Gallup Poll: Conservatives vs Liberals

Today the Gallup Poll released results of a recent poll reviewing the Conservative-Liberal ideological split in the nation. Here is the key chart:


My interpretation is that in "normal" times lots of people, especially moderate liberals and independents, think liberal ideas are great. But faced with a real liberal agenda involving massive government spending to pay for those wonderful liberal programs, and a massive increase in debt, as we have had since Obama's election, it suddenly doesn't look so attractive anymore.

Recommended: What's Second Prize?

Re my last post but one, about Afghanistan, Thomas Friedman has an excellent Op-Ed article in the June 22, 2010 New York Times entitled What's Second Prize? that seems to me to sum up pretty clearly the morass we are in in Afghanistan.

As he points out, things don't work in the Middle East (or, probably, anywhere else) if the parties at the center don't take ownership. And to date, we want peace and good governance in Afghanistan more than the Afghans apparently do. Oh, they will say they wish for peace and stability and an end to corruption, but when push comes to shove local tribal or ethnic agendas are always more important and carry more weight.

And, as he also points out, it is ludicrous for us to be "training" an Afghan army - the Afghans already know how to fight better than we do, because they have been at it for centuries. All our high-tech equipment doesn't begin to make up for the ideological and nationalistic fervor that drive Afghan fighters.

Recommended: Faustus Makes a Deal

Once again David Brooks has produced a funny but fascinating article in his June 21 New York Times Op-Ed piece Faustus Makes a Deal.

It does seem that the Democratic Party is on its way once again to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. And that in spite of the truly pitiful state of the Republican opposition.

Recommended: The Afghanistan Reboot: Can Obama and Petraeus Work Together?

I recommend the article in this week's Time Magazine entitled The Afghanistan Reboot: Can Obama and Petraeus Work Together? It summarizes the difficult position both the Obama administration and the military find themselves in in Afghanistan.

Frankly, I still don't see any good outcome in Afghanistan. President Karzai is not the leader who can weld that nation into anything resembling a stable society. He is too embedded in the endemic corruption. The Pakistan intelligence services remain involved up to their eyeballs, and not on our side. And there is no prospect of our ever "pacifying" the local tribes unless we are prepared to essentially occupy the country, and perhaps not even then. Meanwhile we are pouring American lives and trillions of dollars we can't afford into this war, and leaving it as a lever that both Iran and Russia use to keep us preoccupied and militarily stretched, and therefore unable to respond to their own moves to expand their areas of influence and control.

It seems to me once again a case of politicians (Republican and Democrat alike) woefully ignorant of the appropriate use of military force.

Government incompetence

When Hurricane Kartrina devastated New Orleans in 2005, the Federal government’s slow and bumbling response drove President Bush’s political ratings to the basement, though it truth the debacle was due far more to incompetence and delay at the local political level (the Louisiana governor and the mayor of New Orleans) than to Federal inadequacies. Democrats, smelling blood in the water, were quick to capitalize on this turn of events for political gain.

Well, turnabout is fair play, and now President Obama is faced daily with a disaster of similar, if not greater, proportions in the Gulf oil spill. Once again, the Federal response has been slow, muddled, and largely incompetent. To be sure, the Federal government has neither the equipment nor the expertise to cap the well itself – that is best left to the experts in BP and other oil companies, who in any case already have the maximum incentive to get the job done as quickly as possible.

But the clean-up is another matter entirely, and while President Obama makes grand speeches about how much the Federal government is doing, and gets himself photographed visiting the Gulf region every week, in truth observers in the Gulf report chaos in the organizing of cleanup efforts. Hundreds of boats that could be out sweeping up oil are sitting idle in the harbors because the government can’t get its act together.

And of course there is the question of why the interior department allowed deep drilling in the first place with a blowout preventer design with no backup of critical parts, like the shuttle valve that drives the emergency cutoff shears. Or why their inspections (if they even made any) didn’t detect the existing equipment failures on the Deepwater Horizon in the days before the accident.

So in truth, Federal government incompetence has nothing to do with politics. It appears equally under Republican and Democratic administrations, and so must simply be inherent in our form of government.

In fact, it is noticeable that in our government virtually all the regulatory agencies are staffed in key positions and in upper management with people thoroughly enmeshed in the businesses they are supposed to regulate. The forest service is staffed with people from the logging industry, the FDA is staffed with people from the food and drug industries, the agencies that are supposed to regulate Wall Street are staffed with people who come from Wall Street, etc, etc. One might argue that this is necessarily so, because where else would one find the required expertise in these fields, and that is a valid point. But the result, of course, is that the Federal regulators too often are reluctant to effectively regulate their former colleagues.

Nor is Congress exempt from this form of corruption. With effective political campaigns now costing an outrageous amount, members of Congress are quite naturally beholden to those local interests who fund their expensive campaigns. It is simple corruption, in which political power is simply bought by interests, usually local business interests, with deep pockets.

So in fact, Federal incompetence isn’t really surprising. It is the natural result of the incestuous relationships that power and money in our society produce in our political system, coupled with the sheer size of the government these days, and the overwhelming amount of money floating around Washington. And it has nothing to do with political parties. The Democrats seem to be just as affected by this as the Republicans. Despite the rhetorical differences in their political speeches, in truth the parties are more alike than they are different, and the Federal government appears to be equally incompetent, and equally corrupted by special interests, under either administration.

Do we underestimate our children?

I see that in the wake of the Abby Sunderland rescue in the Indian Ocean, there are people carping that a 16-year-old never should have been allowed to try an around-the-world solo sail. I think this is rubbish, and a sign of a people who have lost the can-do spirit of America. Alexander the Great succeeded to his throne at 19, and conquered the known world. Mozart composed at 5 and performed to audiences shortly thereafter. Why shouldn't a 16-year-old girl try a round-the-world solo if she really wants to? Is she in any more danger than a kid on a motorcycle without a helmet? Is she in any more danger than a teenager in a gang shootout? Is she in any more danger than a kid living on fast food and cigarettes? Is she in any more danger than a kid shooting up drugs? Yes, she might conceivably die in the attempt, but she has taken on a monumental challenge and ought to be honored for that.

When we went to Alaska some years ago on a small ship, the ship stopped at a tiny Alaskan town accessible only by ship or float-plane and one of the inhabitants came on board before we visited and told us about life in this town. Her husband was a fisherman, and her son began to help on the boat at 8, and at 12 was in charge of all the lines on one side of the boat, and therefore in charge of 1/2 of the family's income. That kid has gone on to be very successful as an adult, no doubt in part because of the responsibility he was given at a young age.

We went to a recital this afternoon of young people who had won a local classical musical competition over the past few years. The talent was extraordinary. Violinists and pianists and flute and french horn players and mezzo-sopranos - all young (some just sophomores in high school, the oldest just out of college), all playing/singing incredibly hard pieces and playing/singing them at a professional level. Fortunately no one remembered to tell them that they were just kids, and couldn't possibly manage music this hard and do it at a professional level. So they did!

I don't think we ask to much of our children, I think we expect too little of them. Yes, they are young, but if they have a talent and a passion we do them a great disservice by assuming they can't follow that passion or use that talent to its fullest, even at a young age. I salute Abby for her courage and determination, and I salute her brother and her parents for supporting her passion.

And to those who carp about allowing her to try, I say "Get out of the way. The future will be shaped by the Abby's of the world, not by the over-cautious naysayers!"

Doctor's Medicare pay cuts

Just a very few months ago, you may recall, the Democrats, led by President Obama, trumpeted how the new health care bill would save money. Democrats in Congress got the Congressional Budget Office to score their plan "revenue neutral" by promising 21% pay cuts to doctors in Medicare (the CBO has to score whatever proposal Congress gives them - they aren't allowed to complaint that the assumptions are unrealistic).

Now President Obama is asking Congress to pass a new bill that assures the doctors WON'T get the very 21% pay cut that Congressional Democrats assured us just a few months ago would make the health care bill not cost us anything. And the president is pulling out all the emotional stops - arguing that opponents of the bill are hurting older Americans, etc. etc.

Of course, they should pass the bill, because if they don't most doctors will just stop taking Medicare patients. But the hypocrisy of the president and Congressional Democrats on this issue is absolutely amazing. They must think the American public has the memory of a two year old -- and perhaps they are right!

Recommended: Goo-Goo Genocidaires

Walter Russell Mead has a powerful piece in the July/August issue of The National Interest. Entitled Goo-Goo Genocidaires, the piece argues that some of the worst genocides and mass slaughters of the past century (World War II and the holocaust, the Japanese rape of China, 50 years of Soviet repression, etc) were actively aided and abetted by well-meaning but deluded people who thought that appeasement would work -- that, for example, Hitler really wasn't all that bad and would no doubt be satisfied with just taking Austria.

He writes this in the context of today's Iran, and the world's (especially the UN's) reluctance to do anything really effective to stop Iran's nuclear program. The repeated sanctions that have been applied are essentially no more than slaps on the wrist with a wet noodle. And the question he asks is pertinent: will a nuclear-armed mullocracy in Iran be any easier to deal with, any less bellicose, any less ambitious to destroy Israel, any more helpful in stabilizing Afghanistan, any less willing to arm and fund terrorists? It's the right question to ask.

Recommended: Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader?

In relation to my last post, The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article by David Klein on June 8, entitled Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader?. It reports on a study of 4835 US adults who were asked a series of basic Economics 101 questions. What is interesting is that the more liberal people (as self reported) did substantially worse than the more conservative people.

Of course liberals will naturally dispute some of the answers if they don't agree with liberal ideology (Example: rent control leads to housing shortages - some liberals don't want to believe that because they are in favor of rent control, but the data overwhelmingly supports the conclusion).

Not that conservatives are immune from denying data if they conflict with ideology (Example: almost all studies show abstinence training doesn't work, but some conservatives just won't believe it). But in economic matters, it seems liberals are more misguided by their ideological beliefs than conservatives, with moderates lying in between them.

An interesting result, and supported by some recent real-world events, like the current fiscal crisis brought on by well-meaning but economically deluded Congressional liberals pushing in the 1990s for more home ownership among people who simply couldn't afford homes (the subprime mortgage caper).

Price signals and behavior

For every problem there is an answer that is clear, obvious, simple, and WRONG! I’m amazed at how often people, especially politicians, find this answer.

A hurricane threatens a coast. People get in their cars to evacuate, and find that the gas stations in the area have jacked up their prices. Clearly this is greedy, unscrupulous price gouging – the gas station owners taking advantage of people’s dire circumstances to line their own pockets, right? It ought to be stopped, right? There ought to be law against it (like Florida’s), right? WRONG!!!!

Let’s think of it in economic terms. When supply is high and demand is low, prices are low. If I charge too much, there are plenty of other suppliers who will underprice me and get the business. When demand goes up or supply goes down, prices naturally rise because there are more buyers bidding for fewer items. Of course, when prices go up, signaling there is more business to be had, that encourages manufacturers to manufacture more of those items. In that way, people vote with their money about where the resources in the economy ought to be directed.

Back to the hurricane. Gas stations normally charge x dollars a gallon for gas, and get their usual stream of customers. Suddenly there are lots more customers as people head out to evacuate, but the supply is the same.

Suppose by law we keep the price the same, at x dollars per gallon. What will people do? The first people to the station will fill up their tanks with, say 450 miles worth of gas, even though they are only going 100 miles. Pretty soon the station is out of gas, and the latecomers are stranded.

Suppose we let the station raise its prices to 2x dollars per gallon. Now the first people in look at the price, find it is very expensive, and either don’t fill up if they really don’t need to, or put in only enough gas to get them away from the immediate area to a place where, they hope, gas will be cheaper (because there is a bigger supply and less demand). So the remaining supply of gas is distributed much more fairly among more people, just on the basis of the price signal.

But the gas station owners still make out like bandits, don’t they? Probably not. They make a lot more money for a day or two, and then the hurricane hits and they have to close down and new gas supplies are delayed and no one is out buying gas anyway – but of course their fixed costs (rent, wages, insurance) continue even though they don’t have any sales. So their few days of windfall profits help cover the ensuing business losses and they probably come out about even in the end.

It’s amazing to me how few people really think through the things they think are so obvious.

Recommended: CBO Director's Blog

There is an interesting post by the Congressional Budget Office Director on his blog. It includes some revealing graphics about government income vs government expense, and where all that money goes -- mostly to military, entitlements, and interest payments on our growing debt.

As he says:

"The United States faces a fundamental disconnect between the services that people expect the government to provide, particularly in the form of benefits for older Americans, and the tax revenues that people are willing to send to the government to finance those services"

In other words, we want it all, but we don't want to pay for it.

Yet more on the "Free Gaza " movement

Now that the Free Gaza ships are docked and Israeli port officials are going thorough their cargoes, an interesting fact has emerged. There appear to be no weapons aboard (aside from all the knives and a few guns among the activists on board), but also there appears to be little aboard that isn't already freely available in Gaza. A few building materials that are banned, but otherwise just stuff commonly available in Gaza. Moreover, the holds have been filled haphazardly - junk just tossed into the holds in heaps.

It looks to me like the whole exercise was aimed simply at getting propaganda, and deliberately inciting a confrontation with Israel, rather than doing anything helpful for the citizens of Gaza. If propaganda was its goal, it has succeeded, thanks to the one-sided reporting of the work press. But it clearly wasn't really aimed at helping the citizens of Gaza.

More on the "Free Gaza" movement

With reference to my last post,the blog site "Yes, But, However" has an interesting post this morning entitled Gaza Flotilla Story: More Accuracy from Hamas than the L.A. Times.

The post mentions a fact I didn't know:

A May 26th story posted on the official Hamas website, titled “Freedom Flotilla Turns Down Israeli Offers,” reads, “The Israeli government has proposed to the Freedom Flotilla to deliver its aid shipment to Gaza Strip via land route, Rami Abdo, member of the European committee to end the siege on Gaza and one of the organizers of the sea convoy, said on Tuesday. Abdo said that the offer was absolutely rejected by the organizers and participants.”

Of course, if Hamas had taken the Israelis up on their offer, they wouldn't have been able to include rockets and weapons among all the humanitarian goods, so of course they rejected the offer.

Just shows once again how biased the news media is. Apparently Antisemitism is far from dead, though it has gone underground masquerading as "news".

The “Free Gaza” movement

Some of you may have been aware of news stories about the flotilla of ships from the “Free Gaza” movement headed from various Mediterranean ports to Gaza to break the Israeli-imposed blockade. The Israelis, you may recall, put this blockade in place largely to try to stem the flow of rockets into Gaza from Egypt and Syria (and ultimately Iran) – the rockets that were being fired daily into Israel by Palestinian militants. It was also put in place to put pressure on Hamas to release the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, whom Hamas has held prisoner for years now after kidnapping him from a boarder post.

The movement has attracted a lot of high-profile supporters in Europe and America, and many of these were apparently on some of the flotilla ships. The Israeli military made no secret of the fact that these ships would be stopped and boarded if they continued on their way, and so of course there was a confrontation yesterday, which the world press, in its usual one-sided way, is playing-up as an Israeli atrocity (strange that this same press never seems much disturbed by the continued Palestinian rocket attacks or suicide bombers in Israel).

Anyway, to see how “peaceful” these “peaceful” Free Gaza followers are, take a look at the Utube video at http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk.

The Israelis are pretty sure the movement, probably once a real spontaneous grass-roots movement, has by now been co-opted by Islamic militant forces in Turkey, who are using it as a front to try to bypass the Israeli blockade. Those high-profile world notables may, of course, be totally unaware they are being used. That was certainly the case during the Cold War, when (as recently opened KGB records confirm) all sorts of western “peace movements” were funded and guided by the KGB, unknown to most of their followers.

The blockade isn’t pretty, and it certainly causes the average Palestinians in Gaza a lot of grief, but on the other hand the Hamas movement, which runs Gaza (and runs it like the mafia might run a country), is publically committed to the total destruction of Israel.

If we in America had a next-door neighbor who was publically committed to wiping America off the map, and who fired rockets daily into our territory and regularly sent suicide bombers into our restaurants, schools and malls, I wonder how we would react?