Idealink

Icon

Ideas, Linked; Ideals, Inked.

Commentary: Team of Rivals

Doris Kearns Goodwin is zeitgeist right now. The very notion of a “team of rivals” is hot stuff.

But what is best to enable policy? And is Obama actively looking for a team of rivals, or not? AND, most importantly, in the contemporary media era, where many of these supposed rivals are themselves limelight-seekers, how can a President Obama manage the situation?

First: Enabling the Best Policy

Good mangers want the best people in the right positions that enable a smooth flow of work and information. In fact, with all the talk of Bush running the country like a CEO, I wonder if Obama is going to out-CEO him. It looks like it. The best CEOs lay out a vision, get the best possible people to enable the vision, and  With McCain over here, Clinton there, and rumors of Hagel and Lugar flying around, there appears to be no qualified person considered off-limits. By eliminating the “ideology litmus test”, Obama is opening the door for more people.

Chances are, no “heckuva job, Brownie”s this time around.

Second: An ACTUAL Team of Rivals?

Maybe. In his 60 Minutes interview, he implied that he is, he read the book, and sees division as a major problem in this country. I don’t know if this is possible. There is a careful line between creative dissonance and just dissonance, between constructive chaos and simply chaos. Without clear lines of control, and the power to assert authority, and Obama White House could look inept.

The Rahm Emanuel appointment as Chief of Staff is something of a relief, in this matter. Emanuel is an enforcer, by most accounts, and can help manage big egos…

Third: Managing Egos

President-elect Obama’s ego is well-managed by his poise, cool thoughtfulness, warm family narrative, and obvious intellectual abilities. In other words, so far, he wears the robes of power, and they do not wear him (see Bush, George W). This is important: including McCain, Clinton, and various “rivals” (who themselves have and had clear presidential aspriations) in the administration means finding ways to check their personal self-aggrandizement against the success of policy-making and peace-making.

McCain seems the most willing to play the role of constructive thorn, local expert, and general statesman. Clinton has two things that work against her, politically and polciy-wise: 1) Bill Clinton cares a LOT about his legacy; and 2) Hillary Clinton wants to be President someday. Playing second-chair to Obama may be difficult for her/them. Not because of personal character flaws, per se, but because the Clintons know how to use the media to serve their agenda (which is sometimes a personal one, and sometimes a public one). The key here, then, is to make sure the Clinton agenda is brought in line with the Obama agenda. Or, more accurately, that the Clinton agenda is not in conflict with the Obama agenda.

In typical times, this would not be easy. The 2008 Financial Tornado provides an opportunity for a future President Obama to ask EVERYONE to subordinate personal agendas for the greater good. When he was saying this to the DNC in 2004, it sounded, to steal his phrase, “like happy talk.” During his nomination acceptance speech in 2008, it sounded like the talk of someone earnestly trying to recall, and recapture, a time when great people strode the earth with positive purpose. But as 2009 approaches, it’s looking more and more like “the only option.”

This is good, not only for him, but for all of us. We ALL must subordinate our personal good for the greater good. There is an inherent Kennedy-esque equality that Obama has called for. Selfishness and greed wounded us, and this helps “We, the people” to be willing to sign up for his cause of service. Being a a “media whore” looks worse today than it did a year ago, because the limelight now asks for seriousness, and for results. Sarah Palin’s name being increasingly used as a punchline is evidence of this fact.

In the end, the Team of Rivals works as long as there is a cause to fight for together. And that is President Obama’s greatest challenge – to keep us called to causes of greater good, and make us believe the cause is worth fighting for. The moment things get too easy, too black-and-white, and we get too complacent, that is the moment when the team of rivals is no longer helpful.

Advertisements

Filed under: Culture, Philosophy, Politics, , , , , , , , , , ,

The Obama Cabinet – Part One

How’s this for a dream team?

 

  • Secretary of State: Bill Richardson or John Kerry
  • Secretary of the Treasury: Michael Bloomberg (two birds, meet one stone)
  • Secretary of Defense: Colin Powell
  • Attorney General: Hillary Clinton
  • Homeland Security: John McCain (yes, that one)
  • Secretary of Education: Michelle Rhee
  • National Security Advisor: Wesley Clark
  • Secretary of Health and Human Services: Howard Dean

 

Other thoughts…

 

  • Logical consolidation: bring the EPA and Agriculture under Department of Interior. All these things are related to proper land use. Bring back Christine Todd Whitman to lead this new consolidated Department.

That’s it. Still thinking about the Obama administration and what it means.

Filed under: Politics, , ,

Economist Links

Interesting thoughts from the Economist. No commentary, since they are saying a lot of the things I’ve said. Too bad I found these articles today versus yesterday or earlier.

Richard Milhouse McCain

Republican Party Smear Tactics

Effects of the Financial Crisis

Election Money

All interesting, and color the campaign. In the end, it seems clear to me that the Republicans have less substance to offer than the Democrats. I hope Obama wins in a landslide so we can put the first nail in the coffin of smear politics.

Filed under: Politics, , , , , , , , , ,

(Media) Blackout, Open Letter to John McCain

The new McCain has yet to emerge from his hole and tell us if it will continue to be winter or if summer is around the corner. So far, they feel as though a media blackout is the best way to go. The new McCain has been the opposite of the 2000 self.

Oh well. John McCain was once the guy who could reach through the chatter, across the aisle, and say the things that needed saying. He used to believe in country before party. He used to believe in doing the right thing, even if it was unpopular. John McCain was even considered by John Kerry for running mate, remember.

Open Letter to Senator McCain

Senator McCain, if you actually read this, I have only this to say: it’s too bad that you mortgaged your values for a campaign. You used to be the one to cut the crap, now you run with it. You used to be a Barry Goldwater Republican, and now you are a Dick Cheney Republican. I’m going to ignore the fact that you are running against Obama, and ask you this – what happened? You were an aisle-crosser. You called a spade a spade when you criticized Bush for pandering at Bob Jones University. Then you supported George Wallace Jr, a frequenter of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a well-known white-supremacist/segregationist organization.

Senator McCain, I used to like you. I honestly believed that you could remake American politics. You were the honorable Republican in the room, yelling at the liars on both sides of the aisle. You were a critic, the check, the balance, that made the Republican party pause. You were Barry Goldwater’s intellectual heir. A true conservative who believed in state’s rights and libertarian values.

But no more. Your choice of Governor Palin is illustrative of this – she is a shoot-first thinker, with none of the qualities that made you a maverick. You were a maverick because you stood up for beliefs regardless of who agreed with you, and yet you worked with those who didn’t. She is a maverick because she refuses to cooperate with anyone who disagrees with her.  You were a maverick because you believed in radical transparency and government accountability. She is a maverick because she is shockingly opaque in her decision-making process, and tries to find ways to skirt accountability. You, on the other hand, were above such pettiness. That is why Democrats and Republicans alike used to think of you as a statesman.

No longer.

Your lies are shocking and obvious in the public, and your campaign reflects a Bush/Palin approach – opaque, divisive, and obfuscatory – and not the McCain we believed in. When it comes to the issues, I’m not surprised at some of your stances. But then you supported invading Iraq, despite the lack of intelligence. And you now no longer believe torture is torture? You, of all people?

And now you think the judicial system rules by fiat? Those justices you now admire believe the Constitution doesn’t apply to all people, and the government can do whatever they want to those people. That’s fiat. And the ones you don’t like are saying government should be small, and should protect people from those with power. That’s protecting individual liberty. Saying you “oppose judicial activism” is code for saying you only support people who agree with you. I recommend you read the Barnette case. And Marbury vs. Madison. You clearly don’t understand the role of courts, and how they always scale back government power. You’re talking now like the anti-Goldwater, a watered-down version of Bush. You’ve become the person you didn’t like.

If you are willing to forego your beliefs for victory, then you clearly deceived me, and America. “Straight talk” indeed. It doesn’t really matter to me now which one of you is the “real” John McCain, because you clearly showed your willingness to put party unity, and electoral victory, above the needs and wants of the United States of America. Senator McCain, I said in 1996 that you would have been a more compelling candidate than Bob Dole, I said in 1998 that I hope you are the 2000 Republican candidate because then it is not a choice between two evils, and I said in 2000 that I hope you hold Bush accountable.

Senator McCain, you failed me. If you win in November, it will be in spite of people like me, who used to think you were better than the bunch.

Best regards,

Vijtable

Filed under: Philosophy, Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On the Financial Crisis

Privitize the profits, socialize the losses.

I couldn’t say it better myself. Companies which want de-regulation want nothing to impair them from profit. And then when they are failing or faltering, they expect the American people to swoop in and save them. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG are all examples of this. More disheartening is the simple fact that if the government regulated the mortgage and financial markets in the first place, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Lesson: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Corporations should pay taxes to cover the outlay that we pay for the impropriety of an entire industry. If only a candidate called for stricter corporate taxation rules.

On golden parachutes: lots of talk here, and I agree. I have a couple simple solutions.

  1. No C_O can have a contractually-negotiated severance package beyond that which is offered to an entry-level non-exempt employees with three or more years of service.
  2. All C_O salaries should be performance-based, like recently-injured baseball players. $100K annually, plus risers based on independent evaluations by immediate reports, actual company performance, and a microscopic percentage of profits, let’s say 0.00001%, no greater than $4 million dollars.
I think the last one doesn’t work well as written, but the first one is a simple rule that does. In any case, more thoughts from another blogger.

Filed under: Culture, Politics, , , , , , , ,

Truth Vs. Truthiness

A recent post in the NYTimes Freakonomics blog demonstrates the difference between the truth and the “truthy“.

Looking at the tax plans presented by the two major party candidates, the Washington Post takes a crack at it. It’s clear that there is a semblance of balance. There is, as we can see, a small note about where the population actually is. Either way, the eyes believe one thing, while the language says something else.

Here is a better visualization from the chartjunk blog, which shows where tax cuts really are. Read the commentary from karmanaut (Viveka Weiley) and you can see how it makes more sense. While Wiley says that her(?) map is truthier, it is indeed more truthful regarding the population.

The third chart shows some real interesting stuff – tax burden. It seems clear to me that Obama’s team used this to determine cuts. Looking at the third chart, what I don’t understand is why McCain’s plan isn’t ALSO flipped, or at least flat. Reducing tax burden on the bottom bracket is essentially harmless. He could sell his tax cuts much more effectively if it showed that he was more fiscally-prudent. He proves here to be finding no way to bring money into the Federal budget.

Kudos to New York Times for pointing these things out.

Now, this is where I fight die-hard Republicans all the time. They say the rich will stimulate the economy, and the benefits will trickle down. I disagree, based on data from a non-partisan source. I think the bank failures are pointing to the fact that I’m right. Trickle-down has not benefited tax brackets below the top couple.

I invite dissent.

Filed under: media, Philosophy, Politics, , , , , , , ,

David Brooks on Sarah Palin

From Monday’s New York Times, David Brooks (emphasis added):

Experienced leaders can certainly blunder if their minds have rigidified (see: Rumsfeld, Donald), but the records of leaders without long experience and prudence is not good. As George Will pointed out, the founders used the word “experience” 91 times in the Federalist Papers. Democracy is not average people selecting average leaders. It is average people with the wisdom to select the best prepared.

Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.

Both of the italicized points are important. Note that she indeed took on “a corrupt establishment” to institute a MORE corrupt establishment, with worse governance. Note also that Brooks is laying the groundwork for his inevitable endorsement of McCain – McCain’s experience matters more than Obama’s vision, and Biden and Palin don’t matter as much. You heard it here first.

Either way in the same article, I think Brooks is wrong here:

The feminists declare that she’s not a real woman because she doesn’t hew to their rigid categories. People who’ve never been in a Wal-Mart think she is parochial because she has never summered in Tuscany.

As a feminist, I think she’s not good for women, not that she’s not a real woman. Gov. Palin is bad for women because she doesn’t show the best of humanity, but the worst – the aforementioned excessive decisiveness, not to mention a sense of entitlement, not to mention the way she condescends to anyone who is critical of her opinions, not to mention the bad policies and lack of compassion. Note also that I’ve been to Wal-mart, but never to Tuscanny. Shame on you, Mr. Brooks, for playing this game. Moreover…

Look at the condescension and snobbery oozing from elite quarters, her backers say. Look at the endless string of vicious, one-sided attacks in the news media. This is what elites produce. This is why regular people need to take control.

The condescension is indeed “oozing”, but from the Republicans, towards those who ask people to sacrifice to make their country stronger. The attacks are anything but one-sided. See my previous post on the matter. The media has let the McCain camp call Palin independent when she is not, and let her make ad homenim attacks on Obama.

Luckily, Mr. Brooks backs off from this attack, if only because of his personal view of the last eight years:

I would have more sympathy for this view if I hadn’t just lived through the last eight years. For if the Bush administration was anything, it was the anti-establishment attitude put into executive practice.

And the problem with this attitude is that, especially in his first term, it made Bush inept at governance. It turns out that governance, the creation and execution of policy, is hard. It requires acquired skills. Most of all, it requires prudence.

What is prudence? It is the ability to grasp the unique pattern of a specific situation. It is the ability to absorb the vast flow of information and still discern the essential current of events — the things that go together and the things that will never go together. It is the ability to engage in complex deliberations and feel which arguments have the most weight.

Which is why I believe Obama is better, even than McCain – he takes on complex issues complexly, thoughtfully. He is of average people and has proved to be among the best of us, with high ideals for people around him and his country.

Filed under: Culture, media, Politics, , , , , , , , ,

Palin: What Bush doctrine?

Note: If you don’t know what the Bush doctrine is, you’ve been living in the tundra trying to build a bridge to nowhere. Alaska jokes aside, foreign policy matters for the Executive Branch, and being aware of the most important American foreign policy shift in the last 60 years is a little important. From the ABC interview, enough reason not to vote for McCain:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

Ermmm… This is downright scary. There was a time when Americans respected leaders we could look up to. Now we want them to be average peers. I thought we celebrated the exceptional.

Sarah Palin had ample time to prepare for the interview, which itself was fully managed by the campaign, and lives in, as she says, a state where you can see Russia.

Matt Gonzalez (Green Party) is a more serious VP candidate than Palin. Hilary Clinton would have been, too. If the rule was that McCain needed to get a woman to steal some of the Hilary vote, McCain should have selected Christie Todd Whitman. Then, the question would be whether liberals (and New Jersey) would go to McCain. He would be seen as a maverick by picking a true moderate. And Obama couldn’t simply set up camp in the middle ground and let the Hilary supporters come to him. Instead McCain antagonized half the country, and made the “maverick” moniker a joke.

Oh… The Bush doctrine is the idea of pre-emptive strikes against potential threats. It overturns over 100 years of no war except to defend allies or to respond to attacks. It was used to start the Iraq War.

Filed under: Culture, Philosophy, Politics, , , , , , , , ,

Liberal Media Indeed

Wow… Good article I just saw. I took classes in college about this, and I’ve referred in tha past to media “framing”. This is the best data gathering I’ve seen yet:

http://gripedujour.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/media-still-full-on-in-the-tank-for-mccain/

This has been an ongoing gripe of mine. Nice to see actual data to back it up. If only a news station would pick it up and report on it. Side note: On the Media is a great NPR program that discusses media biases. You, very meta.

ALSO: More on my ongoing campaign to get elected to US presidency in 2020/2024 later. If anyone has policy questions, I’d gladly answer.

Filed under: Culture, media, Politics, , , , , , , , , ,

Release – Vijtable a Candidate for 2020 (or 2024)

Assuming things won’t change very much in the next 12 years, I’ve decided to start thinking about my run for president. Critics say that mainstream candidates don’t actually write what is on their websites. Since I’m so small-time, nobody can accuse me of that.

I’ll eventually come out with my platform, but here is the “About Vijtable” part of my future campaign website.

Thoughts on Government in 50 Words: The role of government is to protect the weak from the strong, and promote common good. Don’t tread on me. Taxation requires representation. All actions should be carefully considered, and hotly (though respectfully) debated. Dissent defines democracy. Government must endeavor always to choose what is right over what is easy.

Basics: Born and raised in the US, and living currently in New York. I am eligible to be elected before 2020. I’m being intentionally vague for the sake of temporary privacy.

Intellectual Background: I am intellectually curious. I love to debate, even if I’m bad at it. I like being proven wrong with facts. I am a student of science, religion, political science, and a little sociology and psychology. I studied religion and political science in college.

Religious Views: Don’t ask, don’t tell. I am agnostic with Buddhist leaning. I take other people’s beliefs seriously, even if I don’t know whether they are true or not.

Qualifications: Spent time in education, television, marketing, website design. For two years, I was a middle-school math teacher in an under-resourced community in California. I have spent the years since working at a non-profit dedicated to increased worldwide cooperation . (Again, apologies for the intentional vagueness.)

Politics: I call my self a “social libertarian” and an “economic moderate”, probably closest to this, but not exactly. I believe that the Constitution guarantees a maximum of freedom on social and economic issues EXCEPT in those cases where it puts safety, security, or the health/welfare of the USA/it’s people at risk. To me, social issues trump economic issues, though they are closely tied. As major parties go, these positions currently align most closely with the Democrats. I have not yet chosen my party affiliation – in recent history, Republicans are better at winning, but worse at being honorable and honest while Democrats see nuance, but don’t connect as much with voters.

Voting Record: Generally, with Democrats. McCain in 2000 would have been a particularly difficult decision. Ultimately, I voted for Nader in 2000, since the state in which I voted was safely Democratic, and went easily to Gore. I voted for Kerry in 2004. Unfortunately, McCain is much worse now than then. My 2008 vote will be Barack Obama. He would be a better president.

Political Heroes: John Adams (Alien & Sedition Acts notwithstanding), Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, Stephen Biko, Nelson Mandela (early-life militancy notwithstanding), Martin Luther King, and more peacemakers and chance-takers. I would add Thomas Jefferson, but he was so hypocritical, and employed nasty political tactics like FUD, that I cannot.

Filed under: Culture, Politics, , , , , , , , ,

Things On My Mind

Archives

Idea(mobile)link

Blog Stats

  • 7,907 hits
Creative Commons License
Idealink by vijtable is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work by various sources, as cited.