Semper Libertas - Liberty Everlasting
Free Markets - Capitalism - Trade - Expression - Freedom
Blogroll
NetworkedBlogs
Semper Libertas - Liberty Everlasting
Judging the Candidates for President
Amidst a seemingly endless stream of candidate debates and a frontrunner-of-the-week mentality among primary voters, the Republican nomination process is kicking into its final stretch before actual voting takes place, starting just after the new year in New Hampshire. Regardless of what each individual poll shows as far as the horserace is concerned, it is interesting to see the attitudes expressed by the Republican supporters of the various candidates.
While it seems obvious, the selection process has one simple ultimate purpose: selecting the person best suited to be the next President of the United States. Unfortunately, that point seems lost on many of the people — Democrat and Republican alike — who end up making the choice. And, it would seem that the skill set that makes for a good presidential candidate and successful campaign is no longer congruent with that conducive to a successful presidency.
The President is the Chief Executive of the United States, and he serves (fairly uniquely among democratic societies) as both the Head of State and the Head of Government. He is thus both the manager of the parts of government that deal with executing the laws passed by Congress, as well as the "face of the country" when dealing with the world; he also, of course, serves as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. This confluence of responsibility, coupled with the American economic and military might, makes the choosing of an effective, reliable leader so important.
So what qualities make a successful President? I isolate three main areas in which a person must excel in order to be effective in this difficult position: vision, organization, and temperament.
Vision. Any leader needs to have a fairly clear idea of where he (or she) wants to take those whom he wishes to lead. Politics, at its best, is a marketplace of ideas, and we want our President to have them, to lead the discussion. Citizens like to be inspired by their leaders, and personal magnetism can only go so far. Broad themes, even those as disparate as more individual liberty and limited government versus a more activist government that takes on the inequities of society; either can
be embraced by voters if the candidate is selling what seems to be a
bold vision. Ronald Reagan successfully sold a vision of America as a
"shining city on a hill", with ideas of ending — not just
coexisting with — Communism and the Soviet threat, to expand freedom, and
to unleash the private markets through less government intrusion on the
marketplace and lower taxes. He was elected twice by landslide
margins.
Yet Franklin Roosevelt laid out a vision that was nearly the opposite — higher taxes, more government direction of the economy, more programs to take care of people. When war time came, he showed similar clear vision: America was going to war not just against the immediate threats posed by the Axis powers, but was further going to remove the long-term fascist threat to American democracy. He was barely threatened in any of his four contests.
Organization. As the Chief Executive, the President stands at the head of a massive federal bureaucracy. He is ultimately responsible for such varied activities as disaster relief and the war in Afghanistan, and he must manage his relationship with Congress to ensure he has influence on legislation and that he gets his various appointments through legislative approval. A successful President must be adept at organization and management. Where to micromanage and where to delegate are important decisions, as is whom to place in important positions. Even a seemingly minor nominee can cause major difficulties (as evidenced by the current Obama Administration problems with the ATF's "Fast and Furious" gun program and the Department of Energy's Solyndra fiasco).
Setting up the right organizational structure of the White House and then choosing the right people to fill the positions is crucial to the day-to-day operation of the White House apparatus and can filter down throughout the Executive Branch. It is crucial to implementation of that vision mentioned above. But that's only part of the story, since most Presidencies are most notable not for their original agenda, but how they respond to the unexpected. If an Administration is poorly organized and managed, crises as varied as 9/11, the Wall Street Meltdown, or the current debt stalemate will not be handled smoothly.
Temperament. It is famously said of FDR that he had a "third-class intellect but a first-class temperament". When war came with Japan, Germany, and Italy, he was not shaken by the events around him, but rather mobilized an entire country for war. Because he was unfazed and confident in the face of a new World War, it was easier for those around him — and the citizens at large — to face the threat similarly and be galvanized into action. Similarly, George W. Bush drew praise from conservatives and liberals alike with his steady response to the 9/11 attacks; his bullhorn speech at the World Trade Center rubble was a poignant and inspiring point in his Presidency, and led to approval ratings of over 90%.
How will a President react to conflicts with Congress, natural disasters, or war? How will he deal with frustration, anger, or sadness? No President can be considered great who can't imbue those around him and the general public with confidence that he — and we — can face the crisis with resolve, character, and steadfastness.
Vision. Organization. Temperament. These are the qualities we need in the next President. Yet instead of probing these issues, it seems most people are concentrating on tactics and positions on individual issues with little regard to nuance or perspective. I think this is the wrong approach to choosing our leaders.
Yet Franklin Roosevelt laid out a vision that was nearly the opposite — higher taxes, more government direction of the economy, more programs to take care of people. When war time came, he showed similar clear vision: America was going to war not just against the immediate threats posed by the Axis powers, but was further going to remove the long-term fascist threat to American democracy. He was barely threatened in any of his four contests.
Organization. As the Chief Executive, the President stands at the head of a massive federal bureaucracy. He is ultimately responsible for such varied activities as disaster relief and the war in Afghanistan, and he must manage his relationship with Congress to ensure he has influence on legislation and that he gets his various appointments through legislative approval. A successful President must be adept at organization and management. Where to micromanage and where to delegate are important decisions, as is whom to place in important positions. Even a seemingly minor nominee can cause major difficulties (as evidenced by the current Obama Administration problems with the ATF's "Fast and Furious" gun program and the Department of Energy's Solyndra fiasco).
Setting up the right organizational structure of the White House and then choosing the right people to fill the positions is crucial to the day-to-day operation of the White House apparatus and can filter down throughout the Executive Branch. It is crucial to implementation of that vision mentioned above. But that's only part of the story, since most Presidencies are most notable not for their original agenda, but how they respond to the unexpected. If an Administration is poorly organized and managed, crises as varied as 9/11, the Wall Street Meltdown, or the current debt stalemate will not be handled smoothly.
Temperament. It is famously said of FDR that he had a "third-class intellect but a first-class temperament". When war came with Japan, Germany, and Italy, he was not shaken by the events around him, but rather mobilized an entire country for war. Because he was unfazed and confident in the face of a new World War, it was easier for those around him — and the citizens at large — to face the threat similarly and be galvanized into action. Similarly, George W. Bush drew praise from conservatives and liberals alike with his steady response to the 9/11 attacks; his bullhorn speech at the World Trade Center rubble was a poignant and inspiring point in his Presidency, and led to approval ratings of over 90%.
How will a President react to conflicts with Congress, natural disasters, or war? How will he deal with frustration, anger, or sadness? No President can be considered great who can't imbue those around him and the general public with confidence that he — and we — can face the crisis with resolve, character, and steadfastness.
Vision. Organization. Temperament. These are the qualities we need in the next President. Yet instead of probing these issues, it seems most people are concentrating on tactics and positions on individual issues with little regard to nuance or perspective. I think this is the wrong approach to choosing our leaders.
Some Thoughts on Immigration
I recently had a Twitter exchange with a self-described Tea Party participant about the government's "E-Verify" program, whereby employers are forced to submit Social Security numbers to match against a federal database to confirm that a prospective worker is authorized to work in the US; we also discussed the broader issue of illegal immigration in general. While the 140-character limit is beneficial in requiring one to drill down to the essence of one's salient points, it is very restricting in getting into the more complicated issues of the immigration debate.
Contrary to popular belief, there is more to the immigration issue than simply "secure the borders" versus "amnesty for everyone". To really get at the heart of the issue requires a broader understanding of the economic issues that drive immigration — both legal and illegal — and the government's response to a real problem with illegal immigration to the United States and border security.
First of all, a simple concept: in a free marketplace, supply will typically rise to meet demand. When there is a demand for pizza, in come Dominos, Papa Johns, Pizza Hut, and perhaps even smaller, locally-owned specialty restaurants. Demand isn't static, it can be created: nobody knew they wanted an iPad before Steve Jobs unveiled them, for example. Now, the demand for tablet computers is great, and Apple is seeing competition in the marketplace. Supply is rising to meet demand.
Anytime government tries to insert itself between supply and demand, it incentivizes the creation of a black market. The most obvious example of this is the alcohol bootlegging industry that arose upon the imposition of Prohibition, or the current market for illegal drugs. A less obvious example is the implementation of a national speed limit of 55 MPH in the 1970s: at the stroke of President Carter's pen, drivers went from law-abiding to scofflaw without changing a thing, simply at the arbitrary whim of the federal government.
What does this have to do with illegal immigration? There is a demand for immigrant labor. One can argue about whether this demand is based on the desire for employers to exploit workers, or that unionization and wage regulation has increased the price of labor above the market price, or whatever other side issue, but the fact remains that the demand exists. Current US immigration laws are very complex, and Congress has set immigration quotas far below the demand for people to immigrate to the US legally. The result is that there is a huge backlog of people waiting for legal status to come to the United States, and for many low-wage, low-skill workers, there's no legal avenue available at all.
This government-devised intrusion between the supply and demand for immigrant laborers has created a black market for labor, and thus the influx of illegal immigrants to the United States over the past 20 years, with the associated calls for border fences, more border guards, and the aforementioned E-Verify system. More on that below.
It is thus the market intrusion by the government that has created the incentive for mass illegal immigration. It does not compute to me that the solution to a problem caused by government interference in the marketplace is best solved by increasing the size, scope, and intrusiveness of the government; rather, the problem is solved by removing the government barriers to a free market based on voluntary association and exchange. Or, in more clear language: streamline the process for becoming a legal worker in the United States and either increase the quotas to a number more in line with market demand or remove them altogether.
There are some that argue that we should secure the border first — successfully enforce the current law, then worry about how to change it. But enforcement of a bad, anti-market law requires a high expenditure of resources that could be used in other areas more efficiently and effectively. Why waste resources enforcing an inefficient and ineffective law that doesn't reflect the realities of the marketplace? To suggest such is analogous to advocating that Prohibition should not have ended until all the bootleggers were arrested and the illegal alcohol trade broken up, or saying that we couldn't set more reasonable speed limits until compliance with 55 MPH was attained. In addition to the waste of resources, enforcement of a bad law breeds contempt for law in general. Better to change the law to something that makes sense, making enforcement of the law more easily attained and more popularly supported.
Once you have an immigration law that is consistent with market demands, it makes enforcement of the border on security ground much more effective. If you have a means for people to come here legally that want to do so to work and prosper, there are fewer people sneaking across, and those that are can be reasonably assumed to have some nefarious purpose. A spring is much easier to divert or dam than a raging river. There are serious concerns about gangs, illegal drugs, and sex trafficking that are more easily addressed if resources aren't being diluted.
What about E-Verify? There is a broad reason that I am not a fan, and a personal reason. Let's start with the personal, because it feeds into the bigger picture. When my sister was signed up for her Social Security card, the Social Security Administration not only gave her a number, they also somehow took my number (which had been issued a couple of years before) and gave it to her too. I had a Social Security card with my name on it and my SSN, but in the government records it now had her name on both.
This mistake didn't cause any problems until around 1997 or so, when the federal government upgraded their information systems and the IRS database began syncing with the SS database. My income tax return was kicked back because my SSN and name didn't match. It took nearly a year of back-and-forth with the Social Security Administration and the IRS to get my tax issue cleared up and my name and information associated with the SSN that I had possessed for over 10 years.
Imagine if E-Verify had been in place when I applied for jobs leading up to my college graduation. I would have shown up as having confirmation problems. As mentioned above, it took almost a year to resolve them. Would companies have given me the benefit of the doubt? Not if they wanted to comply with E-Verify. I would have been severely delayed in my job hunting, through no fault of my own and based on a simple mistake by a pencil-pushing government bureaucrat.
It could have been even worse. Suppose such laws had been in place when I was applying to colleges and scholarships. My entry into college would have been delayed, and I likely would have lost my scholarships as well. This would have had an immense impact on my financial well-being for years to come.
Anecdotes typically make for bad policy; however, my own experience with government bureaucracy is consistent with a broader philosophy: the more intrusive the government is, the more likely a bureaucrat is to make a mistake, perhaps a costly one. Government in general is big, bloated, and inefficient. I don't particularly trust the government to efficiently and effectively manage a national database of eligible workers any more than I trust them to manage my health care. As the federal government has gotten more involved in education, our performance has gotten worse. Why would E-Verify be any different than other government programs?
If someone wants to come to this country to work, prosper, and create a better life for himself and his family, I have no problem with that. The urge to do so is one of our strongest instincts and is the essence of the American Dream. We need to provide a legal avenue for those who wish to experience that dream. The best approach to the immigration issue is to create a system that reflects reality, not to throw money at an inadequate one.
Contrary to popular belief, there is more to the immigration issue than simply "secure the borders" versus "amnesty for everyone". To really get at the heart of the issue requires a broader understanding of the economic issues that drive immigration — both legal and illegal — and the government's response to a real problem with illegal immigration to the United States and border security.
First of all, a simple concept: in a free marketplace, supply will typically rise to meet demand. When there is a demand for pizza, in come Dominos, Papa Johns, Pizza Hut, and perhaps even smaller, locally-owned specialty restaurants. Demand isn't static, it can be created: nobody knew they wanted an iPad before Steve Jobs unveiled them, for example. Now, the demand for tablet computers is great, and Apple is seeing competition in the marketplace. Supply is rising to meet demand.
Anytime government tries to insert itself between supply and demand, it incentivizes the creation of a black market. The most obvious example of this is the alcohol bootlegging industry that arose upon the imposition of Prohibition, or the current market for illegal drugs. A less obvious example is the implementation of a national speed limit of 55 MPH in the 1970s: at the stroke of President Carter's pen, drivers went from law-abiding to scofflaw without changing a thing, simply at the arbitrary whim of the federal government.
What does this have to do with illegal immigration? There is a demand for immigrant labor. One can argue about whether this demand is based on the desire for employers to exploit workers, or that unionization and wage regulation has increased the price of labor above the market price, or whatever other side issue, but the fact remains that the demand exists. Current US immigration laws are very complex, and Congress has set immigration quotas far below the demand for people to immigrate to the US legally. The result is that there is a huge backlog of people waiting for legal status to come to the United States, and for many low-wage, low-skill workers, there's no legal avenue available at all.
This government-devised intrusion between the supply and demand for immigrant laborers has created a black market for labor, and thus the influx of illegal immigrants to the United States over the past 20 years, with the associated calls for border fences, more border guards, and the aforementioned E-Verify system. More on that below.
It is thus the market intrusion by the government that has created the incentive for mass illegal immigration. It does not compute to me that the solution to a problem caused by government interference in the marketplace is best solved by increasing the size, scope, and intrusiveness of the government; rather, the problem is solved by removing the government barriers to a free market based on voluntary association and exchange. Or, in more clear language: streamline the process for becoming a legal worker in the United States and either increase the quotas to a number more in line with market demand or remove them altogether.
There are some that argue that we should secure the border first — successfully enforce the current law, then worry about how to change it. But enforcement of a bad, anti-market law requires a high expenditure of resources that could be used in other areas more efficiently and effectively. Why waste resources enforcing an inefficient and ineffective law that doesn't reflect the realities of the marketplace? To suggest such is analogous to advocating that Prohibition should not have ended until all the bootleggers were arrested and the illegal alcohol trade broken up, or saying that we couldn't set more reasonable speed limits until compliance with 55 MPH was attained. In addition to the waste of resources, enforcement of a bad law breeds contempt for law in general. Better to change the law to something that makes sense, making enforcement of the law more easily attained and more popularly supported.
Once you have an immigration law that is consistent with market demands, it makes enforcement of the border on security ground much more effective. If you have a means for people to come here legally that want to do so to work and prosper, there are fewer people sneaking across, and those that are can be reasonably assumed to have some nefarious purpose. A spring is much easier to divert or dam than a raging river. There are serious concerns about gangs, illegal drugs, and sex trafficking that are more easily addressed if resources aren't being diluted.
What about E-Verify? There is a broad reason that I am not a fan, and a personal reason. Let's start with the personal, because it feeds into the bigger picture. When my sister was signed up for her Social Security card, the Social Security Administration not only gave her a number, they also somehow took my number (which had been issued a couple of years before) and gave it to her too. I had a Social Security card with my name on it and my SSN, but in the government records it now had her name on both.
This mistake didn't cause any problems until around 1997 or so, when the federal government upgraded their information systems and the IRS database began syncing with the SS database. My income tax return was kicked back because my SSN and name didn't match. It took nearly a year of back-and-forth with the Social Security Administration and the IRS to get my tax issue cleared up and my name and information associated with the SSN that I had possessed for over 10 years.
Imagine if E-Verify had been in place when I applied for jobs leading up to my college graduation. I would have shown up as having confirmation problems. As mentioned above, it took almost a year to resolve them. Would companies have given me the benefit of the doubt? Not if they wanted to comply with E-Verify. I would have been severely delayed in my job hunting, through no fault of my own and based on a simple mistake by a pencil-pushing government bureaucrat.
It could have been even worse. Suppose such laws had been in place when I was applying to colleges and scholarships. My entry into college would have been delayed, and I likely would have lost my scholarships as well. This would have had an immense impact on my financial well-being for years to come.
Anecdotes typically make for bad policy; however, my own experience with government bureaucracy is consistent with a broader philosophy: the more intrusive the government is, the more likely a bureaucrat is to make a mistake, perhaps a costly one. Government in general is big, bloated, and inefficient. I don't particularly trust the government to efficiently and effectively manage a national database of eligible workers any more than I trust them to manage my health care. As the federal government has gotten more involved in education, our performance has gotten worse. Why would E-Verify be any different than other government programs?
If someone wants to come to this country to work, prosper, and create a better life for himself and his family, I have no problem with that. The urge to do so is one of our strongest instincts and is the essence of the American Dream. We need to provide a legal avenue for those who wish to experience that dream. The best approach to the immigration issue is to create a system that reflects reality, not to throw money at an inadequate one.
Thinking About Taxes
For the website US Daily Review, I have written two articles on taxes and the Obama Administration's efforts to raise them.
The first article deals with capital gains taxes and the so-called "Buffett Rule".
The second article deals with taxes on businesses and the impacts on employees.
I hope you enjoy both. Unfortunately, these are points that I don't hear often from people opposing these tax increases. If I were one of the Republican presidential candidates or a member of Congress, every time someone asked me about the tax increases I would ask one question in return: How are you as an employee better off if your employer has to spend more on taxes? Or perhaps even this: Do you think your employer is more or less likely to hire more people or give you a raise if he has to pay more in taxes? Seems obvious to me...
The first article deals with capital gains taxes and the so-called "Buffett Rule".
The second article deals with taxes on businesses and the impacts on employees.
I hope you enjoy both. Unfortunately, these are points that I don't hear often from people opposing these tax increases. If I were one of the Republican presidential candidates or a member of Congress, every time someone asked me about the tax increases I would ask one question in return: How are you as an employee better off if your employer has to spend more on taxes? Or perhaps even this: Do you think your employer is more or less likely to hire more people or give you a raise if he has to pay more in taxes? Seems obvious to me...
Remembering the Last Days of the USSR
Last week I was on The Price of Business on local Houston station 1070 AM KNTH to discuss an article I wrote for the new website USDailyReview about the 20 year anniversary of the Soviet coup that attempted to take down Mikhail Gorbachev, and set in motion the collapse of the USSR. You can hear the audio by clicking on the file below:
Dave on The Price of Business
Be sure to check out USDailyReview!
Dave on The Price of Business
Be sure to check out USDailyReview!
Bachmann: Howard Dean Redux?
According to various polls and based on her win in the Iowa straw poll, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has come from virtually nowhere as a national name to one of the "top tier" candidates in the hunt for the Republican nomination. In spite of the fact that a sitting House member has not been nominated by a major party in over a century and only one sitting House member, James A. Garfield, has ever been elected, Republican voters have gotten on board with the self-professed Tea Party candidate. She even knocked a fellow Minnesotan, 2-year Governor Tim Pawlenty, out of the race altogether with her superior showing in Iowa.
While he never exactly rose to great heights, Gov. Pawlenty's downfall seemed to begin in June at a candidate debate in New Hampshire. Given the opportunity to followup on previous criticisms of the health care plan implemented in Massachusetts during the Mitt Romney governorship — a plan Pawlenty had likened to the unpopular federal reforms enacted last year by referring to it as "Obamneycare" — Pawlenty chose instead to take the high road. The after-debate reaction was not good; the already mild-mannered candidate looked to many like he was unwilling or unable to take an aggressive fight to the GOP frontrunner.
Contrast that with Rep. Bachmann: during her 3 terms in Congress, she has become known for heated, inflammatory, pugilistic rhetoric. She's been a fierce critic of President Obama, appearing on numerous news and commentary shows blasting the "stimulus", the health care reform, cap and trade, and other Obama Administration initiatives; she even gave a Tea Party response to the State of the Union. Her stock has gone up as her rhetoric has maintained a take-no-prisoners, make-no-apologies edge. Not only is she doing well against her fellow Republican challengers, the latest Gallup Poll shows her in a statistical tie in a general election against Barack Obama.
Early frontrunners, however, can tend to collapse under the pressure of campaigning and the intense scrutiny. At this time in 2007, Rudy Giuliani was leading the Republican pack; he left the race without winning even a single delegate, much less a state. But the historical candidate who might be the closest parallel to Michele Bachmann comes from the 2004 election: former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.
Dean entered the nomination fray as a virtual unknown outside of New England, but his stock rose among Democratic voters (at least those being polled) as his criticism of President George W. Bush intensified, particularly on the issue of the war in Iraq. He was from outside the mainstream Democratic Party power structure; he was to the antiwar movement what Michele Bachmann is to the Tea Party: a vocal iconoclast who took on his opponents in his own party for being too complacent and the President in strident terms.
Unfortunately for his ambitions, Dean had a penchant for verbal gaffes. Whether it was wondering aloud whether we were really better off without Saddam Hussein, to stating that he "hate[d]" Republicans and that they were "evil", to suggesting that President Bush had inside information ahead of time concerning the 9/11 attacks, Dean's campaign had to make regular walk-backs on his statements. The climax was the night of the Iowa caucuses when he launched into his famous "Dean scream", appearing madman-like on national TV and becoming the punch line for comedians everywhere. His support evaporated, and his candidacy imploded.
Like Dean in 2003, Bachmann has made her name on a willingness to fight... and on rhetorical missteps. Like Dean in 2003, Bachmann is seen by many even in her own party as unelectable by the general public, and perhaps even a bit weird. When Gov. Dean crumbled in the 2004 election, the Democratic Party ended up choosing a more mainstream, establishment candidate who seemed more likely to put up a competitive bid against the sitting President. Will a similar fate befall Rep. Bachmann and the Republican Party? That's a question that will help keep this election interesting.
While he never exactly rose to great heights, Gov. Pawlenty's downfall seemed to begin in June at a candidate debate in New Hampshire. Given the opportunity to followup on previous criticisms of the health care plan implemented in Massachusetts during the Mitt Romney governorship — a plan Pawlenty had likened to the unpopular federal reforms enacted last year by referring to it as "Obamneycare" — Pawlenty chose instead to take the high road. The after-debate reaction was not good; the already mild-mannered candidate looked to many like he was unwilling or unable to take an aggressive fight to the GOP frontrunner.
Contrast that with Rep. Bachmann: during her 3 terms in Congress, she has become known for heated, inflammatory, pugilistic rhetoric. She's been a fierce critic of President Obama, appearing on numerous news and commentary shows blasting the "stimulus", the health care reform, cap and trade, and other Obama Administration initiatives; she even gave a Tea Party response to the State of the Union. Her stock has gone up as her rhetoric has maintained a take-no-prisoners, make-no-apologies edge. Not only is she doing well against her fellow Republican challengers, the latest Gallup Poll shows her in a statistical tie in a general election against Barack Obama.
Early frontrunners, however, can tend to collapse under the pressure of campaigning and the intense scrutiny. At this time in 2007, Rudy Giuliani was leading the Republican pack; he left the race without winning even a single delegate, much less a state. But the historical candidate who might be the closest parallel to Michele Bachmann comes from the 2004 election: former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.
Dean entered the nomination fray as a virtual unknown outside of New England, but his stock rose among Democratic voters (at least those being polled) as his criticism of President George W. Bush intensified, particularly on the issue of the war in Iraq. He was from outside the mainstream Democratic Party power structure; he was to the antiwar movement what Michele Bachmann is to the Tea Party: a vocal iconoclast who took on his opponents in his own party for being too complacent and the President in strident terms.
Unfortunately for his ambitions, Dean had a penchant for verbal gaffes. Whether it was wondering aloud whether we were really better off without Saddam Hussein, to stating that he "hate[d]" Republicans and that they were "evil", to suggesting that President Bush had inside information ahead of time concerning the 9/11 attacks, Dean's campaign had to make regular walk-backs on his statements. The climax was the night of the Iowa caucuses when he launched into his famous "Dean scream", appearing madman-like on national TV and becoming the punch line for comedians everywhere. His support evaporated, and his candidacy imploded.
Like Dean in 2003, Bachmann has made her name on a willingness to fight... and on rhetorical missteps. Like Dean in 2003, Bachmann is seen by many even in her own party as unelectable by the general public, and perhaps even a bit weird. When Gov. Dean crumbled in the 2004 election, the Democratic Party ended up choosing a more mainstream, establishment candidate who seemed more likely to put up a competitive bid against the sitting President. Will a similar fate befall Rep. Bachmann and the Republican Party? That's a question that will help keep this election interesting.
Bachmann: Howard Dean Redux?
According to various polls and based on her win in the Iowa straw poll, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has come from virtually nowhere as a national name to one of the "top tier" candidates in the hunt for the Republican nomination. In spite of the fact that a sitting House member has not been nominated by a major party in over a century and only one sitting House member, James A. Garfield, has ever been elected, Republican voters have gotten on board with the self-professed Tea Party candidate. She even knocked a fellow Minnesotan, 2-year Governor Tim Pawlenty, out of the race altogether with her superior showing in Iowa.
While he never exactly rose to great heights, Gov. Pawlenty's downfall seemed to begin in June at a candidate debate in New Hampshire. Given the opportunity to followup on previous criticisms of the health care plan implemented in Massachusetts during the Mitt Romney governorship — a plan Pawlenty had likened to the unpopular federal reforms enacted last year by referring to it as "Obamneycare" — Pawlenty chose instead to take the high road. The after-debate reaction was not good; the already mild-mannered candidate looked to many like he was unwilling or unable to take an aggressive fight to the GOP frontrunner.
Contrast that with Rep. Bachmann: during her 3 terms in Congress, she has become known for heated, inflammatory, pugilistic rhetoric. She's been a fierce critic of President Obama, appearing on numerous news and commentary shows blasting the "stimulus", the health care reform, cap and trade, and other Obama Administration initiatives; she even gave a Tea Party response to the State of the Union. Her stock has gone up as her rhetoric has maintained a take-no-prisoners, make-no-apologies edge. Not only is she doing well against her fellow Republican challengers, the latest Gallup Poll shows her in a statistical tie in a general election against Barack Obama.
Early frontrunners, however, can tend to collapse under the pressure of campaigning and the intense scrutiny. At this time in 2007, Rudy Giuliani was leading the Republican pack; he left the race without winning even a single delegate, much less a state. But the historical candidate who might be the closest parallel to Michele Bachmann comes from the 2004 election: former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.
Dean entered the nomination fray as a virtual unknown outside of New England, but his stock rose among Democratic voters (at least those being polled) as his criticism of President George W. Bush intensified, particularly on the issue of the war in Iraq. He was from outside the mainstream Democratic Party power structure; he was to the antiwar movement what Michele Bachmann is to the Tea Party: a vocal iconoclast who took on his opponents in his own party for being too complacent and the President in strident terms.
Unfortunately for his ambitions, Dean had a penchant for verbal gaffes. Whether it was wondering aloud whether we were really better off without Saddam Hussein, to stating that he "hate[d]" Republicans and that they were "evil", to suggesting that President Bush had inside information ahead of time concerning the 9/11 attacks, Dean's campaign had to make regular walk-backs on his statements. The climax was the night of the Iowa caucuses when he launched into his famous "Dean scream", appearing madman-like on national TV and becoming the punch line for comedians everywhere. His support evaporated, and his candidacy imploded.
Like Dean in 2003, Bachmann has made her name on a willingness to fight... and on rhetorical missteps. Like Dean in 2003, Bachmann is seen by many even in her own party as unelectable by the general public, and perhaps even a bit weird. When Gov. Dean crumbled in the 2004 election, the Democratic Party ended up choosing a more mainstream, establishment candidate who seemed more likely to put up a competitive bid against the sitting President. Will a similar fate befall Rep. Bachmann and the Republican Party? That's a question that will help keep this election interesting.
While he never exactly rose to great heights, Gov. Pawlenty's downfall seemed to begin in June at a candidate debate in New Hampshire. Given the opportunity to followup on previous criticisms of the health care plan implemented in Massachusetts during the Mitt Romney governorship — a plan Pawlenty had likened to the unpopular federal reforms enacted last year by referring to it as "Obamneycare" — Pawlenty chose instead to take the high road. The after-debate reaction was not good; the already mild-mannered candidate looked to many like he was unwilling or unable to take an aggressive fight to the GOP frontrunner.
Contrast that with Rep. Bachmann: during her 3 terms in Congress, she has become known for heated, inflammatory, pugilistic rhetoric. She's been a fierce critic of President Obama, appearing on numerous news and commentary shows blasting the "stimulus", the health care reform, cap and trade, and other Obama Administration initiatives; she even gave a Tea Party response to the State of the Union. Her stock has gone up as her rhetoric has maintained a take-no-prisoners, make-no-apologies edge. Not only is she doing well against her fellow Republican challengers, the latest Gallup Poll shows her in a statistical tie in a general election against Barack Obama.
Early frontrunners, however, can tend to collapse under the pressure of campaigning and the intense scrutiny. At this time in 2007, Rudy Giuliani was leading the Republican pack; he left the race without winning even a single delegate, much less a state. But the historical candidate who might be the closest parallel to Michele Bachmann comes from the 2004 election: former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.
Dean entered the nomination fray as a virtual unknown outside of New England, but his stock rose among Democratic voters (at least those being polled) as his criticism of President George W. Bush intensified, particularly on the issue of the war in Iraq. He was from outside the mainstream Democratic Party power structure; he was to the antiwar movement what Michele Bachmann is to the Tea Party: a vocal iconoclast who took on his opponents in his own party for being too complacent and the President in strident terms.
Unfortunately for his ambitions, Dean had a penchant for verbal gaffes. Whether it was wondering aloud whether we were really better off without Saddam Hussein, to stating that he "hate[d]" Republicans and that they were "evil", to suggesting that President Bush had inside information ahead of time concerning the 9/11 attacks, Dean's campaign had to make regular walk-backs on his statements. The climax was the night of the Iowa caucuses when he launched into his famous "Dean scream", appearing madman-like on national TV and becoming the punch line for comedians everywhere. His support evaporated, and his candidacy imploded.
Like Dean in 2003, Bachmann has made her name on a willingness to fight... and on rhetorical missteps. Like Dean in 2003, Bachmann is seen by many even in her own party as unelectable by the general public, and perhaps even a bit weird. When Gov. Dean crumbled in the 2004 election, the Democratic Party ended up choosing a more mainstream, establishment candidate who seemed more likely to put up a competitive bid against the sitting President. Will a similar fate befall Rep. Bachmann and the Republican Party? That's a question that will help keep this election interesting.
Contracts and Capitalism
In discussing the current brouhaha over the University of Miami football program yesterday, local talk show host Chris Baker claimed that he thought it was "no big deal", that the booster was simply engaging in "capitalism". In response, I sent him the following message:
Yesterday on the air you were complaining about the negative attention directed at the University of Miami football program based on the booster giving players money, providing hookers, hosting yacht parties, and other gifts and perks banned by NCAA rules. You stated that this was merely capitalism, that it wasn't anyone's business how he spent his money.
Unfortunately, that is not the nature of capitalism, at least not in its intended form. One of the backbones of free market capitalism is adherence to contracts. When a team chooses to become a member of the NCAA — a voluntary association — it signs a contract stipulating that it will follow the NCAA rules. Among these rules is the banning of such gifts and perks as booster Nevin Shapiro is alleged to have provided.
Each NCAA member has a compliance office, which is charged with ensuring that the obligations are met — again, obligations that the school voluntary took upon itself by choosing to associate with the NCAA. Each coach signs a contract stating that he will abide by those rules and take action if they are violated. And finally, each player signs a letter of intent for their scholarship, and agrees in return not to break those rules.
I'm not sure what kind of contract you have in place to work for KSEV, but should you break the terms of that contract — even if engaging in activity that is in and of itself legal — your employer has a right to sanction you as per the terms of that contract. When you — or the University of Miami — breaks a contract, you are essentially engaging in fraud and theft, two activities that go against the tenets of free market capitalism.
Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX
Krugman vs. Krugman
Back from vacation in Puerto Rico, I sent the following letter to the Chronicle in response to this Paul Krugman article:
re: No excuse for the economic situation
In his usual lament against any attempts at restraining the growth of government spending (there have been no true "cuts" proposed — only reductions in future planned increases), Paul Krugman contradicts a Nobel Prize-winning economist: Paul Krugman.
Writing in Tuesday's column, Dr. Krugman states that "aid to hard-pressed state and local governments... may have mitigated the slump, but it wasn't the type of job-creation program we could and should have had." However, in his blog "Conscience of a Liberal" in February 2009, Dr. Krugman described "aid to state governments" as "both fast... and effective", declaring that "the social value of this spending would be high."
It would seem that Dr. Krugman was for such "stimulus" before he was against it.
Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX
By the way, a tip of the hat to Mickey Kaus at the Daily Caller for digging up the February 2009 Krugman blog posting, which is available here.
re: No excuse for the economic situation
In his usual lament against any attempts at restraining the growth of government spending (there have been no true "cuts" proposed — only reductions in future planned increases), Paul Krugman contradicts a Nobel Prize-winning economist: Paul Krugman.
Writing in Tuesday's column, Dr. Krugman states that "aid to hard-pressed state and local governments... may have mitigated the slump, but it wasn't the type of job-creation program we could and should have had." However, in his blog "Conscience of a Liberal" in February 2009, Dr. Krugman described "aid to state governments" as "both fast... and effective", declaring that "the social value of this spending would be high."
It would seem that Dr. Krugman was for such "stimulus" before he was against it.
Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX
By the way, a tip of the hat to Mickey Kaus at the Daily Caller for digging up the February 2009 Krugman blog posting, which is available here.
Government and Morality
In response to an exchange I heard on the Michael Medved Show on the radio today, I sent the following email:
re: Government and Morality
Michael,
On your show today, you were debating a caller about the role government should and does play in "legislating morality". You used theoretical examples of such varied laws as speed limits, rape, burglary, and the hiring of illegal immigrants to justify your claim that not only should the government be legislating morality, but that morality should be the basis of every law.
I think the central premise at the heart of your argument was (and is) wrong. The purpose of government is not to enforce a personal religious or moral code, but rather to protect life, liberty, and property. Indeed, governments and laws derive ultimately from the individual's right of self-defense, as economist and philosopher Frederic Bastiat explained in The Law: if each individual has the right to protect himself and his property, it follows naturally that people can choose to band together, can form a pact based on mutual protection of life, liberty, and property. Laws are thus the "collective organization of the right to self-defense." As Thomas Jefferson said, "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."
Often, there is overlap between acts that violate religious morality and also infringe on the liberty or property of another; in such cases, it is necessary and proper for the government to intervene, enforcing just laws to protect one individual from another (or from a group). The ultimate purpose of the government, however, isn't to enforce the law based on personal morality, but rather on the issue of liberty. Thus, while it is proper for the government to legislate against rape, murder, or theft, it is not proper for the government to legislate against coveting your neighbor's wife, lying about how much money you make, or taking the Lord's name in vain.
In dealing with the marketplace, the government's role thus becomes one of preventing fraud or coercion and enforcing contracts; government action in these areas serves to protect property rights against what is ultimately theft. Laws against swindling, Ponzi schemes, insider trading, and worker exploitation are legitimate when viewed through this prism. Speed limits are guidelines to which motorists agree in return for using roads build using taxpayer money, again to protect the liberty and property of others who also use them — no such government intrusion is called for if driving is done on private property.
Societal standards about what constitutes fraud, coercion, or intrusion on liberty and property can change over time; Jefferson spoke of this when he wrote of governments "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." That does not, however, invalidate the central premise of the purpose of the government and the law.
Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX
Thumbs Down?
In response to this editorial in the Chronicle, I sent the following letter:
re: Texas needed that ban on texting
In admonishing Governor Perry's veto of the law that would ban texting while driving, the Chronicle seems to forget a basic, simple fact about auto safety: reckless driving is already illegal, regardless of the distraction. Counter to the breathless claim of the editorial writer, vetoing a bill that specifically outlaws texting while driving isn't tantamount to saying that a "right to texting while driving" somehow trumps human life.
Damage to property, injury, or death is no less palatable if caused by a driver texting than if the driver is adjusting the radio, lighting a cigarette, or falling asleep — reckless driving is reckless driving. We don't need new laws to, as Governor Perry called it, "micromanage" Texas drivers.
Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX