Gay Marriage & Logic, continued.

A while back I wrote about the futility of arguing with gay marriage opponents because their "arguments" are not based on logic or anything remotely related to argumentation but are instead disingenuous excuses or covers for a purely emotional pre-disposition.  At the time, this was inspired by an NRO editorial "arguing" against gay marriage.

Yesterday, Jonathan Chait at the New Republic posted an article that expands on this theme brilliantly, also mentioning the NRO editorial:

Dismissing the argument that marriage might foster more stable gay relationships, the magazine's editors replied curtly, "[T]hese do not strike us as important governmental goals." There's a word for social policy that disregards the welfare of one class of citizens: discrimination.

Some hard-core conservatives are willing to openly discriminate like this, but most people aren't, which is why public opinion is warming to gay marriage. Most opposition arises from simple discomfort. When I first started hearing about gay marriage, I didn't oppose it, but it seemed sort of strange and radical--and only after several years did I realize I supported it.

The line "I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman" is an expression of that sensibility--a reflection of unease rather than principle. As people face up to the fact that opposing gay marriage means disregarding the happiness of the people most directly (or even solely) affected by it, most of us come around. Good ideas don't always defeat bad ideas, but they usually, over time, defeat non-ideas.

American Dream, Interrupted

The third installment of my column in Zahraničná politika, a Slovak foreign policy magazine, touches on the less obvious yet very troubling effects of the economic crisis.

American Dream, Interrupted

There has been a lot of talk about change lately, including in this column, as a result of the election of Barrack Obama and his arguably progressive agenda. And yet the most striking changes occurring all over the place are not happening because of Obama and his agenda, but rather around him and despite him. I am talking about the current economic crisis / recession / depression and how it is slowly redefining the US in ways that are far reaching and profound. And increasingly I have to wonder, what is left of America as we know it?

The US banking system is only a few steps away from nationalization - it has been saved for now simply because the administration wants to try every avenue possible first. Several major car manufacturers are only a few miles from bankruptcy, temporarily held afloat by loans from the government. The real estate market continues to melt down and that the government is trying to revive it seems like par for the course. In short, not only are some of the key symbols of American capitalism - banks, cars, houses - are under serious stress, but also the essence of their rescue plan could be labeled un-American: government intervention and control. And yet, even those who criticize big government, higher taxes and deficit spending, have had little to offer in term of alternatives. In fact, the US - and by extension, the world economy - is lucky that the largest economic contraction since the Great Depression is occurring under the watch of a President and Congress that don't seem philosophically opposed to taking bold pro-active steps.

Yet, as ironic as all these extraordinary circumstances may seem, they do not make me wonder about the future of American capitalism and its position in the global economy. Time, simple forces of supply and demand, and presumably the current government intervention, will eventually sort out the problems in banking, autos and real estate one way or another. No, the changes that should make Americans more worried are much more quiet and subtle and are affecting some of the core fueling forces of America and, as cheesy as it may sound, shattering the idea of the "American dream."

The first issue I have in mind here is immigration. While the topic of illegal aliens is consuming the attention of the mainstream media and the President, there is an entirely different battle going on - against legal immigrants who have been living in the country on working visas. Due to a special skill or high level of education, these foreigners have been sponsored by a US company to live in the country. Over the years, many of these individuals have contributed greatly to the US economy - for example, Microsoft says that 35% of their patents came from new inventions by visa and greencard holders. In other words, this program - and immigration in general - has been the feeding channel to attract and retain the hardest-working, brightest minds from all over the globe to the US.

And yet, the visa program has come under criticism from those who argue that during a recession, American companies should not be giving jobs away to foreigners. The most vivid assault on the program came in the economic stimulus plan which imposes severe restriction on any company receiving federal funding and their ability to hire foreigners. However, even outside of the companies directly affected by the stimulus restrictions, the popular backlash against the visa program has led to a drop in applications for new visas as companies are becoming shy about sponsoring foreign workers. It was in that spirit that Wells Fargo, a major US bank, has decided to discontinue sponsorships for some of the foreigners they already employ. And Microsoft, after it announced it will continue sponsoring immigrants, had to quickly soften its stance amid criticism from media and lawmakers and declared it will file "substantially fewer" applications - this despite having clearly stating how crucial hiring from the global talent pool is for them - and the US.

Education and research are another defining element of America that is being threatened as a result of the current crisis. On one end of the spectrum, the institutions relying on public funding are facing a tough future as 36 states have either enacted or proposed budget cuts for elementary or higher level education. On the other end of the spectrum, private institutions which are not solely dependent on public funding are dealing with massive declines in the values of their endowment portfolios - 23% during the 5 months ended in November of last year, according to the National Association of College and University Endowments. Even Harvard - with its breathtaking endowment that peaked at $37 billion in 2008 but is expected to decline 30% as a result of the market meltdown - is planning to reduce its budget by $220 million over the next two years. Moreover, in the US education goes hand in hand with research: American universities are not just educational institutions, but also powerhouses of invention and progress. In fact, universities now perform about 60% of all basic research in the US, according to National Science Foundation. And the math is quite simple: fewer education dollars equals less research.

Perhaps most profoundly, however, shrinking higher education budgets translate into fewer dollars available for financial aid for students from lower income families at a time when increasingly more students are in need of such aid due to the economic downturn and market losses. Because attending college is impossible for the poor without outside assistance, the reductions in funding could have a meaningful impact on social mobility. In other words, kids from lower income families will have fewer chances to get higher education and move up on the socio-economic ladder.

While funding for higher education is dropping, it is hard to imagine any other country replacing the US as the leader any time soon. It is telling, however, that the US stands to capitalize less on its investment in education than ever before, as foreign students are increasingly likely to return home after graduation. This is not some insignificant group we're talking about: according to National Science Foundation, foreigners received nearly 60% of all engineering doctorates and over 50% of all engineering, math, computer sciences, physics and economics doctorates awarded in the US. And today, they are planning to return home in greater numbers than ever before. As the Kauffman Foundation found in its report "Losing the World's Best and Brightest", 58% of Indian, 40% of European and 54% of Chinese students surveyed would stay in the US if given the choice, which suggests a meaningful drop in the appeal of the US given that historically as much as two thirds of foreigners overall stayed in the US after receiving a doctorate, more specifically 92% of the Chinese and 85% of Indians. And while the availability of economic opportunities in the home country was the most important reason for returning (other than family ties) - a stunning revelation in and of itself - the ability to obtain a visa was also an important factor. Stated differently, it would seem that the aforementioned backlash against working visas is making it harder to stay in the US for the shrinking portion of those that find it appealing in the first place.

And so, in 2010 (or any time between 2011 and 2020, depending on which pessimistic economist you believe), when the US recovers from this recession, it will probably be very different - not because its banks will operate under different regulations and a few car companies will no longer exist but rather because some of its key competitive advantages, like ever replenishing diversity and investment in human capital, will have fallen prey to the economic meltdown. Will those naturally recover as the economic engine goes back into full speed and will other countries capitalize on America's weakness in the meantime? That remains to be seen. But for now the American Dream is on hold.

His Name Was Mellon.

And I fell in love instantly.  During my most recent trip to Slovakia, I took a little trip with my brother Martin and my niece Natalia and our cousin Roman to my brother's country house.  It's an old defunct mill with some piece of land and a beautiful little creek:

We took Natalia to "ride" on a horse.  Here's her and my brother admiring the beautiful horse, Mellon:

And here they are riding:

I tried it too.  It was amazing..

Can Someone Please ..

.. fire Maureen Dowd?  I mean, her last column is an interview with inventors of Twitter.  Let's imagine for a moment that the phenomenon of Twitter hasn't been explored by numerous other writers.  And let's imagine that an interview is an acceptable way to use your column space in the NYT.  Even if I give her a break on those two things, how does someone think this is remotely good material:

ME: ..Is there any thought that doesn’t need to be published?

BIZ: The one I’m thinking right now.

ME: Did you know you were designing a toy for bored celebrities and high-school girls?

BIZ: We definitely didn’t design it for that. If they want to use it for that, it’s great.

ME: I heard about a woman who tweeted her father’s funeral. Whatever happened to private pain?

EVAN: I have private pain every day.

Let The Torture Witchhunt Begin.

Turns out, many knew.  Even if they don't remember.  And finally, this can stop being a partisan issue.

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who in 2002 was the ranking Democrat on the House committee, has said in public statements that she recalls being briefed on the methods, including waterboarding. She insists, however, that the lawmakers were told only that the C.I.A. believed the methods were legal — not that they were going to be used.

By contrast, the ranking Republican on the House committee at the time, Porter J. Goss of Florida, who later served as C.I.A. director, recalls a clear message that the methods would be used.

“We were briefed, and we certainly understood what C.I.A. was doing,” Mr. Goss said in an interview. “Not only was there no objection, there was actually concern about whether the agency was doing enough.”

Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, who was committee chairman in 2002, said in an interview that he did not recall ever being briefed on the methods, though government officials with access to records say all four committee leaders received multiple briefings.

Pink Slip.

If you already haven't, you should go see Justin Bond's Rites of Spring at Joe's Pub - one more show left next Sunday.   I saw it last night and Justin is as magical as ever and Joe's is just a perfect venue for him.  And even though I heard 95% of the stories before, Justin's delivery never bores me, as random and disorganized as it may sometimes seem.  Even his band is always amuzed, and they heard them all many many times.  And the songs - well, you can check those out on his first CD here.  

Lost Loves and Lost Years.

Only about half-way through the most recent short story from David Sedaris in the New Yorker did I realize that I was reading a story written by a man talking about his relationships and encounters with other men published in a relatively mainstream magazine, and I thought to myself, how awesome.  Granted, the New Yorker is a fairly liberal magazine with a pretty geographically confined readership base, but still, it is no fringy rag.  It wasn't just that a piece like that would be published there, but that it no longer seems like a big deal.

The piece is nostalgic, funny, sweet, raw and blunt, typical Sedaris.  Go read it.

The Rule of Law.

Yesterday the administration released a series of legal opinions authorizing "brutal interrogation techniques" employed by the Bush administration, also known to the rest of the civilized world as torture.  

Only thing worse than doing something criminal and illegal and getting away with it, is doing it under the protection of very labored legal language which basically reenterprets the law to justify the activity in question.  

Here's an example from one of the memos:

"As we explained in the Section 2340A Memorandum, "pain and suffering" as used in Section 2340 is best understood as a single concept, not distinct concepts of "pain" as distinguished from "suffering"... The waterboard, which inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever, does not, in our view inflict "severe pain or suffering". Even if one were to parse the statute more finely to treat "suffering" as a distinct concept, the waterboard could not be said to inflict severe sufering. The waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering."

There is absolutely nothing scarier than a government that takes it on itself to interpret the law to suit its needs.  And I think it will take minimal effort to prove that that is indeed what occurred and that someone essentially "ordered" these legal opinions.  However none of this can be achieved without proper investigation and prosecution.  If these people genuinely believe that they did nothing wrong, they have nothing to be afraid of.  So I hope the president is joking when he says "nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past".  Huh?  Do we now believe that no crime should be prosecuted because it only amounts to "laying blame for the past"?  Where are we drawing the line?  

And no, I don't give a damn if we tortured for the right cause (not that we were ever shown any results of what torture has accomplished).  Any country can decide to justify whatever it wants on the grounds that it is protecting itself, yet I am sure that the US or the UN, would not particularly care.  This is such a crazy slippery slope and if we hope to have any sense of order in the world - and hope to have any say in what that order looks like - we can't arbitrarily decide how to interpret laws and which international treaties apply to us. 

And, as citizens in a democratic country, if we ever hope to live with the peace of mind that the government cannot arbitrarily act against us - will all the best intentions - it is in our best interest to see these activities be investigated and those who broke the law be prosecuted.  

The World Is Flat.

That the passage of gay marriage in Iowa and Vermont would produce a response from the conservatives was not a surprise at all.  Nor was its utter head-in-the-sand ridiculousness.  The NRO editorial on the subject is a beautiful case in point.  

Why people even feel the need to respond to it employing the tools of reasoning and logic, however, is a mystery to me.  Sullivan and Anonymous Liberal are the cases in point.  They both make very solid logical points that are, well, in a deep sense pointless (borrowing from the illustrious language of NRO).  For to me, arguing with the essence of the NRO article, is like arguing with the someone who believes that the world is flat.  Not because I think that my position is superior and right (and I do), but because someone who believes the arguments assertions in the NRO piece, will not care what enlightened logical arguments you have to offer and will never change their mind.  The only thing that a sane person can do is laugh and update their Facebook profile with funny excerpts.  

One point I would like to advance, however, has less to do with the arguments in the article and more to do with its title and the way it contradicts the very essence of the conservative view.  The title The Future of Marriage, suggests that marriage is something that has a past, a present and a future; in other words, that it is something that evolves.  The very fact that the article defends the currently prevailing legal construct of marriage as the right one, suggests that marriage is fluid and certainly not "by nature the union of a man and a woman."  

A few more bon mots:  

One still sometimes hears people make the allegedly “conservative” case for same-sex marriage that it will reduce promiscuity and encourage commitment among homosexuals. This prospect seems improbable, and in any case these do not strike us as important governmental goals.

Same-sex couples will also receive the symbolic affirmation of being treated by the state as equivalent to a traditional married couple — but this spurious equality is a cost of the new laws, not a benefit.

So too is the governmental recognition of same-sex sexual relationships, committed or otherwise, in a deep sense pointless.

In fact, the more I read and think about it, the more I feel like argumentation is futile not because the points advanced by the NRO don't even meet the basic requirements for argumentation, but rather because they are disingenuous.  This is not about what marriage is and isn't supposed to be, this isn't about kids, this isn't about what is natural and what is right.  Actually, this isn't about marriage, kids, or laws at all.  Instead, encoded in these paragraphs of garbage are the following clear messages:  YOUR COMMITMENT IS NOT IMPORTANT, YOUR EQUALITY IS A COST and YOUR RELATIONSHIPS ARE POINTLESS.

FINALLY, after all these years, it is clear to me that these faux arguments are are nothing more than a wordy veil around a simple singular emotion: WE HATE YOU.

And good luck arguing with that.

On a Roll ..

Vermont done and DC says ME TOO!  

And the world, shockingly, hasn't come to an end.

Torture Like It's USSR.

Today, Sullivan points me to a brilliant article in the NY Review of Books about a Red Cross report about torture in Guantanamo which until now has been classified (and can be found here).

When I think about torture and the way it has been talked about over the years I can't help but be confused on several levels.  On the one hand, the fact that it went on is virtually undisputable at this point.  On the other hand, the idea of exploring what happened and how and who exactly was responsible seems to be getting very little traction.  In the light of the multiplying (and now certified official) evidence, the Bush administration denied allegations of torture and went out of its way to sugarcoat its activity with Nazi-inspired euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" and at the same time justified those as necessary to protect the country.  And while abroad the US has been getting tremendously bad rep for its practices, the public here seems strangely passive on the issue.

To be fair, given the vagueness of the languague employed and the emotional calculation at play, the lack of popular outcry isn't entirely surprising.  The majority of the populace elected and - for the vast majority of its term - supported the Bush administration.  The administration tortured to protect the people it governed.  At the same time, the administration said that it doesn't torture, but whatever it is doing is done to protect the American people.  The message was not "torture is good", it was "whatever we do is to protect you".  This had several implications: first, the country could feel good about "whatever the government was doing" because it was meant to "protect them" and after all, it wasn't torture.  Second, by defining the terms of the debate, the administration automatically invalidated any arguments against torture - both on principle and as a matter of strategy.  Because the government wasn't torturing, there was no place in the debate to ask "Is torture right?" or "Does torture work?" or "Is it worth the damage it is doing to our reputation?"  Any debate around torture quickly became diluted by ridiculous polemics like "Is waterboarding torture?"

Mark Danner makes an interesting observation in his NYRB piece about the role that the American press played in propagating the administration's view by reprinting its wording: 

It is a testament as much to the peculiarities of the American press—to its "stenographic function" and its institutional unwillingness to report as fact anything disputed, however implausibly, by a high official—that the former vice-president's insistence that these interrogations were undertaken "legally" and "in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles" continues to be reported without contradiction, and that President Bush's oft-repeated assertion that "the United States does not torture" is still respectfully quoted and, in many quarters, taken seriously. 

Ah, the power of words.  The pattern shouldn't be surprising to anyone with the slightest knowledge of the 20th century.  I just wonder if this sort of political behavior is a natural outcome of an organic course of events that somehow has a tendency to happen in turbulent times, or do the leaders actually get inspired by each other?

Either way, the net effect of controlling the terms of the debate - and the press complicitly reporting on the same terms - while reinforcing the overarching objective of national security - was such that by the time the evidence of clear undisputable torture started dripping out, the weirdly foggy non-debate has been going on for so long that the actual act of torture (a) was not really a surprise and (b) occurred in some confusing ethical vacuum that allowed people to distance themselves from it entirely.  In the meantime, people could feel comforted by watching episodes of 24, entirely based on the premise that extraordinary situations require extraordinary means, something that Danner also notes in his article.

It is scary but somehow almost understandable.  The question now is what happens next, with a new administration and new set of facts.  To that point, Danner ends his piece with 2 poignant paragraphs:

Philip Zelikow, who served the Bush administration in the National Security Council and the State Department and then went on to direct the 9/11 Commission, remarked in an important speech three years ago that these officials, instead of having that debate simply called in the lawyers: the focus, that is, was not on "what should we do" but on "what can we do."

There is a sense in which our society is finally posing that "what should we do" question. That it is doing so only now, after the fact, is a tragedy for the country—and becomes even more damaging as the debate is carried on largely by means of politically driven assertions and leaks. For even as the practice of torture by Americans has withered and died, its potency as a political issue has grown. The issue could not be more important, for it cuts to the basic question of who we are as Americans, and whether our laws and ideals truly guide us in our actions or serve, instead, as a kind of national decoration to be discarded in times of danger. The only way to confront the political power of the issue, and prevent the reappearance of the practice itself, is to take a hard look at the true "empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years," and speak out, clearly and credibly, about what that story really tells.

Some Legal Opinions Are Fun To Read in Full

Our responsibility, however, is to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time. The framers of the Iowa Constitution knew, as did the drafters of the United States Constitution, that “times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” and as our constitution “endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom” and equality.

Thank you, Supreme Court of Iowa.

Closing In.

I was wondering when we're going to start hearing more about the H1B restrictions that were placed on institutions getting TARP money (that I wrote about here) and today I saw this deeply troubling article.    Few interesting bits:

The legislation doesn't apply to current employees of Wells [Fargo] and other TARP recipients who need to have their existing H-1B visas renewed. However, Wells is letting those visas expire anyway, according to a copy of an internal email sent to some of its foreign employees on March 20 from the bank's human resources department.

This contrasts with Goldman Sachs, another TARP recipient, which is renewing existing H-1B visas and continues to offer jobs to foreign workers who need new temporary visas to join the investment bank. "We will make offers to the best people regardless of where they live," said Ed Canaday, a Goldman spokesman.

Bank of America pulled job offers for more than 50 foreign students who would have needed H-1B visas to join the bank.

First of all, go Goldman.  As evil banking empires go, they are right up there along with everyone else and I always viewed their "emphasis on people" with heavy doses of skepticism.  But I guess they mean it, and how rightly so.  The Bank of America case is so disturbing and I can't imagine what I would do if after years of studying and multiple rounds of interviewing I would have my offer rescinded so that someone else, who was considered a worse applicant in the first place, can fill my spot.  Granted, the next best 50 are probably not complete idiots.  And one could (and many would) argue that a first year analyst in banking is a generic commodity.  What college graduate with some amount of training can't crunch some numbers and do a decent job?  

Indeed, the problem is not that this will lead to a massive deterioration of the talent pool in our investment banks (if only because the best of the best can still get an offer from Goldman).  The real problem is twofold:  first, there are areas where the foreign talent is much more irreplaceable (I'd like to say IT, but that could only be because I don't know anything about IT and I'm stereotyping .. and besides, maybe smart IT is what got us into this mess in the first place? Though the dude in question was American, so there!  But I digress ..).  

Second, bringing highly qualified immigrants to this (or any) country by means of employment is by far the easiest and most natural way to replenish the diversity of this country and anything to close that path, as tempting as it may be during a recession, is just not desirable.  I realize that I am making an assertion here that deserves a bit more argumentation; but if you need one, here's a pragmatic argument in favor of immigration.  

Lastly, one technical note on the article, specifically regarding this pearl of wisdom:

With unemployment surging, there's no need for companies to hire foreign guest workers through the H-1B program when there are plenty of qualified Americans looking for jobs, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in February. Grassley sponsored the amendment to the stimulus bill that made it harder for TARP recipients to hire overseas workers on H-1B visas. "Our common-sense amendment simply ensures that recipients of American taxpayer money make American workers their first priority," he added.

This common-sense only makes any sense if you believe that American taxpayor money is only money paid by American workers.  However, seeing that some 50% of my income gets rerouted biweekly to the United States trasury, New York State and New York City, I beg to differ.  Yes, foreigners pay taxes, too, and by design (they have to earn more than the going market rate to justify their H1B status)  they actually pay more in taxes that the average American.  So unless someone wants to exempt me from contributing to the $1 trillion bailout of the US banking industry and to the $800 billion stimulus ($11,000 per person, thank you very much) or exempt me from paying Federal taxes (a much much higher amount), don't tell me that I am somehow a lesser priority than a US citizen.  

Change Light.

Second article for Zahranicna Politika, a Slovak foreign policy journal.  Once again, feels a bit dated, as it was written in mid-February.  The original English text of the article posted below.

Change Light

If anyone thought that American political scene would suddenly become boring or ordinary after the departure of George Bush, they were sorely mistaken. Indeed, even before the inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States, it became clear that while Change may have been Obama's campaign moto, it certainly is not what we have witnessed in the American political culture. In fact, scandals and sensations - large and small - have been filling the front pages of newspapers including a governor who tried to sell Obama’s senate seat and several cabinet nominees who forgot to pay their taxes - particularly embarrassing given that one of them was nominated (and eventually confirmed) to be the Treasury Secretary - the head of the agency responsible for the collection of taxes.

Admittedly, while these scandals make for good gossip, they do not necessary say much about the Obama presidency as such. Mishaps and misbehaviors always happen and Obama cannot control everything. So what can we conclude from the moves that he has taken so far, that were solely in his control? Change is probably not the first thing that comes to mind. Those who voted for Obama as a clear-cut alternative to Clinton and as a candidate who wants to move away from the "politics of the past" were astonished to find out that a good portion of his appointments were in their past affiliated with the Clinton administration. Thus, a new pro-Obama narrative developed: it wasn't necessarily the people that would change but rather the substance and the style of the presidency. What else was he going to do anyway – beam a whole new Democratic party in from space?

So how about that substance and style? One might highlight Obama's early steps after the inauguration as signs of a new era in Washington. First, he introduced ethics guidelines that would shut the revolving door between government and industry by placing restrictions preventing those with a lobbying record from working in the government – and vice versa. Surely a bold step - at least until it became clear that Obama reserved the right for exceptions: Deputy Defense secretary nominee William Lynn used to be a lobbyist for Raytheon, a military contractor, and the Health and Human Services secretary nominee Tom Daschle - while not technically registered as a lobbyist - has earned large amounts of money from companies in health care - an industry he was tapped to regulate and reform. Speaking of ethics, nominating cabinet members with questionable tax records didn’t seem particularly kosher either, yet Obama fully stood behind them.

Another immediate move during the first few days in office was to make good on his campaign promises and shut down Guantanamo Bay - a symbolic move to end the questionable extrajudicial practices perpetrated by the Bush administration. It did not take long before it came under criticism as being a bit too symbolic: he delayed the closing of Guantanamo for a year and seemingly left open the door to extraordinary renditions - the practice of apprehending and transferring suspects to other countries. Even more important to many critics of torture was that Obama has shown little interest in prosecuting or even investigating the activities of the last administration. In short, instead of true groundbreaking steps, it seems that the few moves that Obama has made so far have come off as somewhat half-hearted and unconvincing.

As substance and style of presidency goes, one of the key aspects of Obama's vision during the campaign was post-partisan politics - putting aside differences and working toward mutually agreeable goals. There was probably no better way to test this lofty goal than to attempt to pass a trillion-dollar stimulus package to revive the US economy. It must have been disheartening to the new president when, despite his best effort, not a single republican voted for the stimulus bill in the House of Representatives. Clearly, Obama's attempt at bipartisanship has resulted in nothing of the sort. If anything, it has shown that the legislative process is inherently partisan and expecting anything else is not realistic.

All these instances of words speaking louder than actions – ethics, Guantanamo, bipartisanship - seem to have one important element in common: reality. The problem with implementing a lot of these goals is that, sooner or later, one is bound to run into complications: that really qualified guy he really wanted to hire who used to be a lobbyist (and forgot to pay some taxes); those prisoners some of which are probably terrorists yet we have no idea how and where to prosecute them; the Republican party he wants to work with amicably that has no incentive to cooperate with him. Suddenly a lofty goal becomes an obstacle, something that needs to be circumvented or exempted from. And that, in short, is how ideals seemingly die in Washington.

And so, three weeks into the age of Obama, Hope, another slogan from Obama campaign, is certainly running high: according to the New York Times/CBS News poll, 79% of respondents were optimistic about what the new president can accomplish, higher than any of the previous five presidents at the outset of their time in office. Change, however, even with the best of intentions, has so far been quite elusive. With plenty of time left in his presidency, it would be premature to declare Obama's mission a failure, but it will be interesting to observe how the reality of governing will temper his ability to deliver on his idealistic promises, or even his appetite to do so. In the meantime, it seems like we will have to settle for Change Light.

And .. We're Back.

It's been a month since my last post which also means that I've had Olive for a month.  Apart from doubling in size, learning a whole bunch of stuff, hijacking my schedule, and charming everyone along the way, the most essential piece of news is that she survived, as did I.  The living room carpet, on the other hand, is a whole different story.  

The other reason for lack of posting has been an intellectual paralysis of sorts.  Maybe it's the lack of time to properly chew on things and write something reasonable or maybe I'm just numbed from it all.  It certainly is not because of not much stuff happening.  

Take for example the end of February, when Obama released his 2010 Budget.  It did little more than formalize his widely broadcast intention to reform healthcare, yet the market somehow found this entirely shocking and troubling.  It felt like September and October of last year all over again.  Yes, exactly - the post-Lehman meltdown, except on 0 sleep (this was also the second day after Olive arrived).  There is so much more I could say on this topic and yet I won't, quite simply because that I is all I read and talk about all day and another mention of health reform would likely induce vomit.

One observation, however, that I am planning to explore further at some point, is just how this crisis/recession/fuckup seems to be slowly but surely decomposing some of the core principles that this country claims to be built on.  We have already turned against foreigners (don't let them take our jobs!), then came rage against people who make a lot of money (they got us into this mess!).  I am curious albeit a bit scared to see what else this crisis will produce.

George Packer at the New Yorker describes the fine line against populism and paranoia more eloquently:

... if interest politics turns into the kind of populism that rejects all forms of institutional authority—and we’re closer than we’ve been since at least the nineteen-seventies—the public mood will sweep aside Obama’s program of reforms and quite possibly turn into a new sort of reaction: anti-bank, anti-Washington, anti-immigrant, anti-global. The populist temper and the paranoid style are not the same thing, but they are related in obvious ways: when the former loses its bearings, it can degenerate into the latter.

It certainly doesn't help that instead of tempering the public rage, the elected officials are instead capitalizing on it with ridiculous laws like the 90% tax on the folks are AIG (the ridiculousness of which only became fully obvious to me after reading this op-ed in the Times).  It is somewhat ironic that this country had a similarly emotional period not too long ago, and many decisions made at the time - however popular - were regretted a few years later.  

NYCweboy has a good post with observations about the current rage.  What interests me most is what sort of lasting impact this all will have.  It is just a temporary phase, or will we see some permanent damage?  It was, after all, economic crises combined with skillfull political manipulation that have led to some of the most abhorrent events of the 20th century...  

Olive.

Olive finally came on Wednesday and she is so cute that I may have a heart attack.  The breeder sent her early to avoid some nasty cold temperatures up in MN, so my whole plan of spending the first few days with her after she comes on Friday was scrapped.  Last two nights were brutal with her crying and barking and me alternatively trying to ignore her and trying to calm her down.  Needless to say things like sleep or working out have become fairly non-existent for me, so hopefully I can restore some sense of routine as we figure out hers.  Every puppy book and website I read before she came suddenly sounds very theoretical.  This is going to be interesting.

Undersecretary for Go Fuck Yourself.

If you haven't read the New Yorker profile of Rahm Emanuel yet, drop everything you're doing and go read it.  It's a bit of a car crash: ugly and brutish but you have to keep reading.  The funniest is the head-on attack against Paul Krugman - multiple times, with a few F-words.  Who needs TV with delicious drama like this?

“No disrespect to Paul Krugman,” Emanuel went on, “but has he figured out how to seat the Minnesota senator?” (Franken’s victory is the subject of an ongoing court challenge by his opponent, Norm Coleman, which the national Republican Party has been happy to help finance.) “Write a fucking column on how to seat the son of a bitch. I would be fascinated with that column. O.K.?”

The really interesting bit is the explanation of how the stimulus package was passed and his role in the negotiations.  Really makes one appreciate the "process."  And by appreciate, I mean detest.

The Benefit of No Other Alternative.

David Brooks strikes a chord in his column today that resonated with me, which is not a common occurrence for a conservative columnist.  

I fear that in trying to do everything at once, they [the new administration] will do nothing well. I fear that we have a group of people who haven’t even learned to use their new phone system trying to redesign half the U.S. economy. I fear they are going to try to undertake the biggest administrative challenge in American history while refusing to hire the people who can help the most: agency veterans who are registered lobbyists.

I worry that we’re operating far beyond our economic knowledge. Every time the administration releases an initiative, I read 20 different economists with 20 different opinions. I worry that we lack the political structures to regain fiscal control. Deficits are exploding, and the president clearly wants to restrain them. But there’s no evidence that Democrats and Republicans in Congress have the courage or the mutual trust required to share the blame when taxes have to rise and benefits have to be cut.

All in all, I can see why the markets are nervous and dropping. And it’s also clear that we’re on the cusp of the biggest political experiment of our lifetimes. If Obama is mostly successful, then the epistemological skepticism natural to conservatives will have been discredited. We will know that highly trained government experts are capable of quickly designing and executing top-down transformational change. If they mostly fail, then liberalism will suffer a grievous blow, and conservatives will be called upon to restore order and sanity.

It’ll be interesting to see who’s right. But I can’t even root for my own vindication. The costs are too high. I have to go to the keyboard each morning hoping Barack Obama is going to prove me wrong.

Oh, Andrew.

Andrew Sullivan can drive me nuts, sometimes.  Actually more often than not.  But sometimes he writes a piece that is so good and spot on that I have to say bravo and link to it.  It talks about the paradoxes of America - and why it is so maddening yet lovable.  As a foreigner I share a lot of his sentiments (save for the conservative religious stuff, that's where my mind is still stuck in the cynical Europe he puts down ever-so-gently in the column).  

The one bit that I thought was particularly interesting was the comparison between bigotry in America and Britain:

"In America, the bigotry you face is real, unvarnished and in the open. In Britain, it can come masked or euphemised or deflected into humour. It hurts much more to punch a brick wall than to punch a deep velvet cushion. But if you punch hard enough, the wall will one day crumble, while the pillow will constantly absorb the blows."

It rings true and yet I could make the argument that in some respects the reverse is the case.  Isn't America the birthplace of political correctness, after all?  

Debut.

A very belated link to a very belated article that I wrote for Zahranicna Politika, a Slovak foreign policy journal.  The original English text of the article, which was translated and published in Slovak, is posted below.  The chart that I am referencing in the article appears in this entry.  It was written immediately after the election with an audience in mind that did not follow all the events as they unfolded.  Yet even for me it is interesting to reread it now after some time has passed and the events of last fall are a bit more blurry.  

In the aftermath of the historic presidential election, commentators around the world are often interpreting the election of Barack Obama as a rejection of the policies of G. W. Bush and the triumph of social progress in the United States. Some have proclaimed we are living in the “post-racial” age, others have concluded "It's the economy, stupid!" However, as the initial electric excitement cools, it is essential to remember that Obama's victory was neither obvious nor a given as late as the beginning of September, when the economy was already slowing down and quickly heading for a downturn. So how did he close the deal?

As the Republican convention came to a close in the first week of September and McCain's recently chosen running mate Sarah Palin exploded into national consciousness, the polling data triggered a sense of helplessness and many headaches among Obama supporters. According to the Gallup Poll from September 7, 48% of voters indicated they would vote for McCain, 3% more than Obama and more than ever before. After 8 years of Bush, with a deteriorating economy and a massively unpopular war, Obama was losing in the polls. During those early September days, it looked like despite the lowest approval ratings of the incumbent president on record, Republicans had a solid change of winning. This contradicted all conventional wisdom: only once since 1856 has the Party in the White House managed to retain the presidency during a definable economic downturn. McCain's lead in the polls was truly mind-boggling: how could this be and what happened since then that catapulted the Democratic ticket to victory?

The answer to both those question can be summarized by two words: Lehman Brothers. On September 14th, the bankruptcy of one of the largest investment banks set off a chain of events that completely redefined the landscape of the race. The same day, another major bank, Merrill Lynch, was saved from the same fate by being acquired by Bank of America. Two days later, the US government seized control of AIG, one of the world's biggest insurers. Shocked by the failure of these institutions, the credit markets completely seized up and borrowing practically evaporated, creating a real threat to the functioning of financial markets and their ability to support the daily operations of businesses far from Wall Street. If there was any hesitation about the seriousness of the situation, it was all but gone when the treasury secretary and the chairman of the Federal Reserve unveiled their massive $700 billion proposal to bail out the troubled banks. The public was stunned and outraged.

These unprecedented events did more than just expose the fragile state of the financial system. The credit crisis completely changed the discourse about the economy, which until then was commonly defined by a heavy dose of sugarcoating and denial. It needs to be clarified that it was no secret that the economy was ailing at least since the summer of 2007. In the first two quarters of the year, 1.4 million US homes were foreclosed on and by the end of August the economy shed roughly 700 thousand jobs at the same time when energy and food prices were skyrocketing. And yet, until Lehman's failure, the policy makers had a habit of underplaying the seriousness of the problems. The Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was on record multiple times as saying that the problems in the sub-prime mortgage market did not pose a serious problem to the economy and were contained. The investors were seemingly not particularly worried either and the stock market was happily chugging along: until August, the Dow Jones index was not too far off from its all-time highs. Even as economists were increasing their odds of a recession, it was still a subject to debate, not a given. On the campaign trail, the candidates themselves did not pay much attention to the economy over the course of the summer. Perhaps it was this denial corroborated and fueled by the administration that allowed voters to defy conventional wisdom and seriously consider the incumbent party candidate, despite the clearly deteriorating conditions. However, during that dramatic week in September, the luxury of sticking their heads in the sand was taken away from the electorate. No longer was the administration able to sugar coat things. On the contrary: if they wanted to pass a bailout package quickly, they needed to convince everyone as fast as possible how extremely dire the circumstances were. In short order, the band aid was ripped off and the wound it exposed was deep and ugly.

To understand how shaken the public was from these events in the weeks that ensued, one needs to look at the consumer confidence indicators. While consumer confidence has already declined significantly in 2008, in October, the Conference Board index dropped 23%, the third largest month-over-month decline ever, and reached the lowest level on record. In more real-life terms, the impact of this plunge on confidence could be observed in the sales of retailers, the ultimate gauge of Americans’ well-being: while shopping saw a significantly reduced growth in September, by October, most retailers were reporting a decline in spending, with some as large as 17%. In a matter of weeks, Americans went into panic mode and the discourse about the crisis increasingly involved comparisons with the Great Depression. According to Google Trends, the mention of "Great Depression" in the US increased more than tenfold in September.

In the context of the election, the September meltdown was not only an escalation of an already dreary economic picture. It gave voters a new set of lenses through which to assess the two candidates and provided them a unique chance to observe the two men responding to a crisis. When McCain declared that the fundamentals of the economy were strong the day after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, his critics immediately seized it as an example of him being disconnected from reality. McCain's apparent denial of reality closely resembled the manner in which the Bush administration talked about the economy right until then – a rather unfavorable association which McCain needed to avoid at all cost. It is probably no coincidence that on that very day, Obama's chances of winning the presidency, as evidenced by the Intrade prediction markets, turned around sharply and never stopped going up (chart at the end). A little over a week after the crisis started, McCain announced a dramatic suspension of his campaign to focus on the bailout negotiations in the Congress and called on Obama to postpone the upcoming debate. Instead of helping his campaign, McCain ended up looking like the panicky and unfocused one when Obama responded cool-headedly: "It is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once. It's more important than ever to present ourselves to the American people." By the time of that first debate, Obama’s chances improved by 9% to 56% and the polls indicated a significant reversal from early September – Obama was leading by 4%.

As the terrifying economic news was coming out, the media was increasingly exposing news on McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin. Her first media appearance – the interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC – aired a few days before the credit crisis started. Just as the first bailout package was being negotiated in the Congress and John McCain suspended his campaign, the Katie Couric interviews on CBS were released. While Americans were contemplating the onset of the second Great Depression, they witnessed the Republican VP candidate unable to remember the name of a single newspaper. Not only did that dampen the enthusiasm about Palin, but it also brought into question McCain's decision-making. The critics wondered: how could he be trusted to safeguard the economy if the one big decision he made so far was so rushed and irresponsible? Most importantly, right when experience could have proven to be a tremendously reassuring attribute to the American people, McCain could not play that card due to his relatively inexperienced and seemingly ignorant running mate. The day after the first Palin interview aired on CBS, Obama's odds went up almost 3 points to 55%.

By the end of September, the debates were McCain’s last chance to prove himself as capable of dealing with the country's economic woes and reverse Obama's momentum. However, no such turnaround materialized. Not only did Obama score better in all three debates (and increasingly better – 51, 54 and 58%, according to CNN's polls), all three also portrayed McCain as lacking the likeability, temperament and coolness that Obama possessed. In the first debate, McCain struck all the wrong cords by barely looking at his opponent in addition to linking Russia's president Putin to KGB. In the second installment, he further damaged his likeability scores by memorably referring to Obama as "that one" and in the final debate he got carried away during the abortion discussion and spoke about women's health in air quotes, a gesture which did not go unnoticed by the commentariat and a key voter group – women. As if that was not enough, the Republican campaign launched a series of negative ads against Obama – his questionable affiliations, his supposed socialistic ideas. Not only was that a clear betrayal of McCain's own principles (he himself was burnt by similar tactics in the 2000 primary race against George Bush), but also a distraction from what the electorate probably cared more about – the collapsing economy. In the days following the final debate on October 15th, Obama improved his odds to 85% and his lead in the polls expanded to 6-7%.

While the campaign kept everyone in suspense until the very end, McCain’s team was never able to close the advantage that the Democratic ticket received in the month that started with the Lehman bankruptcy and ended with the last debate. As tempting as it may be to conclude that after all it was all about the economy, it should be remembered by historians and politicians in the future that the deteriorating economy did not seem to matter until very late in the race – and it took a near collapse of capitalism for that to kick in. In that sense, the election was not only historic because it symbolized the end of a racial barrier in American politics, but because it nearly led to the most counter-intuitive outcome. As strategists and political scientists ponder future electoral outcomes, they are well advised to use the “It’s the economy, stupid!” mantra carefully, because as the 2008 election showed, it may not be relevant until the circumstances are just right.