David Brooks: Let the bullies win

New York Times columnist David Brooks penned a remarkable column this week in which he makes the case for Romney as the vessel of bipartisan reform.  In the piece, he makes a reasonable set of assertions:

1.  Obama will pursue what Brooks calls "a moderate and sensible agenda", including re-creating the "Grand Bargain", immigration reform, corporate tax reform, infrastructure and such.
2.  Republicans will fight him tooth and nail on everything, as they have done for the whole first term.
3.  Were Romney in the White House, Democrats would be more likely to work with him than Republicans have been to work with Obama.

He goes on to imagine a scenario where Romney would offer to increase taxes on the wealthy, give up chunks of the Ryan budget cuts, and decrease the size of his tax cuts in order to get the Democrat-controlled Senate to go along with his plans to shift the government to the right.  Republicans would, according to Brooks, vote for these things because they don't want to make a Republican president look bad.

Brooks' faith in the ability of Republicans to learn compromise is absurd on its face.  The Republican Party has spent the last 30 years whipping its base into an anti-tax frenzy.  The Republicans Brooks expects to vote for Romney's tax-raising compromise with Senate Democrats would be decimated in the GOP primaries next time around.  Almost every Republican in Congress signed Grover Norquist's pledge to never ever raise taxes ever, and those broken pledges would end lots of careers.

So I'm not as optimistic as Brooks about the chances of bipartisan solutions under a President Romney.  In the spirit of his article, however, I'd like to imagine a scenario where an Obama victory leads to bipartisan cooperation:

Obama wins re-election and pursues his "moderate and sensible" agenda.  Republicans know that the economy will likely add 12 million jobs during his second term even if Obama is prevented from passing anything.  Given their failure, in this scenario, to win the White House in 2012 with a bad economy, they are leery of their prospects of defeating the incumbent party in 2016 when things are (probably) much improved.  They also know, as things stand, that they are on the wrong side of the nation's evolving demographics.  If they continue to pursue policies that result in their candidate losing Latinos 73-21, they will go the way of the Whigs.  These short- and long-term realities will bring Republicans to the table, correctly recognizing that their obstructionist tactics are a path to irrelevance.

A boy can dream.

Don't be fooled about Roe v Wade

Former Minnesota Senator and current Romney surrogate was speaking in Beachwood, Ohio today.  The above video is his claim that Roe v Wade would not be endangered under a Romney presidency.  To support his claim, he says "President Bush was president eight years, Roe v. Wade wasn't reversed. He had two Supreme Court picks, Roe v. Wade wasn't reversed. It's not going to be reversed."

This is, of course, pure bullshit.  For starters, Romney's website says that "he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade".  It's also important to consider the make-up of the Court.  Bush's two Supreme Court picks were to replace Rehnquist, who was on the Court when Roe v Wade was decided and wrote a dissent, and to replace O'connor, which made for four justices who are for eliminating Roe.  Those four (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) are of course still on the bench.  So it would only take one more for Roe to be overturned.  As previously discussed, there's a pretty good chance, given the ages and health of the justices, particularly Ginsburg and Kennedy, that there will be another nomination to make in the next four years.  If Romney's in office, which way do you think it's going to go?

This is something that moderate/undecided voters need to think about.  It's fine to vote for Romney as a way to push for lower taxes or less regulation or whatever.  But you can't separate his views/policies.  If you vote for his tax plan, you also vote for his abortion plan and his views on other social issues.

How not to help hurricane victims

Romney held a "storm relief event" in Ohio today (at the site of a "canceled' campaign event) at which his campaign collected canned food and such to be sent to areas affected by Hurricane Sandy.

From the Red Cross website:

The American Red Cross does not accept or solicit small quantities of individual donations of items for emergency relief purposes. Items such as collections of food, used clothing, and shoes often must be cleaned, sorted, and repackaged which impedes the valuable resources of money, time, and personnel that are needed for other aspects of our relief operation. 

The Red Cross, in partnership with other agencies, suggests that the best use for those types of donations is to support needy agencies within donors' local communities.
The best way to help a disaster victim is through a financial donation to the Red Cross. Financial contributions allow the Red Cross to purchase exactly what is needed for the disaster relief operation. Monetary donations also enable the Red Cross to purchase relief supplies close to the disaster site which avoids delays and transportation costs in getting basic necessities to disaster victims. Because the affected area has generally experienced significant economic loss, purchasing relief supplies in or close to the disaster site also helps to stimulate the weakened local economy.

Rather than model the sort of approach that would actually best help victims, Romney decided to go for what looks better.  A picture of Romney sorting canned goods looks better than just asking people to write a check.

Why oh why are we not spending on infrastructure?

Our nation has:

1. Millions of people looking for work

2. Hundreds of billions and/or trillions of dollars desperate for some way to be spent (as evidenced by the historically low rate of return on bonds)

3. Cities with inadequate flood protections, bridges we all drive on which aren't up to code, and slower internet than much of the developed world.

Romney says he's for infrastructure spending, but given the massive challenges he'll face to pay for his tax rate cuts, increased military spending, and pay down the deficit, it's seems likely that plans to increase domestic discretionary spending will be first on the chopping block.

This is one of the many reasons why Romney's vagueness is so frustrating.  It allows him to say "sure, I'm for infrastructure spending!" without showing where he'd get the money from.  It deprives voters of a chance at real discussion.  Everybody's for giving citizens benefits if there doesn't have to be discussion of costs.  It's figuring out the balance between competing possibilities that requires debate and leadership.  Romney provides neither.

Romney releases brilliant/cynical ad

Obama's auto bailout, which saved lots of jobs in Ohio, is a big reason for his lead in the crucial state.  Knowing he needs to win the state to win the White House, Romney released an ad which makes a number of attacks on Obama which are technically true but are quite misleading.

He attacks Obama for taking Chrysler and GM through bankruptcy, which Romney supported.  Obama's approach to bankruptcy was objectively better than Romney's as Obama's would actually work; Romney said it should have been funded by private capital, which, like all of Romney's proposals, sounds great in theory but doesn't work out in reality, since no private group was willing to lend the companies besides the government.

Romney boasts of being supported by former Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca and the Detroit News.  So a rich guy and a conservative paper support him.  That's nice.  But they are associated with Detroit, and if they like him, that must mean he's good for the auto industry, or something.

The ad also implies that Chrysler is moving Jeep production to China, when in fact they are adding new production to build Jeeps in China to be sold in China.

It pains me to admit, but it's a great ad.  While the main points of the ad fall apart on close inspection, most voters aren't going to give it any sort of inspection.  At this stage of the game, it's tough to refute these sorts of "not technically false but definitely misleading" attacks.  When the candidates are debating and sitting for interviews and such, these things can be picked apart.  At this point, it's easy for such things to slide by without being challenged.

Borrowing from China to oppose China

Romney says his main criterion for spending is to ask " is it so important, so critical, that it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?"  Romney also plans to boost spending on the defense spending by $2 trillion beyond what the Pentagon asks for.  Who else might we realistically need more nuclear attack subs to oppose, if not China?  It would be one thing if Romney were proposing spending a shitload on Navy SEAL teams and counter-terrorism technology, but he specifically mentions tanks and Navy vessels, increases of which would only be needed for conflicts with a major enemy like China.

Ohio unbelievably important

Over at the FiveThirtyEight blog, which is far and away the best prediction/polling analysis resource in existence, Nate Silver (co-author of the "1 in 60 million" study (.pdf) referenced yesterday) calculates what he calls the "tipping point" state, which is the state that pushes the winner over 270 electoral votes if you start counting with the overall winner's most lopsided state win and keep adding in closer and closer races.  Silver runs thousands of simulations every day, every time ranking the states from biggest wins to smallest, finding the tipping point each time.  He projects that Ohio has a 49% chance of being the crucial tipping point.  This is due to Ohio's position as a relatively close, relatively elector-rich state.  If Romney loses Ohio, he's probably screwed.  If he wins it, he's probably our next president.  Since most of my readership is in Ohio, seemed important to mention.

FYI, based on all kind of data including polls, past elections and economic indicators like unemployment, Silver currently gives Obama a 76% chance of winning Ohio.

Examining my options, part 2

Yesterday, I looked at the various options for alternative people to vote for besides Obama.  Today, let's consider some reasons for not voting.

-"The candidates are the same"
While it's true that plurality voting pushes the candidates to have similar views in the grand scheme of things (neither is a communist, anarchist, autocratic dictator, etc.), there are still huge areas of disagreement.  Romney would spend about $2 trillion more on national defense in the next decade than Obama.  Obamacare would mean health insurance for about 45 million more Americans than Romney's plan.  That's a shitload of difference.  I'll grant it's not as much difference as there'd be if Gary Johnson or Jill Stein were in the equation, but it's not insignificant.

-"My vote doesn't matter.  How likely is it that one or the other will win by a single vote?"
A study (.pdf) before the 2008 election calculated a 1 in 10 million chance that a single vote would affect the outcome in one of a few toss-up states, and 1 in 60 million that it would decide the presidency. While there are plenty of people who would buy a lottery ticket at those odds, I think it's pretty unlikely that such a tiny sliver of a chance of affecting the outcome is the primary motivating force for most voters.

The satisfaction I gain from voting comes from my sense of identity, as well as social pressures.  As you might have guessed, I have lots of opinions about politics and enjoy sharing and discussing them with others.  Election Day for me is first and foremost a time when we come together and tell each other what kind of country/state/county/municipality we want to live in.  It's a time when we share our opinions with each other on a grand scale.  To skip the opportunity to participate would make all my musings, reading and discussions of politics ring hollow.  Unless I thought that...

-"Voting, or any involvement in government, is coercive/evil."
Our government is above all things an instrument of violence and coercion.  Everything the government does is backed up with the threat of dudes with guns breaking down doors and making it happen.  Voting necessarily involves a plurality making decisions that not everyone would agree with.  Any participation in voting, then, might be viewed as a coercive act and something to be avoided.

One of the beauties of our voting system is that there is no limit to what one can work toward within the system.  Constitutions can be amended, laws can be changed, anyone can be elected to any position, and positions can be created and eliminated as needed.  While the government as currently formulated involves a plurality forcing obligations on others (taxes, imprisonment, etc.), one is not obliged to vote for the continuation of such acts.  Were one so motivated, one could vote for candidates and issues which would dismantle any and all structures of government.

This could be viewed as a form of coercion itself, as it might prevent people who want things like Medicare and national defense from having them.  But eliminating government wouldn't do that.  Anyone who wanted could enter into private agreements to provide these benefits to each other.  They just would not be given the power to force others to be involved through involuntary taxation.

-"Voting's just not worth my time."
Given that an individual's decision to vote or not only has a 1 in 60 million chance of actually affecting the outcome, there's no moral obligation for anyone to vote.  Not everyone has the same values as me.  Their own self-identity might not involve placing the same importance on politics/government.  They might have views which are out of the mainstream to the degree that other voters would never accept them.  Maybe they have something better to do on November 6th.

Examining my options, part 1

As discussed yesterday, there are life-and-death issues where I find Obama's stance terrible.  Like, "killing innocent people" terrible.  So, what is a boy to do?  Let's investigate my options for whom to vote:

-Vote for Green Party nominee Jill Stein
As previously discussed, when it comes to the issues, Stein is my ideal candidate.  She's a tax-raising, welfare-loving enviro-peacenik.  She also has no chance of winning.  It's true that more votes for her would help similar candidates in future elections and to some tiny degree move our politics more in my direction.  The power of the president and the bully pulpit, however, have a much greater ability to change the future.  Assuming there's sufficient difference between the major nominees, which I believe there is (more on this later) at least this time around, whatever minuscule benefits gained by Stein as a result of a few thousand more votes aren't worth the risk of those votes changing the winner of the election.  It would be great if our voting system were capable of registering my preference for Stein's policies while also letting me help decide the winner, but as it stands, I have to do one or the other.

-Vote for another third-party candidate
If I'm not going to vote for Stein, I can't think of any good reason to vote for another inevitable loser with whom I agree less.

-Vote for Romney
Agrees with Obama on the areas where I have issues with Obama, disagrees with Obama and I on the issues where we agree.

Of course, I don't have to vote for anyone at all.  More on that option tomorrow.

Obama saved by question order

In last night's debate, Bob Schieffer asked the candidates about the use of drones to eliminate people the administration says are terrorists.  It was Romney's question to answer first, so he gave a brief statement of support for Obama's approach and then used the rest of his time to make another point.  Obama then responded to the rest of Romney's answer but didn't say anything at all about the drone attacks.  I'm fairly certain that Obama will not be sitting for any interviews between now and Election Day where he'll be asked about killing people with robots.  We therefore lost our chance to hear the guy who's running a secret "kill list" in our name try to defend his actions.

Whatever one thinks about the morality of targeted killing, or the practical effects of lobbing missiles into villages, it's something that should have been discussed at some point during a year-long campaign.

Tomorrow, I'll discuss how I sleep at night despite supporting the "kill list" guy.