ve been thinking about Rachel Held Evans’ post, We already failed Haiti , which deals with theodicy and the Christian obligation to help the poor. Polycarp also discusses the recent earthquake in Hundreds of thousands dead in Haiti quake and Organizations where you can help the people of Haiti. Here are some thoughts about Haiti:

1. I don’t know how to pray for large-scale events. I can pray for an individual who needs healing or money for food, but I don’t know what I should pray when it comes to an entire nation. Should I pray that God will keep people from dying? What makes me think he’ll answer that prayer? He hasn’t kept people from dying so far.

One thing I hope about Haiti is that it will become more just, that people will become convicted to love their neighbors as themselves. At a meeting yesterday, a friend was talking about how the wedding of Baby Doc (a former leader in Haiti) cost millions of dollars. This is tragic, when there are so many who are dirt poor in that country. So I pray for conviction.

2. Polycarp posted Don Miller Pities Pat Robertson; Rush Limbaugh weighs in. To be honest, I have a hard time hating Pat Robertson for his comments. They are problematic theologically, but his voice was shaking when he made them. It was like he was discussing a solemn, serious, saddening issue rather than just shooting from the hip, which is what he did when he said we should take out Chavez. Rush Limbaugh’s comments, however, disgust me. Why’s he have to take a tragic situation and use it to bash President Obama as having a sinister motivation?

Rush would probably say that the liberals did that with 9/11. Personally, contrary to the views of some on the right, I don’t think that 9/11 should have insulated the Bush Administration from criticism. And, if Obama does something wrong when he helps Haiti, or if there are better ways to assist the nation than he proposes, then that should be pointed out. But, please, don’t bash the President as having a sinister political motivation, when we can’t even read the man’s mind! Maybe he sincerely wants to help.

3. There are people in my family who are skeptical about charities, and appropriately so. Money was misappropriated after 9/11 and the tsunamis, and that’s tragic. People would respond, however, that we shouldn’t allow cynicism to keep us from donating to charities, since what’t important is that we’re giving, regardless of what the charities do with our money.

I wonder if there’s a middle ground or a third way to look at the situation. Sure, I don’t think cynicism should paralyze me from giving, but I also think it’s mistaken to say I shouldn’t care how charities spend my money. Money is scarce for me, so, when I give it to charity, I hope it’s accomplishing something positive.

4. I’m not sure if I’ll donate money to help Haiti. I already give some to my local Food Bank, which helps the hungry in Cincinnati. There are all sorts of causes out there, and I can’t help all of them.

5. One point Rachel made is that many in America live in luxury, and she’s convicted that she does so when there are so many people who lack the basic necessities. I said on her blog that I don’t have much money, but that’s not a good excuse, for I spend some of what I do have on such luxuries as cable, Internet, going out to eat every now and then, etc. And I’m extremely hesitant to part with that.

I don’t plan to part with my luxuries, since life would be pretty miserable if I had to live a Spartan existence. Does part of me feel guilty about that? Yes. But my mind’s made up.

6. Rachel linked to World Vision, and it only costs $38 a month to help a child. That’s not too much. Granted, if I gave to World Vision, I’d stop donating to my local Food Pantry. But it’s still not that much.

7. When I attended Harvard, a prominent liberal evangelical was promoting a sponsor-a-child-in-a-foreign-country charity. I vaguely remember him saying that, if I don’t donate, then I’m not a true Christian. I’m going with my memory here, and it’s flawed. But I resent manipulation. Evangelicals do well to point out that we should think of others besides ourselves. But some evangelicals’ method of doing this makes me recoil from evangelicalism. Part of it is that I don’t like being told what to do. My gut response when I hear something like that is “I’ll do what I want with my own money, thank you very much, and I won’t let you guilt-trip me with your intimidation and your power-trip, prominent evangelical whom people would recognize if I named him, so I’ll keep him anonymous so I’m not sued for libel!” I like how Paul handled charity in I-II Corinthians (which Rachel quotes): he focused on the positive. He encouraged. He presented God as someone who wants to bless. He talked about how donations could accomplish good. He tried to bring out the best in people.

8. On the theodicy issue, I don’t know what to say. Rachel dislikes the notion that the earthquake was God’s punishment because innocent people (e.g., children) have suffered, but there are plenty of times in the Bible when children die as a result of God’s wrath. Another problem Rachel has identified with blaming natural disasters on human sin is that we really don’t know what sin God would be punishing if that were the case. John Piper blamed a natural disaster on homosexuality, but who’s to say that God wasn’t punishing Christians who hate homosexuals? If God is chastening us with natural disasters, it’s basically our guess what his lesson is. What kind of pedagogy is that?

I don’t worry about theodicy because I don’t have any answers as to why bad things happen. I am commanded to love people, however—to at least be concerned with their pain, and, if I can, to help them out. In addition, at least the doctrine of Christ’s second coming gives me the hope that things will be made right some day. That’s why I don’t understand atheists who refuse to believe in God on account of the problems in the world. If there’s no God, what hope is there that things will be made right?

Frum and the Relevance of Less Government

In the waiting room a few days ago (to see my therapist), I read David Frum's Newsweek article against Rush Limbaugh, Why Rush is Wrong.

Frum argues that the conservative message of less government will not mobilize voters as it did in the 1970's:

The conservatism we know evolved in the 1970s to meet a very specific set of dangers and challenges: inflation, slow growth, energy shortages, unemployment, rising welfare dependency. In every one of those problems, big government was the direct and immediate culprit. Roll back government, and you solved the problem. Government is implicated in many of today's top domestic concerns as well…But the connection between big government and today's most pressing problems is not as close or as pressing as it was 27 years ago. So, unsurprisingly, the anti-big-government message does not mobilize the public the way it once did.

To my surprise, however, Frum is still somewhat of a conservative. He laments: Decisions that will haunt American taxpayers for generations have been made with hardly a debate. The federal government will pay more of the cost for Medicaid, it will expand the SCHIP program for young children, it will borrow trillions of dollars to expand the national debt to levels unseen since WWII. And, while he maintains that Republicans should focus on the high cost of health care rather than tax cuts, he is firm that their proposed solution should be "free market health-care reform," not socialism.

I think Frum has a lot of good ideas, but I'd hardly call a commitment to less government politically irrelevant. There are still people who believe that big government suppresses the economy and liberty. I recently checked out a 2006 book, Size Matters: How Big Government Puts the Squeeze on America's Families, Finances, and Freedom (and Limits the Pursuit of Happiness, by Joel Miller. In some cases, oppressive government intervention is obvious to Americans, for I still hear middle-class people complain about taxes and regulations they deem unreasonable.

In other cases, many don't seem to realize that the problems the government claims it wants to solve may be caused by government in the first place. How many Americans know that the Community Reinvestment Act pressured lenders to make high-risk loans, which resulted in our current economic crisis?

Joel Miller argues that big government drives up the cost of health care, and, while I haven't gotten to that part of the book yet, I've heard from others how that could be the case. Under Ben Witherington's posts 'Sicko'-- It's Enough to make you ill and Canadian Nurses love 'Sicko': Hand out free tickets to help prevent the Canadian system going the American way, there were commenters who showed how government over-regulation limits the supply of hospitals in America, driving up the cost of health care. Michael Tanner documents in Leviathan on the Right that the Republicans in Congress under Newt Gingrich sought to restrict hospital competition. And, on the radio a few nights ago, conservative conspiracy theorist Dr. Stanley Monteith (a physician) said that the feds really clamped down on county clinics, which provided inexpensive health care. Frum assumes that government intervention is no longer a problem, when it very well may be.

I also think that a message of fiscal responsibility can be popular with a lot of Americans. During the election, I heard Obama supporters lament that the Bush-deficits would have to be paid by our children. And one criticized Governor Sarah Palin for taking out a bond, which future generations of Alaskans would have to pay.

One thing Frum's article brought to my attention is that Obama's S-CHIP expansion can easily become another entitlement. To be honest, I don't give a flying flip about most conservative critiques of the expansion. It covers the middle class? Heck, the middle class can use help with their high premiums and health care costs! People would leave private insurers for the government program? Oh well! The private insurers will have to compete for once. Poor babies! But another entitlement? That's something that concerns me, especially since the cost of our current entitlements continues to go up, leading many to forecast a significantly higher tax burden for future generations.

Maybe less government can be a powerful message, if Republicans articulate it well and actually practice what they preach.

Felix on Rush, Part II

For background, see Felix on Rush, Part I.

This is Part II of my comments on Felix's anti-Rush Limbaugh post. Felix's quotes are in italics.

At a community “Obama bash” I went to this Saturday afternoon, a woman questioned that me as a conservative (albeit a moderate conservative that Rush hates with a passion) what draws me to President Barack Obama, I explained that President Obama transcends party politics. Those who feel that it’s cliche to say that he’s a transformational leader—tough, the proof is in the pudding! America is blessed at this time for somebody who dares to look outside the box for a change.

I can understand Felix's point here, for I had the same impression when I read Barack Obama's Audacity of Hope. Obama goes out of his way to hear and acknowledge all sorts of perspectives--right, left, and center--and those who knew him as a law professor relate that he was that way back then. I liked the parts of Obama's book that criticized government bureaucracy, especially when he said he can understand why people get frustrated when they visit their local government office and notice the bureaucrats taking their sweet time.

At the same time, I have no idea why a conservative would vote for Barack Obama. And I don't just ask this about Felix. I wonder it about Peggy Noonan, or my Republican relatives, or the red state of Indiana. In so many respects, Barack Obama is a liberal. He's trying to jump-start the economy with more government spending. He's overturned George W. Bush's pro-life policies on abortion. He's a nice guy, and he has good ideas, but he's not exactly a conservative Democrat.

This brings me to the next quote:

Frankly, the Republicans need to be co-operating with the President but at the same time not compromising their principles. As a conservative, I believe that President Obama needs to listen to the voice of fiscal responsiblity and yes, some kind of fiscal restraint when necessary. This is where the Republicans should come in make their case. Does Rush Limbaugh want the the very liberal, tax and spend wing of the Democratic party to call the shots?

I'll probably be contradicting myself in this part. Part of me wonders if bipartisanship is truly possible, when both sides have such different points of view. If Barack Obama wants to jump-start the economy through more government spending and "tax cuts" for people who don't pay taxes, and conservative Republicans find such ideas anathema, then why should they support Obama's plan?

At the same time, bipartisanship has occurred in the past, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. There's No Child Left Behind, the Prescription Drug Benefit, ethics reform, Kennedy-Kassebaum, welfare reform, etc., etc. During the Clinton health care debacle, there were Republicans who proposed alternative plans to address the rising costs of health care. And I remember watching on C-Span a remarkable example of bipartisan cooperation: Conservative Senator Tom Coburn wanted to cut stuff out of farm subsidies, and liberal Senator Tom Harkin said he shared that goal, but didn't like Coburn's way of going about it. So they agreed to meet and see what they could come up with.

I'm not sure why bipartisanship sometimes occurs, and sometimes does not. It doesn't always grow out of a spirit of cooperation, for the balanced budget and welfare reform of the 1990's emerged after a lot of clashes between Clinton and the Republican Congress. They argued and debated and fought and stalled until finally they could arrive at something that both agreed upon.

What's my point? I'm not sure. It's nice when both sides can work together to accomplish something, but it's not always feasible when the positions are too different. And good bipartisanship doesn't always require people to roll over and play dead (as Obama seems to want the Republicans to do), for diamonds can emerge out of a knock-down, drag-out fight.

Rush in his narrow ideology believes that the Republicans must seize power, take power for the sake of it.

I don't think Rush wants Republicans to gain power for the sake of power. He wants them to gain it so they can make conservative policy. Rush's problem with the Republicans is that they don't always have that same commitment to conservatism!

Felix on Rush, Part I

On his political blog, The Way I See It, Anyway, Felix wrote a post about Rush Limbaugh's "I hope he fails" statement on President Obama (see Pitying Rush Limbaugh and his idiotic assertion). I'm going to respond to pieces of Felix's post, but this isn't exactly a point/counterpoint in every area. Felix discusses why he used to like Rush, and that got me thinking about why I like him. So here we go!

Felix's statements are in italics.

I remember in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected president, what I heard from then U.S. Senate Republican leader Bob Dole saying that, he wanted Bill Clinton “to succeed” in his presidency but somehow in 2009 we have another Republican leader (thankfully not an elected leader but one of the airwaves) who dogmatically asserts, “I hope he fails.” At least Bob Dole was (and I believe he still is) a gentleman in every sense of that word.

But what did Rush mean when he said he hopes Obama fails? I'll include a link to the context of his remark so you can decide for yourself (see here), but my impression is that Rush isn't praying that Obama will plunge America into a major depression. Rush says: "If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things...We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that?" Rush hopes Obama will fail to set up socialism in America.

But first, I should and need to make some serious confessions about myself in this post. My own mother a few days ago asked me a damn good question, “How is it that you were once a fan of Rush Limbaugh?” Trust me in my early 20’s I drove some people nuts of my fanship of Limbaugh (my dad was not even exempted, neither some people at the church I used to attend or people at my-then workplace at that time). Trust me, as I turn 39 today (yes the last of my thirties on my birthday)—I have grown up and have been through a lot of hard knocks. I think I am far, far wiser than the naive (but well-meaning) person as I was in my early 20’s. I also think that at time, Rush Limbaugh was filing a void. I was at that time a member of a fundamentalist sect (to be fair which was moderating in it’s hardline stances in which I am eternal grateful but that’s another topic), I was a college graduate but was unemployed for a while, scrimping at various jobs. He was articulating my dissent and anger at the excesses of the left wing which included radical feminism, radical environmentalism, the freewheeling lifestyles of Hollywood’s rich and famous and those who had little care for the traditonal family.

There's a lot there! As Felix notes, Rush was really big in the early 1990's. I listened to him because he helped me through my feelings of isolation and alienation--with his rants against elites and the establishment. But my problem in those days was that many of the elites in my small town high school actually liked Rush Limbaugh, almost to the point of never questioning him. I like Rush much more now when he's not a big-time fad. Part of me still listens to Rush because I resent not fitting in. Academia can be a liberal arena, and it's good to hear someone who can articulate my values and frustration. But I don't feel compelled to agree with Rush on everything, as I take what I like and leave the rest.

I'm not a major dittohead, but I listen to him on-and-off. I like his broadcasting voice, his conversational style, his grasp of nuance, and the way he uses little-known articles from the mainstream press to undermine liberalism. When the mainstream press boldly feeds us some half-baked narrative and expects us to accept it on the strength of them being smarter than us, he has the audacity to question it, and I applaud him for that.

I guess one pet-peeve that I have with Rush is that he expects all of us to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. When a teacher called in to his program and said he had a hard time paying for health insurance, Rush told him it was his choice to become a teacher, so he should take responsibility for his own actions. I'm not going to say the teacher made a bad choice, but what I often get from Rush is, "You made your bed--now sleep in it! Get out, start a business, and go to work" (my paraphrase and interpretation). But we all make poor decisions every now and then. Not everyone has a keen business sense, and getting a high-paying job is not always easy. Should we have to suffer because of that? I once heard Rush say something like, "People complain about not having health insurance, and they want the government provide it. Have they ever thought about getting it for themselves?" Hey, I'm sure they would, if everyone had the ability to make loads of money. Not everyone does. I know I don't right now.

When I listened to Rush as a youngster, the whole world looked like it was ahead of me. I couldn't envision myself being out of work, or having a hard time paying for health insurance, food, or rent. I graduated seventh in my high school class, and summa cum laude from DePauw University! I went to Harvard! I was on my way to finding my niche, and it would be high-paying!

Now, I've learned that many with Asperger's have difficulty finding, getting, and keeping jobs. I realize that, if my family didn't help me out, I could be begging on the streets. All of a sudden, Rush's song of "Ain't got no home" doesn't sound all that funny anymore. I now see that making one's way in life is not exactly easy, and I'm not as eager to tell people to sleep in the bed they made just because they didn't make the best decisions in life.

I think Rush does well to point out why socialism doesn't work, and I don't believe he's an entirely uncaring person, since he gives a lot to charities. But the mantra of "personal responsibility" rings hollow to me these days. Sure, people should try to better themselves and contribute to society, but they shouldn't fall through the cracks because they made some poor decisions in life.

I have to take a shower and leave for church within minutes, so this will have to be Part I of II. See you then!

Two Barack Obamas

The Telegraph has an article today on Barack Obama, Rush Limbaugh, and the Republicans in Congress (see here).

There are two Barack Obamas. One I love, the other I can hardly stomach. One acknowledges different points of view, keeps his cool, has humility, and brings people together. The other is arrogant, condescending, and talks down to others.

Lately, we got to see the second Barack Obama, if what the Telegraph says is true. Remember the Barack Obama who arrogantly claimed "people don't read their Bibles," then proceeded to mangle the Bible? He seems to have made a reappearance.

He reportedly said that he doesn't care about Republican input, since he won the election. He also told Republicans that they shouldn't listen to Rush Limbaugh, for that keeps things from getting done.

President Obama has a right to act this way. His party won the election, and there's no law that says he must like the provocative voices of the other side. But he puts himself on a higher plane when he advertises himself as someone who will bring people together and usher in a new era of bipartisanship. Right now, he's acting like the liberal stereotype of George W. Bush, assuming that he doesn't need the other side, and marginalizing voices that dissent from his ideology.

I can understand that Rush Limbaugh can be pretty annoying to Democrats, since it seems like Rush monitors and critiques their every move! But that doesn't mean Republicans are wrong to listen to him. We can learn a lot from our critics!

President Obama, this is the real world now. Not everyone is enamored with your charisma. Not everyone thinks that disagreement with you is a "childish thing." When you spend taxpayer money on institutions that perform abortions, people will get offended and speak out. When your economic stimulus plan spends a bunch on contraceptives, critics will argue that perhaps the money should be spent more wisely.

Come to think of it, I think every President has two sides. George W. Bush was cranky and opinionated in the first two 2004 Presidential debates, but he was charming and witty in the last. Bill Clinton could acknowledge and in some cases implement conservative ideas, as well as acknowledge the value of Rush Limbaugh in the political process. But he also accused conservative talk radio of causing the Oklahoma City bombing.

I guess these last few weeks set the tone for how I'll react to the Obama Administration. Some days I'll love it, other days I'll hate it.

Is There Another Way?

This afternoon, I watched Ron Paul on the December 23 Meet the Press. Dr. Paul often makes me ask, "Are there other ways than the status quo to get positive results?"

On some level, his overall libertarianism makes me ask this. Liberals act as if government spending is the only way to ameliorate poverty, to educate children, to clean up the environment, and to help people pay for health care. Whenever Republicans try to cut spending or (at the very least) restrain its growth, liberals are ready to sound the alarm. "People will starve in the streets!" they warn. But perhaps there are other ways than federal spending to deal with poverty and other problems. And maybe government intervention makes matters worse.

As for that episode of Meet the Press, Dr. Paul discussed three specific issues that made me ask this question: foreign policy, the Civil War, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

First, as with his view on domestic policy, Ron Paul believes that a foreign policy of government intervention only makes matters worse. Not only is it costly, he argues, but it also antagonizes other nations. And (contra Rush Limbaugh) he doesn't just mean the Iraq War, for he includes America's involvement in the Middle East as early as the 1950's, when the U.S. helped overthrow the government of Iran. "How would we feel if they were over here?" he asks. To support his view that non-interventionism will encourage peace, Dr. Paul points out that the number of suicide bombers declined after Reagan withdrew American troops from Lebanon. Moreover, he contends that American intervention hinders genuine peace. For him, the American government has interfered in attempts to make peace in the Middle East, since it has disrupted peaceful overtures by the Arab League towards Israel. As far as Dr. Paul is concerned, trade among the nations is the best way to foster international cooperation.

Ron Paul's argument is tempting. Is war the only way to solve our problems with other nations? There is a sense in which attacking someone else can fuel resentment. Is this why there are Islamic nations that hate us? Trade can hopefully make nations more interdependent, which may encourage them to treat one another better. I don't know much about the Arab League's overtures towards Israel, but can the nations arrive at a peaceful solution without our interference? Is the U.S. government making matters worse abroad, as it often does at home?

Second, Tim Russert was grilling Ron Paul on the Civil War. He quoted an article that said, "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery." Ron Paul stood his ground, saying that slavery in America could have ended without loss of life or a massive expansion in government power. According to Dr. Paul, slavery was ending throughout the world, and the Northerners could have bought the slaves if they were truly interested in their freedom. Tim Russert acted as if Lincoln's way was the only solution, and that anyone who disagrees supports slavery. But could slavery have ended through other means?

Third, regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Russert quoted Paul as saying, "Contrary to the claims of...supporters of the Civil Rights Act of '64, the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of '64 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." Surprisingly, Dr. Paul stood by this statement. Unfortunately, he did not address how he would stop discrimination without civil rights laws. His main argument was that the Civil Rights Act infringed on property rights and forced people to interact with those they did not like, which (according to him) was not the federal government's responsibility.

Did the federal government make matters worse by forcing the South to integrate, since force can often breed resentment? Was there another way to promote racial equality, without further straining race relations? African-American conservative and economist Thomas Sowell states the following about the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

"Liberals looking back on the 1960s take special pride in their role on racial issues, for civil rights laws and the advancement of blacks out of poverty...But what do the facts show? [A]s for black economic advances, the most dramatic reduction in poverty among blacks occurred between 1940 and 1960, when the black poverty rate was cut almost in half, without any major government programs of the Great Society kind that began in the 1960s. Liberals love to point to the rise of blacks out of poverty since 1960 as proof of the benefits of liberal programs, as if the continuation of a trend that began decades earlier was proof of how liberals saved blacks" (see RealClearPolitics - Articles - Preserving the Liberal Vision).

Was the 1964 Civil Rights Act the only way to improve the lives of African-Americans?

I'm not saying that I oppose the Iraq War, Lincoln, or the 1964 Civil Rights Act. You will find me defending Bush on this blog, and, during Black History Month, I will reflect a lot more on the Civil Rights movement. But I question the notion that massive government intervention is the only way to do things, since it can often inhibit us from thinking outside of the box.

Another Day of Politics

I had a day of politics while I was studying yesterday. Here it was:

1. First, I did something that I had not done in a long time: I listened to Rush Limbaugh. I don't entirely agree with him on organic farming, but he did say something obvious that I had not considered before: the media overestimate Bill Clinton's vote-getting ability. Rush read a headline that said Bill Clinton has decided to help Hillary's campaign, and he legitimately asked, "Well, what has he been doing?" Then, Rush argued that Clinton's reputation as a major vote-getter is a myth. Clinton couldn't save Gray Davis. He didn't get a majority of votes in 1992 and 1996. He lost the Congress to the Republicans during his first term. Why should we assume that all of America is enamored with Bill Clinton? I'm sure that the Clintons are enamored with the Clintons, but that doesn't mean everyone else is.

2. I was turning my TV to C-SPAN2 to watch the Republican debate, and its coverage of the Senate was still on. I saw an excellent presentation by Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. She was arguing for a reform of the farm subsidies program. She noted that farm subsidies went to areas that did not have many farms (e.g., Beverly Hills 90210), and she also proposed income limits as a criterion for who can receive them. According to Senator Klobuchar, there are millionaires who get rich off of the federal farm subsidy program. She stated that we need to be more responsible with the budget. I was surprised to find myself in agreement with a Democrat (for once). To her credit, Klobuchar acknowledged that President Bush has the same concerns that she does, and she expressed eagerness to work with Republicans on this issue. After her speech, I saw another example of bipartisanship for the common good. Senator Tom Harkin (a liberal Democrat) was working with Senator Tom Coburn (a conservative Republican) to make sure that people weren't getting rich off of federal farm subsidies. If only our leaders would unite more often to reduce government waste!

3. Finally, I watched the Iowa Republican debate. Alan Keyes got on my nerves, and I wished that the moderator would shut off his mike (though she was probably afraid he'd go ballistic). Apparently, Keyes has more support in Iowa than Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich. That's why he was on last night's debate, whereas Kucinich and Gravel won't be on the Democratic one tonight. So I guess the Democratic debate will be more boring than usual!

Fred Thompson got to appear as bad to the bone when he stood up to the moderator (oooooh!!!). He said that he wouldn't participate in the hand-raising exercises, and the people Frank Lutz interviewed were actually impressed by his bold leadership (I'm serious). Personally, regardless of what detractors say, I actually like it when the moderator asks for a show of hands in response to a question. It allows the candidates to give a clear answer rather than their usual spin. I was impressed with Thompson on other things. He blamed the National Education Association for the decline of American education. Looks like he lost their vote (and, for a moment, gained mine)! He injected humor into the debate when he told Romney that he (Mitt) was becoming a better actor. He also said something like, "Think about which candidate you would like to see dealing with this dangerous world, and he is the one you should elect as President." Well, I thought about his question for a second, and the name that came to my mind was "Giuliani." I'm sure that's not the answer Thompson was expecting. But I won't vote for Rudy because he's pro-choice.

A pundit on C-SPAN2 was calling the debate a free ride for Huckabee, apparently because he was not grilled on serious issues like his stance on Mormonism. But, during the debate, I thought something about Huckabee. The thought's been swimming in my mind for a while, but it came to the surface last night. It was: "What exactly are his policy proposals?" He affirms that we need art and music in schools. He says that all Americans should have the same quality of health care as Congress. In the Tavis Smiley debate, he lamented the existence of racism in America. But does he have a plan for the government to deal with these problems, which is the impression that Tancredo got? Or is his plan simply to use the bully pulpit to encourage others to address them? If his idea is the former, should we expect him to govern as a big government "conservative"? And if his idea is the latter, what makes him think that anyone will listen to him as President (as eloquent and as likable as he may be)?

I have some thoughts on what Huckabee said about consensus, but those will have to wait for another day.