It's been nearly a week since Barack Obama's second national press conference, and I'm back from mini-vacation and ready to jump in while the water's still warm.
As I watched the rebroadcast of Obama's stumpage from the comfort of my Manchester Grand Hyatt bed, several oddities and controversies immediately struck me. But from the sheer boredom of the whole affair, I wonder how few folks caught them.
First there were the trivial things, which my uber-critical nature just couldn't let slide. Amid the hubbub over Obama's teleprompters having become a permanent resident along the O-cross America Tour, the White House staff thought they'd pull a fast one on us. Here the presumptive C-in-C strutted up the red East Room carpet toward the podium and took immediate command of an eloquent speech, a mini-State of the Nation, if you will (albeit, a repackaged campaign stump speech). He stood confidently, glaring into the television camera as if demanding the American people's attention.
But something was amiss. Alas, he wasn't...quite, shall we say...looking at the camera. He was looking a tad bit down and to his left. Now, of course the mainstream media wouldn't reveal this, but the New Media certainly would. Yes, it was later revealed that firmly fixed just below the camera lens was a big screen television scrolling his speech line by line. We were expecting an Obama 2.0--sans teleprompters--and instead we got Obama 1.1 (only because it was a really slick looking big screen TV).
After the grandstanding, Obama immediately opened up for questions from the press corps. ABC's Jake Tapper, a well-respected journalist from the MSM, posed a fairly straight forward question: "Will you sign a budget that does not include a middle-class tax cut and cap-and-trade?" Now, at this point Barry-O could have declared his resoluteness and confidence in his policy and principle by simply replying with an emphatic, "No"...or perhaps "Yes." Instead, the O consumed a full three minutes (an eternity in press conference terms) to convey to Jake that he wasn't entirely comfortable answering such a direct question. But, of course it didn't quite come out like that. His answer hemmed and hawed between the minutiae of the congressional budgeting process and "broader" goals and the fact he hasn't seen the completed budget yet. The Church Lady's words are ringing ever true, "Hmm. Isn't that convenient."
That's just for starters.
There were three very stark questions that served to highlight the truth about Obama's socialist agenda, and his answers to them warrant retelling.
The first was a humdinger gotcha question: "At both of your townhall meetings in California last week, you said quote, 'I didn't run for president to pass on our problems to the next generation.' But, under your budget, the debt will increase seven trillion dollars over the next ten years. The Congressional Budget Office says 9.3 trillion dollars, and today on Capitol Hill some Republicans called your budget--with all the spending on health care, education, and environment--the 'most irresponsible budget in American history.' Isn't that kind of debt exactly what you were talking about when you said 'passing on our problems to the next generation'?"
Watch Obama's response here...
So let's boil this all down here. Obama would have us believe that by spending trillions of newly-printed and newly-taxed dollars on building schools, public health clinics, and windmills, somehow we'll magically save $2 trillion. Now, that's what I call "fuzzy math." The tragic assumption in Obama's magical Marxist wonderland is that taking money from one pocket and putting into the other somehow creates value. The compounding problem is that the second pocket has a hole in it.
Somewhere along "road to serfdom" we'll discover that pouring into the economy all these dollars, extracted from the folks most likely to invest them, will only further prop up the facade of consumer confidence and spending--all the while, no new wealth and capital investment will have been produced. And we'll be the poorer for it. Such a spending spree coupled with the flood of newly printed paper can only result in a hyper-inflated economy in which consumer spending is at a record high and consumer confidence at a record low. Enter Timothy Geithner's "global currency"...
Stay tuned for the next installment of Obama and the vanishing teleprompters...
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
SCHIP On His Shoulder...
On Wednesday, President Obama signed the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) bill into law declaring, "This is good...with one of the first bills I sign...we fulfill one of the highest responsibilities that we have. To insure the health and well being of our nation's children." It was a peculiar phrase, "we fulfill." One might wonder whether the president with "we" was referring to his and the First Lady's responsibility to keep the First Kids healthy and well. But I have a sneaking suspicion "we" has a rather corporate implication, viz. the federal government.
So, what's the big deal with ensuring some poor, underprivileged American kids get ample access to quality health care? In a phrase, "socialized medicine." We have no further to look than to our Anglo brethren in the north to find evidence of the failure of socialized medicine (that the Canadian economy is a wholly-dependent division of American GDP is the only reason the Canucks' health care system hasn't utterly collapsed). But a treatise on the vices of socialized medicine is a subject for another time. Let's dive quickly into why this bill of socialism, in particular, is a recipe for disaster.
First, the notion that SCHIP provides coverage for "poor, underprivileged kids" is simply not true, no matter how much grandstanding the Obama administration commits on behalf of the disenfranchised. The original version of SCHIP, if you recall, was foisted upon the people by the Bush Administration during the 1997 session. In that version, Republicans had forced in a concession by the House Democrats of an $80,000 income cap. Families earning more than that would not qualify for benefits under SCHIP. When SCHIP was hurriedly reintroduced in the wee hours of this session, the income cap was mysteriously absent. Republicans in House had not been consulted nor even informed. Now signed into law, ALL children qualify for SCHIP coverage--including Bill Gates' three children.
As Michael F. Cannon reveals, SCHIP fails in its intent to cover underprivileged children because "out of every ten children added to the SCHIP rolls, six already had private coverage." As with most federal intervention into the private and local realms, the unintended consequences are as great or greater than those intended. With one swipe of a pen, Obama has guaranteed that 60% of children enrolling in SCHIP will do so by pulling their insurance premiums out of the market and thereby deprive a starving economy of revenue. But hey, no fear; these 6 of 10 will be getting better coverage through SCHIP, right? Wrong. This brings us to the second failure of SCHIP.
Cannon quotes economist Robert Kaestner: “The proposition that health insurance is the cure for adverse health outcomes among poor and near-poor children has not been adequately demonstrated.” Never mind the not-so-poor 60-percenters, the poor kids targeted by SCHIP aren't even guaranteed to get improved, "quality health care." One wonders then, if SCHIP cannot offer a reasonable presumption of improvement in health care for the poor and uninsured, why were Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et. al. so hell-bent on passing it? More on that later.
SCHIP fails as well in much the same way federal welfare programs do. Highlighted by the 1996 titan battle between Gingrich Republicans and the Clinton Administration, Welfare to Work was whittled down after it was exposed that overly robust unemployment benefits actually encouraged folks to sit at home rather than beat the pavement looking for gainful employment. SCHIP similarly provides a stiff disincentive for parents of children enrolled in the program to seek better, higher paying jobs with which to afford private insurance. The economic impact is obvious.
Cannon cites the 1996 elimination of medicaid for non-citizens as case in point for how limiting federal benefits actually encourages folks to seek them out in the private sector. He explains that after 1996, non-citizens "sought out jobs that provided benefits, and were so successful that the employer-provided insurance completely offset the loss in government benefits. In fact, in the states that offered the fewest benefits, the immigrant insurance rate rose."
Last, in the dark of night with cloak and dagger, House Democrats also stripped SCHIP of its original citizenship requirement. Yes, they did that. So, not only does the newly passed boondoggle offer insurance coverage for all American children, it provides insurance for all non-American children. In recent years over 80 hospitals have gone out of business in California alone under the weight of uninsured emergency care, which hospitals are required by law to provide without question. Other states have witnessed similar phenomena. It's no surprise then that illegal immigrants flock to these states, knowing full well that every sneeze, sniffle, and ear-ache will get treated at the emergency room for free.
Though the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill was ultimately defeated, fear not ye open-borders fanatics: SCHIP will draw in the masses of illegal immigrants from wide and far. With it, the Obama administration seems intent on stimulated not just the U.S. economy but the Mexican and Latin-American economies as well...albeit with U.S. tax dollars.
Liberals love to paint conservatives as cold-hearted, nasty, selfish beasts. But let's be honest. We, all of us, want nothing more than to see our nation's children healthy and strong. Clearly, SCHIP doesn't do the trick. The question, then, isn't if we should provide the best health coverage for them, rather the question is who should provide it. And that brings us full circle to a question about the legitimacy of socialized medicine. After all, the intent of this rather worthless legislation is not what meets the eye. Obama and company have aimed at nationalized health care ever since HillaryCare went down in flames ten years ago. And SCHIP, my friends, is the proverbial camel's nose under the national tent.
More on the dangers of nationalized health care later...
So, what's the big deal with ensuring some poor, underprivileged American kids get ample access to quality health care? In a phrase, "socialized medicine." We have no further to look than to our Anglo brethren in the north to find evidence of the failure of socialized medicine (that the Canadian economy is a wholly-dependent division of American GDP is the only reason the Canucks' health care system hasn't utterly collapsed). But a treatise on the vices of socialized medicine is a subject for another time. Let's dive quickly into why this bill of socialism, in particular, is a recipe for disaster.
First, the notion that SCHIP provides coverage for "poor, underprivileged kids" is simply not true, no matter how much grandstanding the Obama administration commits on behalf of the disenfranchised. The original version of SCHIP, if you recall, was foisted upon the people by the Bush Administration during the 1997 session. In that version, Republicans had forced in a concession by the House Democrats of an $80,000 income cap. Families earning more than that would not qualify for benefits under SCHIP. When SCHIP was hurriedly reintroduced in the wee hours of this session, the income cap was mysteriously absent. Republicans in House had not been consulted nor even informed. Now signed into law, ALL children qualify for SCHIP coverage--including Bill Gates' three children.
As Michael F. Cannon reveals, SCHIP fails in its intent to cover underprivileged children because "out of every ten children added to the SCHIP rolls, six already had private coverage." As with most federal intervention into the private and local realms, the unintended consequences are as great or greater than those intended. With one swipe of a pen, Obama has guaranteed that 60% of children enrolling in SCHIP will do so by pulling their insurance premiums out of the market and thereby deprive a starving economy of revenue. But hey, no fear; these 6 of 10 will be getting better coverage through SCHIP, right? Wrong. This brings us to the second failure of SCHIP.
Cannon quotes economist Robert Kaestner: “The proposition that health insurance is the cure for adverse health outcomes among poor and near-poor children has not been adequately demonstrated.” Never mind the not-so-poor 60-percenters, the poor kids targeted by SCHIP aren't even guaranteed to get improved, "quality health care." One wonders then, if SCHIP cannot offer a reasonable presumption of improvement in health care for the poor and uninsured, why were Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et. al. so hell-bent on passing it? More on that later.
SCHIP fails as well in much the same way federal welfare programs do. Highlighted by the 1996 titan battle between Gingrich Republicans and the Clinton Administration, Welfare to Work was whittled down after it was exposed that overly robust unemployment benefits actually encouraged folks to sit at home rather than beat the pavement looking for gainful employment. SCHIP similarly provides a stiff disincentive for parents of children enrolled in the program to seek better, higher paying jobs with which to afford private insurance. The economic impact is obvious.
Cannon cites the 1996 elimination of medicaid for non-citizens as case in point for how limiting federal benefits actually encourages folks to seek them out in the private sector. He explains that after 1996, non-citizens "sought out jobs that provided benefits, and were so successful that the employer-provided insurance completely offset the loss in government benefits. In fact, in the states that offered the fewest benefits, the immigrant insurance rate rose."
Last, in the dark of night with cloak and dagger, House Democrats also stripped SCHIP of its original citizenship requirement. Yes, they did that. So, not only does the newly passed boondoggle offer insurance coverage for all American children, it provides insurance for all non-American children. In recent years over 80 hospitals have gone out of business in California alone under the weight of uninsured emergency care, which hospitals are required by law to provide without question. Other states have witnessed similar phenomena. It's no surprise then that illegal immigrants flock to these states, knowing full well that every sneeze, sniffle, and ear-ache will get treated at the emergency room for free.
Though the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill was ultimately defeated, fear not ye open-borders fanatics: SCHIP will draw in the masses of illegal immigrants from wide and far. With it, the Obama administration seems intent on stimulated not just the U.S. economy but the Mexican and Latin-American economies as well...albeit with U.S. tax dollars.
Liberals love to paint conservatives as cold-hearted, nasty, selfish beasts. But let's be honest. We, all of us, want nothing more than to see our nation's children healthy and strong. Clearly, SCHIP doesn't do the trick. The question, then, isn't if we should provide the best health coverage for them, rather the question is who should provide it. And that brings us full circle to a question about the legitimacy of socialized medicine. After all, the intent of this rather worthless legislation is not what meets the eye. Obama and company have aimed at nationalized health care ever since HillaryCare went down in flames ten years ago. And SCHIP, my friends, is the proverbial camel's nose under the national tent.
More on the dangers of nationalized health care later...
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Alea iacta est...
I would be remiss if I didn't take time and care to reflect on President Obama's first days in office. So, to all of you waiting on 'bated breath, here goes.
For those who haven't bothered to take notice, we are apparently in the midst of a somewhat severe economic crisis. Our federal "experts" have indicated, as well, that without immediate and broad-sweeping action from the federal government, our present crisis could deepen to a full blown depression.
Note: the last depression was ended only by the onset of WWII--not by the New Deal as some would have us believe. In fact, in the years leading up to the war, unemployment crept from 13% to 17%...surely not a lasting tribute to FDR's shovels and bridges program. I'll return to this point in another post.
So this is our current political context to be sure, and all eyes are on the Obama administration as to how they'll deal with this crisis.
Enter the Immaculate Inauguration of the Anointed One...
Leading up to the inauguration, Team Obama conscripted, planned, appointed, announced and reaffirmed all of its political and human resources necessary to bring to the fore a full juggernaut worthy of the Obama campaign leviathan, aimed at heading off such an impending depression. Meanwhile, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stood at the ready, pens and gavels in hand prepared to push through the largest economic stimulus package in the history of the modern world...
...then on Wednesday--his first full day in office after a half-day of Mardi Gras-like fete and fair--one would expect President Obama, heir-apparent, the Halo, His Hopiness the Great Unifier, to act swiftly and decisively to "remake America." Nope.
Instead, the first taste of "change" and "hope" for America came in the form of an intensively divisive political agenda.
Posted immediately on the White House website was a rather extensive list of policy positions, under the heading "Support for the GLBT Community," which the administration will press forward:
-Expand Hate Crimes Statutes [translation: ban the public positions by conservative/religious communities against homosexuality]
-Fight Workplace Discrimination [translation: ban the use of sexual orientation as an employment criterion by employers who have a moral objection to it]
-Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples [translation: repeal the Defense of Marriage Act]
-Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage [self-explanatory]
-Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell [translation: force a morale-debilitating policy of housing openly homosexual troops with either other]
-Expand Adoption Rights [translation: allow homosexual "couples" to enjoy full adoption rights]
-Promote AIDS Prevention [translation: mandated sex education, in-school contraception/abortion, free needles to drug addicts]
-Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS [translation: offer free microbicides to sexually miscreant women]
Not be outdone, Obama ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. Now, no matter your feelings on war in general or the WOT specifically, this prison both has housed some of the most notorious terrorists in the world and has been the wellspring of some of the most critical intelligence information with which we have prevented further domestic terrorist attacks over the last eight years. That foreign terrorists don't possess American civil rights really ought to go without mention, but this is a postmodern America where nothing is sacred any longer.
On the subject of sacred things, in a quite unpublicized ceremony Friday night the President signed an Executive Order rescinding the Mexico City Policy, first enacted by President Reagan. The Mexico City Policy has one simple provision: "to prohibit nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that receive Federal funds from using those funds to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions." NGOs are typically non-profit, public-interest (usually politically-motivated) organizations that receive part or all of their funding from appropriated tax revenues.
That the administration has moved so adamantly to allow for the direct contribution of U.S. taxpayer dollars for abortions is despicable enough. But I know I may be preaching to part of the choir here. Let's assume in a parallel universe that I were an entirely soulless, hedonistic, and selfishly Spartan kinda guy who's only moral motivation was whether I got my "cut of the federal pie" coupled with a bland sort of global humanitarianism (see "We Are the World")...or, in a word, a liberal. Observing the state of the economy and the incessant ranting about it by the Obama campaign and the "Office of the President-Elect", I would expect that the most imminent action by the newly sworn president would be about, well, the economy.
Upon hearing word of the rescinding of the Mexico City Policy, I would naturally wonder how U.S. tax dollars being spent on abortions--particularly those millions given to international NGOs and spent on abortions in other countries--would benefit me. I would go on to wonder whether President Obama really ever had as his first priority the stimulation of the economy. But, this is a parallel universe and, as we know, liberals don't think quite as logically in this universe.
I'll pull my tongue from my cheek here in summation. President Obama's first 72-hours in office have re-opened the veritable gate to Gomorrah. As a Christian I pray that Obama will experience a miraculous awakening moment in which he'll see the light and reverse course. But equally, I expect judgment for America, having taken the blessings of a nation borne in liberty and tossed them out the window. I wonder, as Lincoln did at Gettysburg, "whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."
For those who haven't bothered to take notice, we are apparently in the midst of a somewhat severe economic crisis. Our federal "experts" have indicated, as well, that without immediate and broad-sweeping action from the federal government, our present crisis could deepen to a full blown depression.
Note: the last depression was ended only by the onset of WWII--not by the New Deal as some would have us believe. In fact, in the years leading up to the war, unemployment crept from 13% to 17%...surely not a lasting tribute to FDR's shovels and bridges program. I'll return to this point in another post.
So this is our current political context to be sure, and all eyes are on the Obama administration as to how they'll deal with this crisis.
Enter the Immaculate Inauguration of the Anointed One...
Leading up to the inauguration, Team Obama conscripted, planned, appointed, announced and reaffirmed all of its political and human resources necessary to bring to the fore a full juggernaut worthy of the Obama campaign leviathan, aimed at heading off such an impending depression. Meanwhile, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stood at the ready, pens and gavels in hand prepared to push through the largest economic stimulus package in the history of the modern world...
...then on Wednesday--his first full day in office after a half-day of Mardi Gras-like fete and fair--one would expect President Obama, heir-apparent, the Halo, His Hopiness the Great Unifier, to act swiftly and decisively to "remake America." Nope.
Instead, the first taste of "change" and "hope" for America came in the form of an intensively divisive political agenda.
Posted immediately on the White House website was a rather extensive list of policy positions, under the heading "Support for the GLBT Community," which the administration will press forward:
-Expand Hate Crimes Statutes [translation: ban the public positions by conservative/religious communities against homosexuality]
-Fight Workplace Discrimination [translation: ban the use of sexual orientation as an employment criterion by employers who have a moral objection to it]
-Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples [translation: repeal the Defense of Marriage Act]
-Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage [self-explanatory]
-Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell [translation: force a morale-debilitating policy of housing openly homosexual troops with either other]
-Expand Adoption Rights [translation: allow homosexual "couples" to enjoy full adoption rights]
-Promote AIDS Prevention [translation: mandated sex education, in-school contraception/abortion, free needles to drug addicts]
-Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS [translation: offer free microbicides to sexually miscreant women]
Not be outdone, Obama ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. Now, no matter your feelings on war in general or the WOT specifically, this prison both has housed some of the most notorious terrorists in the world and has been the wellspring of some of the most critical intelligence information with which we have prevented further domestic terrorist attacks over the last eight years. That foreign terrorists don't possess American civil rights really ought to go without mention, but this is a postmodern America where nothing is sacred any longer.
On the subject of sacred things, in a quite unpublicized ceremony Friday night the President signed an Executive Order rescinding the Mexico City Policy, first enacted by President Reagan. The Mexico City Policy has one simple provision: "to prohibit nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that receive Federal funds from using those funds to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions." NGOs are typically non-profit, public-interest (usually politically-motivated) organizations that receive part or all of their funding from appropriated tax revenues.
That the administration has moved so adamantly to allow for the direct contribution of U.S. taxpayer dollars for abortions is despicable enough. But I know I may be preaching to part of the choir here. Let's assume in a parallel universe that I were an entirely soulless, hedonistic, and selfishly Spartan kinda guy who's only moral motivation was whether I got my "cut of the federal pie" coupled with a bland sort of global humanitarianism (see "We Are the World")...or, in a word, a liberal. Observing the state of the economy and the incessant ranting about it by the Obama campaign and the "Office of the President-Elect", I would expect that the most imminent action by the newly sworn president would be about, well, the economy.
Upon hearing word of the rescinding of the Mexico City Policy, I would naturally wonder how U.S. tax dollars being spent on abortions--particularly those millions given to international NGOs and spent on abortions in other countries--would benefit me. I would go on to wonder whether President Obama really ever had as his first priority the stimulation of the economy. But, this is a parallel universe and, as we know, liberals don't think quite as logically in this universe.
I'll pull my tongue from my cheek here in summation. President Obama's first 72-hours in office have re-opened the veritable gate to Gomorrah. As a Christian I pray that Obama will experience a miraculous awakening moment in which he'll see the light and reverse course. But equally, I expect judgment for America, having taken the blessings of a nation borne in liberty and tossed them out the window. I wonder, as Lincoln did at Gettysburg, "whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
LOST and Found...
This evening, over a plate of Lemon Pepper Chicken and Mongolian Beef from our local neighborhood Pei Wei, I was ruminating on my quizzical angst for the season premier of LOST--yes, in a temporary state of pop-culture weakness last year, I allowed myself to get sucked into the cult program...but, alas, it's the only network television program I've allowed myself to waste time on. While ruminating here on this first full day of the Obama presidency, a profound realization occurred to me. The parallels between the predicament of the "Oceanic 6" and a 2009 America are staggering.
Consider this. In both scenarios, the people have found themselves in the midst of monumental crash and in a place completely unfamiliar to them. They have no idea how to get home. They choose to follow a strapping young man--the son of a drunk and international, serial philanderer--who promises to press on and get them home. But whence they finally arrive home, they discover it's not the home they remembered...
Perhaps the exploits of Jack and the "Oceanic 6" will provide some insight into where the Anointed One might lead the American people in the coming months...stay tuned.
Consider this. In both scenarios, the people have found themselves in the midst of monumental crash and in a place completely unfamiliar to them. They have no idea how to get home. They choose to follow a strapping young man--the son of a drunk and international, serial philanderer--who promises to press on and get them home. But whence they finally arrive home, they discover it's not the home they remembered...
Perhaps the exploits of Jack and the "Oceanic 6" will provide some insight into where the Anointed One might lead the American people in the coming months...stay tuned.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Reflections on the Inauguration...
Those who know me well know I cannot pass up the opportunity to share my three-cents on newly-inaugurated President Obama's address today to a rabble-roused crowd of two million.
As Odysseus, I chose instead to listen to the president's address on the radio and spare myself the affects of the siren's mainstream media song on television. To give credit where it's due, this speech was lofty and replete will noble language. Inaugural addresses are rarely policy points and more often a collection of cliche and platitudes. This speech was no different. And in his characteristic style and grace, Obama did not disappoint. However, even in this, the two thousand and ninth year of our Lord, words still mean things. So, I'll endeavor here to lift the thin veil over those words to pose important questions for the new administration.
But, first a few attaboys. There were a handful of passages in the speech to which I found myself nodding my head, however reservedly so.
President Obama demonstrated humility and gratitude to outgoing President Bush:
"I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition."
And here, I enjoyed the president's affirmation of entrepreneurism and risk and hard-work and discipline.
"In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path toward prosperity and freedom."
Though I have profound differences of opinion and deep moral convictions about the man, I am equally proud that President Obama can proclaim this:
"This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed — why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath."
Now, that's the extent of my applause for Obama's speech. As I found myself perusing the transcript, the greatest challenge was not reprinting the speech in its entirety...nearly all of it gives pause for deep suspicion. Stay with me here...
President Obama declared:
"At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents."
I find this platitude a weak shout out to those of us who still care (not to mention who bother to reread from time to time) about what the Founders said. The dubiousness of this statement is that nearly every policy and proposal brought forth by Obama and Company on the campaign trail and after the election flies in the face of the very principles and statements left to us by the Founders. I'll address specifics on the "founding documents" in a moment...
"Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age...Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous."
The obvious target of this statement is clear: the free market. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et. al. persist in blaming our economic situation on the excesses of the free market. Did some financial firms make stupid decisions? Yes. Should they pay for their misdeeds? Yes. But, after all, just as in 1929, the condition of the economy is a direct result of the market's response to misguided federal incentive and coercion. The market is not an individual that makes rational and moral decisions. It is merely an atmosphere, a set of conditions in which free enterprise is more or less encouraged. The market is amoral and therefore will seek the shortest path to profit and growth. When government pours gasoline on a fire that was meant to flame on its own, someone always gets burned. But, Obama and his pals refuse to learn from history; instead, they intend to rewrite it.
"Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet."
I needn't say much about this; the paradox is clear enough. Health care and education are broken precisely because of the government-control policies that Obama has advocated.
"On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord."
Is the insinuation here that those of us who voted for McCain chose fear over hope and conflict/discord over unity? So we indeed have "Two Americas": one of the Hopeys and the other of the Hateys.
"On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."
The insinuation here is that a conservative agenda is one of "worn out dogmas" that strangles our politics. Right...
"We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness."
I was under the impression we had set aside childish things in 1776, but maybe I missed something. Choose our better history? Which history is that? Obama has visions of 1932. Now, the real gem in this little quip is that Obama (or rather his speech-writer) conveniently omitted the word "created." Wouldn't want anyone thinking that babes in the womb should partake of this grand hopeyness, now would we?
"Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America."
Remake America again? When did we remake it the first time? Last I checked, we got this ship of state shoved off in 1776...was there a second revolution somewhere while I was sleeping?
"...we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do."
One question: "Who is 'we'?" Okay, two questions: "How is 'we' gonna pay for all this growth, building, restoration, and transformation?" I have a guess...
"Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage."
This platitude has my head all messed up. I'm confident "big plans" is loosely translated "government programs." And in point of fact, we haven't forgotten what this country has already done...that's the whole point. We've tried the New Deal before. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply."
Well now, this statement may actually be true, for, as Alexander Tyler explained, "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." Perhaps indeed the ground has shifted, and, by electing Barry Obama, We the People have finally discovered the pot at the end of the rainbow.
"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."
On its face, this statement is very true. Size of government is indeed relative to the task laid upon it. But, as an astute pal of mine pointed out today, the real question is what we mean by whether government "works." What is our objective standard of measure and are the goals placed upon the government legitimate and constitutional. After all, Roe v. Wade has worked...in the sense that it has liberated millions of women from the confines of a traditional female role and left tens of millions of innocent dead babies in its wake. Before we concern ourselves with a government that works, we ought to be about the task of ensuring we have a government that is just and right.
"We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort — even greater cooperation and understanding between nations."
This is coming from the same guy who agreed to sit at the table with terrorists to discuss things over tea. Barack Obama has visions of grandeur about detente which are not borne out by history. Coddling rabid, fundamentalist terror-mongers by inviting them to the diplomatic table will ensure that one gets blown up at the table.
"...and roll back the specter of a warming planet."
This needs no comment...kook science aside, my heating bill is through the roof already. Oh wait, we're now returning to an ice age, right? I forget.
"For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies."
Brett Farley: "Ask not what your country can do for you...ask first what your country should do for you."
"This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny."
Um, wait a second...didn't George Washington remind us after defeating the British (emphasis mine): "The singular interpositions of Providence in our feeble condition were such, as could scarcely escape the attention of the most unobserving; while the unparalleled perseverance of the Armies of the U. States, through almost every possible suffering and discouragement for the space of eight long years, was little short of a standing miracle..." The miracle of the American republic is just that. And a continuance of such a blessing of freedom won't be a result of our "shaping of destiny", rather from a submission to the hand of Providence. It is in His will, not our own, that will preserve our future.
"At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people: 'Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive ... that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].'"
One might think the president is quoting George Washington here, but in fact those words were extracted from Thomas Paine's The Crisis, which begins with the memorable lines: "These are the times that try men's souls..." But, Paine continued in The Crisis, words quite apropos to the ascendancy of Barack Hussein Obama:
"IN THE progress of politics, as in the common occurrences of life, we are not only apt to forget the ground we have travelled over, but frequently neglect to gather up experience as we go. We expend, if I may so say, the knowledge of every day on the circumstances that produce it, and journey on in search of new matter and new refinements: but as it is pleasant and sometimes useful to look back, even to the first periods of infancy, and trace the turns and windings through which we have passed, so we may likewise derive many advantages by halting a while in our political career, and taking a review of the wondrous complicated labyrinth of little more than yesterday."
As Odysseus, I chose instead to listen to the president's address on the radio and spare myself the affects of the siren's mainstream media song on television. To give credit where it's due, this speech was lofty and replete will noble language. Inaugural addresses are rarely policy points and more often a collection of cliche and platitudes. This speech was no different. And in his characteristic style and grace, Obama did not disappoint. However, even in this, the two thousand and ninth year of our Lord, words still mean things. So, I'll endeavor here to lift the thin veil over those words to pose important questions for the new administration.
But, first a few attaboys. There were a handful of passages in the speech to which I found myself nodding my head, however reservedly so.
President Obama demonstrated humility and gratitude to outgoing President Bush:
"I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition."
And here, I enjoyed the president's affirmation of entrepreneurism and risk and hard-work and discipline.
"In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path toward prosperity and freedom."
Though I have profound differences of opinion and deep moral convictions about the man, I am equally proud that President Obama can proclaim this:
"This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed — why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath."
Now, that's the extent of my applause for Obama's speech. As I found myself perusing the transcript, the greatest challenge was not reprinting the speech in its entirety...nearly all of it gives pause for deep suspicion. Stay with me here...
President Obama declared:
"At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents."
I find this platitude a weak shout out to those of us who still care (not to mention who bother to reread from time to time) about what the Founders said. The dubiousness of this statement is that nearly every policy and proposal brought forth by Obama and Company on the campaign trail and after the election flies in the face of the very principles and statements left to us by the Founders. I'll address specifics on the "founding documents" in a moment...
"Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age...Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous."
The obvious target of this statement is clear: the free market. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et. al. persist in blaming our economic situation on the excesses of the free market. Did some financial firms make stupid decisions? Yes. Should they pay for their misdeeds? Yes. But, after all, just as in 1929, the condition of the economy is a direct result of the market's response to misguided federal incentive and coercion. The market is not an individual that makes rational and moral decisions. It is merely an atmosphere, a set of conditions in which free enterprise is more or less encouraged. The market is amoral and therefore will seek the shortest path to profit and growth. When government pours gasoline on a fire that was meant to flame on its own, someone always gets burned. But, Obama and his pals refuse to learn from history; instead, they intend to rewrite it.
"Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet."
I needn't say much about this; the paradox is clear enough. Health care and education are broken precisely because of the government-control policies that Obama has advocated.
"On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord."
Is the insinuation here that those of us who voted for McCain chose fear over hope and conflict/discord over unity? So we indeed have "Two Americas": one of the Hopeys and the other of the Hateys.
"On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."
The insinuation here is that a conservative agenda is one of "worn out dogmas" that strangles our politics. Right...
"We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness."
I was under the impression we had set aside childish things in 1776, but maybe I missed something. Choose our better history? Which history is that? Obama has visions of 1932. Now, the real gem in this little quip is that Obama (or rather his speech-writer) conveniently omitted the word "created." Wouldn't want anyone thinking that babes in the womb should partake of this grand hopeyness, now would we?
"Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America."
Remake America again? When did we remake it the first time? Last I checked, we got this ship of state shoved off in 1776...was there a second revolution somewhere while I was sleeping?
"...we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do."
One question: "Who is 'we'?" Okay, two questions: "How is 'we' gonna pay for all this growth, building, restoration, and transformation?" I have a guess...
"Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage."
This platitude has my head all messed up. I'm confident "big plans" is loosely translated "government programs." And in point of fact, we haven't forgotten what this country has already done...that's the whole point. We've tried the New Deal before. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply."
Well now, this statement may actually be true, for, as Alexander Tyler explained, "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." Perhaps indeed the ground has shifted, and, by electing Barry Obama, We the People have finally discovered the pot at the end of the rainbow.
"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."
On its face, this statement is very true. Size of government is indeed relative to the task laid upon it. But, as an astute pal of mine pointed out today, the real question is what we mean by whether government "works." What is our objective standard of measure and are the goals placed upon the government legitimate and constitutional. After all, Roe v. Wade has worked...in the sense that it has liberated millions of women from the confines of a traditional female role and left tens of millions of innocent dead babies in its wake. Before we concern ourselves with a government that works, we ought to be about the task of ensuring we have a government that is just and right.
"We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort — even greater cooperation and understanding between nations."
This is coming from the same guy who agreed to sit at the table with terrorists to discuss things over tea. Barack Obama has visions of grandeur about detente which are not borne out by history. Coddling rabid, fundamentalist terror-mongers by inviting them to the diplomatic table will ensure that one gets blown up at the table.
"...and roll back the specter of a warming planet."
This needs no comment...kook science aside, my heating bill is through the roof already. Oh wait, we're now returning to an ice age, right? I forget.
"For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies."
Brett Farley: "Ask not what your country can do for you...ask first what your country should do for you."
"This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny."
Um, wait a second...didn't George Washington remind us after defeating the British (emphasis mine): "The singular interpositions of Providence in our feeble condition were such, as could scarcely escape the attention of the most unobserving; while the unparalleled perseverance of the Armies of the U. States, through almost every possible suffering and discouragement for the space of eight long years, was little short of a standing miracle..." The miracle of the American republic is just that. And a continuance of such a blessing of freedom won't be a result of our "shaping of destiny", rather from a submission to the hand of Providence. It is in His will, not our own, that will preserve our future.
"At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people: 'Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive ... that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].'"
One might think the president is quoting George Washington here, but in fact those words were extracted from Thomas Paine's The Crisis, which begins with the memorable lines: "These are the times that try men's souls..." But, Paine continued in The Crisis, words quite apropos to the ascendancy of Barack Hussein Obama:
"IN THE progress of politics, as in the common occurrences of life, we are not only apt to forget the ground we have travelled over, but frequently neglect to gather up experience as we go. We expend, if I may so say, the knowledge of every day on the circumstances that produce it, and journey on in search of new matter and new refinements: but as it is pleasant and sometimes useful to look back, even to the first periods of infancy, and trace the turns and windings through which we have passed, so we may likewise derive many advantages by halting a while in our political career, and taking a review of the wondrous complicated labyrinth of little more than yesterday."
Friday, January 16, 2009
The (a)Political Brain...
So I've been reading through Drew Westen's acclaimed book The Political Brain, and it's intriguing to say the least. Through incessant rambling about intensely detailed psychographics and clinical ruminations, Westen's thesis can be boiled down to this: people don't like to change their minds. In his years of testing, he's apparently deduced that the average Joe will doggedly--though perhaps unconsciously--cling to his biases no matter how much logical persuasion to the contrary is flung at him. Now, I began trudging through this work long before the 2008 election cycle (it's a mere 420 pages, excluding the glossary); despite the dryness and drudgery, I've lurched forward at an even clip out of sheer political intrigue.
Curiously, Westen persists in returning over and again to the 1998 impeachment of Bill Clinton as an example of the human penchant for personal political bias despite any apparent support for a contrary position. He cites the almost evenly divided partisan vote in favor of impeachment (which sided with the GOP majority at the time), with a very few defectors across the aisle. He suggests two things: first, that the members of the House reflected their constituents' political biases (which might stand to reason), and second, that even highly astute political players in an elected body are not immune to the dictates of unconscious bias. That, in a sort, their predisposition to vote Yea or Nay ruled the day despite a grueling and thoroughly executed case by the House Managers. The implications of such a conclusion are clear. That to effect change in politics, to win office, to do any sort of thing that requires mass public approbation, one must appeal to the more base senses of the average voters' emotional inclinations--that in point of fact, reason has little to no role in the public square.
But I'd like to posit an alternative theory here, evident both anecdotally in the least and perhaps logically at best. I've said for years that he who most effectively defines his terms and defends his assumptions will prevail in any debate. This is no more true than with Westen's argument. His underlying presumption in all of his conclusions--blind Darwinistic psycho-evolution excepted--is that there is a moral equivalence between the two prevailing ends in our American political spectrum, that in fact, no matter the debate, election, or issue, neither side is right or wrong. Further, Westen assumes an amoral political environment in which folks simply gravitate toward ideas that confirm their predispositions and away from those that deny them. I disagree.
Perhaps we have the cart before the horse. As my good friend and mentor, Dr. K. Alan Snyder, presciently pointed out his landmark book Mission: Impeachable, the GOP House Managers were guided in the case for impeachment by their undefiled pursuit of the truth, regardless of the outcome. Despite horrific criticism in the media, undeserved personal scrutiny, and even threats, they pressed on through what many would have abandoned out of shear self-preservation long before. In this of many examples, I must take issue with Westen's conclusions. On the contrary I propose the alternative: people with a less weighty anchor in moral absoluteness are more likely to be swayed by the warp and woof of the socio-political winds and media talking heads and less grounded by impartial, empirical certainty (this of course is the great of irony of Westen's "scientific" argument).
My proposition leads us to implications in the 2008 presidential elections. If Westen is right, then Obama's accession to the presidency was less a triumph of "hope, change, and destiny" and more a confirmation of a campaign apparatus's smartness in detecting the prevailing sentiments of the populace and exploiting them with a brilliantly crafted--and funded--show of light and splendor. But, if I'm right, then quite the opposite is true. It is demonstrable that, assuming a universal absoluteness and right versus wrong, the portion of the voting public less grounded in such absolutes are therefore more likely to gravitate to a feel-good message of next to no substance. On the contrary, voters that base their decisions on moral ground and therefore on reasoned conclusions more naturally gravitate to a message that makes sense and that confirms their conscious convictions.
Now, my friends on the other end of the spectrum will call me a moral hegemon. To which I will reply, "If the shoe fits..." But, they needn't take my word for it. In his much publicized poll, conducted by Zogby Int'l, John Ziegler commissioned exit surveys of a blind random sample of Obama voters. In it he asked them to attribute recent headlines and quotes to one of the presidential or vice-presidential candidates. The results, though not a surprise, were otherwise stunning in degree. Obama voters almost consistently confirmed media bias in favor of Obama and even misattributed negative public statements to McCain/Palin. On the other hand, Ziegler later conducted a similar survey of McCain voters and found quite opposite results. His conclusion: not that Obama voters are less intelligent than McCain voters, rather than less informed and morally-defunct voters were more likely to gravitate to Obama and vice versa.
Though I'll certainly finish Westen's book, it seems clear that his socio-political bias is confirmed first and foremost by the presumptions underlying his research. Self-fulfilling prophecy perhaps?
Curiously, Westen persists in returning over and again to the 1998 impeachment of Bill Clinton as an example of the human penchant for personal political bias despite any apparent support for a contrary position. He cites the almost evenly divided partisan vote in favor of impeachment (which sided with the GOP majority at the time), with a very few defectors across the aisle. He suggests two things: first, that the members of the House reflected their constituents' political biases (which might stand to reason), and second, that even highly astute political players in an elected body are not immune to the dictates of unconscious bias. That, in a sort, their predisposition to vote Yea or Nay ruled the day despite a grueling and thoroughly executed case by the House Managers. The implications of such a conclusion are clear. That to effect change in politics, to win office, to do any sort of thing that requires mass public approbation, one must appeal to the more base senses of the average voters' emotional inclinations--that in point of fact, reason has little to no role in the public square.
But I'd like to posit an alternative theory here, evident both anecdotally in the least and perhaps logically at best. I've said for years that he who most effectively defines his terms and defends his assumptions will prevail in any debate. This is no more true than with Westen's argument. His underlying presumption in all of his conclusions--blind Darwinistic psycho-evolution excepted--is that there is a moral equivalence between the two prevailing ends in our American political spectrum, that in fact, no matter the debate, election, or issue, neither side is right or wrong. Further, Westen assumes an amoral political environment in which folks simply gravitate toward ideas that confirm their predispositions and away from those that deny them. I disagree.
Perhaps we have the cart before the horse. As my good friend and mentor, Dr. K. Alan Snyder, presciently pointed out his landmark book Mission: Impeachable, the GOP House Managers were guided in the case for impeachment by their undefiled pursuit of the truth, regardless of the outcome. Despite horrific criticism in the media, undeserved personal scrutiny, and even threats, they pressed on through what many would have abandoned out of shear self-preservation long before. In this of many examples, I must take issue with Westen's conclusions. On the contrary I propose the alternative: people with a less weighty anchor in moral absoluteness are more likely to be swayed by the warp and woof of the socio-political winds and media talking heads and less grounded by impartial, empirical certainty (this of course is the great of irony of Westen's "scientific" argument).
My proposition leads us to implications in the 2008 presidential elections. If Westen is right, then Obama's accession to the presidency was less a triumph of "hope, change, and destiny" and more a confirmation of a campaign apparatus's smartness in detecting the prevailing sentiments of the populace and exploiting them with a brilliantly crafted--and funded--show of light and splendor. But, if I'm right, then quite the opposite is true. It is demonstrable that, assuming a universal absoluteness and right versus wrong, the portion of the voting public less grounded in such absolutes are therefore more likely to gravitate to a feel-good message of next to no substance. On the contrary, voters that base their decisions on moral ground and therefore on reasoned conclusions more naturally gravitate to a message that makes sense and that confirms their conscious convictions.
Now, my friends on the other end of the spectrum will call me a moral hegemon. To which I will reply, "If the shoe fits..." But, they needn't take my word for it. In his much publicized poll, conducted by Zogby Int'l, John Ziegler commissioned exit surveys of a blind random sample of Obama voters. In it he asked them to attribute recent headlines and quotes to one of the presidential or vice-presidential candidates. The results, though not a surprise, were otherwise stunning in degree. Obama voters almost consistently confirmed media bias in favor of Obama and even misattributed negative public statements to McCain/Palin. On the other hand, Ziegler later conducted a similar survey of McCain voters and found quite opposite results. His conclusion: not that Obama voters are less intelligent than McCain voters, rather than less informed and morally-defunct voters were more likely to gravitate to Obama and vice versa.
Though I'll certainly finish Westen's book, it seems clear that his socio-political bias is confirmed first and foremost by the presumptions underlying his research. Self-fulfilling prophecy perhaps?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
