I was walking in Jackson Hole this past summer, and as I came down the trail I passed by a pair of healthy middle-aged ladies, hiking buddies, who were discussing some recent political development. The only definite phrase I remember catching was along the lines of, "so it's not actually Obama's fault", or perhaps it was "so Obama's actually doing a really good job on [blank]". Even though I was soon out of earshot, I feel it would not be a misrepresentation to say that this was part of a larger apologetic defense of our current President - using apologetic here in the more formal sense. Her companion seemed sympathetic, so I imagine that the discourse was probably more affirmative than plaintive.
The moment must seem ordinary to most folks - I imagine that thousands of such conversations are occurring all over the country, particularly among Democrats who are preparing to rally around President Obama this November. In conversations like these, supporters step back from the imperfections of a human presidency and remind themselves of what has gone right under the current executive's leadership. Faithful Democratic supporters need to remind themselves that whatever the shortcomings of the President, real or imagined, he is infinitely preferable to an alternative from across the political aisle - that when he errs, he errs perhaps only in magnitude, and not in direction. Yes, it is a very ordinary moment - but, despite the everyday quality of it, it struck me as a revelation.
The content of that revelation was simple. I realized, for the first time, that these conversations happened among Democrats. You see, I had come of age politically around the time of the Bush re-election campaign, and I had been surrounded by similar conversations among Republicans. The economy was struggling, yes, but it showed signs of turning around. Even if it was struggling, it was more the fault of 9/11 than of the President. The Iraq war seemed to be going poorly, true, but it also seemed unwise to swap out a commander in chief in the middle of an unresolved conflict. George might have invented a few words here and there, but he got the heart of the message right even if he muddled the phrasing. And, simple as I was, I thought that these kinds of apologetics were somehow uniquely Republican. On the other side of the aisle, I could imagine the uncompromising Democrats laughing at these attempts to powder out the blemishes of our chosen favorite. Wherever my friends and family added a "but", I could see them mercilessly shredding the rest of the sentence. "Yes, the economy has struggled, but-" "But nothing! It's struggled! It's Bush's fault! Throw him out!" Or something like that.
But of course, once your own fellow is in the driver's seat, you realize he's human, and that he has to work with an often-gridlocked congress, and that whatever he might have promised you in his election speeches, he can't do any more than his best - and sometimes it seems he doesn't even do that. So now it is the Democrat's turn to say "Yes, unemployment is high, but it's stopped growing recently and is even starting to shrink a little," and "Yes, Afghanistan's a mess, but we'll get out of it soon," and "Yes, the health-care reform is a compromise, but it's certainly better than what we had before." And I'm certain that most of these are reasonable, well-founded observations. I'm certain that they have as much merit as the ones from the Republican side in 2004 - maybe more. But my revelation wasn't that the arguments are strong or weak - it's that they are there at all. Growing up in the deeply conservative land of Utah, I often wondered if perhaps the Republicans lived only by feeding themselves justifications, and that Democrats were folks who bravely abandoned compromise to live on the side of true ideals. Since there are on average no Democrats elected to public office in Utah, it was hard to find a counter-example to those stereotypes. Utah Democrats are unfortunate in that they are almost completely disenfranchised - to win as a Democrat in Utah means overcoming the fact that about a third of the electorate is probably going to ignore the campaign and vote straight Republican (an exaggeration, I hope, but that's the feeling you sometimes get). But Utah Democrats are fortunate in that, as the defeated-but-nevertheless-voting minority, they get to look at all the ugliness of state politics and say "we told you so!" with palpable superiority and ironclad hindsight. So I just assumed that we picked Republicans because we were used to it, then apologized for them in the light of Democratic evangelism, holding onto them more out of habit than out of principle.
But now it's the Republicans turn to cut off the end of sentences: "Food stamps are at record distribution levels, but-" "But nothing! Throw the bums out!" And after I'd observed that little incident, I suddenly became aware of a whole bunch of new examples of how the knife cuts both ways. A few of them follow:
The Supreme Court: I always assumed that disrespect for the supreme court, and suspicion of its unelected justices laying down sweeping edicts on the borders of the law, was the territory of conservatives only. More than thirty years later, a lot of conservatives are still mad about Roe v. Wade, and by extension Griswold v. Connecticut. But, thanks to my new-found hobby of watching the Colbert report, I've found out that Democrats hate the Supreme Court too, for things like Citizens United! I've actually heard the words "five unelected Justices" from a liberal source now, a characterization of the court that I thought came only from deep in the conservative camp. Turns out that, yes, the Constitution is a living document, and it can live in ways that upset both sides of the political divide.
Civil Liberties: I assumed that it was a uniquely Republican flaw to value safety so much that you would sacrifice sacred civil rights on the altar of the Patriot Act. But even though the Republicans are still staunchly on the side of giving the terrorists our freedoms to keep them from taking our lives, I've found out from the quirky Ron Paul campaign that even our former constitutional-law-professor President will happily sign noxious little bills like the National Defense Authorization Act into law. This one goes beyond the Patriot Act - which is saying something - to allow the military to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial and without charges. With vision like that from both sides of the aisle, I'm sure the war on terrorism will be over in a few months. And our Attorney General just explained recently how a President can kill American citizens
without trial as long as the President happens to be a nice, reasonable chap like our current fearless leader. One Barack is easily worth a dozen jurors, wouldn't you agree?
Fighting Other People's Wars: In his second presidential debate against Al Gore back in 2000, George Bush said, "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building". He then proceeded to try and build at least two after 9/11 changed his mind. Of course, the Democrats' record here is spotless - unless you count Libya. Whoops. A vastly different order of magnitude, but the same basic thesis.
Raising the National Debt: President Bush set records with the sheer number of dollars we raised the debt by under his term. But our current President, despite a campaign promise to cut the deficit in half ... well, you know the rest.
Now, I hope I'm not coming off as overly critical here. I'm not trying to say that Obama is the Democratic reincarnation of George Bush - far from it. What I'm trying to express is the realization - shocking to me in its simplicity - that no politicians are perfect, and that no party exactly matches what I personally believe is morally right; and the further realization that party platforms and party candidates are always compromises - that people are always more or less dissatisfied with the final result. The difference between voting for an incumbent and voting for a challenger is not the difference between being completely content with what your incumbent's done or being blindly confident that the challenger will do all he promises to do; the difference is simply whether you think you'll be less disappointed with what you think the challenger can actually do than you are with what the incumbent's actually done, or vice versa. Certainly not the stirring anthem that moves people to political fervor, but, I think, true nonetheless. Compromise is sometimes a cynical and depressing thing, but I don't know how democracy can work without it, and so I'm grateful to it. And it's humbling, and a little liberating, to know that both sides are human enough to need it. As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time". And I agree.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
How to Balance the Budget
So, America has an enormous national debt. And I don't know of anyone who thinks it's a good thing. I also think most people believe that fixing it lies in the hands of those wacky congressmen - and certainly they exert a direct influence by setting the budget and taking out loans. But both parties know that they survive by handing out money - in token sums to the poor, in defense contracts to the rich, and in countless other ways. And so, as a practical matter, I am highly skeptical of a voluntary congressional deficit reduction.
But, does it really have to be their job? If we are really put out by the national debt, I think we can go ahead and balance it ourselves. Here's how.
1. Make more money. If you make more money, you pay more taxes. Even though rich people can actually get away with paying a relatively low rate - Mitt Romney only paid 15% on his earnings last year - they still pay, in terms of sheer volume of money, a lot more taxes than poorer people do. 15% of what Mitt Romney makes in a year is a great deal more than my entire income over the last ten years. The rich pay for almost everything the federal government does. There's some folks in Congress and the White House who want to boost the budget by taxing the rich more, but while they're arguing about it we could just as easily balance the budget if more of us became rich. Two millionaires paying 15% each is just as much revenue for the nation as one millionaire paying 30%. And, as they say, two millionaires are better than one. If Americans made more money, we'd pay more taxes, and we'd be closer to balancing the budget. As I understand it, that's essentially how Clinton balanced the budget - although some of the money we paid it off with flew away again with the dot-com bust.
2. Pay Social Security taxes, but never collect. The baby boomers are going to retire in a minute here, and they didn't have nearly as many kids as their parents did, meaning that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are about to go incredibly bankrupt. Social Security, for anyone more than a decade or two from retirement, is, as I understand it, essentially a program whereby we temporarily finance the boomer generation's retirement at the expense of our own. As a practical matter, I think we'll need to have our own savings on top of what we pay into the program, and not count on Social Security being anything like secure. And if balancing the budget is your priority, then donating to Social Security and not asking for a return is one way of putting off that particular budget crisis by just a little bit longer.
I am, of course, being a little facetious here. I hope that social security can be gently defused before it blows up in our faces, and I can think of a lot of things I'm glad I spend my time doing that definitely don't make me any money. But it's just struck me recently that politicians like to take a great deal of credit for the economy and the budget, and I'm not sure they really deserve it. I'm starting to like those folks who say things might be better if the government stopped intervening, but I'm also still hesitant to say that government bears the biggest blame for things like our recession. I think we the people are the deciding factor. In terms of economic policy, our most important votes are cast by our actions. When we act to add value to the world, the economy is better off for it. And as long as we have our priorities in line, I think we're better off for it as well.
But, does it really have to be their job? If we are really put out by the national debt, I think we can go ahead and balance it ourselves. Here's how.
1. Make more money. If you make more money, you pay more taxes. Even though rich people can actually get away with paying a relatively low rate - Mitt Romney only paid 15% on his earnings last year - they still pay, in terms of sheer volume of money, a lot more taxes than poorer people do. 15% of what Mitt Romney makes in a year is a great deal more than my entire income over the last ten years. The rich pay for almost everything the federal government does. There's some folks in Congress and the White House who want to boost the budget by taxing the rich more, but while they're arguing about it we could just as easily balance the budget if more of us became rich. Two millionaires paying 15% each is just as much revenue for the nation as one millionaire paying 30%. And, as they say, two millionaires are better than one. If Americans made more money, we'd pay more taxes, and we'd be closer to balancing the budget. As I understand it, that's essentially how Clinton balanced the budget - although some of the money we paid it off with flew away again with the dot-com bust.
2. Pay Social Security taxes, but never collect. The baby boomers are going to retire in a minute here, and they didn't have nearly as many kids as their parents did, meaning that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are about to go incredibly bankrupt. Social Security, for anyone more than a decade or two from retirement, is, as I understand it, essentially a program whereby we temporarily finance the boomer generation's retirement at the expense of our own. As a practical matter, I think we'll need to have our own savings on top of what we pay into the program, and not count on Social Security being anything like secure. And if balancing the budget is your priority, then donating to Social Security and not asking for a return is one way of putting off that particular budget crisis by just a little bit longer.
I am, of course, being a little facetious here. I hope that social security can be gently defused before it blows up in our faces, and I can think of a lot of things I'm glad I spend my time doing that definitely don't make me any money. But it's just struck me recently that politicians like to take a great deal of credit for the economy and the budget, and I'm not sure they really deserve it. I'm starting to like those folks who say things might be better if the government stopped intervening, but I'm also still hesitant to say that government bears the biggest blame for things like our recession. I think we the people are the deciding factor. In terms of economic policy, our most important votes are cast by our actions. When we act to add value to the world, the economy is better off for it. And as long as we have our priorities in line, I think we're better off for it as well.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Knowing when to jump - Part 2
I think my point can be illustrated with a simple example. In my opinion, the most solid branch of science is physics, and within physics, there are few things as practically useful as the laws of motion. As long as velocities are well below the speed of light and gravity isn't tearing holes in the time-space continuum, they are as well understood and as thoroughly proven as any piece of human knowledge in the sciences.
So now take a simple pendulum - a weight swinging back and forth with no forces acting on it except gravity - like a grandfather clock. This is a classic problem from almost all introductory physics classes, and with a little geometry and a straightforward application of Newton's laws, the problem can be described very precisely with a few equations. Make some very simple assumptions based on a relatively small swing length, and you can accurately predict the motion of a pendulum for essentially ... forever. And if you actually swing a pendulum - voila! It does what you expect it to. Even for large angles, you can figure it out with enough time and trigonometry (as Michael Bolton sings, "When love puts you through the fire/ When love puts you to the test / nothing heals a broken heart like time, love and trigonometry").
But here's where it gets interesting. It turns out that if you hang a second pendulum off the first, and give it a bit swing, the problem no longer has a nice solution. We can't write down a formula for it. If you have a computer, you can fake it pretty well, but you realize that it's extremely sensitive to the slightest difference in getting started - really small changes in the starting angle or speed can lead to absolutely ridiculous, off-the-chain differences in the behavior of the pendulum ... here's a good link if you want to check this out for yourself: http://www.myphysicslab.com/dbl_pendulum.html. Pull it back and give it a big starting angle, and watch the craziness.
It's a good example of a larger principle: science is great at breaking stuff down into parts and explaining the parts really well, but when things start getting put together into systems, predictions break down. Effects like this are the reason your weatherman always manages to be wrong when he tries to predict rain a week from now, even though we have huge amounts of data and experience in predicting the weather.
Similarly, modern medicine does a great job of analyzing individual parts of the body and elements of your health, but when you slap it all together into a human being, suddenly things aren't so clear. That's part of the reason why there's a new diet out every year that works for some people, at least temporarily. It's also a reason that some Chinese medicines produce results that we don't understand. It's not that there's something magic going on - it's just that the system is way too big and complicated for us to understand precisely. Holistic medicine takes a wild guess, and sometimes it works. Scientific medicine doesn't do as much guessing, but that also means it just can't deal with systems of a certain complexity.
And now we come to economics. Economics tries to put equations on the behavior of people. This is like meteorologists trying to predict rain, except that all of the rain droplets are irrational free agents and one of them might be related to Chuck Norris. Basically, there's a really good reason why it gets the 'social' disclaimer in front of its 'science'. If physics can't predict the exact behavior of two pendulums, how can economics predict the behavior of two countries?
Now, don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying we should throw up our hands and give up the study of money and history and psychology and statistics. I think these tools give us valuable insights, and that they do gradually approach the truth about what's going on in the world, and they deserve our best efforts. But what I am saying is that we're not there yet, and I don't see us getting there in my lifetime. Economics won't be able to tell me who to vote for, or which political party actually knows how to fix the country, or a surefire way to make a million dollars.
But, on the other hand, I'm not going to sit around paralyzed - I only get one shot at this thing called life! Yes, I don't know for sure what's right and what's wrong. Yes, even my beloved sciences are all too often inadequate to answer the most important questions in my life. Yes, all this uncertainty means I could be making huge and costly mistakes in the way I live, work, and vote. But I think that being alive is itself a call to action. I think we're put here to do things. When it comes down to it, sometimes you have to make up your mind and act on your best belief, because the rewards of doing the right thing outweigh the risks of going wrong. Sometimes, you find that your path leads you off what looks like a cliff, but you can't go back, and you can't stand still. In short, sometimes you need - to jump!
In a deep, fundamental way, life is a leap of faith. And if I had to define wisdom, I think I would simply call it ...
Knowing when to jump. :)
So now take a simple pendulum - a weight swinging back and forth with no forces acting on it except gravity - like a grandfather clock. This is a classic problem from almost all introductory physics classes, and with a little geometry and a straightforward application of Newton's laws, the problem can be described very precisely with a few equations. Make some very simple assumptions based on a relatively small swing length, and you can accurately predict the motion of a pendulum for essentially ... forever. And if you actually swing a pendulum - voila! It does what you expect it to. Even for large angles, you can figure it out with enough time and trigonometry (as Michael Bolton sings, "When love puts you through the fire/ When love puts you to the test / nothing heals a broken heart like time, love and trigonometry").
But here's where it gets interesting. It turns out that if you hang a second pendulum off the first, and give it a bit swing, the problem no longer has a nice solution. We can't write down a formula for it. If you have a computer, you can fake it pretty well, but you realize that it's extremely sensitive to the slightest difference in getting started - really small changes in the starting angle or speed can lead to absolutely ridiculous, off-the-chain differences in the behavior of the pendulum ... here's a good link if you want to check this out for yourself: http://www.myphysicslab.com/dbl_pendulum.html. Pull it back and give it a big starting angle, and watch the craziness.
It's a good example of a larger principle: science is great at breaking stuff down into parts and explaining the parts really well, but when things start getting put together into systems, predictions break down. Effects like this are the reason your weatherman always manages to be wrong when he tries to predict rain a week from now, even though we have huge amounts of data and experience in predicting the weather.
Similarly, modern medicine does a great job of analyzing individual parts of the body and elements of your health, but when you slap it all together into a human being, suddenly things aren't so clear. That's part of the reason why there's a new diet out every year that works for some people, at least temporarily. It's also a reason that some Chinese medicines produce results that we don't understand. It's not that there's something magic going on - it's just that the system is way too big and complicated for us to understand precisely. Holistic medicine takes a wild guess, and sometimes it works. Scientific medicine doesn't do as much guessing, but that also means it just can't deal with systems of a certain complexity.
And now we come to economics. Economics tries to put equations on the behavior of people. This is like meteorologists trying to predict rain, except that all of the rain droplets are irrational free agents and one of them might be related to Chuck Norris. Basically, there's a really good reason why it gets the 'social' disclaimer in front of its 'science'. If physics can't predict the exact behavior of two pendulums, how can economics predict the behavior of two countries?
Now, don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying we should throw up our hands and give up the study of money and history and psychology and statistics. I think these tools give us valuable insights, and that they do gradually approach the truth about what's going on in the world, and they deserve our best efforts. But what I am saying is that we're not there yet, and I don't see us getting there in my lifetime. Economics won't be able to tell me who to vote for, or which political party actually knows how to fix the country, or a surefire way to make a million dollars.
But, on the other hand, I'm not going to sit around paralyzed - I only get one shot at this thing called life! Yes, I don't know for sure what's right and what's wrong. Yes, even my beloved sciences are all too often inadequate to answer the most important questions in my life. Yes, all this uncertainty means I could be making huge and costly mistakes in the way I live, work, and vote. But I think that being alive is itself a call to action. I think we're put here to do things. When it comes down to it, sometimes you have to make up your mind and act on your best belief, because the rewards of doing the right thing outweigh the risks of going wrong. Sometimes, you find that your path leads you off what looks like a cliff, but you can't go back, and you can't stand still. In short, sometimes you need - to jump!
In a deep, fundamental way, life is a leap of faith. And if I had to define wisdom, I think I would simply call it ...
Knowing when to jump. :)
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Knowing when to jump - Part 1
This is a long post, so I've decided to post it in segments to make it more manageable. Anyway.
I'm doing something a little more nerdy than usual these days. I'm reading a textbook. For fun.
Even at the height of my nerdom - speedwalking to eighth grade history with a book in one hand, eight books in the other, and a red fleece zip-up sweater tied around my waist - I would never have read a textbook for fun. I was much too busy working my way through the nine-book Star Wars: X-Wing series. I read textbooks only when they were assigned. I had some standards.
Well, I haven't started reading the dictionary or going through wikipedia alphabetically yet, but I have to believe that somehow I've crossed a line. Just when I think I'm finally well-adjusted ...
Anyway, the point of this post is not to overly analyze my new manifestation of nerdiness. The textbook is an introductory economics textbook by Greg Mankiw, and I'm loving it. I'm learning about markets and trade and taxes, and I'm amazed at how incredibly basic math concepts lead to really interesting implications. The one problem is, the math is simple because of some pretty huge assumptions that undergird the 'science' of economics, and that finally brings me to my point.
In the course of my education, I have gradually become aware of some limitations on human knowledge that I hadn't thought about before. Basically, we don't actually know very much.
What I mean to say is, when we look at scientists, we assume that they really know for sure what they're telling us ... and that's just not true. Everything in science is a work in progress, and nothing is absolutely nailed down, and not all disciplines are equal.
There are some areas where I'm confident we have a good working approximation of the truth. Newton's expression of the laws of motion, for instance, was so reliable that we could use his ideas to strap three guys to an enormous piece of exploding metal, throw them 90,000 miles into space, put them on the moon and then bring them back - five or six times. The basic laws of heredity and genetics seem pretty solid, and a nuclear power plant is a testament to how useful our understanding of the periodic table can be.
But in all of these areas, the things we're really certain about are surprisingly limited. And that's what I'm going to talk about in part two, when I hope the title of this blog post will start making sense.
I'm doing something a little more nerdy than usual these days. I'm reading a textbook. For fun.
Even at the height of my nerdom - speedwalking to eighth grade history with a book in one hand, eight books in the other, and a red fleece zip-up sweater tied around my waist - I would never have read a textbook for fun. I was much too busy working my way through the nine-book Star Wars: X-Wing series. I read textbooks only when they were assigned. I had some standards.
Well, I haven't started reading the dictionary or going through wikipedia alphabetically yet, but I have to believe that somehow I've crossed a line. Just when I think I'm finally well-adjusted ...
Anyway, the point of this post is not to overly analyze my new manifestation of nerdiness. The textbook is an introductory economics textbook by Greg Mankiw, and I'm loving it. I'm learning about markets and trade and taxes, and I'm amazed at how incredibly basic math concepts lead to really interesting implications. The one problem is, the math is simple because of some pretty huge assumptions that undergird the 'science' of economics, and that finally brings me to my point.
In the course of my education, I have gradually become aware of some limitations on human knowledge that I hadn't thought about before. Basically, we don't actually know very much.
What I mean to say is, when we look at scientists, we assume that they really know for sure what they're telling us ... and that's just not true. Everything in science is a work in progress, and nothing is absolutely nailed down, and not all disciplines are equal.
There are some areas where I'm confident we have a good working approximation of the truth. Newton's expression of the laws of motion, for instance, was so reliable that we could use his ideas to strap three guys to an enormous piece of exploding metal, throw them 90,000 miles into space, put them on the moon and then bring them back - five or six times. The basic laws of heredity and genetics seem pretty solid, and a nuclear power plant is a testament to how useful our understanding of the periodic table can be.
But in all of these areas, the things we're really certain about are surprisingly limited. And that's what I'm going to talk about in part two, when I hope the title of this blog post will start making sense.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Something Fun Is Happening in America
So, there's this guy named Ron Paul who's running for President. This guy has no business running for President. Here are just a few reasons:
He's served a total of 24 years in the House of Representatives, and introduced 620 bills. Only one of them has become law.
He's never voted for a tax increase or for an unbalanced budget - which basically means he's hardly ever voted yes on anything.
He doesn't think we should start wars unless congress votes to go to war - which means he thinks every war since WWII started unconstitutionally.
He thinks we should treat drug users as patients, not criminals, and wants to end the war on drugs.
He thinks we shouldn't have federal departments unless they're mentioned in the constitution - so he wants to get rid of things like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce.
He thinks the Federal Reserve is responsible for devaluing the dollar and perpetuating bad banking practices, and he wants to return to a gold standard. On these two points, the vast majority of established economists think he's wrong.
He's old, thin, stoop-shouldered, and cranky. He also talks too fast.
So, what I'm trying to say is, this guy sounds like he's doing everything any rookie politician can tell you is a surefire way to lose, and lose badly. He doesn't listen to the lobbyists who help you get elected, he doesn't bring federal money to his district, and he's stayed fiercely committed to a set of unpopular ideas for literally decades.
But ... he's been elected to the House twelve times. He trailed the two leaders in Iowa by less than five points, and took a solid second place in New Hampshire. He got 13% of South Carolina's vote - 4 times more than in 2008.
And that's why I say something fun is happening. And the fun thing isn't that Ron Paul suddenly became a normal candidate - the fun thing is that there are suddenly people who want to elect Ron Paul. Whoa! There are people who like consistent ideas more than they like slick debate performances, people who like civil liberties while simultaneously loving the free market, people who will re-elect someone who doesn't give them money ... where did these people come from?
See, I'm not sure I agree with Dr. Paul
- but I am sure that I wish there were more candidates like him, and I am sure that a vote for him is a vote not for a man but for an idea about what liberty is, and how we should defend it. And I think his supporters are there not for him, but for that idea. I wish that instead of having to pick between Newt and Mitt and Barack, I could instead pick between the consistent ideas supported by Newt or Mitt or President Obama, and know that they'd stick with those ideas while they were in office. Now, usually I'd brush off that desire as unrealistic. Politicians, I know, are usually pragmatists - action often requires compromise, and election seems to depend more on presentation than on content.
But then I remember Paul getting a fifth of the vote in Iowa and New Hampshire. And I think of all the people who made that happen, and who cheered with passion at his rally tonight even though he came in fourth - the people who are voting for an idea, not a politician.
And I think there might be something to this whole democracy idea after all. And that's a fun thought.
He's served a total of 24 years in the House of Representatives, and introduced 620 bills. Only one of them has become law.
He's never voted for a tax increase or for an unbalanced budget - which basically means he's hardly ever voted yes on anything.
He doesn't think we should start wars unless congress votes to go to war - which means he thinks every war since WWII started unconstitutionally.
He thinks we should treat drug users as patients, not criminals, and wants to end the war on drugs.
He thinks we shouldn't have federal departments unless they're mentioned in the constitution - so he wants to get rid of things like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce.
He thinks the Federal Reserve is responsible for devaluing the dollar and perpetuating bad banking practices, and he wants to return to a gold standard. On these two points, the vast majority of established economists think he's wrong.
He's old, thin, stoop-shouldered, and cranky. He also talks too fast.
So, what I'm trying to say is, this guy sounds like he's doing everything any rookie politician can tell you is a surefire way to lose, and lose badly. He doesn't listen to the lobbyists who help you get elected, he doesn't bring federal money to his district, and he's stayed fiercely committed to a set of unpopular ideas for literally decades.
But ... he's been elected to the House twelve times. He trailed the two leaders in Iowa by less than five points, and took a solid second place in New Hampshire. He got 13% of South Carolina's vote - 4 times more than in 2008.
And that's why I say something fun is happening. And the fun thing isn't that Ron Paul suddenly became a normal candidate - the fun thing is that there are suddenly people who want to elect Ron Paul. Whoa! There are people who like consistent ideas more than they like slick debate performances, people who like civil liberties while simultaneously loving the free market, people who will re-elect someone who doesn't give them money ... where did these people come from?
See, I'm not sure I agree with Dr. Paul
- but I am sure that I wish there were more candidates like him, and I am sure that a vote for him is a vote not for a man but for an idea about what liberty is, and how we should defend it. And I think his supporters are there not for him, but for that idea. I wish that instead of having to pick between Newt and Mitt and Barack, I could instead pick between the consistent ideas supported by Newt or Mitt or President Obama, and know that they'd stick with those ideas while they were in office. Now, usually I'd brush off that desire as unrealistic. Politicians, I know, are usually pragmatists - action often requires compromise, and election seems to depend more on presentation than on content.
But then I remember Paul getting a fifth of the vote in Iowa and New Hampshire. And I think of all the people who made that happen, and who cheered with passion at his rally tonight even though he came in fourth - the people who are voting for an idea, not a politician.
And I think there might be something to this whole democracy idea after all. And that's a fun thought.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Negative Works
So I've been watching the GOP primary cycle with a lot more interest than usual this year, and one of the themes has been these amazing institutions known as "Super PACs", which can raise and spend money on campaigns without any limits except for a very loose requirement about not coordinating with the candidates they support. The fun thing about this recently has been the Super PACs running really nasty, inaccurate ads, the candidates suffering from the attacks and calling for them to stop, and then claiming inability to coordinate as an excuse for not interfering with anything really offensive. I have to think it's got to be an amazing time to be a candidate - your friends can say all the really terrible things you want to say anyway, and you get to wash your hands of the whole thing while still getting the votes.
I've also watched a few episodes of The Bachelor recently (other people turn it on, I happen to be around ... you know). Like a Super PAC ad, The Bachelor is mainly notable for how it plays on the worst side of human nature - desperate women, arrogant men, petty fights, shallow relationships, and an obsession with superficial beauty and relationships. Now, the only times in my life that I had working access to TV were during parts of my childhood and adolescence in Utah, which is a state that doesn't see political ads because we're all going to vote for the Republican anyway. But I imagine the power of these Super PAC ads is similar to The Bachelor in at least one way - it's really hard to stop watching. It's fascinating. Disturbing, yes. Degrading, yes. But absolutely fascinating. It's like talking to someone who has a huge booger visible just inside their nostril - extremely awkward, but also impossible to break away from. You just have to watch.
I don't know why it's so easy to watch this kind of stuff. I just know that it is. I think maybe we just love to hate it. And I think, even if we say we despise it, it affects us. And it will probably change the way people vote.
The reason I'm writing about this is because Gov. Huntsman asked for a return to civility in political discourse when he dropped out of the race. And that sounded like a really nice thing to me. I would like my debates to be about issues, my ads to be based in fact, and my election experience to be about ideas instead of people. But, after thinking about it, and reflecting on my experience with programming like The Bachelor, I don't believe this kind of political campaign is going away anytime soon. Especially in its current form, where candidates get to smear their opponents and then blame it on their crazy Super PACs - it's the best of both worlds for them, and they'd be crazy - or abnormally decent - to back away from it now.
So, what are we supposed to do? These ads will air, these ads will change the campaign, these ads will bring people into and out of office. Can we do anything about it? Maybe, maybe not. I guess my point is that the solution isn't to simply condemn this kind of politics for being sordid, petty, and vulgar ... because that is actually their strength.
So, negative works. It's not going anywhere. And I think it will probably end up changing election results for the worse. Not a very uplifting observation, but I think it's accurate enough.
I don't know how to fix negative ads. I feel like they'll do our elections harm. I guess the only thought I have on the matter is that the answer probably isn't in attacking the ads - I think they thrive on being despised. If the ads harm democracy, maybe the solution is to balance them out with something that helps democracy. If we can't get rid of them, maybe we can compensate for them by doing a little more good.
Maybe we can beat them if we take the time to think about what we believe, have respectful conversations with people we disagree with, make our decisions, and vote.
I've also watched a few episodes of The Bachelor recently (other people turn it on, I happen to be around ... you know). Like a Super PAC ad, The Bachelor is mainly notable for how it plays on the worst side of human nature - desperate women, arrogant men, petty fights, shallow relationships, and an obsession with superficial beauty and relationships. Now, the only times in my life that I had working access to TV were during parts of my childhood and adolescence in Utah, which is a state that doesn't see political ads because we're all going to vote for the Republican anyway. But I imagine the power of these Super PAC ads is similar to The Bachelor in at least one way - it's really hard to stop watching. It's fascinating. Disturbing, yes. Degrading, yes. But absolutely fascinating. It's like talking to someone who has a huge booger visible just inside their nostril - extremely awkward, but also impossible to break away from. You just have to watch.
I don't know why it's so easy to watch this kind of stuff. I just know that it is. I think maybe we just love to hate it. And I think, even if we say we despise it, it affects us. And it will probably change the way people vote.
The reason I'm writing about this is because Gov. Huntsman asked for a return to civility in political discourse when he dropped out of the race. And that sounded like a really nice thing to me. I would like my debates to be about issues, my ads to be based in fact, and my election experience to be about ideas instead of people. But, after thinking about it, and reflecting on my experience with programming like The Bachelor, I don't believe this kind of political campaign is going away anytime soon. Especially in its current form, where candidates get to smear their opponents and then blame it on their crazy Super PACs - it's the best of both worlds for them, and they'd be crazy - or abnormally decent - to back away from it now.
So, what are we supposed to do? These ads will air, these ads will change the campaign, these ads will bring people into and out of office. Can we do anything about it? Maybe, maybe not. I guess my point is that the solution isn't to simply condemn this kind of politics for being sordid, petty, and vulgar ... because that is actually their strength.
So, negative works. It's not going anywhere. And I think it will probably end up changing election results for the worse. Not a very uplifting observation, but I think it's accurate enough.
I don't know how to fix negative ads. I feel like they'll do our elections harm. I guess the only thought I have on the matter is that the answer probably isn't in attacking the ads - I think they thrive on being despised. If the ads harm democracy, maybe the solution is to balance them out with something that helps democracy. If we can't get rid of them, maybe we can compensate for them by doing a little more good.
Maybe we can beat them if we take the time to think about what we believe, have respectful conversations with people we disagree with, make our decisions, and vote.
Believing Christ
I live a very comfortable life. I attend an awesome institution of higher learning, I have a roof over my head and plenty to eat, and most importantly I have a wife and son who love me and make life meaningful. In all of these things, I see the hand of God. He's behind all the blessings in my life, and I can't claim what I have as my own. Of course, there are some hard things in my life, too. And God is in those things. His hand is in all parts of my life, and sometimes I don't understand what's going on. But I trust him, and I know he has my salvation as his primary goal. One thing I do know is that, if I let Him, God always pushes me into situations that teach me about my dependence on Christ, and that allow him to change me. Both my successes and my failures are sharp reminders of how I depend on Him - my failures because I see how weak I am, and my successes because it's so clear that they only come about because of blessings God gives me. Even the motivation to do good things - the desire to do right - is fueled by Him. I can trace back my good attributes - all of my good attributes - to the influence of God, usually through the Holy Ghost. So I'm happy about what I've done, especially because I know who enabled me to do it.
Christ lives, and loves me.
Christ lives, and loves me.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Parenthood
Parenthood is being able to pick someone up when you think they're going the wrong way.
Parenthood is letting someone cry because you can't change the fact that life is tough.
Parenthood is knowing that the person you love today will be someone slightly different tomorrow.
Parenthood is being proud of things you have absolutely no control over.
Parenthood is going to bed at 7:30 and still not wanting to wake up the next morning.
Parenthood is having to know exactly where a specific little person is at all times.
Parenthood is deciding to love someone who you haven't met yet.
Parenthood is finding out how you act when you genuinely want to love someone.
Parenthood is being best friends with someone who can't speak a word of English.
Parenthood is a weird mix of doing your best and just trying to get by.
Parenthood is not the typical occupation of your average Stanford Mechanical Engineering student.
Parenthood is awesome.
Parenthood is letting someone cry because you can't change the fact that life is tough.
Parenthood is knowing that the person you love today will be someone slightly different tomorrow.
Parenthood is being proud of things you have absolutely no control over.
Parenthood is going to bed at 7:30 and still not wanting to wake up the next morning.
Parenthood is having to know exactly where a specific little person is at all times.
Parenthood is deciding to love someone who you haven't met yet.
Parenthood is finding out how you act when you genuinely want to love someone.
Parenthood is being best friends with someone who can't speak a word of English.
Parenthood is a weird mix of doing your best and just trying to get by.
Parenthood is not the typical occupation of your average Stanford Mechanical Engineering student.
Parenthood is awesome.
Economics
I think about money a lot. This has something to do with the fact that I'm poor. It also has something to do with the fact that I graduated from Harvard and am on track to graduate from Stanford and I would be a statistical anomaly if I didn't end up at least kind of rich. I think that's weird. Here I am, just about as poor as the day I was born, and yet there's a lot of indicators saying I'll make good money when I get done getting my doctorate. What will it be like to have discretionary income? What will I do when I can afford something ridiculous, like, say, having McDonald's hashbrowns every single morning? What if I could have juice at every meal? What if I could afford to fly to Utah for a weekend? What if I could afford to build a home? A real home, maybe with a little study just for me - something with a comfortable chair, a nice set of bookshelves, and a bay window? Does that kind of thing happen in real life? Could it happen to me?
And then there's this weird feeling I get from mingling with rich people all the time. Well, at least, rich people's kids. There's something different about rich kids at nice schools like Harvard and Stanford that makes me feel a little out of place ... I think it's the way they know that they're going to be rich their whole lives. Yes, the economy might go up and down, and yes, they might not get perfect grades ... but they don't ever seem insecure about the money they spend or the plans they make. It's like they've already made it, like all the applications and job interviews and internships are just formalities to wade through before the money starts rolling in. It makes sense, I guess. Since I was raised poor, I don't have a good idea of what it means to be rich ... and they must feel the same way about being poor.
Anyway, this stuff makes me think about money. Not my money, necessarily - that still seems far away. But money in general. What makes people rich, what makes people poor. Why people stay rich, why people stay poor, why some people go from poor to rich, and how many people come back down from rich to poor.
So I'm going to talk about economics on this blog sometimes. And that's why.
And then there's this weird feeling I get from mingling with rich people all the time. Well, at least, rich people's kids. There's something different about rich kids at nice schools like Harvard and Stanford that makes me feel a little out of place ... I think it's the way they know that they're going to be rich their whole lives. Yes, the economy might go up and down, and yes, they might not get perfect grades ... but they don't ever seem insecure about the money they spend or the plans they make. It's like they've already made it, like all the applications and job interviews and internships are just formalities to wade through before the money starts rolling in. It makes sense, I guess. Since I was raised poor, I don't have a good idea of what it means to be rich ... and they must feel the same way about being poor.
Anyway, this stuff makes me think about money. Not my money, necessarily - that still seems far away. But money in general. What makes people rich, what makes people poor. Why people stay rich, why people stay poor, why some people go from poor to rich, and how many people come back down from rich to poor.
So I'm going to talk about economics on this blog sometimes. And that's why.
Starting A Blog
So, last night I was lying in bed thinking ... which I do often. Last night the subject material ranged from how intensely weird my dreams can be to why I like Ron Paul's style to the fact that I really should be scheduling more official date nights with my wife. And I realized that it would be nice to have somewhere other than my head to put all that thinking. It would be nice to have it out where people could read it. First of all, having it written down neatly in black and white - or, in the current color scheme, grey and light green - might be a way of keeping the clutter down in my head. Second, someone might enjoy reading it. That someone might be me, because I have a tendency to forget what I wrote and really enjoy stumbling across it later. So ... here I am.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)