February 20, 2008
Obama Takes on Outsourcing
Hey folks - I’ve been overseas for the past few weeks so I haven’t been totally on top of things on this side of the pond. Still, I can say for sure is that over there, they’re generally rooting for Obama to win the election.
Unfortunately, electioneering brings out some of the whackiest, most populist, and thus must economically-deranged policy proposals from otherwise intelligent candidates. Obama - for all his credits - shows that he’s not immune to the bug; this time taking on outsourcing -
Barack Obama on Monday made an aggressive pitch at Ohio’s blue-collar workers by proposing a “Patriot Employers” plan that would lower corporate taxes for companies that did not ship jobs overseas.…Mr Obama’s plan would lower the corporate tax rate for companies that met criteria including maintaining their headquarters in the US, maintaining or increasing their US workforce relative to their overseas workforce, holding a neutral position in union drives among their employees and providing decent healthcare.
Democrat economists rightly ridicule the idea -
…”I would say that this plan is borderline unimplementable,” said a Democratic economist in Washington. “It is also puzzling. Normally presidential candidates only come up with plans that are unrealistic when they are losing. But Obama is now the favourite.”
There are a bunch of reasons lotsa Desis are gaga over Obama ranging from shared policy positions on Iraq and healthcare, to his JFK-esque charisma, and perhaps at the fringe, dare I say, a vague sort of non-white racial solidarity.
It’s worth noting, however, that in the last quarter century few things have impacted real lives back on the Desh more dramatically than the global embrace of free trade - contributing to an estimated 100M lifted from poverty in India alone. And for all the inconsistencies in execution, the US has been the driving force in this global revolution. Unfortunately, penalizing corporations and backtracking on NAFTA / WTO, while perhaps mere election rhetoric over here, create dangerous precedents in other countries that are far more sensitive to populist swings.
vinod on February 20, 2008 11:34 AM in · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Obama's "popularity" among Desis appears to be based on two things: his opposition to the war in Iraq; and the fact that most people (including Democrats) are sick of the Clintons. Beyond that, Obama offers nothing (I mean, aside from the shallow glamor of being Hollywood's current "darling." Of course, Obama will have to speak out against outsourcing in order to get the blue-collar vote!! What else is he supposed to say?
Overall, I think he is largely a media-driven phenomenon and is completely unqualified and unprepared to be president.
:-)
There was an interesting article in the local [kanadian, HT: DJ DrrrtyPunj] rag a few days back. To paraphrase, for all the interest the canadians are shwoing in the US elections, we are singularly unaware of the main issues that will affect us. Both democratic party candidates are negative on the nafta and IF they go through on their campaign promises, it's going to be a swift kick in the nuts for us... and yet, we definitely favor seeing either HRC or O as president.
Not all indian americans put India before America. America comes first for me. The rich have been driving down wages under the guise of globalisation. Obama might give a fair deal to Americans who have not graduated from colleges, who do not make millions or hundreds of millions through financial speculation which jeopardises the livelihoods and life savings of millions of workers. The way things are going in America the day is not far off when it will become a third world hell.
All that is well and good.. I just figure it all out on http://www.kungfuelection.com thank you very much
Vinod,
Hasnt Hillary also taken anti-NAFTA positions?? I vaguely remeber reading this.
>>IF they go through on their campaign promises
They can't and even if they could, they wouldn't. Can you remember Bush delivering a single campaign promise? Bill Clinton? Pelosi? Reagan? Just one...
>>The way things are going in America the day is not far off when it will become a third world hell.
Likely. Which is why I want it to happen on Obama or Clinton's beat.
M. Nam
How does a corporate tax break going to help the middle class or the poor Americans? Such a plan might lead to playing with numbers. For instance a company could cut the wages and benefits to balance out the losses or decrease in profit incurred due to keeping an extra person on the pay roll in the US to get the number of employees in the US to be just above the required mark.
6 · MoorNam said
Something along the lines of refusing to engage in nation-building. And he hasn't.
It would be interesting to know what fraction of the jobs that were lost were producing goods/services for (a) US economy (b) US exports to foreign countries and whether the jobs lost really lead to direct new jobs in foreign countries. If the jobs lost didn't lead to new jobs in foreign countries then anti-outsourcing rant is pure paranoia and just an effect of capitalistic economy. If the new jobs created in foreign countries were of the type (b) then it is an effect of globalization and American workers and economy has to learn the new game. If it was of type (a) then outsourcing is something to complain about. What kind of capitalism should America adopt where it wants all trade to be one sided i.e only sell but no buy ? Because if we have to buy then somebody else has to produce something. But if higher end work is not available in foreign countries then only lower ends goods and service can be produced by them which in turn is in direct competition to the American blue-collar workers.
I am personally more concerned about the outsourcing of pollution than of jobs - and I think globalization has accelerated pollution tremendously. I would like to see FTAs modified to include environmental and human rights safeguards. My motivation is not economic protectionism, although we might well end up benefiting from more jobs.
A commentator at Assymetrical Information pointed out that Obama had co-sponsored a senate bill to reward 'patriot employers' in 2007, which contained similar provisions. So he might well be serious about it.
That's kind of a bizarre policy offer. Am I understanding correctly -- Obama is talking about incentivizing retaining local jobs by offering corp. tax breaks? If you're going to borrow populist economic rhetoric, it might have been valuable to take a page out of the Dennis Kucinich school of economic/labor policy. Without taking a look at how the domestic economy interacts with the global economy (both from a comparative advantage and asymmetric [labor] market view), this policy -- as presented -- sounds superdumb. Why not discuss that the economy has been shifting in the manufacturing sector, or talk about the reallocation of jobs/labor, or discuss the gross barriers to higher ed and decreasing returns to education for the non-college bound? There are at least a dozen "populist" topics you could propose sensible policy around, but this seems like the wrong entry point.
While I am strongly in favor of globalization as something that benefits all sides, I am not really worried even if Obama is serious about this and becomes president. I don't think one person can stop globalization even if it is the president of Amrika, though maybe he could slow things down a bit for sometime. In balance I still think he is a sincere and thoughtful person and I still lean towards him as president (FWIW of course, as a non-citizen).
And people who think the US is turning into a third-world country need to go live in a third-world country for sometime.
2 questions for Vinod:
(1) Does the President of the United States have the duty to promote the domestic economic interests of the United States?
(2) Does a policy promoting domestic economic well being necessarily cause harm to third world countries that are trading partners of the United States?
I think you made a huge leap from a policy proposal to reward domestic employers as being inherently harmful to India. Obama did not say that all economic ties with India need to be ended, nor is he against foreign trade, he is merely doing his job of caring about the average, non-professional Americans, unlike Bush.
Also Vinod, I think you fail to give India its due respect for the role it should and does play in promoting its economic destiny. The Indian government has a duty to make sure that it creates a sustainable economy with benefits that trickle down to the uneducated and the educated who are unemployed. The Indian government likewise has a duty to ensure that India's economy is not dependent on the U.S. or any other nation(s).
In addition, there has been an amazing phenomenon of "reverse brain drain" or NRIs returning to India to provide their know how to create opportunities in India.
The right term (as an adjective) is Democratic and not Democrat. The latter was pushed on the public by right ideologues. The word can distinguished by the small-d democratic by...well, the lowercase d.
It's almost as if the the possibility of to their opponents (the Democ-RATS) being referred to by a lofty sounding word was difficult to digest.
Also the very funny "America is a republic, not a democracy". So, as a true American would you vote for a Republican or a Democrat? (Hint, hint: the answer is right there)
the more people is speak with, the more i realize that the racial solidarity reason for support isn't really on the fringe.
Kurma, is that really necessary?
Obama is not running for the President of India so he should focus on the interests of the US and not India. I think one advantage of Obama as President as compared to Billary or McCain is that Obama might actually pull out US forces from Iraq and save hundreds of billions of dollars by ending the war.
Yes, he can.
Obama wants to keep American jobs in America? How audacious.
Surely you meant "the left term"? The right term remains "Republican".
Grotesque pun. Is great success! I like.
Obama wants to keep American jobs in America?
What exactly is an American job?
I would actually like to know specifically which taxes he would like to reduce. From personal experience, payroll taxes are taxed at the same rate regardless of the size of the company. If he offers to reduce the payroll tax burden on companies in the US, then maybe it would be effective. Most outsourcing is done by large companies who outsource not only to cut expenses but also to focus on growth initatives and deploy their assets, be they financial capital or human capital on areas of growth. These large corporations already enjoy numerous tax holidays. They already have corporate tax loopholes. So, the small firms, mom and pops, who don't outsource, who create the bulk of jobs in the US, don't benefit at all because of the heavy burden of payroll taxes. For once, I would like to see a candidate actually target payroll taxes and have the guts to change the rates.
For once, I would like to see a candidate actually target payroll taxes and have the guts to change the rates.
Amen brother. And can someone deliver on increasing the payroll or self employment taxes to a cap of $150,000.
rustbelt politics is such. there are certain things that political elites say but which they will never implement. a broad rollback of globalization is one of those things. both hrc and obama seem to be trying to "out-populist" each other in ohio....
How do you decide which rhetoric to believe and which not to believe? You don't believe anti-globalization talk but you do believe pull out of Iraq talk? Why?
bill -- simple reason, though not one to do with beliefs about the presidential candidate's intentions. historically, in terms of control and power, presidents have far greater control over foreign policy than the domestic economy (the latter often being dominated by congressional control).
?? I'm a little perplexed, Camille. Unless you mean it's off-topic. Is anything anyone complains about on this site really necessary? That usage ( in the media almost exclusively by right wing pundits, but now quite common among ordinary folks) bugs me no end. These words serve political purposes. DemocRATS was used by a 527 group in the 2006 mid term elections. The Birch Society used to regularly include "republic not a democracy" in their mailings just so more people would say it. Note how the "war on terrorism" became the "war on terror" because of infinite repitition by the White House (I don't know what purpose that serves). The Bush administration also has a stated policy of trying to change the term "suicide bombing" to "homicide bombing" (only Fox News is enthusiastic about that idea). So this sort of thing does happen.
Just to be clear, I didn't mean to imply in any way that Vinod invented the term or is a right wing ideologue pushing an agenda. He was, of course, just going by common usage. In fact, my own political views aren't that far from his (as he expresses them on this site). And that includes his worries expressed in this particular post.
It is, when the rest of the world is lectured about protectionism.
And who would have thought that Hoperah might actually hedge or pander? Doesn't he believe in change? After all, he was against the war in 2002 before he was maybe for it in 2004.
(Ok, that was snarky for sure, but it was just too hard to resist. Believe me, I tried.)
Kurma, I wasn't asking to tell you that you shouldn't comment or you're not entitled to your comment / right to speak out. I guess I was just a little frustrated because the disparaging comments that go back/forth about how "conservatives" and "liberals" and "progressives" and "Republicans" and "Democrats" and "the right" don't really contribute to a dialogue around the issue, which is labor policy and business incentives. It's not just you, so I'm sorry I singled you out.
Talking about Obama Rooting. Many straight women fancy him. Do gay men fancy him ?
When we were in Malaysia and Singapore, people brought up Obama ALL THE TIME. Everyone seemed elated to think that a black man could be president of the United States. No one was as excited about Hillary. It was a strange realization—at one point, I started counting the times this came up. We were never the initiators, but it came up without fail. I think one guy we met was actually writing him a letter.
I think having more jobs in the USA is good for the world especially India. Any measure that increases the total number of jobs in the USA is good.
Kurma, I wasn't asking to tell you that you shouldn't comment or you're not entitled to your comment / right to speak out. I guess I was just a little frustrated because the disparaging comments that go back/forth about how "conservatives" and "liberals" and "progressives" and "Republicans" and "Democrats" and "the right" don't really contribute to a dialogue around the issue, which is labor policy and business incentives. It's not just you, so I'm sorry I singled you out.
Hmm.... I thought that's sort of what I was getting at too - the idea of throwing a name on one's opponent as an easy alternative to debating. And while we are at it, distorting that name too. But these are meaningful words - conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats with fairly plain meanings and I see no harm in using them if one is not claiming they are automatically good or bad. And there are such things are left and right wing ideologues. These, I do claim are bad. Anyways, my comment surely did not contribute to this dialogue, no doubt.
Every country should look at its interests and see whether it should allow certain trade practices or not. What is wrong with that? I have nothing against Obama on this one. Nobody is talking about rollback of globalization, but if it is not working for the country and its people (now, economically, am not sure that is the case), there are certain changes to be made.
As for rooting for Obama, most people do it, because he is a story of inspiration - he doesn't come from the family of politicians, he belongs to a class that suffered racial prejudice for the longest time, his dad left when he was two years old. He is self-made and he has a message of hope that resonates with most people regardless of nationality.
Our time for change has come!
I am curious as to how the act would work. Will Toyota be taxed more as its headquartered in Japan? Does that mean Japanese cars become more expensive? Also I am not sure if it will impact outsourcing to India at all. A company that outsources a call center to India is not opening a subsidiary or gaining any employees in India, so it might well qualify for the tax benefits.
20 · bulbul said
The problem, however, is that an effort to create protectionist policy only helps a few select Americans, but injures many. Take as an example the United States' high sugar tariff. Undoubtedly, it helps the sugar industry and its workers, but at what cost? In Holland, Michigan, 600 American jobs were lost when Life Savers moved its factory to Canada in order to take advantage of lower sugar costs. Those factory workers were acutely and severely harmed by the tariff. Similarly, the higher price of sugar translates to higher prices on countless other products. In effect, these higher prices are a highly regressive tax.
Also say Coca Cola is doing really well in India and wants to increase its head count. Under the law it'd have a huge incentive not to, as it'd be taxed more highly for the lowering difference between Indian and American count. Ironically, the act might end up protecting Indian soft drink companies from Coca Cola. I don't see a workaround this: how can you tell if a company's workforce increase in another country is at the expense of US workers or not.
vinod -
Can you put up some more information on this statistic - how it was obtained, and to whom exactly it refers?
This idea of taxing companies that "outsource" is not only unworkable, it is profoundly dumb.
As are countless proposals being bandied about by all candidates. This whole presidential election tamasha is just that. Ideas are thrown about, not so much to be scrutinized, as to be taken with a tsp of salt. Which is why I am deciding my vote on who is more likeable, looks more presidential, more inspirational and more fun to listen to.
Too bad Colbert isn't still in it.
Najeeb,
What exactly inspires you about Obama? his "hope-change-hope-change" chant, or his excellent track record and experience. Oops never mind....
Really we are talking about the PRESIDENT of the USA, and all that people want is "change". Remember back in 1976 when another "young,fresh" man whose "time had come" (Jimmy Carter) was voted in, and we all know how that went,dont we?. As far as inspiration goes, there are so many such minority men and women who made it. Does that mean that they all can run for president now?
If Obama wants to stop outsourcing,are Americans willing to pay 3x more for everything they buy. If production costs increase, the costs are obviously going to pass on to the customer, do you want your monthly grocery bill to double or even triple? Is that the "change" you want. Or the is the "change" going to be a 50% income tax to pay for all his great schemes?
Though this was mentioned before, I'll bring it up again.
HRC's rhetoric is just as anti-outsourcing just as much as Obama's. The whole Democratic Party pretty much has to run on that or a similar platform in general elections.
As an Obama-supporter, I am quite disappointed by this "pandering to the base", especially for someone who went to Chicago. Shouldn't he be a Friedman fanboy?
But, realpolitiking aside, I am quite intrigued by this new economic theory from prominent free-market theorists/microeconomists about how free-trade barriers may not be all that good in all cases. I remember reading a WSJ frontpager on the topic and they cited someone from Princeton. Does anyone else remember?
RandomDude, In my view, Obama, having come up from a modest background and made it to a platform to speak about issues with such intellect shows what the man is made of. Hillary on the other hand still stands in the shadow of Bill Clinton - her entry, ideas and politics have a lot to do with being beside Bill Clinton. There is nothing wrong with that, but when tough decisions are to be made, Bill Clinton is not going to be next to her always. As for experience, he has experience being a senator, a damn good one at, in the limited time he has been one. He has spoken his conscience, even when it wasn't the popular thing to say - Iraq for eg. Time and again, when Hillary had the choice to speak against the war, she didn't, until of course, the news wasn't so good anymore from Iraq. People want change, a total change of course from the dive down this country has undertaken from Bush's presidency. And Inspiration does a whole lot of good - it encourages generations to come to rise up against the obstacles. Kennedy is still remembered as a major source of inspiration for the youngsters despite many of his failures during his administration. Time will tell whether Obama will be a good president or not. But given the outset of it, I am very hopeful. No other candidate comes closer to Obama --
AS for outsourcing, I am not sure whether Obama's policies will benefit the country. But, I am not against the basic idea of figuring out whether it is good for the country or not. At the end of it, I have come to realize that in this case, there is no policy that will benefit all. It is a question of who should get the benefit. I like the policies that benefit the lower/middle class more than the upper class. I am fine with paying more tax so that lower/middle class doesn't have to do the struggle that they are going through now. In reality though, democrats aren't going to raise taxes. You are already paying high taxes and it is just that the beneficiaries are not the poor people - we are spending 20 billion a month in Iraq. It is about where one should focus.
Vinod - I do not claim to understand all the concoctions that come out of mixing varying amounts of Politics with Economics, but have two humble points/questions:
1. Primary accountability - Firstly, this issue should worry Chinese much more than Indians. Next, what you call populist, could very easily be called democratic from the vantage point of 100K laid-off rust-belt workers. While some things that Obama has promised may not get people in India jumping with joy, it gets the appreciation of his electorate. As tempting as it is to think of the US President as President of the world, he is not. His job is not to seek the global maxima, but to seek the maximum potential of US and unless he is completely screwed up, that should have a fairly high correlation with rest of the world as well. And to be fair to him, his seemingly strong position is not really that dramatic - "The Patriot Employers legislation would provide a tax credit equal to 1% of taxable income to employers" - that it can derail the train of globalization from its tracks. Moreover, if India/China can play games with the tax rates in the states/regions which need development (read: SEZ) why can't the Americans do that? Obama has openly spoken about taking Chinese up on their artificially depressed currency, because that is not fair to people of Ohio and Michigan. Again, is there much wrong with that?
2. Long-term viability of globalization - We have to keep in mind that this is the perhaps for the first time in recent human history that economic power is shifting from the one half of the world to the other without any major wars (ignoring Iraq/Afghanistan for a minute). Globalization can flourish only if we make the transition smooth for all parties concerned, and that includes the laid off workers in the US. Does it help anyone if there forms a critical size of such disenchanted workers who then put someone with radical ideas in the White house? A good company/stock to hold in the long run is not which peaks at in a few years with uncertain future after that, but one that has the maturity to realize that sometimes after a few years of growth marathon a few months of R&R to build bottoms-up bench strength ain't a bad idea. And Obama's repeated emphasis on education and skill building is exactly that, imho. And given that even the most aggressive GDP estimates still have US in the top 5 and still amongst the top per capita consumers in the world in 2050, won't it be better for all of us to not shrug and say too-bad-all-ur-base-r-belong-to-us to the laid-off Americans and no-fair to the politicians who are doing something about it?
Najeeb,
Obama has spoken a lot. But as we all know,words are cheap. What Obama speaks,the thing is anybody can speak. But as Walter Mondale would say "Where is the beef"? Where is Obama's experience, to prove that he is capable of pulling of all his tall claims? Jimmy Carter did the same thing and look where that lead the country. Except the Iraq War, what can you blame Bush for. Inspiration is good too, but there are other candidates with the Inspiration AND the experience. Why not someone like Bill Richardson,for example?. Experience as a Senator? What exactly has he accomplished in a single term say compared to other more veteran Senators? That was the same question that Chris Mathews asked an Obama supporter and nobody had a damn clue. Pretty pathetic to say the least. Besides pushing a few bills is a far cry fro executive experience, which Obama has none.
Again, why should the country benefit the lower/middle class MORE than the upper class. Economic policy should benefit everyone equally. The maligned upper class are the job-creators, the entreprueners. Taxing them would make the US like France, with 10% unemployment and pathetic 0.5% economic growth. The US is the most vibrant major economy for a damned good reason. Low taxes, rewards for the upper class, and the benefits trickle down to the lower class, that system has worked very well. The alternative has failed, everywhere. Obama is another salesman selling socialism by the drink.
RandomDude, you're conveniently leaving out other "change candidates" from the past 60 years who were quite popular (although their impact or policies is debatable), including Reagan, Kennedy, and W. I'm not sure the comparison even matters, though, since you seem to believe that the rich are entitled, by virtue of their wealth, to more incentives, more breaks, and more benefits than other, less affluent, citizens.
Bush didn't attend Chicago as a student. He attended Occidental and Columbia (undergrad), Harvard (law), and taught at UChicago's Law School.
Camille: this Freudian slip of yours clearly demonstrates you're suffering form neocon-envy. The only cure is to have an affair with Paul Wolfowitz
Out-of-control domestic spending. Harriet Miers idiocy. Recognizing Kosovo.
Did you
the Democratic debates? Richardson is pathetic--he makes Bush look smart!(full disclosure--I am a Republican.)
LOL!
(No offense intended, Camille--it is a funny slip, no?!)
Bush's problem
1) Out of Control Domestic Spending -- Then how can you support Obamasan, who proposes a Global Poverty tax and national health spending. If domestic spending is your concern,Obama is pretty much a tax-and-spend guy
2) harrier miers - bush screwed up
3) Kosovo - Clinton's fault not Bush.
Camille,
Reagan and W did not run PURELY as change candidates. W did not promise "hope-change-hope-change". W promised change with his compassionate conservatism but did not potray himself only as a change candidate.
I'm not sure the comparison even matters, though, since you seem to believe that the rich are entitled, by virtue of their wealth, to more incentives, more breaks, and more benefits than other, less affluent, citizens
When did I ever say that. I just said the rich should not bear the burden for another's poor choices or bad luck. Everybody should share the burden equally. Taxing the rich is not the solution.
No worries, my friend--I'm not voting for Obama!
Yup!
Heh--ok, I'd say both, though you're right that Clinton set the problem up by buying into the myth that the Kosovo Albanians were little angels.
53 · RC said
Agreed fully. He was a state senator and said what his constituents wanted to hear then. He feeds his myth of being upstanding by deflecting any real talk on his positions, but his track record so far doesn't really support that myth. He generally seems to have positions aligned with my personal views (oh my god! the most liberal senator!), and he's definitely an amazingly gifted politician, but to expect some real kind of change from him is a stretch, I think. Unless he bucks his go-along get-along track record and uses his wild popularity to push for a genuinely liberal (for lack of a better word) agenda. But I'm not holding my breath.
Not even that. If there was one thing that went wrong with the Iraq War, it is just that the war offensive was so wildly successful that the post-war started sooner than he expected. He would have been better served by getting somebody like Brownie or Chertoff to manage the execution of the war, would have gone at a more relaxed pace then.
The similarities
The facts
The differences this time
Hart's take on this.
You can't have it both ways. First you blame him for not having experience, and then, when i point out something he did right, it doesn't matter what he said at that time because he was a junior senator. In that case, nothing matters. Years ago, people speculated he would be a presidential candidate and it mattered what he said and did during his senator years. If all you need is years of squatting in washington, there are plenty of senior senators, but guess what they are not running, nor they have a chance to win. Experience matters, but that is not the only thing. When you see an exceptional talent - read 'Audacity of Hope' when you get a chance - carefully crafted thoughts and analysis, you will probably come to the same conclusion that experience is not the only thing.
RandomDude, we are in different planes if you consider that there is nothing wrong with Bush other than Iraq and there is nothing worth discussing, IMHO.
You should understand better what 'present' means in Illinois. It practically means 'no' since you need majority 'yes' votes to have the legislation pass. 'present' normally means the bill needs modification before approval. This is a well used practice, but hillary has used it to malign obama's candidacy.
The death of a million people from an unnecessary conflict is just an oversight. nice.
He voted 'present' far more than his party cohorts. Read the articles in my comment #56.
Personally, I don't care about his lack of experience, but whatever experience he does have does not show any unique courage.
Heh--good one!
In all seriousness though, the Bushies really did do a good job of overthrowing Saddam quickly, and they did sincerely believe (they were wrong on this, obviously) that Iraq was a kind of "middle-class" "bourgeois" Arab country (they were misled on this, though I'm not trying to excuse their idiocy) by Chalabi, who has a PhD in math from U. Chicago (and Obama taught at U. Chicago--hmmmmmm....) that they could set up a legitimate and healthy government. The latter has turned out to have been a spectacularly stupid surmise, but believe me, they did think it would work.
Good point. Even on getting completely out of Iraq, in one of the debates he was not ready to take the position that US will be completely out. The impression that came out of it was that both Obama and Clinton would let US troops be in or around Iraq (although in small capacity) for 12 years. Dennis Kucinic and Bill Richardson were more anti-war than Obama during that phase.
from what i remember from the debate, that was 130 times out of 4000+. That is not bad at all... NYTimes conveniently leaves that out - oh i forgot, they had endorsed Hillary!
I wish I could take credit for that one, but I believe that the claim was actually made by one of the Bushies, maybe even the Decider-in-chief himself. Unfortunately, I don't remember the exact words so I am unable to google for it.
Bush also believes that intelligent design is a theory in the same sense as evolution. Bush is fundamentally incompetent as his track record as a businessman shows, and he surrounded himself with a bunch of arrogant ideologues and incompetent yes-men who led with opinions, rewrote facts - be it science or economics or whatever else, and ran roughshod over the system of law. The Iraq war is a bigtime manifestation of both of these failings, but the subverting of NASA, EPA, the Justice department etc. are all examples of the entire country being held hostage to hare-brained ideology above all else.
Hillary only voted 'yes' on one pro-Iraq war resolution, no? Surely, that shouldn't count against her.
(I don't think Hillary is a messiah, but what I object to is the deification of Obama as an idealist and somebody who has always fought for principle, however difficult the fight was - something which I don't think has even the slightest basis in fact.)
Look, can we be honest here? I think that the likelihood that Bush or Jindal believe in intelligent design as opposed to evolution is about 0%. Have you ever met any of these high-level Republicans? They are way too well-educated to hold that view. It's similar to whether Hillary or Obama are really against NAFTA--uhh, I'd vote on no, b/c they're not dumb. So, why do you try to posture in a way that it "freaks you out" that Bush or Jindal seek votes by catering to some dumb people who believe in intelligent design over evolution, but it apparently doesn't freak you out that Hillary or Obama are seeking idiots who haven't caught up on the benefits of free trade as definitively shown 100's of years ago (yeah--there are some weird academic incentives to dis-prove the benefits of free-trade, but--I think we can forecast how well those are going to look in 30 years--i.e.--really dumb).
From what i remember, hillary had two chances - both times she did the wrong thing, until the tide started turning. First time, she even mentioned that she hadn't read the resolution correctly. If i had time, i would dig up the records, but not now.
And there is a big difference between voting on Iraq resolution vs the case you mentioned in Illinois legislation. I don't consider Obama is a messiah either. You have to expect a certian amount of opportunism from politicians and it is always about who is less evil. You cannot go on thinking everyone is the same, it is NOT. There are marked differences between the candidates and you will see it when you dig deep. I happen to see more ideals that resonate with me in Obama than Hillary.
There is no such a thing as free trade or absolute free market. Nobody is against the idea of globalization or trade. But, it is not by screwing its own people. Regulation is part of any system - we are only talking about the extent of it. Arent there states within U.S that try to have incentives for keeping the business within the state itself? Ultimately it has to benefit the people and if it hurts people they have to take steps against it. U.S cannot remain only as a consumer society, while cheap goods and services are good, you also need jobs. Look at the dumps created in places like Detroit and you see that a large section of America is hurting and the leaders have to look into it. You cannot go on chasing the cheapest labor while hurting your own population. And on the trickle down theory about rich spending and making poor people's lives better, i don't buy it. I would mch better like those poor people having btter paying jobs and the rich taking in less profits.
67 · rob said
Look, can we be honest here? I think that the likelihood that Bush or Jindal believe in intelligent design as opposed to evolution is about 0%. Have you ever met any of these high-level Republicans? They are way too well-educated to hold that view. It's similar to whether Hillary or Obama are really against NAFTA--uhh, I'd vote on no, b/c they're not dumb. So, why do you try to posture in a way that it "freaks you out" that Bush or Jindal seek votes by catering to some dumb people who believe in intelligent design over evolution, but it apparently doesn't freak you out that Hillary or Obama are seeking idiots who haven't caught up on the benefits of free trade as definitively shown 100's of years ago (yeah--there are some weird academic incentives to dis-prove the benefits of free-trade, but--I think we can forecast how well those are going to look in 30 years--i.e.--really dumb).
rob, I think you value "education" too much. There are professors and mathematicians with PhDs who are staunch believers in ID, so "education" is not a vaccine against dumbness. My evaluation of these people depends on an entire track record, not just individual statements. Bush has gone on record multiple times essentially stating or implying that his presidency has been ordained by God, and so are his various acts. Jindal has elaborate pieces describing how Catholicism is the only true path and that unbelievers will burn in hell. So, yes, I do think they believe in intelligent design at a doctrinal level. And in the Bush case (even if I give him the benefit of the doubt about ID, as you do), there is a clear and expressed disdain for "science" and "books" and all that nonsense, and while I don't know of any federal actions pushing ID, this culture of ignoring scientific facts has definitely had a significant impact on NASA and the EPA at the very least, and a culture of appeasing evangelicals, even if it is a cynical political ploy, has led to the administration being packed with these religious nuts.
Yeah, my favorite passage from Machiavelli's The Prince (I paraphrase): while the Prince must not be too religious, since excessive religious sentiment will prevent him from doing the cruel things necessary to stay in power, the Prince must always appear to be religious...for then he will have the goodwill of the people, his most powerful weapon.
I'm amazed that this is so easily brushed away. I see plenty of small time local politicians catch flak for airing or taking action on opinions seen as unpopular at the national level. It doesn't make their efforts any less noteworthy. I'm not saying we ought to make a hero of Obama, but I don't think we should just ignore the content of his stance (that he opposed and opposes the Iraq War). Just because the majority of the country thinks it's a bad idea in 2007/08 doesn't mean Illinois' voters did in 2002-03.The first paragraph in my previous comment was a quote from rob's comment.
Also, as for free trade, I don't see Bush and co. rushing to end farm subsidies or other barriers to entry (remember the ban on steel imports right before the West Virginia elections). So, yes, while the dems (Obama, Hillary etc.) are definitely more pro-labor, I don't think they are the sole vanguards against the last century of economic thought.
Look, I'm trying to speak to you one-to-one in blog-commentary that is very interesting, but hardly likely to influence any election--you are a smart guy and I love your comments on SM, but you are just being tendentious if you insist that the real Bush or Jindal believe in this nonsense. Look at Manju's comment in #71. I give the Democrats the benefit of the doubt when they're pandering to idiots--look, Bill Clinton, to his credit, did NAFTA, and now Barack and Hillary are claiming to be against it, though they really aren't....So, anyway, the Republican's are a lot smarter than you're giving them credit for--they need to bottom-feed for votes, sure, but so do the Dem's.
Guess who Obama has as his foreign policy advisor? Zbignew "The Grand Chessboard" Brezenski. This is the guy who advocated aggresive US intervention in the Caucasus for oil. But I thought the liberals were "no blood for oil" types.
Camille,
Both Reagan and W had previous experience in the executive level. So Reagan and W could be believed. Again my problem with Obama is, he has nothing to back up his statements with.
Yeah, Bush is kind of appalling on this set of issues for me, but--why are you optimistic that the Democrats will be better? They have their own set of bizarre concerns. They are hardly some sort of utopian pro-science party.
About Bush, I don't need to read the tea leaves and I don't even really care about his opinions on ID itself, his actions on science speak for themselves (as both Camille and I have noted). Jindal - I have presented a lot of evidence that he's a doctrinaire believer, and there is no evidence to the contrary, so, why should I believe otherwise?
Sure, I wasn't immediately worried that Fred Thomson is religious because he claimed he mosied on over to church whenever he visited his mom in Texas (of course that dude was probably too lazy and slept in on Sundays anyway), nor do I think most other politicians are that way. Just because a politician claims he is religious doesn't immediately make me believe that he is.
I am not making nor have I made any claim that Republicans are dumb in general, but Bush? C'mon! Really, there's no percentage in arguing any smartness of any sort on his part (except maybe in playing exceptionally dumb) - and yes, I believe that there is some serious religious insanity in there, but I don't think I even need to gaze into that crystal ball, his actions speak far louder than anything else. Jindal might be an exceptional technocrat, but as far as his literalism in religious beliefs, yes, I find him truly scary. I am willing to be proved wrong on the latter count, but there needs to be credible evidence on that count.
I am genuinely curious - what is your worry on this front either in terms of stated beliefs or past actions? (Yes, PC-ness in academia definitely has stifled enquiry on certain topics, mostly in the humanities, but that is different than a political agenda)
Honestly, I think (or at least, hope) that McCain could make things better on this front - it is only the evangelical crazies like Bush or the Huckster that are wingnuts, although the Dems might be more likely to take these actions, if only to actively undo Bush's legacy.
Well, too much protectionism on the economic front--if you expose the US to foreign competition, the US does well--but--I don't want the US to become fat and happy.
Not that I know which way the answer goes on this one, but is this true in practice as compared to the repubs? I have not seen the repubs hesitate to impose tariffs wherever it will benefit them politically. (Or are you including their general pro-labor/poor/middle-class stance - minimum wage, progressive taxation etc. - too in your "protectionism" umbrella?)
Rahul,
Interesting links--will have to look into this further. . . .
OK, Rahul, I looked at those links--fair enough, the Democrats aren't insane on trade, nor are the Republicans pristine one it, from a classical liberal perspective. Still, something like the resignation of Castro, with the left trying to make excuses for the horrible impositions that have put on the legitimate goals of the the Cuban people over the past 50 years, really gives me pause. . . .
'
Random Dude, Samantha Powers is also on his foreign policy team with about a half dozen other human rights folks. Are "conservatives" monolithic in their foreign policy values or prescriptions? No. Why would you expect the same of "liberals" (your term)?
With respect to Reagan/W: Really? Five years of experience as the Governor of Texas exhibits more "believable" experience than eleven years of legislative experience? I understand that Bush's time in Texas and Reagan's in California drew a lot of attention. In my opinion, this is certainly due in part to the fact that they adopted what I would consider a few key "wing-nut policies." I don't find it admirable to have presided over record high incarceration and execution rates in your state (when the crime rate was already steadily decreasing) or to tear gas and beat students anytime you disagreed with their first amendment rights to speech and assembly.
I'm not arguing that the two chambers are equivalent -- I understand that the the role of the executive differs tremendously when it comes to policymaking, etc. --, but it sounds like you've decided on a position despite evidence to the contrary. That's perfectly fine; let's just be honest about it.
::
If nothing else, I know the Dems have a much better record on a few science-related issues, including federal student financial aid, federal research monies, and generally "pro-science" policy positions (e.g., pro stem cell research, pro evolution). I'm not arguing that they haven't defunded science initiatives (Clinton with NASA is a notable example) -- research funding has been declining under both Democratic and Republican administrations for years --, but at least there is some idea that scientific inquiry is preferable to demagoguery, especially in health research, standards, and education.But it really depends on what are your trigger issues, right? For you, rob, it sounds like a laissez-faire approach to market/business regulation in the U.S. vis-a-vis the global economy is important. I'm concerned about the economy, but my focus is on domestic poverty/inequality and how it interacts with global poverty. To be clear, I don't think either party has been very good about addressing poverty/inequality, but at least their funding priorities tend to align with what I value, namely a balanced budget, limited debt, well-regulated/governed financial markets, and adequate funding for key "safety net" programs.
>>There is nothing wrong with that, but when tough decisions are to be made, Bill Clinton is not going to be next to Hillary always.
I'm not so sure. If Hillary wins the nomination, there's nothing to stop her from making Bill Clinton her running mate. He's still very well liked, and could bring a lot of centrist Republican men to the Democratic side. And nothing pleases the feminists more than a husband reporting to a wife, in public service!
M. Nam
Rob, let's take it that both Bush and Jindal do not "believe in this nonsense."
Even so, their alliance of convenience with the Christian Conservatives produces some strange policies - such as silly restrictions on PEPFAR or research restrictions on frozen embryos. Others upthread have noted the additional deleterious effects on science and research.
Just read this Bush speech given in praise of the hilariously-named Snowflakes adoption program, which promotes the adoption of frozen embryos. His endorsement and support of the Christian pro-life agenda could not be clearer. Moreover, the government's overt involvement with a particular religious slant should be disturbing for true classical liberals, right (Lockeans especially, - see 'A Letter Concerning Toleration')? Not to mention the foreign policy moralism that is couched in Christian rhetoric.
However, just when Bush appears to be scarily Christian, he abandons Christian egalitarianism and gives some poorly thought tax cuts to the rich, and does nothing about the Christian ideal of stewardship of the environment. I hope Jindal will emulate the sagely Bush in his delicate balancing of the interests of Christian right and the CEO Club. One moment a devotional Kathak, and the next a fierce and destructive Tandava.
Issues-Tissues. I maintain that people make decisions and then force facts around their decisions. Obama is sexy. Men want to be him. Women want to be with him. No wonder people are rooting for him*.
We all want his ora(toria)l skills.
*we love you mel
Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest for a second that b/c it's pandering it's harmless--pandering can wind up with very bad results indeed. I was just making the modest observation that, for what it's worth, it's pandering, not sincere belief.
I am wondering what is behind the derision and scorn heaped on Obama and Obama supporters among Sepia Mutiny readers.
Obama's is Hoperah, his supporters are silly, think he is the second coming of Christ (I am paraphrasing)
Haven't seen either Hillary or McCain come under such scrutiny, why do they get pass?
The Hoperah and Christ memes are things he himself is pushing or implying by acting as if he is above it all. And no, I don't think all his supporters are silly, nor have I said that, there are many articulate and smart ones, but there are many who are drawn to him purely because of the promise of hopiness and change, a promise that is not borne out by his record, and in fact is something he can claim only because his record is too scant for the charge to stick, at least so far. And I think they are being set up for a disappointment if he does make it all the way - what is called his nuance, non-divisiveness and acceptability to independents and moderate republicans is derided as centrism and accommodation in others.
Yogi, I have said this many times in many other comments, but let me repeat it: Hillary's pitch is not that she's a harbinger of change or hope or whatever, and she gets a lot of flak for calibrating her positions for political convenience. I don't knock Obama for pandering or "nuance" - I get that pols need to do that, I knock him for creating a public image primarily based on idealism when the truth is far from that (and I do find the haloing extremely distasteful). As for McCain, again I have said this in various other comments in the past, there is the same problem: The straight talk express got stuck in bullshit-town the moment he unhesitating embraced Falwell after rightly calling him an agent of intolerance in the previous go-around. Or his recent about-turn on torture. And many other commenters have made the same point too.
As for getting a pass, it is Obama who has generally been given that by the media because this hope-change vs. establishment cynic shtick is a storyline they love. Let me reiterate: My problem with Obama is not that he's a political opportunist, the problem is that he claims to be the farthest you can imagine from that, and in his own devious way, deflects attacks on his record as some sort of attack on the very notion of hope itself (This has been a potent campaigning force during bleak times before: probably the best recent example is Reagan's morning in America nonsense).
I have repeated myself on this representational dichotomy issue far too much across many threads, so I'm not going to belabor this further.
It's not mere pandering when your entire framework of actions, not just talk, is aligned around this agenda (cf. Bush). And just as I don't assume that a politician is religious just because he claims to be, I don't think that it is reasonable to assume that a man is not a raving religious loonie just because he is a politician. Jindal's writings about his coming to Catholicism and the meaning of being a Christian (as well as what he thinks of those not on this path) even when he was a student at Oxford and his later articles about exorcism and so on definitely seem to indicate that he is quite a fundamentalist believer - this is an expressed intensity of belief far more than the mere pandering of participating in gospel singing or ostentatiously going to Sunday service. And I think Huckabee is similar - I don't think his belief in ID and Christian ideals is pandering, but comes from a genuine literal Christian belief. And I don't see any evidence to indicate otherwise in either case.
Rob, I meant to ask you earlier, could you amplify on this statements? I haven't seen any mainstream dems espouse anything but the positions that will make sure they don't lose the Cuban-American vote, much like the Republicans have been doing. As for actual actions, neither the Republicans nor the democrats have actually done anything tangible but retain pointless embargos, spending restrictions, and limits on the money that Cuban Americans can send home, so I don't see any real differences between the two.
"so I don't see any real differences between the two."
speaking of Cuba, this is one area where Hillary has been far more guarded than Obama. She would not talk about relaxing embargos on Cuba for the exact same reasons that she is afraid of losing the cuban-american vote, while Obama has been advocating relaxing travel restrictions, cutting funds to anti-fidel propaganda etc. Again, another case where Hillary is only interested in securing her votes and continuing the status-quo, but Obama has a clearer vision of where the world should be moving beyond the cold war era. Last week's newsweek, Zakaria talks about this exact difference in the way these two candidates look at the issue.
I have no idea what you are talking about, what is haloing? and who is doing it?
The rationale of her candidacy is 35 years experience, and she has been in the senate for about 7 years. Last time I checked 7 did not equal 35 (or may be she means dog years) I guess outright lies and shamelessness are better than haloing or whatever it is that you don't like.I have never heard Obama say follow me and I will lead you to salvation.
I was not talking about the media, I was referring to SM commentators.
And if you are interested here is link to Obama's legislative record.
Those comments were spec