We all know how the health care debate is likely to end, so let’s cut the crap and save us all some trouble.
1) The public option, if not quite dead, is in critical and declining condition. It exists solely to serve three political purposes: as a sop to the progressive base, as a chew toy for the radical right, and as a bargaining chip to be backed off slowly by Democratic leaders, like a puppy facing a radioactive bone.
Sure, with few exceptions, the Democratic leadership is making the right noises about being behind the policy; this is only the kabuki until they sorrowfully announce that they don’t have the votes or the support to pass it. This is how you can tell they’re not serious about it: they let it be the radical option. If President Obama were serious about backing this policy, his strategy–now impossible–would have been to leave single-payer on the table. Let that option, which he never supported, draw the slings and arrows of the right, and the public option becomes the moderate alternative.
To miss this calculation, you have to either believe that the president is politically naïve, or that he did not mind if the public option became a sacrificial lamb. I don’t believe that Obama is naïve.
2) The most likely result is tepid compromise. The Democrats are too incoherent to pick a position and pass it. The Republicans are too weak to block the bill entirely, and have developed a heads-we-win, tails-you-lose strategy: with health care reform or without it, their demagoguery for 2010 is already well mapped. They, too, are just proceeding with their 22-month kabuki play.
3) A compromise is not going to be good policy. Anything which passes will be sniped at relentlessly by Republicans and conservative Democrats. If $N are required to fund whatever plan passes, expect $N/2 to be allocated, with further reductions intended by those who would prefer reform to fail. If mandates are placed on individuals and businesses as part of the plan, presume that numerous loopholes will be carved out by the lobbyists, driving more people into the underfunded public support network. Our political system is rigged to produce either sweeping change or incrementalism; large doses of incrementalism are the worst of both worlds.
4) The safety net will continue to fray. The negative trend lines on health care delivery and coverage have been consistent, through Republican and Democratic administrations, recoveries and recessions. This will not be stemmed with a bilgewater reform bill, offering “universal” coverage with high deductibles, high co-pays, and unaffordable premiums in the absence of sufficient federal funding. The status quo will be maintained: those who cannot afford coverage now will do their best to avoid incurring medical expenses, even if they’re under a putative universal coverage plan. Instead, they’ll be driven into the system by the same factors which do so now: when their pain and suffering becomes unendurable. Such a system will neither realize public health benefits, nor long-term cost savings, nor systemic promotion of the general welfare.
5) The entitled classes will continue to be reminded of their victimhood. Meanwhile, those who pay for private coverage, and who mistakenly believe that their economic positions are secure, will be treated to unending news reports about the welfare queens enjoying their free health care, while they continue to face the problems they have now: rising health care costs, private rationing of care, and increases in personal insecurity. Presumably, the worst abuses of today’s system will be ended, but a system designed to maximize private profit will continue to screw the middle class–or at least, that is how they will perceive it. What will change is that they’ll now have a population of newly-entitled poor upon which to vent their wrath.
This leads to several nearly unavoidable results:
1) The Democrats lose in 2010. The progressive engine which supported Obama in 2008 is feeling rather put-upon; without a change in perception, don’t expect to see quite so many people going door-to-door next time around. These losses will be stemmed solely by the continued implosion of the Republican party; with no standard-bearer aside from inchoate fear and rage–the spirit of September 12th, indeed–the Democrats remain the only game in town for the rational, no matter how disappointing they may be.
2) The systemic problems in the system go unaddressed. Americans continue to be deeply unhealthy and chronically unhappy as compared to our peers, while rejecting any evidence presented to us that this is our state of affairs. Our media are saturated with happy talk about Wall Street and celebrity piffle; in that portion of America which still remains engaged by political discussion, private interests dominate the grounds for discussion and set the terms of debate.
3) Eventually, the reckoning comes. Today, you only hear talk of armed insurrection on the right, in opposition to the perceived socialism of Obama’s centrist policies. The left, by and large, is content with their usual relegation, sticking with the best they can get out of the Democrats. This might be a viable short-term solution, provided we are actually on our way out of the Great Recession. Historically, however, systemic lack of improvement, and unequal economic distribution, serves only to radicalize politics on both the right and the left; our polity would not be well served by a leftist movement as radicalized as what is now considered normal on the other side. Yet that is the natural outcome.
Unfortunately, there are real natural and demographic forces which are coming to a head. The AARP brigade of 2019 just saw the destruction or diminution of their savings; they’re scared, they’re large, they’re organized, and they’re losing their power to earn. Every indication is that we will do the bare minimum to prevent climate change in the hope that a deus ex machina technology will someday save us. We’re embroiled in two wars, still, which show little chance of providing us long-term security in return for our expenditure, while we continue to largely ignore the hotbeds which will dominate the headlines of the next generation.
Simply put, there are numerous precarious tipping points in our immediate future, and the American people have been trained for 30 years to do nothing so much as cling desperately to the status quo, attempting to stay abreast of the incoming tide. We have faced political cataclysms in that time, but we have done little to nothing to prepare for the next one–unless we are so lucky that it should be identical to what we have already faced.
And even so, it is clear that the calcification of our political debate is such that repeating the past is just as likely to derail us. The groundwork has been laid for exactly that path to self-destruction.
As I see it, there is one clear path out of this, and one way in which the American people can be mobilized into resilience. The rest of this is addressed to Barack Obama, and those of his supporters who wish the same:
Mr. President, it’s about time you started doing your goddamn job.
You were elected to be transformational: in your person, and in your policies. You give the impression–to all but the lunatic few–of deep intelligence, erudite thought, sound judgment, and slow emotion. You command the nation’s attention. You are probably among the most skilled orators we’ve produced in 100 years. You have a photogenic family, even a cute dog.
These are the historic ingredients of American trust.
What have you done with these talents to date? You have enacted huge plans and sweeping changes–nearly all of them purely reactive to the failures of the past. Your bailout and stimulus intend to restore the financial status quo; your industrial policies seek to prop up a failing economic sector; your health care plan–well, beyond rhetoric, it’s pretty damned unclear just what you expect your health care plan to do, since no one knows what bouillabaisse will emerge from Congress. It was good, however, to see you resume your role as chef.
You seek bipartisan discussion between parties which are having none of it. You preach moderation to the immoderate. You claim to seek a new way of governance, and you are losing to the old rules.
Your goals are laudable; someday, I may even find them convincing. But these cannot work without the clarion call, the unified banner, the New Deal. Your New Deal, whatever that turns out to be, and whatever you choose to call it.
The people will forgive you your inevitable stumbles if they know in which direction you intend to march. Your opponents will snipe at you no less vociferously if you fail to provide a clear destination, and no more effectively when you do. The sole thing which can destroy you–and by extension, us, since your opposition has no vision beyond amassing the power they have lost–is incoherence.
You, Mr. President, have less excuse to be incoherent than anyone we’ve elected in a very long time.
You clearly know the rules: you began to follow them with your speech to Congress. Set the agenda. Absorb those enemies with whom you can reconcile, and crush those with whom you can’t. State your policy, articulate your plan, and then use every ounce of skill you can muster to sell it to America and her elected representatives.
In one word: lead.
This is not accomplished by turning over the details of your vision to the pack of squabbling game hens which is your party. They are looking for leadership, and manifestly unable to generate it themselves.
You can consider your job well-accomplished when it can be said–as it cannot be said today–that the average American knows your goals and your nonnegotiable principles. The progressives will return to you, and will fight for you, if you give them a vision. If you are willing to fail. If your compromises do not come in early negotiations, but in late politicking, and with clear benefits in return for what is traded.
At a time when your enemies are legion, loud, weak, and unfocused, the American center will join you when the path is clear, when their friends and neighbors in your political base are activated, and the cause is just. These are not the emotions you are invoking today; your actions are not living up to the seeds of greatness which you planted last year, and which we idealists are still waiting to sprout. Health care is only the beginning; this requires clear vision on foreign policy, our long-term economic strategy, America’s role in the world, and our dedication to human rights at home and abroad. Your job is to create of these a cohesive whole.
You have given many fine speeches, which form the nucleus; what history and the country require of you now is synthesis.
A vision so articulated may have legislative setbacks, and will be subjected to the laboratory of results. Greatness is not measured by such increments; it is instead amassed by audacity of purpose as expressed in the collective will of the people. The people whom you lead, Mr. President.
You have shown that you have no excess of timidity, and the willingness to take bold steps. What a shame it will be if you squander these talents without defining the agenda. You have two choices: be inspirational, or be a mediocrity. It is still early; there is time yet for you to choose.
We are waiting.
Oooooh – red meat. Me like….
1) Public Option: Bravo – well said.
2) Tepid Compromise: Well said again. We agree, although I have a different take on the rationales. I think the Democrats’ goal at this point is to go into 2010 saying “we passed healthcare, despite the Republicans’ attempt to kill it” and the Republicans’ goal is to go into 2010 saying “the Democrats wanted a government takeover of health care and we ratcheted it back to something more reasonable.” Looked at through this lens, we see that, as you say, tepid compromise satisfies everyone’s needs and is, therefore, what we’ll eventually wind up with.
3) Compromise = Bad Policy: Here is where I’ll be just a tad more optimistic. Given the above, the Republicans are in a slightly stronger position than the Democrats (if nothing passes, the Democrats have failed outright, while the Republicans can still claim the “beat back the monster at the gate” defense). Therefore, the Democrats are strongly incented to find those pieces the Republicans will vote for. That means the safest, most slam-dunk pieces. So, I’m going with “compromise will be good policy, but not nearly as good as we were promised or could have achieved with a reasoned, functioning public discourse.”
4) Fraying Safety Net: Bravo again – well said. Although (and this is an unpopular stance, I’m sure) I think the “danger of doing nothing” has been somewhat overblown under the “crisis is the best opportunity” mantle that worked so well for financial bailouts and the stimulus package. This is not a new strategy. Here, for example, is Bill Clinton in 1993 telling us that if Hillary-care doesn’t pass, the national economy will be in the trash bin by 2000. And here he is in 2000, after Hillary-care didn’t pass, telling us how lucky we are to be alive in 2000 – with an economy better than it’s ever been. Whatever happens with Obama-care, I think people will make the best of their bad situations – emergency rooms will continue to be overused, patients and doctors will continue to dance around insurance companies and vice versa, and horrible anecdotes will continue to emerge. Costs will go up, coverage will go down, but life (and the media) will move on to the “next big story…”
5) Entitled classes of victims: Obviously, this depends on what passes. You astutely refer to the most extreme reactions as perceptions, which goes to my point above.
1) Democrats lose in 2010: It’d be a miracle if they didn’t, given the historic lengths of Obama’s 2008 coattails. That kind of GOTV enthusiasm will be hard to duplicate, and the Republicans, despite their apparent lack of unity, have been doing a good job of sowing the seeds of discontent. I hate this machine too, but there’s no denying the unfortunate truth: it works…
2) Systemic problems unaddressed: Again, depends on what passes. I hold out hope that some problems will be addressed, but that the liberal voters will yell “Not enough!” (as you’re basically doing now) and the conservative voters will yell “too expensive!” Amidst all the noise, I predict incremental progress, despite a lack of admitted satisfaction on any one group’s part.
3) The reckoning: Dum…dum….dummmmmmmmmm…… (sorry, this part needed sound effects). Some good news here out of the Wharton crowd – I think by November of 2010, the economy will be back to real, palpable growth. The AARP’ers took a hit in the IRA, but will have probably recovered back to something like 2008 levels (not that 0% gain in two years is a good thing, but memories of daily 300-point swings on the DJIA will be a distant memory). Look for the economy to be the Dems’ big talking point in 2010, with as little mention of the traditional lefty issues (health care, climate change, Bush foreign policy, etc.) as possible.
Address to the President:
Your advice is extremely well written, and emblematic of the long, slow decline of political discourse in the country dating back to (pick ’em: Nixon? Reagan? Clinton? W?) You are full of words like “leadership,” “vision,” “agenda,” and “fight.” If Obama were to heed your words, he’d almost certainly do better in an election. But what of the well-reasoned analysis you laid out just above it? Why do we talk policy amongst each other and then call upon our leaders to slug it out to the death?
Obama’s strength throughout the campaign was his ability to be the one guy in the room who was talking sense while everyone else was screaming obscenities at each other. In his speech to Congress, he walked the line – plenty of “let’s talk sense” talk, followed by finger-pointing and accusations. Nevermind that most of what he accused the Republicans of was true – that’s not the point here. The point is that shouting down lies and distortions is the job of the grass roots folks, the activists, and the TV/radio talk show set. Obama’s time is best spent remaining focused, drawing the intelligent and the thoughtful into his camp, while the rabble duke it out in the backyard. Then, when victory is eventually achieved, it’s the successful passage of the right healthcare reform, the right financial markets reform, and the right economic stimulus package.
As you said, Obama has hands-on intellect and communication skills unseen in quite some time (perhaps Bill Clinton?). I’d like to hold him to a higher standard than “steamroll the Republicans and get stuff done.” I’d like to be able to disagree with his approach, discuss it, modify it in common sense ways and then move forward.
History will judge the rest – not elections…
YOW!! This is the most thorough and well-articulated essay on the subject I have read. Emphatic, with great clarity. I hope you have sent this to Obama, congresspeople, and senators. I would imagine their responses — real, boilerplate, or no reply at all — will be revealing.
Thanks for posting this.
Brian, you are so full of….
Wait. You’re agreeing with me?
Hang on. I wasn’t ready for that. ;-)
I think the Democrats’ goal at this point is to go into 2010 saying “we passed healthcare, despite the Republicans’ attempt to kill it” and the Republicans’ goal is to go into 2010 saying “the Democrats wanted a government takeover of health care and we ratcheted it back to something more reasonable.”
I agree with you. I also think that it would be ideal if either party gave more of a damn about passing good legislation than about positioning for 2010. I also think that if the Democrats did do their policy job, the argument that any Democratic proposal is a “government takeover” of anything would be instantly destroyed by the vast majority of people who knew better.
tepid compromise satisfies everyone’s needs and is, therefore, what we’ll eventually wind up with.
Excepting, of course, the people affected by the legislation. Which is the essential problem.
Therefore, the Democrats are strongly incented to find those pieces the Republicans will vote for. That means the safest, most slam-dunk pieces.
The Republicans have been exceedingly clear that the only thing they consider to be “slam dunk” is the motion they’d like to make for the entire bill, in the direction of the wastebasket. Which is why I am opposed to the thousand compromises we’ve made so far: there’s been absolutely nothing in the way of bipartisan quid pro quo.
Beyond that, the reason why you want to win elections is that it gives you political power. Which the Democrats seem to be unable to use. The Senate in particular seems to have forgotten why they have leadership with the name “whip”. They don’t have a majority whip, they have miracle whip.
I think the “danger of doing nothing” has been somewhat overblown under the “crisis is the best opportunity” mantle that worked so well for financial bailouts and the stimulus package.
Depends on which crises you’re evaluating. I’m not particularly concerned about the twenty-year timeframe which assumes that everything else remains static. I’m concerned about a galloping sympathetic vibration — the Tacoma Narrows effect, if you will. There are a dozen ways in which we could be experiencing the eye of the storm right now; the best way to weather it is to establish a strong safety net. And of course, it’s good policy even if Chicken Little is wrong.
Costs will go up, coverage will go down, but life (and the media) will move on to the “next big story…”
Funny you should use the term that “life goes on”. The whole point is, no, no it doesn’t. Not for everyone.
Democrats lose in 2010: It’d be a miracle if they didn’t, given the historic lengths of Obama’s 2008 coattails. That kind of GOTV enthusiasm will be hard to duplicate,
Well, that’s the difference between a campaign and a movement. Movements endure. I don’t believe that a 2010 loss is inevitable (and in fact, I think the Republicans are putting up a very poor fight, by placing all of their bets on Obama’s failure). It seems to me, if you want to have a strategy for winning in 2010, you have to say: “Here’s what we accomplished with our majorities. Give them to us again.” If you can’t stand on that record, you deserve to lose. If you can make that claim, you blow out the opposition.
Some good news here out of the Wharton crowd – I think by November of 2010, the economy will be back to real, palpable growth.
I hope you’re right, but I don’t buy it until I see it. You’re extrapolating from a track record which is too dissimilar to what we’ve done, and in my (completely undocumented) opinion, it just doesn’t scale. There are too many hidden assumptions in the models — they might be right, but if they are, it’s more a matter of luck than science.
Besides, you’re presuming that the world in fourteen months will be substantially similar to the way it is today. Again, I hope so. But we left too many geopolitical variables up in the air for too long for me to be copacetic that you’re right.
The AARP’ers took a hit in the IRA, but will have probably recovered back to something like 2008 levels (not that 0% gain in two years is a good thing, but memories of daily 300-point swings on the DJIA will be a distant memory).
In the aggregate, you may be right; my question is, how many people were wiped out entirely? You have a division-by-zero failure if you fluctuate too low. I’d like to know the N of the number of people who will be unable to recover to a retireable sum; sociologically, it is these people (and their families) who thought they were comfortable, who form the core of a revolutionary class.
As I’ve said before, no matter how much I’d like my side of the political spectrum to become mainstream, this is not how I’d like to go about it. This is how I wake up one morning and find that I’m suddenly a moderate centrist.
Look for the economy to be the Dems’ big talking point in 2010, with as little mention of the traditional lefty issues (health care, climate change, Bush foreign policy, etc.) as possible.
If the Democrats do that, the Democrats lose. Plain and simple.
This is at the core of what we’ve been arguing for over a year: “the economy” does not mean what you think it means. It’s a code word for “everything stays the same, and check out those bonuses on Wall Street this year!” Even words like “jobs” and “recovery” have lost their oomph; no one believes it.
What will matter is improvement on the ground, just like a counterinsurgency. People always know what’s happening locally, and will ignore political messages which talk about alternate realities. And since I don’t think the Democrats can guarantee that this improvement will occur, what they can do is supply a vision for where we’re going. You don’t need to accomplish that by 2010; you just need to make it damn clear that that’s why you’re going to pull their lever.
But what of the well-reasoned analysis you laid out just above it? Why do we talk policy amongst each other and then call upon our leaders to slug it out to the death?
Just to be clear: I respect the hell out of Obama’s conciliatory stance. I hope he convinces me that it’s sound strategy. But this does not take the place of a visionary perspective. Moses first has to say, “I will lead you out of Egypt.” Then he can sit down with the heads of the tribes and figure out which way to walk through the Sinai.
The point is that shouting down lies and distortions is the job of the grass roots folks, the activists, and the TV/radio talk show set.
Used to be. The problem is that the ground for shared belief systems has been deliberately eroded for political gain. This is exactly what I meant when I said that when one side no longer feels like it’s a member of the reality-based community, the possibility for compromise is over. Hell, the possibility for discourse of any kind is over, until both sides can rediscover shared precepts.
I enjoy the ritual throwing and eating of red meat, but that’s not where the work usually gets done… unless one side is no longer willing to come to the table at all. Then your only strategy has to be getting as many people as possible eating the red meat, so you can disinvite the other side from dinner entirely until they’re willing to break bread again.
Obama’s time is best spent remaining focused, drawing the intelligent and the thoughtful into his camp, while the rabble duke it out in the backyard.
Right. But there’s a problem: the rabble only duke it out when they think the guy they fought for has their back. It’s one thing to be the righteous force of justice, quite another to be cannon fodder.
Here’s the simplest way I can break it down: progressives believe that America has collectively committed war crimes, and that people are literally getting away with murder. Obama says, “I want to look forward, not backward.” Fine — we’ll swallow that, provided you give us a forward vision which justifies our inaction. I’ll disagree forever with the decision to give out a free pass — it’s not part of my vision of how America should act — but I’ll make a pragmatic choice to follow him anyway if we agree on a destination.
If his vision of the future consists of malpractice tort reform, minor changes to policy, and incremental tweaks around the edges, however… he’s asking for too much in return for too little. You don’t win political battles with an army fighting under the banner of “well, he’s the least bad option.”
I’d like to hold him to a higher standard than “steamroll the Republicans and get stuff done.”
I am completely convinced that Obama will never use the steamroller approach as much as I’d like. I just want to know why he’s acting as if his only tool is a weed whacker.
Mimi: most gratifying comment of 2009 award goes to….
I haven’t yet posted this anywhere but here, but based on the feedback I’m already getting, I’ll be glad to send it out.
Well, that’s the difference between a campaign and a movement. Movements endure. I don’t believe that a 2010 loss is inevitable (and in fact, I think the Republicans are putting up a very poor fight, by placing all of their bets on Obama’s failure). It seems to me, if you want to have a strategy for winning in 2010, you have to say: “Here’s what we accomplished with our majorities. Give them to us again.” If you can’t stand on that record, you deserve to lose. If you can make that claim, you blow out the opposition.
Here again, I think the Obamamania of 2007-2008 overplayed the “movement” thing. It was a campaign, not a movement, as evidenced by how quickly the shine came off of it when the real policy discussions began.
With one party controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, the majority needs to run on its accomplishments, and the minority needs to run on the majority’s failures. I think the Republicans know full well that they don’t really need a single, unifying figure right now – all they need is local anger to win out in a couple of dozen districts/states, and they’re back in the ballgame. They’ll find their unifying figure before 2012. On the upside, if Bill Clinton’s presidency is any sort of model, a Republican congress might be just the thing Obama needs to really kick his agenda into high gear.
There are too many hidden assumptions in the models — they might be right, but if they are, it’s more a matter of luck than science.
Spoken like a man who hasn’t spent much time with the models (or the modelers). I’m not talking about bloggers here – I’m talking about the guys who take those billion dollar risks based on their models. Despite the bad press of late, I can tell you that there’s quite a bit of science involved (and yes, a non-zero amount of luck).
“the economy” does not mean what you think it means. It’s a code word for “everything stays the same, and check out those bonuses on Wall Street this year!” Even words like “jobs” and “recovery” have lost their oomph; no one believes it. What will matter is improvement on the ground…
Agreed & understood. I think by November of 2012, they’ll be some real “on the ground” statistics for Obama and the Democrats to point to – falling unemployment, rising GDP, low interest rates, improving housing market, etc., etc.. If those stats exist, they’d be a fool to discuss failures (or even partial successes) like healthcare.
I enjoy the ritual throwing and eating of red meat, but that’s not where the work usually gets done… unless one side is no longer willing to come to the table at all. Then your only strategy has to be getting as many people as possible eating the red meat, so you can disinvite the other side from dinner entirely until they’re willing to break bread again
I can see how it starts to feel that way, but then once in a while, you get a guy like Obama (or Clinton or Reagan…), who actually has a vision and a plan for getting there. Then, they rise above the food fight and quietly start serving actual meals. Think about how often Obama attacked Bush in the campaign (not very often…). He’s always been a “rise above it” kind of guy. But the current climate is testing his mettle, and cracks have begun to emerge. Not outright lying per se, but some severely misleading statements designed to sell his plan . . . supposedly for the greater good.
He was right to “look forward, not backward.” Not only does he keep himself free of constricting precedent and an increased desire for political retribution, but he’s not letting his presidency be defined by the left’s hatred of George W. Bush & their desire for revenge. It’s a win-win: good for him and good for America.
Now that he has our attention, though, he needs to execute, as you so eloquently stated in your post.
Here again, I think the Obamamania of 2007-2008 overplayed the “movement” thing. It was a campaign, not a movement
Here again, if you’re not one of the people you’re talking about (or an ethnographer), you have to be talking out of your ass to make a statement like this one. You’ve sailed right past “putting words into people’s mouths” to “putting thoughts in people’s heads”.
I’ve been involved with both campaigns and causes, so I think I know the difference. And I can tell you why I got involved, to the very limited extent that I did.
as evidenced by how quickly the shine came off of it when the real policy discussions began.
If you’re referring to a dropping poll rating, then we’re talking about two entirely different things. I’m talking about activists, not voters, and a population you can probably measure in six figures, not eight. They’re the raw materials of retail politics; the amount that they’re willing to bust their asses makes a difference. It was not a foregone conclusion that the Obama volunteer brigade was going to go home like most presidential campaigns do. The circles I travel in are very much interested in “real policy discussions”, as you so quaintly and dismissively put it, and have some interest that the policies being presented are the ones they happen to support.
I think the Republicans know full well that they don’t really need a single, unifying figure right now – all they need is local anger to win out in a couple of dozen districts/states, and they’re back in the ballgame.
All I can say is, I hope most Republicans think like you do. Last I heard, “local anger” was good for getting around 30% of the electorate to identify Republican. If that’s their plan — and I think it is — then we’ve got smooth sailing.
On the upside, if Bill Clinton’s presidency is any sort of model, a Republican congress might be just the thing Obama needs to really kick his agenda into high gear.
Clearly, you want me to choke to death. I can’t think of any other reason why you’d say this. Suffice to say, if Obama “succeeds” by adopting Republican goals as his own, I don’t consider that to be a victory. Nor do I believe that the Republicans have the capacity to offer or accept an olive branch, or effectively govern.
Spoken like a man who hasn’t spent much time with the models (or the modelers). I’m not talking about bloggers here – I’m talking about the guys who take those billion dollar risks based on their models.
Yup, those are exactly the models that I’m sure are wrong, and founded on incorrect assumptions. Why? Because that’s how science works. Either you’ve got the Unified Theory of Everything which will work Forever And Ever, regardless of all other factors — or you’ve got a theory which is incorrect in some places and could stand improvement.
Hell, if I need evidence, the hubris you emote when you imply that the “billion dollar risk” proves the soundness of the model is really all I need.
So, yeah. The disruptive forces I mentioned in the essay were only scratching the surface of what’s potentially coming down the pike in the next decade or three. You don’t have to be a mathematical genius to model that, you need to be omniscient. Even Einstein had trouble dealing with the implications of the cosmological constant which he invented. There’s simply no way that the models are as perfect as you claim them to be; they’re only perfect so long as their underlying (and often unquestioned) assumptions remain constant.
If those stats exist, they’d be a fool to discuss failures (or even partial successes) like healthcare.
Well, we’re probably debating theology here. But you’re arguing in favor of sending robots to Mars, and I’m saying that a populated moonbase is more inspiring. There’s a difference in both tone and engagement.
But the current climate is testing his mettle, and cracks have begun to emerge. Not outright lying per se, but some severely misleading statements designed to sell his plan . . . supposedly for the greater good.
Again, it’s my perception that for some reason, you are seeking out reasons to justify your belief that everyone in politics is cynical and jaded. The only mental note I have which even comes close to this statement is wondering how Obama plans on making his health care plan revenue-neutral. (As you might guess, I’m happily in favor of a health care plan which costs money. I think it’s worth spending money.)
He was right to “look forward, not backward.” Not only does he keep himself free of constricting precedent and an increased desire for political retribution, but he’s not letting his presidency be defined by the left’s hatred of George W. Bush & their desire for revenge.
Oh, please. Enough with the tired rhetoric which you know I vehemently disagree with. Like I said to Lisa on your blog, I believe that it matters when Americans commit torture, false imprisonment, and war on false pretenses. I’m sickened when I hear arguments in favor of sweeping it under a rug from people who should know better. So unless you have something new to add here, let’s call dayenu on the grapeshot broadsides.
How is it that I’m basically agreeing with you, and in the space of two comments, you’re calling me dismissive and ignorant (again)?
I won’t go paragraph-for-paragraph with you on this because, frankly, it’s getting old. But to summarize:
– Clinton struggled when he had a Democratic Congress because they couldn’t seem to get their act together (much like today). When Gingrich and crew took office, Clinton was able to advance his agenda, and his presidency took off. All I was suggesting is that a significant Republican presence in Congress would get the Republicans out of the cheap seats & make it much harder for them to simply throw stones (which is what they’re basically doing now), and give Obama a better chance to articulate his agenda to the people. I never said he should (or would) adopt a Republican platform…
– Re: Wall Street risk modelers, given that I work with them fairly frequently and you’ve never even met one, I’m just going to pass on this debate. Suffice to say that the underlying assumptions are tweaked every day (sometimes more often), they exist on both micro and macro levels, and recent major media blitzes aside, they are right far more often than they are wrong. Apologies if that conflicts with Einstein’s theory on something-or-other…
– Re: your standard Bush tirade, you’re once again hammering hard on a tangent and wondering why the nail won’t move. Obama wants to be remembered for something more than punishing George W. Bush. You are among a vocal minority who disagrees. I’m with the President on this one. Dayenu.
I think Obama might really suck at playing the diplomatic game. hes only ever had to play the city game in Chicago, where the rules are totally different. so as good a strategic thinker as he may be, if hes the one guy in the game who doesn’t quite know the rules hes gunna get boned. we, as the intellectual rabble in the back yard, can’t save him from getting eaten it the house.
he’s making plays that i think would have worked in Chicago but don’t work in Washington.
fuck sake :(