×
- There's a shared conceit among the business class and the wealthy who wish to enter politics that they bring some sort of independent, means-tested credibility to the field based on the fact that they've been successful in the private sector. Take "fed up" billionaire Jeff Greene, who is jumping into the Florida Senate race because he wants to give voters a choice between "three career politicians" and "an outsider who is willing to shake things up in Washington." Stirring words, sir. He also asks of the aforementioned politicians, "They have had their chance. I am sure they mean well, but where are the results?" I think he's saying their tenure in elected office thus far has failed to produce unspecified "results," but it sure sounds like he's saying their efforts in the current campaign have been a failure.
- John Sides neatly demolishes the notion that political polarization is responsible for decline in trust of government with quantitative efficiency, but I have a more qualitative question: Why do policy thinkers ever believe that "polarization" is the culprit? Is this just nostalgia for the good old days of bipartisanship when Congress was run by Southern Democrats? I do think there is a generational difference. For those of us who came of age in the Reagan, and more significantly, the Gingrich years, it's been clear that there is no meaningful middle ground to be had. But as far as trust in government goes, I think the cumulative effect of bad policy and/or criminality -- the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the current Iraq War, to name a few -- might be more relevant.
- It's hard to escape the conclusion that the heart of what passes for Republican foreign policy is simply a desire for empty gestures that reinforce their sense of moral superiority. Take, for instance, this letter from Senate Republicans to Hillary Clinton, requesting that the Department of State deny Mahmoud Ahmadinejad entry into the country for a planned UN address. Of course, these same Senators didn't make the same request of the Bush administration in 2007, but this isn't simply partisan hypocrisy. Conservatives are heavily invested in the idea that moral strength is acutely tied to foreign-policy ends. Bush was resolute and Obama is an appeaser, and thus these Republicans are doing their best to make sure Obama understands that the Iranian president is an evil man whom we mustn't allow to touch our shores.
- One problem with having an extremely simple understanding of "capitalism" is that it leads you to make even more simple observations about the "self-corrective" nature of the free market, which in turn leads you to argue that New Coke is an illustrative example of capitalism naturally adapting to market pressure. And of course, this is in opposition to "socialism," which is understood as "social democracy -- a strain of socialism -- that exists in Western Europe, and Obama and liberals not only celebrate this form of government, but seem to be taking us there." And thus Mr. Goldberg demonstrates once again that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
- Remainders: Other states want to follow in Arizona's footsteps on immigration; I too have noticed and have become annoyed with Eric Cantor's 'false choice' dodge; John Boehner has quite the active imagination; and remember, the only wide-eyed conspiracy theorists are on the left.
--Mori Dinauer
