I thought that would be my last Sarah Palin post a few weeks ago but I have some comments on the Vice-Presidential debate. First, let me say that Sarah Palin did a very good job. She made some good points, beat Biden over the head with them and winked, smiled, and empathized her way to the hearts of Americans. Second, I think the line of criticism which states that Palin was not original in her thoughts is unfair. It is true that she was rehearsed and was clearly repeating her talking points, but this is something which most politicians do – maybe less obviously than she did yesterday. But that is easily correctable through experience and time. Finally, there is an argument to be made for connecting with the voters in a visceral (as opposed to a purely intellectual) way – and Palin clearly has the capacity for visceral empathetic connection.
Having said that, I have two major criticisms of Palin and one of Biden. Biden did not respond to some of Palin’s barbs which showed the difference between Biden and Obama. I think those issues should be dealt with. He should have responded more seriously to these assertions.
In case of Palin, two parts of the debate worried me. First, her assertion of constitutional power for the Vice-President!!! As we all know, the Constitution does not tie the Vice-President to the legislature, nor does it give the office the power she was talking about. There is no such discretionary power given to the Vice-President as she seemed to suggest. That statement showed a profound misunderstanding of the office she is running for.
Second, she refused to answer the questions posed to her by Ifill. Now, all debaters do this to some extent but she did it to an unprecedented extent. In fact, she acknowledged what she was doing saying, “I may not be answering your questions Joe or those the moderator wants me to answer…” Now if a student came to take a test and then said, “Prof. Bagchi, I am not answering the questions you have given me on this test, but I am saying what I think is important” that student would fail immediately. This was not a campaign speech, it was a debate. You cannot make the rules here, you have to play by pre-set rules. By not playing by these rules, you give the impression that you are incapable of doing well by playing by the rules. Wouldn’t you assume that your student was not answering the given questions because he/she did not know the answer?
______________________________
In Other News:
The local branch of the grocery store, Stauffers, has opened about 3 miles down the road from us. This is the equivalent to Whole Foods and is really very good. I had been traveling to one about 15 miles away every couple of weeks or so. Now, I will pass it every day on my way to the train station. The good thing is: I will be saving on gas. The bad thing is: I will probably lose that saving by buying too much at the store. But I am delighted nonetheless.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, October 3, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
The Bailout Plan
Like a lot of people, I have been obsessed with reading about the bailout plan being debated in Congress. To say I am torn about it is an understatement. But the more I read about it, though, the less I like it. On one hand, I understand that we are a national and global economy. Therefore, the behavior of others impacts us – whether positively or negatively. In this sense, the plan is not just bailing out those in trouble, it is helping all of us. On the other hand, I am wary of the extent of power it gives to government and skeptical of the good that such a hand-over of power will do.
While Paulson’s initial demand of money with zero oversight was (in my opinion) unconstitutional, the current plan sets up oversight but leaves a lot of open questions. Who determines what mortgages to buy and which not to buy? How is their “true” value going to be settled? Which banks are we baling out and which are we not bailing out? These remain unanswered questions, primarily because answering them in the here and now would be impossible.
This brings me to my next point: the claim that this will unfreeze assets and make banks start lending again. Is this inevitable? Are we requiring banks to lend? What if the assets are not frozen but the depressed condition of the economy makes banks cautious and unwilling to lend anyway?
I am glad the new plan establishes oversight. I am glad that we are not shelling out $700 billion in one fell swoop. But I am still concerned that the plan simultaneously does too much and not enough. That it will be too great a grant of power and discretion and that this grant of power will be futile.
As I was writing this, I read that the plan failed in the House of Representatives. Nothing signifies my ambivalence more than my response. I am scared – because now it looks like there is nothing left to do but wait and watch the consequences of this failure. And who knows what the consequences will be? And I was not even in favor of the bill!!!!!
This situation reminds me of the Federalist-Anti-Federalist debates on the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists argued against the Constitution saying that it was too great a grant of power to the federal government and that the country was being scared into voting for it. It was a document which would prove harmful to the people and fear mongerers were forcing it through. The Federalists warned of the dire consequences if it was not adopted saying that the country would disintegrate if the Constitution was not ratified. Is this where we are today?
While Paulson’s initial demand of money with zero oversight was (in my opinion) unconstitutional, the current plan sets up oversight but leaves a lot of open questions. Who determines what mortgages to buy and which not to buy? How is their “true” value going to be settled? Which banks are we baling out and which are we not bailing out? These remain unanswered questions, primarily because answering them in the here and now would be impossible.
This brings me to my next point: the claim that this will unfreeze assets and make banks start lending again. Is this inevitable? Are we requiring banks to lend? What if the assets are not frozen but the depressed condition of the economy makes banks cautious and unwilling to lend anyway?
I am glad the new plan establishes oversight. I am glad that we are not shelling out $700 billion in one fell swoop. But I am still concerned that the plan simultaneously does too much and not enough. That it will be too great a grant of power and discretion and that this grant of power will be futile.
As I was writing this, I read that the plan failed in the House of Representatives. Nothing signifies my ambivalence more than my response. I am scared – because now it looks like there is nothing left to do but wait and watch the consequences of this failure. And who knows what the consequences will be? And I was not even in favor of the bill!!!!!
This situation reminds me of the Federalist-Anti-Federalist debates on the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists argued against the Constitution saying that it was too great a grant of power to the federal government and that the country was being scared into voting for it. It was a document which would prove harmful to the people and fear mongerers were forcing it through. The Federalists warned of the dire consequences if it was not adopted saying that the country would disintegrate if the Constitution was not ratified. Is this where we are today?
Friday, September 5, 2008
Double Talk
I studiously avoid politics on this blog but this controversy regarding Sarah Palin has put me over the edge. But unlike others, I am not simply outraged on Palin’s behalf. I am outraged at the hypocrisy and illogic and double-talk which has been washing over us since this pick. So, here are some of the threads I think we should untangle from each other and think about separately:
The Sexism Issue: A lot has been said about the sexist media coverage of Palin. So, what exactly is the sexism issue? There is the argument that with 5 children including a baby with Downs’ syndrome and a pregnant daughter, Palin will not be a good mother if she takes on the job of the Vice-President. I think this is clearly the sexism issue – this argument is out of my grandmother’s generation. As many others have pointed out, what she does to balance work and home life is her decision. Many women have to work to simply support their families and they should never be considered de facto bad mothers for making this choice. Nor should women be considered bad mothers for simply choosing to work. Is this argument made because people feel threatened at a woman having the second-highest position in this country (and potentially the highest)?
Having said that, let me make one thing clear: not everything said criticizing Palin is sexist. Questions about her capacity to do the job are not sexist. Questions about her experience are not sexist. And questions about her political history, her experience or lack thereof, are not sexist. We do no favors to women when we incorporate all attacks on a woman into “sexism”. To fight sexism, we should be clear on what it is – and what it is not.
The Experience Issue: This, as said before, strikes me as being a valid line of inquiry. There has been a lot of talk about whether Palin is experienced enough for the job. Inevitably, this is bound up with the question of whether Obama is experienced enough for the job. There are many people who claim that Obama is inexperienced while Palin is not (see Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show for a bit of humor on this issue). A couple of things are worth saying on this point:
First, the Constitution has no qualifications for the Presidency or the Vice-Presidency except age and residency requirements. Of course, the reason is that they thought the electors, men with political knowledge, will be making the choice and therefore, only people with national reputations/ national political service would pass the test. Now, on the grounds of national reputation and political service, one may argue that Biden and McCain are most qualified for the office of the President (in that order). Biden has been in the Senate since 1973 and McCain has been in office (first in the House and then in the Senate) since 1983. Obama falls a far third with 2 years of Senate experience and Palin a distant fourth with no national service at all. Thus, while all are qualified according to the letter of the Constitution, some are clearly more qualified than others by the intent of the Founders.
Second, the Electoral College does not operate today the way it was intended to. So, experience as an issue has become more thorny. Since we all vote, we all have the right to determine what constitutes experience and of course ideological predilections influence our judgment. Some opine that any executive experience prepares one for the Presidency – whether it is being the Governor of New York, Virginia, Alaska or North Dakota. Sometimes they argue that while executive experience prepares you for the Presidency, a short legislative experience does not but a long one does. Others say that you need to be on the national stage (reminiscent of the Founders) because that is where you see first-hand how Washington operates. And, so the argument goes, to change something, you need to know how it works. Still others, like Gregg, argue that the discussion of experience is silly because nothing can prepare you for the Presidency of the United States – the job is unique in its nature. To sum up Gregg: Observing the president – whether as a spouse, cabinet member, senator, governor, mayor, political scientist, etc. does not make you ready to be president. If candidates have a minimum threshold of credibility (he thinks all four candidates do) then the experience question becomes largely immaterial.
Before revealing my own views on the subject, I want to talk about how people seem to be using “experience” in this election. “Experience” has become a justification of sorts. While everyone running for this office has some sort of experience, none of them have actually experienced the office. Most people vote on ideology or just because they like the candidate (for whatever reason). Since that sounds like a bad reason for voting, they have taken to using “experience” as justification. But everyone disagrees on what relevant experience is, making the choice as difficult as before.
This is becoming too long of a rant and so let me conclude by saying this: for me, experience counts but not in the way that people seem to use it. Experience counts in conjunction with intellectualism and judgment. The latter qualities determine what use you make of your experience. I do not think either McCain-Palin or Obama-Biden will come into office and automatically know the ropes. But experience does not mean executive experience or legislative experience (for me). It means life experience. I believe that your life experiences shape who you are and how you behave. Now simply having lived a long life does not make you more experienced. Some people live long insular lives. But being open to alternatives, to new ways of thinking, to seeing the shades of grey in issues which are usually considered in black-and-white – hopefully that is what experience does for you. This is why I had been defending Hillary Clinton’s candidacy earlier in the election. It is not that being the wife of a President makes you an expert. But it does open your eyes to the world, it forces you to take things into consideration that you may not have, it gives you a different perch from which you see things. There may be people who have had many different life experiences but remained insular and dogmatic in spite of them. That is the person I would rather not have as President. And this is why experience alone is not enough – it has to be experience combined with the intellect and willingness to make the most of that experience. And this is why picking a President is so difficult – because whereas you may know their political history and experience, it is much more difficult to determine their mind-sets, proclivities and what they will do with that life experience once in office.
We know the political service and history of all four candidates. We know what experience they have. Let us stop the silly debates about whether a two-year Governor of Alaska is better suited to be Vice-President/President than a 2 year Senator. The “Ready on Day One” argument is pointless – none of them will be ready on Day One. Instead lets focus on the issues and decide the way we almost always decide – who do you feel more comfortable with given the issues at hand and your own worldview?
The Sexism Issue: A lot has been said about the sexist media coverage of Palin. So, what exactly is the sexism issue? There is the argument that with 5 children including a baby with Downs’ syndrome and a pregnant daughter, Palin will not be a good mother if she takes on the job of the Vice-President. I think this is clearly the sexism issue – this argument is out of my grandmother’s generation. As many others have pointed out, what she does to balance work and home life is her decision. Many women have to work to simply support their families and they should never be considered de facto bad mothers for making this choice. Nor should women be considered bad mothers for simply choosing to work. Is this argument made because people feel threatened at a woman having the second-highest position in this country (and potentially the highest)?
Having said that, let me make one thing clear: not everything said criticizing Palin is sexist. Questions about her capacity to do the job are not sexist. Questions about her experience are not sexist. And questions about her political history, her experience or lack thereof, are not sexist. We do no favors to women when we incorporate all attacks on a woman into “sexism”. To fight sexism, we should be clear on what it is – and what it is not.
The Experience Issue: This, as said before, strikes me as being a valid line of inquiry. There has been a lot of talk about whether Palin is experienced enough for the job. Inevitably, this is bound up with the question of whether Obama is experienced enough for the job. There are many people who claim that Obama is inexperienced while Palin is not (see Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show for a bit of humor on this issue). A couple of things are worth saying on this point:
First, the Constitution has no qualifications for the Presidency or the Vice-Presidency except age and residency requirements. Of course, the reason is that they thought the electors, men with political knowledge, will be making the choice and therefore, only people with national reputations/ national political service would pass the test. Now, on the grounds of national reputation and political service, one may argue that Biden and McCain are most qualified for the office of the President (in that order). Biden has been in the Senate since 1973 and McCain has been in office (first in the House and then in the Senate) since 1983. Obama falls a far third with 2 years of Senate experience and Palin a distant fourth with no national service at all. Thus, while all are qualified according to the letter of the Constitution, some are clearly more qualified than others by the intent of the Founders.
Second, the Electoral College does not operate today the way it was intended to. So, experience as an issue has become more thorny. Since we all vote, we all have the right to determine what constitutes experience and of course ideological predilections influence our judgment. Some opine that any executive experience prepares one for the Presidency – whether it is being the Governor of New York, Virginia, Alaska or North Dakota. Sometimes they argue that while executive experience prepares you for the Presidency, a short legislative experience does not but a long one does. Others say that you need to be on the national stage (reminiscent of the Founders) because that is where you see first-hand how Washington operates. And, so the argument goes, to change something, you need to know how it works. Still others, like Gregg, argue that the discussion of experience is silly because nothing can prepare you for the Presidency of the United States – the job is unique in its nature. To sum up Gregg: Observing the president – whether as a spouse, cabinet member, senator, governor, mayor, political scientist, etc. does not make you ready to be president. If candidates have a minimum threshold of credibility (he thinks all four candidates do) then the experience question becomes largely immaterial.
Before revealing my own views on the subject, I want to talk about how people seem to be using “experience” in this election. “Experience” has become a justification of sorts. While everyone running for this office has some sort of experience, none of them have actually experienced the office. Most people vote on ideology or just because they like the candidate (for whatever reason). Since that sounds like a bad reason for voting, they have taken to using “experience” as justification. But everyone disagrees on what relevant experience is, making the choice as difficult as before.
This is becoming too long of a rant and so let me conclude by saying this: for me, experience counts but not in the way that people seem to use it. Experience counts in conjunction with intellectualism and judgment. The latter qualities determine what use you make of your experience. I do not think either McCain-Palin or Obama-Biden will come into office and automatically know the ropes. But experience does not mean executive experience or legislative experience (for me). It means life experience. I believe that your life experiences shape who you are and how you behave. Now simply having lived a long life does not make you more experienced. Some people live long insular lives. But being open to alternatives, to new ways of thinking, to seeing the shades of grey in issues which are usually considered in black-and-white – hopefully that is what experience does for you. This is why I had been defending Hillary Clinton’s candidacy earlier in the election. It is not that being the wife of a President makes you an expert. But it does open your eyes to the world, it forces you to take things into consideration that you may not have, it gives you a different perch from which you see things. There may be people who have had many different life experiences but remained insular and dogmatic in spite of them. That is the person I would rather not have as President. And this is why experience alone is not enough – it has to be experience combined with the intellect and willingness to make the most of that experience. And this is why picking a President is so difficult – because whereas you may know their political history and experience, it is much more difficult to determine their mind-sets, proclivities and what they will do with that life experience once in office.
We know the political service and history of all four candidates. We know what experience they have. Let us stop the silly debates about whether a two-year Governor of Alaska is better suited to be Vice-President/President than a 2 year Senator. The “Ready on Day One” argument is pointless – none of them will be ready on Day One. Instead lets focus on the issues and decide the way we almost always decide – who do you feel more comfortable with given the issues at hand and your own worldview?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)