Detailed Abstractions

Well.  It’s official.  Not only do we have an economic crisis, but now we have an economic debate crisis…. apparently that is.

Why is it so important?

Easy… because without being able to spend more money than we can realize in revenue through taxation, we’re all going to die.  Just look around, this theoretically historically unprecedented permanently damaging possibility is sure to end the Republic as we know it:

President who tells us our senior citizens and military members will not get paid….

Bernake warns of catostrophy…

For others, our national security is at stake…. in fact, Al Qaeda itself might attack just because of this!

& on and on….

 With all of that looming, it’s not wonder someone has to be at fault….

There are alternative answers to defaulting itself, for instance let’s get rid of the ceiling altogether.  Or maybe, since a five dollar treasury bond and a five dollar bill are virtually the equivalent, why not give out more IOUs in a different form thereby removing the need for the ceiling in the first place?

But those ideas are centrist, so largely ignored and with a problem this large… someone has to be to blame.

So who is at fault?

Maybe the Tea Party’s fault?  Or maybe, like much of everything else, it’s Bush’s fault?  How about Governor Norquist?!?!

Or maybe there is no maybe.  Ask the brilliant policy minds over at The Rolling Stones, and they’ll tell you, that without question it’s the GOP’s fault.

For the logic minded, one might contend that the President, who refused to pass this perfect budget a year ago when his party controlled both legislative houses shares some blame.

But what do I know…. according to some Barack supporters, his only problem is being too much like the Big Gipper, the famous “let’s raise taxes” President…

The issue is, when you push predictions of doom and gloom for some scenario, blame has to be affixed quickly and preferably without relation to actual facts as that just muddies the waters.  Nope, the goal for almost every writer, seems to be scare tactics followed by blame.

There are a couple who have offered advice.  HBR for one had an interesting post about needing a moderator, perhaps Adam Smith.  It’s not an unpleasant thought and certainly a brilliant economic mind serving as moderator cannot help, but what most struck me about their advice is the same thing that struck me about most of those pieces blaming this or that: it misses who is truly responsible.

For when HBR states the Debt Ceiling Debate needs a moderator, I have to stop and say, they already do: the American public.  Certainly one could make the argument that the current moderators are abdicating their responsibilities and I might agree, but as much as one can delegate tasks, authority and responsibility cannot be delegated.

So sure, the public collectively can give moderator powers to Adam Smith or someone similar but alive, however the responsibility for the consequences of that process will still be the American people.

So…. is there a debate crisis?

Maybe not… as while many of us individually and seemingly ever single writer might view this whole process as out of control; seeing the whole thing as a demonstration in nothing more than the problems with this country, these are just mere opinions.

In all honesty, I’m sympathetic to that view.  However, the market place of ideas is free.  & If you analyze politics like one does the market, with the idea being the result cannot be wrong as the market is not wrong…

Then I think based upon the current political result I would submit a large enough percentage of voters have already cast their vote to continue the political infighting, applaud Pyrrhic victories, and any number of other actions which are designed to benefit their collective and not the average individual.

As proof of this reality, see incumbency rates, or polls which say cut things, but say no to all questions about what to cut, the current press articles being created because people are buying them, and more.  But even without those facts, the logic is simple: the current debate has to be ok with society at large because a free people is watching it happen and doing nothing, in a concerted effort, to substantially change anything.

So by virtue of its mere existence, it is the correct debate needed at this time.

& if it’s not?

Well, as Lincoln stated <paraphrased here>  ”As a nation of free men, we will live forever, or die by suicide.”

It’s a truism of real leaders since the dawn of time; they find themselves, not from true success and stable times, but rather from adversity and chaos. When faced with those seemingly insurmountable odds, it’s the strongest who remain calm, read the landscape, and discover new answers from which they can seek out continued success.

Though under great stress, we humans tend towards the flight or flight response. True leaders however, can use these difficulties against themselves to provide both motivation and a sense of urgency to gain the ingenuity required for such challenges.

This is understood well in society. Like business leaders who understand innovation can be helped significantly by design constraints (here):

Great designers understand this. Charles Eames says design is all about innovating around constraints. And it’s the constraints – the scarcity – that fires the designer’s creativity. Smart business people “get it” too. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos embraces self-imposed scarcity saying, “One of the only ways to get out of a tight box is to invent your way out.”

They understand that principle of economic scarcity. As do military leaders. Sun Tzu notes in the Art of War:

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

For President Obama, the Tea Party & the Republicans taking back control of the House of Representatives could give him the opportunity to display true deft.

Assuming it does happen as predicted (here via the Philly Inquirer) however, the President is accorded a tough task ahead.

He would now have the body responsible for appropriations bills (all spending bills much start in the House & they are very important. For instance, they can kill health care by simply not funding it….) mainly in place due to running against him. Secondarily, while they don’t wish to be seen as obstructers, their willingness to work with Obama will be small even without their election strategy. Because any bill passed, regardless of how/why, if it turns out to be a good or well liked idea, Obama will naturally take credit to further his chances for re-election in 2012.

& the Democrats know that neither the President nor health care is a selling point for this election, even if they are communicating differently. The facts are that se hasn’t really made many direct candidate speeches, just backyard BBQs in key districts in key states. They are essentially, and correctly, playing against their weakness – his popularity.

Not a bad strategy in the short term, but I think people have heard him speak enough and any celebrity (yes, while the President is certainly more important and more powerful than any normal celebrity, s/he is still a celebrity) runs the risk of over saturation.

Irregardless, with Obama, the question is can he live inside those constraints?

What we know is given a new landscape, the answer for tomorrow’s question will not be the same answer as today’s. I think if he can push himself with a sense of urgency, surveys the landscape to see what he has and what he can accomplish with what he has. Then uses both the sense of urgency and strategic thinking by changing his game plan when the field of battle changes…. well, then we’ll see a real leader who may live up to his Nobel Peace Prize (here).

Or said more succinctly, it’s a crappy state of affairs you might find yourself in Mr. President, but challenges is how leaders prove themselves.

Honestly, I don’t think he’ll be able to do it. I think he’s too insecure (here) about himself and his handlers seem to know little more than an approval ratings drop equals time for Obama to give more speeches. & I don’t honestly think that’s likely to change…. but predictions are better left to Ms. Cleo.

What is likely however is the people around him understand exactly this point.  They do know it. The question is whether their emotions towards their beliefs (see: Confirmation Bias here & here) combined with the difficulty of telling a President who gives great speeches to shut up. Not to mention game theory predicts leaders to surround themselves with “yes men”.

All of that makes significant and required change seem unlikely, but I’d never count out someone who made it to the Presidency, nor, the team that helped him get there.

So Mr. President, here’s your chance.

Well, the verdict is in. The Republicans are being cast as the party of no.  The party without ideas.  The party of obstruction.

Please make no mistake about it, this marketing push isn’t really about obstruction, but about the upcoming elections.  Just as President Clinton did brilliantly prior the 1996 elections when he cast all Republicans as following Newt Gingrich and obstructing spending laws, the Obama administration is moving forward in much the same pattern.

This is possible because the White House, regardless of occupant, has historically been able to control the news cycle.  In my opinion, this should be an indictment on journalism as a whole when alternatives which exist aren’t being reported, but simply put:  when the President talks, news happens.  When your normal representative talks, you’re lucky if you even hear about it.

It worked during the Clinton Administration on spending, it worked during the Bush (43) Administration on the Patriot Act, & it certainly might work again this time. Irregardless, the campaign is back and in high gear (here via USA Today):

…”Too often, the Republican leadership in the United States Senate chooses to filibuster our recovery and obstruct our progress,” Obama said. “And that has very real consequences.”…

Or here via NY Times blog, here via WaPo, & on and on and on…

From a critical point of view however, obstructionist should not automatically be a pejorative.   Without analyzing what exactly is being obstructed, this is little more than name calling.

As an example, if say in the 1940s Congress was actively trying to “obstruct” the internment of thousands of innocent Japanese-Americans, this would not only be a moral good, but any thoughts to compromise solely to be seen as a non-obstructionist would be wrong.  What would be a compromised alternative?  House arrest?

Additionally, we have to be on the lookout for the differences between the marketing of bills and their actual language.  Think of the new health care legislation.  President Obama’s promises of more health care for all at cheaper prices, simply don’t seem to be fulfilled by the 2500 page law passed… or maybe they are being fulfilled, but like the Patriot Act, no one really knows what the new legislation actually means (here via Cato):

…The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act represents the most significant transformation of the American health care system since Medicare and Medicaid. It will fundamentally change nearly every aspect of health care, from insurance to the final delivery of care.

The length and complexity of the legislation, combined with a debate that often generated more heat than light, has led to massive confusion about the law’s likely impact….

Or on yesterday’s Meet The Press Rep. Van Hollen stated (transcripts here via MSNBC):

…The frustration is there are lots of important bills to push for jobs that are sitting over in the Senate.  But it’s not the fault of the Democratic leadership in the Senate.  I mean, frankly, you know, John Cornyn and his allies have been trying to block a whole lot of very important jobs measures.  We in fact sent a piece of legislation over very recently that would remove these perverse tax incentives to ship American jobs overseas, that give American corporations a bonus if they ship American jobs overseas….

Just like health care, the basic idea that our representatives are working on private job creation incentives is a good one.  But just like the Obama Administration’s promises on health care, Rep. Van Hollen is selling us a job creation bill which has little chance of actually creating jobs.

To translate – what they mean by “removing incentives” is to increase taxes on businesses who outsource.  Now, some may want this to happen for various reasons, but the economics are pretty straight forward.  Tax increases have never increased jobs & forcing a tax such as this could actually result in companies simply moving their head quarters as well.

To be fair, there are bills I don’t believe the Republicans should block, for instance the extension on unemployment benefits (though it seems likely to pass soon: here via The Hill).

Yes, the point isn’t that the Republicans are doing the right thing and the Democrats are failing at every single step, the point is only intended to remind us of the old saying about representative governance:

The people will get the government they deserve.

& so long as we allow marketing campaigns to have more force in elections than critical analysis does, we will likely continue to be disappointed.

With my track record of keeping schedules, this might the first and last Random Quote Wednesday, but in today’s society my intent is seemingly more important than the results.  So if this is the last installment, I still get an A for effort.

Irregardless, during lunch today I was discussing interesting quotes, quips, comebacks, and even in one case, almost a partial quote.

Partial Quote First:

Towards the end of Albert Einstein’s life, he began working furiously to disprove some of his own earlier work as it lead to the beginning of quantum theory.  In a debate between Mr. Einstein and immense genius Neils Bohr, Mr. Einstein was explaining his objections to the probabilistic nature of quantum theory, versus his beliefs in a more deterministic.  His life work of finding that elusive theory of everything, he couldn’t bring himself to believe in a chaotic or random system.  To that end he stated confidently:

“God does not play dice with the universe.”

Which is a quote that a lot of people have heard before.  The better quote from this exchange however belongs to Mr. Bohr who replied:

“”Don’t tell God what to do with his dice.”

From there, in my random, ADHD way, this lead to me think about other good comebacks or quips in history starting with President Ronald Reagan whose quick wit verged on genius.

Even in trying times he seemed to have his wits about him.  While going into surgery following the assassination attempt, he looked up to note he was surrounded by surgeons to whom he stated:

“God I hope you’re all Republicans.”

At a better time in his administration he used this humor very well.  During one press conference he was being pushed hard by a certain young white house correspondent, Sam Donaldson (here):

“Mr. President, in talking about the continuing recession tonight, you have blamed mistakes in the past and you have blamed the Congress. Does any of the blame belong to you?”

To which Mr. Reagan quickly replied:

“Yes because for many years I was a Democrat.”

For one of my all time favorite exchanges though, enter Milton Friedman.  As one of the most influential thinkers of this century, he pushed for school vouchers, for less regulations, against price & wage controls, and other topics.

One of those topics he successfully argued in Congress was to end the draft.  From LibertyUnbound (here):

…Friedman not only solidified the verdict against the draft; he vigorously defended it in congressional testimony. He had a famous confrontation with Gen. William Westmoreland, commander of the forces in Vietnam. Friedman tells it in “Two Lucky People”:

In the course of his testimony, he made the statement that he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. I stopped him and said, “General, would you rather command an army of slaves?” He drew himself up and said, “I don’t like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves.” I said, “I don’t like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries.” But I went on to say, “If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher.” That was the last that we heard from the general about mercenaries….

This was in 1966, where actual logic and rationale could have a real impact, regardless of “whose team” said it first:

…In December 1966, when the Vietnam War still had the strong support of the American public, the University of Chicago held a conference on the draft. There were 74 participants. Friedman was there, and spoke against the draft, as did economist Walter Oi. Several politicians were there too, including Senator Edward Kennedy and a young Republican congressman named Donald Rumsfeld. Also anthropologist Margaret Mead, who favored the draft. In his and his wife Rose’s autobiography, “Two Lucky People,” Friedman wrote:

I have attended many conferences. I have never attended any other that had so dramatic an effect on the participants. A straw poll taken at the outset of the conference recorded two-thirds of the participants in favor of the draft; a similar poll at the end, two-thirds opposed. I believe that this conference was the key event that started the ball rolling decisively toward ending the draft….

That’s all for this inaugural installment of Random Quote Wednesday.   Please feel free to share interesting stories and quotes from history.

PS:  For any Anita Dunn fans – I will not quote mass murderers with admiration nor ever refer to any dictator as one of my favorite philosophers.