THE
ONE
I DIDN'T MENTION. The Fox News beltway pundits were quick to
dismiss the candidacy
of Herman Cain on Friday, and Chris (bluffed my way out of Econ 10 at Harvard) Wallace scored at least one gotcha
in his Sunday interview when Cain seemed to draw a blank on the term
"Right of Return." Moreover, Fox News Sunday had him scheduled
just after Ron Paul in its stated round of interviews with Republican
presidential candidates, which is to say they've already pigeonholed
him in the "no chance" column, an interview formality to be gotten out
of the way before the heavy hitters are invited in.
I understand the FNS reasoning. However...
However, I can also foresee a set of circumstances -- "What ifs," if
you will -- that could make Cain a surprisingly strong candidate in
both the Republican primaries and the general election. I'll share
these so you can think about them, as I am doing.
What if Republicans
in the key primary states understand the surprising strength of Herman
Cain's bio better than the beltway cynics do?
Herman Cain (born December 13, 1945) is
an American businessman, political activist, columnist, and radio host
from Georgia. He is best known as the former chairman and CEO of
Godfather's Pizza. He is a former deputy chairman (1992–94) and
chairman (1995–96) of the civilian board of directors to the Federal
Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Before his business and economics career
he worked as a mathematician in ballistics for the United States Navy.
Cain's newspaper column is distributed by North Star Writers Group. He
lives in the Atlanta suburbs.
This the summary intro paragraph of the Wikipedia biography.
It
already
contains
more information about him than you ever get on Fox
News, which describes him exclusively
as the "former CEO of Godfather's Pizza." But there's a hell of a lot
more to Cain's background and personal story than that bit of deliberately
contextless ephemera. How many of us know anything about Godfather's
Pizza, where it is, how big it is, what its history is, etc, apart from
the possibly sinister connotation of its name? So Cain is maybe a
figure along the lines of Frank Lucas, played by Denzel Washington in American Gangster, a shady
inner city type seeking to go legit by starting up a pizza chain? Think
I'm overstating? Here's the actual business history, which reads
remarkably differently, in
context.
Cain... began working for The Coca-Cola
Company as a business analyst. In 1977, he joined Pillsbury where he
rose to the position of vice president by the early 1980s. He left his
executive post to work for Burger King – a Pillsbury subsidiary at the
time – managing 400 stores in the Philadelphia area. Under Cain's
leadership, his region went from the least profitable for Burger King
to the most profitable in three years. This prompted Pillsbury to
appoint him president and CEO of Godfather's Pizza, another of their
then-subsidiaries. Within 14 months, Cain had returned Godfather's to
profitability. In 1988, Cain and a group of investors bought
Godfather's from Pillsbury. Cain continued as CEO until 1996, when he
resigned to become CEO of the National Restaurant Association – a trade
group and lobby organization for the restaurant industry – where he had
previously been chairman concurrently with his role at Godfather's.
Oh. So would it be an unacceptably long waste of words to say "Herman
Cain, an executive of Pillsbury Corporation who was responsible for
notable turnarounds of two Pillsbury subsidiaries, Burger King and
Godfather's Pizza, the latter of which he bought from the parent
company and ran successfully for eight years"?
And are you intrigued by the statement "began working... as a business
analyst"? I am. Where does that come from? How does a business analyst
get to be a major corporate vice president in five years or so? Maybe
because he's smart and very well educated? What else they don't tell
you about Herman Cain when he shows up to be interviewed.
Cain was born in Memphis, Tennessee on
December 13, 1945, the son of Lenora (née Davis) and Luther
Cain, Jr.[4][5] His mother was a cleaner and his father was a
chauffeur.He was raised in Georgia. He graduated from Morehouse College
in 1967 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics and received a
Master of Science degree in computer science from Purdue University in
1971, while he was also working full-time in ballistics for the U.S.
Department of the Navy.
I grant that these credentials were flashed briefly (and later rather
sooner) on chyron during his Wallace
interview, but if you'd blinked you'd have missed them. And in a
political establishment obsessed with Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and
other Ivy League Schools (plus Stanford, Berkeley, and the U. of
Chicago), the real significance of Cain's educational credentials may
have passed unnoticed. What's Morehouse College? Something even lesser,
perhaps, than Sarah Palin's University of Idaho degree in
communications or Reagan's Eureka College degree in sociology?
Well, not
exactly.
Morehouse College is a private,
all-male, historically black college located in Atlanta, Georgia. Along
with Hampden-Sydney College and Wabash College, Morehouse is one of
three remaining traditional men's colleges in the United States.
Morehouse has a 61-acre (250,000 m2) campus and an enrollment of
approximately 3,000 students. The student-faculty ratio is 16:1 and
100% of the school's tenure-track faculty hold tertiary degrees. Along
with Clark Atlanta University, Interdenominational Theological Center,
Morehouse School of Medicine and nearby women's college Spelman
College, Morehouse is part of the Atlanta University Center.
Morehouse is one of two black colleges in the country to produce Rhodes
Scholars, and it is the alma mater of many African-American leaders,
including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., filmmaker Spike Lee, actor
Samuel L. Jackson, former CEO of Godfather's Pizza Herman Cain, Olympic
gold medalist Edwin Moses, former Bank of America Chairman Walter E.
Massey, the first African-American mayor of Atlanta, Maynard Jackson,
former Secretary of Health and Human Services Louis W. Sullivan, and
former United States Surgeon General David Satcher, among others.
Morehouse is also habitually included in an august list
with its own Wikipedia entry:
The Black Ivy League is a colloquial term that at times referred to the
historically black colleges in the United States that attracted top
African American students prior to the Civil Rights Movement in the
1960s. Similar groups include: Public Ivies, Southern Ivies, and the
Little Ivies, among others, none of which have canonical definitions.
There is no agreement as to which
schools are included in the "Black Ivy League", and sources list
different possible members. The 1984 book Blacks in Colleges by Dr.
Jacqueline Fleming, states that "... schools that make up the 'Black
Ivy league' [include] (Fisk, Morehouse, Spelman, Dillard, Howard, Clark
Atlanta Hampton and Tuskegee)." Fleming further notes that, "[t]he
presence of Black Ivy League colleges pull the best and most privileged
black students....all seven are unique schools, with little overlap
among them." Bill Maxwell, in a 2003 series on Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), coincides with Fleming in describing
the Black Ivy League institutions as being "Howard University, Hampton
University, Spelman College, Fisk University, Morehouse College,
Tuskegee University and Dillard University." The North Star News
described "Howard, Fisk, Hampton, Morehouse, Morgan, Tuskegee, and
Cheyney ... as the equivalent of a Black Ivy League."
It's important to note that these schools don't employ, seek, or
express any interest in the term "Black Ivy League." If they did,
they'd probably also include the small (450 students) West Texas
school, Wiley
College, celebrated in the movie about that school's great takedown
of Harvard in intercollegiate debate in 1935.
What is important is that Herman Cain is part of a truly great American
educational tradition that predates Affirmative Action and proves that
intelligence, knowledge, hard work, ambition, and strong family values
are the true basis of the American dream. Cain took his undergraduate
degree in mathematics and his masters in computer science at Purdue,
one of the best engineering and applied sciences graduate programs in
the nation. He did it on his own. His business career proves that. No
corporate diversity program makes men or women profit-loss line
managers unless they're the best ones for the job. His career
subsequent to 'Godfather's Pizza' demonstrates this aspect of his
character many times over:
Cain became a member of the board of
directors to the Federal
Reserve
Bank
of
Kansas City in 1992 and served as its chairman from
January 1995 to August 1996, when he resigned to become active in
national politics.
Cain was a 1996 recipient of the Horatio
Alger Award.
Cain hosted The Herman Cain Show
on Atlanta talk radio station News Talk 750 WSB,
a
Cox Radio affiliate until February 2011 and
serves as a commentator for Fox
Business and a syndicated
columnist distributed by the North Star Writers Group. In 2009, Cain
founded "Hermanator's Intelligent Thinkers Movement" (HITM), aimed at
organizing 100,000 activists in every congressional district in the
United States in support of a strong national defense, the FairTax, tax cuts, energy independence, capping
government spending, and Restructuring Social Security.
Cain publicly opposed the 1993/1994 health care plan
of President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. While
president-elect of the National Restaurant Association he challenged
Bill Clinton on the costs of the employer mandate contained within the
bill, criticizing its effect on small businesses. Cain has been
described as one of the primary "saboteurs" of the plan:
The Clintons would later blame "Harry and Louise," the fictional
couple in the ads aired by the insurance industry, for undermining
health reform. But the real saboteurs are named Herman and John. Herman
Cain is the president of Godfather's Pizza and president-elect of the
National Restaurant Association. An articulate black entrepreneur, Cain
transformed the debate when he challenged Clinton at a town meeting in Kansas City, Mo., last April. Cain
asked the president what he was supposed to say to the workers he would
have to lay off because of the cost of the "employer mandate." Clinton
responded that there would be plenty of subsidies for small
businessmen, but Cain persisted. "Quite honestly, your calculation is
inaccurate," he told the president. "In the competitive marketplace it
simply doesn't work that way.
Joshua Green
of The Atlantic has called Cain's
exchange with Clinton his "auspicious debut on the national political
stage.
Cain was a senior economic adviser to the
Dole/ Kemp presidential campaign in 1996.
In 2004, Cain ran for the U.S. Senate in Georgia,
pursuing the seat that came open with the retirement of DemocratZell Miller. Cain sought the Republican
nomination, facing congressmen Johnny Isakson
and Mac Collins in the primary. Cain and
Collins both hoped to deny Isakson a majority on primary day in order
to force him into a runoff. Collins tried to paint Cain as a
moderate,
citing Cain's support for affirmative
action programs, while Cain argued that he was a conservative,
noting that he opposed the legality of abortion
even in cases of rape and incest.
Cain finished second in the primary with 26.2% of the vote, ahead of
Collins, who won 20.6%, but because Isakson won 53.2% of the vote,
Isakson was able to avoid a runoff.
Let's review. He's more than the "former CEO of Godfather's Pizza."
He's a man of notable educational accomplishment, at least six
different careers -- businessman, lobbyist, grass roots activist,
senatorial candidate, columnist, and talk show host -- but he's no
rolling stone dilettante. He has a vision of how things ought to be, he
has rock-solid principles, and he's determinedly his own man. Hmmm. How
does all that match up with anyone we know?
What if the
Republicans and Democrats continue to wander in the wilderness without
a budget deal, a real plan for reducing the deficit, an effective
strategy for reducing gas and food prices, or the beltway pundits'
demanded solution for reduction of unemployment and resuscitation of
the stricken American economy? Remember the Trump boomlet? He's never
held political office either. Yet people responded because they sensed
a need for economic and political common sense, er, business sense.
Trump failed to sustain his flurry for several good reasons. He's a New
Yorker with no real feel for the rest of the country. He's a man who
made a huge and frequently imperiled fortune out of an inherited
fortune, he's an egomaniac who can't take a joke at his own expense, ever,
and as Herman Cain adroitly pointed out, "He's a bully."
If they can overlook all these crippling defects to give Trump an even
momentary advantage in the polls, why might they not respond to Herman
Cain, who succeeded in business on smarts without contacts or anything
but his own brain, character, and determination. If the economy
continues to tank, his lack of public officeholding may vanish as a
crippling demerit. Nobody knows where the so-called Independents really
stand. If the U.S. Government still has no budget in 2012, no plan for
forestalling national bankruptcy, the outsider, nonpolitical status may
become the greatest advantage of all.
What if the tea
partiers, establishment conservatives, moderate Republicans, and even
Independents are fed to the teeth with being called racists for their every
opposition to Obama policy?
[Really really FUCKING sick to death of malignant libel...]
We all know
that
opposition
to
Obama isn't about race. The truth is that a Herman
Cain candidacy could be Obama's worst nightmare. Think about it.
Let's get the MSM spin out of the way immediately. For sure, they'll
try to attack Herman Cain as a Clarence Thomas Uncle Tom, a Republican
stooge standing in the way of the One, the Obama.
Yuck.
All
those
white tea-partiers...
But would it work?
It would be risky risky business. Risky risky risky business. If tea-partiers and
flyover country conservatives coalesced behind Cain, racism would be
off the table except for the left-wing 30 percent, despite the fact
that they control the media and the academic and pundit classes. The
incredible racial ugliness everyone is expecting in the 2012 campaign
would be derailed if not silenced (albeit never wholly silenced, so long as lefties
live). But the MSM attacks would ultimately fail.
Notice anything?
He's not from Yale or Harvard.
He's never trying to sound white. Just American.
The MSM trying to take out Herman Cain as an Uncle Tom will destroy
them forever. Number One. They can't erase the popular support he can
receive from Americans between the coasts. Number Two. If they want to take on Herman Cain's Southern Baptist roots, won't that bring up Obama's Reverend Wright connections? Unflatteringly? You betcha. Number Three. If Obama got credit for being a community activist, Cain should get credit for being a far more effective political activist (even if neither held office while they were 'activating'). Number Four. We're listening
to what Cain says, not how he says it. But speaking of how he says it, he
doesn't have two voices. He doesn't sound white when he's talking to
Congress or Brian Williams or Chris Wallace. He doesn't sound like a
show-biz, deliberately 'g'-dropping preacher when he talks to the
folks. He just sounds like a man from Georgia who knows the difference
between speaking dramatically before a crowd and speaking thoughtfully
on a cable TV news set. It's a continuum. He's not two different people
with two opposite and isolated poles; he exhibits no simple black and
white reversals (oops, my PC bad.). He has no chin-up-in-the-air
Mussolini pose. He has no Harvard Law School, hectoring, I'm smarter
than you and you better not forget it tone. He's a guy whose list of
top ten favorite pieces of music would probably have something on it
for every American, and it wouldn't be a political lie.
MSM, try telling anyone that this man is not black enough to suit the
blackness standard of the New York Times, Rolling Stone, and Al
Sharpton. They'll laugh you out of the fucking ballpark. He graduated
from the same college as Martin Luther King. He's from Georgia, not
Hawaii. He went to graduate school in Indiana, not Boston. He's us in
all the important ways and we like
him because we know him and what God he believes in and if that's makes
us racists for not preferring the new Lincoln Obama, okay. There's no
standard of pure blackness Obama can pass that Herman Cain doesn't
surpass by a hundred percent. But the more important standard is that
of being American. When the dam breaks, when the enemy invades, when
the economy collapses, when the tornado strikes, I'd be proud to stand with
Herman Cain at the front lines of whatever it is. With Obama I know I'd
be expecting an order to sacrifice myself for his excellency. Or to
keep from damaging Michelle's shoes.
[Two talk show memes I'm tired of. Imus has moderated his post-bin Laden cheerleading to "I may not vote for him, but I really like Obama. Everybody does. He's a likeable guy. That's got to be a real problem for anyone running against him." And an otherwise estimable local Philly talk show host keeps repeating that "Obama gives a great speech even if he's not too good on his feet." Both points are nonsensical except for the willingness of people who should know better to repeat them. Obama is NOT likeable. He's an arrogant, condescending, jug-eared nerd whom most people would actively dislike in person. And his speechifying triumphs are long done. Any third rate PR guy could pen the empty platitudes that won the first election; when he has to speak for real he gets tentative, inaccurate, and his first instinct is to lie and ridicule those who disagree. Since the ones he's ridiculing are invariably some of us, it's a losing strategy that can't be called "good" oratory.]
In case you hadn't figured it out, I'm rooting for Cain. (I confidently
expect that by nine a.m. this morning he knew more about the Right of
Return {made up lefty issue that will never get any traction in
negotiations} than I ever knew.) He's the most conservative candidate
in the race. And maybe, just maybe, the one who has the best chance of
winning on the issues.
Can't get excited about boyish wannabes like Romney and Pawlenty. And who else
is left?
Maybe the longshot is our only shot. You tell me. But imagine the final
What if:
What if the next
Reagan is sitting right under our noses. We've been waiting, pining,
desperately yearning for him. What if, just like Reagan, he turns out
to be the most conservative with the best demographic chance of
winning? And What if he turns out to be the inspired one, the one who
can grow as he has always demonstrably grown in life, to be the
ultimate rebuttal of everything the left has always derogated about
what is most American, and thus leads to an entirely unexpected
American Renaissance.
It's happened before. How good is your imagination? How strong your
faith?
Stronger than dirt, I'm thinking.
Friday, May 20, 2011
The Unexpected
Judgment Day
LOVING
ANNIHILATION. Somehow I missed the big surprise that's in the
offing, but I knew something was up when I ran across two utterly
unexpected news items on the same day. First there was a Fonda
cussing out Obama in four-letter terms that involved the word "traitor"(!?). Then there was a poll indicating that only 27
percent of the youthful faithful who voted for Obama were planning
to do so again. Heavens to Betsy, I thought. What's the world coming to?
Coming
to an end, I learned. Golly. Tomorrow is the big day apparently.
I'd gotten used to the idea that we had till 2012 when the
Mayan calendar nobody ever much cared about suddenly mind-melds with
the Anthropogenic Global Warming set and does us all in for crimes
against glaciers and polar bears or something. The new deadline is
unexpected and it's caught me kind of off guard, to be honest.
So what are you planning for
your last day before The Rapture? I'd been thinking about hosing down
the back porch and its furniture, getting ready for a summer that used
to be on the way.
Now? I suppose this will ge me branded as stodgy and even irreligious
in some quarters, but I'm planning on hosing down the back porch and
its furniture, getting ready for summer.
Here's how I look at it. I'm really really really really tired of all the people on
the religious right and the self-righteous left who just can't wait for the
world to come to an end. What the fuck is wrong with them?
I kind of like living in the world and plan to continue doing so.
Talk to you again on Monday. Like always. If you're not banking on it, that's really unexpected. But who couldn't use some rapture?
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Cobra Thoughts
More
of what we're losing, day by day. And don't forget the big ass-end.
NO ACCOUNTING FOR WHERE IDEAS COME FROM. I have no real good reason
for this post. Like so many things, it was a
weird process of association. Mrs. CP was wondering what people really
think of my deerhound posts, and I said I thought they found them
entertaining without necessarily wanting the dog. Because they're too much to
handle, too high maintenance, though spectacular. I thought it was like
the way I feel about Ferraris, exotic and cool as hell but, you know,
no way for me.
So I wallowed this morning in more deerhound videos, which was fun, of
course:
None
of it works without the big ass-end.
But I also realized I'd picked the wrong point of comparison.
Deerhounds aren't Ferraris. Ferraris are refined and smooth and upper
class to the point of snootiness. Deerhounds aren't that at all.
Borzois are. Afghans are. Greyhounds are. Not deerhounds. Deerhounds
are rude and crude and loud and obnoxious, over the top and frequently
vulgar. Which is when I remembered the AC Cobra and started looking at
Cobra videos. Which led me to a whole new line of thinking.
Something about atavism. Like the way if there had ever been any dogs
in the Lord of the Rings movies, the only ones who would have fit in
would be deerhounds and wolfhounds. And as I looked at the Cobra
videos, I realized that they too have become ancient, a throwback to a
more primitive, more vital time. In some ways even more so than the much older
Bugattis and Duesenbergs. We can still find the fashion line of the
sleek and the opulently stately in the automobiles of today. But there
is really nothing to compare to
the height of automotive madness that was the Cobra. Not even the
obviously imitative Viper, which is an all too quiet parade machine.
Several other things are notable and perversely relevant to our current
state of affairs. The Cobra may have been the last truly gestalt
collaboration between the Brits and the Americans in technology. Its
basis was a typically tiny Brit sportscar called the AC
Bristol.
American Carroll Shelby figured out that he could shoehorn a
small-block Ford V-8 into the engine bay, which was the birth of the
original 289 Cobra, a beast that slew Corvettes by the hundreds in SCCA
racing in the mid 1960s. Then came the typically American upping of the
ante. Shelby figured out how to jam a NASCAR-quality big block Ford
engine with four Weber carburetors producing more than 500 horsepower
into a slightly modified AC chassis with an ass-end swollen to accommodate much bigger, grippier tires, and an ultra-legend was born. The
427 Cobra weighed next to nothing, had an automatic transmission
because no one could manually shift fast enough to maximize its
acceleration, and it could go from zero to sixty in 3.9 seconds and
zero to a hundred in well under 10 seconds. Depending on the gear
ratios selected, it could reach 200 mph with virtually linear
acceleration. It cost about $8,000.
It was also, for all its British roots, loud, flashy, and so instantly
and terrifyingly fast that you couldn't be a silver-haired banker
looking for young tail
and safely own it. You had to know how to drive it or the car would
flat
kill you. The suspension was good, but with almost unlimited power
under the throttle, you can get sideways and off the road in a
heartbeat. The Cobra was no rich Casanova's rolling bedroom.
The engine was so highly tuned that it could only operate on Sunoco 260
megatane gasoline, no longer available today (sigh). It was so
radically configured that the engine roughness
you hear in the videos is a function of a racing cam that barely runs
at idle; it wants you to stamp on the throttle and hit a sweet spot of
7,000 rpm -- in other words, it's junk around town; no environment for
sweet-talking 18-year-old girls into your clutches.
It has become one of the rarest of all automotive legends. Only 200 of
the 427 Cobras were ever made. Most of them still survive, having come
gradually into the hands of those who know how to drive them and care
for them. At the same time, no car in history has ever inspired such a
vigorous replica
industry. Obviously, the thing speaks to individual
souls in a way few cars ever have,
Here's the rub. The Cobra is clearly an archetype of the fossil fuel
evil liberals want to remove from our lives. Yeah, it got crappy gas
mileage. But it was also an apex of the automotive esthetic. While they
piddle around in their Priuses, I can't help thinking that we're losing
something important about ourselves.
Is this
how you want so see yourselves in the more responsible
progressive age? Or do you dream in your deepest hearts of something
more like this?
He's
babying it, because the car is worth a gazillion dollars. But it's a
taste.
Sorry for interrupting your New Age meditations...
Delaware is 20 minutes away from here.
It's a state with three counties, only one of them inhabited and that
one by one city. Which means they're nothing but levels of government;
federal, state, municipal (Wilmington), "greater Wilmington" a.k.a. New
Castle County, and townships, of course, all piled on top of individual
citizens. Does it work? No. DelDot, the offending agency here, is a
tri-state joke (NJ, PA, and DE). We all know that Delaware traffic
signage is designed to get you lost and that DelDot "improvement"
projects invariably involve years of main artery shutdowns with no
visible signs of progress ever. On any given day, about half of the
lanes of the Delaware Memorial bridges to and from New Jersey are
closed for maintenance, although, oddly, there's rarely a DelDot truck
or worker in sight.
Lately, it's gotten much much worse. On the Friday of Easter
weekend, I tried to cross the bridge and discovered that it was down to
one lane. It took me more than 45 minutes to traverse one mile of
bridge approach. When I finally got onto the bridge, there was still no
sign of actual work being undertaken. Just a cop car or two and a
miscellaneous truck parked in one of the lanes. But I think I now know
what that travesty was all about:
Delaware Memorial Bridge tolls set to rise
July 1
May 18, 2011|By Paul Nussbaum,
Inquirer Staff Writer
Auto tolls on the Delaware Memorial Bridge are slated to increase by
$1, to $4, on July 1 following unanimous approval of the new tolls by
the Delaware River and Bay Authority commissioners Tuesday.
Higher tolls are needed to pay for repairs and upgrades on the bridge
that connects New Jersey and Delaware at the southern end of the New
Jersey Turnpike and I-295, officials said.
"The effects of age and heavy use mandate substantial capital
improvements in order for the DRBA to continue to provide safe and
efficient travel" over the bridge, DRBA chairman Bill Lowe said in a
statement.
Yeah, the bridges need work. Ha ha. Who doesn't get it by now? The
suckers
don't want that one-lane stuff. Soften'em up for a few months with long
delays and mucho inconvenience. Then they'll be happy to hear that
repairs will be made with a 33 percent increase in the toll. Private
sector capitalist enterprises struggle to keep inflation in single
digits, even in a time of runaway gas and food prices. Governments just
fart in your face and raise prices by a third because they always have
the option of mafia-style protection: you wouldn't want anything bad to
happen during your daily commute, would you? Would you?
You know what I'm saying? I think you do.
Delaware. Home of "Jovial Joe" Biden. Who cares so much about the little guy.
F___ off, Joe. Yeah. That's what I'm saying.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Odds and Ends
As
always, InstaPunk remains at the center of the passing parade.
WILLIE.21.1-2. A
lot of sloppy stupid stuff going on, but not much that's
worthy of an essay-type post. So maybe you'll forgive me for a series
of non sequiturs that don't add up to anything but a self-satisfied
InstaPunk smirk.
Trump is out.
Color me bored. As I predicted,
he found out PDQ that
politics is a blood
sport in which even self-ordained titans can be
laid low in seconds. Still, I have to concede that Big Hollywood had a
point about a certain debt
of gratitude we probably owe him.
Speaking of Big Hollywood, this was a delightful reminiscence about
John
Wayne, and this
was an educational reminder about the substance of
Ronald
Reagan and the careless viciousness of the left-wing media.
Schwarzenegger. Pretty tired of the celebrity rules in Kally-FOR-neea.
No journalist could have sussed this
out when he ran in the first
place? Were they protecting Ahnold or their only frail link to the
Kennedy
royalty? Doesn't matter. The whole episode is very Hollywood, very
Kennedy, and very over the top. Just like the whole bankrupt state of
Kally-FOR-neea. Do I care? Not at all.
Huckabee's out,
too. I thought, to be honest, that it was a non-item.
But then I heard him as a guest on a local Philly talk radio show. Not
being a candidate apparently empowers him to speak more bluntly about
what he thinks. My jaw dropped when he dared to say what so many people
know but don't have the nerve to express: Obama is a shallow thinker,
bright, sure, but not penetrating enough to be even a passable
president. He also
described contemporary American politics as a kind of cesspool (my
distillation, not his words), in which money can elevate the worst over
the best. Maybe Huckabee does
have a role to play in the upcoming campaign follies. I'm reevaluating.
Three cheers for Hillary. The first major political figure to give the
finger to Jimmy Carter he's richly deserved throughout his self-serving
post-presidential bid for acclaim. Asked if she wanted to meet with
him after his trip to North Korea, she said, "No." Then she elaborated.
"HELL
no."
Three more Republican candidates are all but out. Gingrich mouthed
off the cuff
once too often. Good riddance. His lame support for ethanol
and global
warming alarmism was already a fatal long-term problem. His
betrayal of Paul Ryan's brave effort to address the budget and the
deficit were the last straw. Huntsman is done before he even got
started. He accepts global warming because 90
percent of scientists do,
which they don't.
Add to that his gushing
praise for the leadership of
Obama and nobody will vote for him in the primaries. Thank
goodness. And Mitt Romney refused
to admit that RomneyCare in
Massachusetts was a mistake. He prefers to quibble about bureaucratic
differences between the progam that's bankrupting Massachusetts and the
ObamaCare program that will bankrupt the United States. Nobody wants to
hear why Romney is technically blameless for an evidently socialist
government intrusion into the health care mess he personally sponsored
and passed into law.
O'Reilly debated Jon Stewart on the subject of the rapper Common's
invitation to the White House. He
lost. Because he never made the only
point that matters. The president can invite anyone he wants to the
White House. (Dumb as hell to stake your whole position on opposition
to that elemental truth.) But is it a good idea? In this case, no. Bad
PR move. We already know how Obama feels about white
cops interacting
with African-Americans. This wasn't a good time to remind everyone that
he's black first and American second. But neither O'Reilly nor Stewart
could bring themselves to mention the elephant in the room. You know.
We're all too polite to bring up race. Advantage lefties. Stewart was
the cleverer one, but his smarts can't overcome presidential stupids.
Nancy Pelosi's congressional district accounted for 20
percent of April's waivers of compliance with ObamaCare. You
couldn't make this stuff up. Nothing to see here. Move along.
60
percent of the French think Americans set up the IMF chairman with
sexual assault charges. Those would be the same French who think Roman
Polanski sodomizing a 13-year-old is not so much rape as droit de seigneur. And they can't
understand why the "no bail" decision. Maybe they should ask Roman
about that.
InstaPunk had something of a set-to
(see Comments, too) with the Ron Paul faithful. Now
they're uncharacteristically silent. Somehow I don't think they're
bored. I think they're tongue-tied.
And, finally, just for fun, Apotheosis posted this photo in a comment
on our latest
post about the deerhound Raebert.
All I can tell you is, that dog's NOT Raebert. If there's a more
comfortable spot to be had, he's in it. Trust me.
I know you do. Because I'm at the center of everything...
Monday, May 16, 2011
The point all
Republicans
are too dumb to make...
THEY'RE
RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, DAMN THEIR HIDES.... They always seem to
lose the framing arguments, don't they? Today's the day the debt limit
is scheduled to go critical. The Republicans talk about cutting spending.
The Democrats talk about the frightful human costs of cutting federal
programs and the more sensible alternative of raising taxes. The
Republicans resist raising taxes because that somehow hobbles the
government's responsibility to create jobs in a weak economy. Because
it's rich Republicans who create jobs when they're not otherwise
engaged in supervising the custom builds of their $100 million dollar
yachts. Why the Democrats tend to win such confrontations. Republicans
talk vaguely about growing the whole economy, which the Dems instantly
reduce to the old lingo of "tickle down economics," and voters confront
the pitched battle between those who would penalize ordinary working
people versus those who want to make the richest pay their fair share.
The simple truth the Republicans never
state flat out:
Raising
tax rates does not automatically increase tax revenue,
whereas cutting federal spending always
decreases the deficit.
Forget who's paying the taxes. It's not
a class issue. It's more like simple physics. There's an optimum level
of tax rates that's like a perfectly balanced carpenter's level. When
it's right -- i.e., when the lozenge is floating between the markers on
right and left, tax revenue is maximized. The portion of the lozenge
that's between the markers is tax revenue. You can tip the level either
way, but if you tip it out of balance tax revenues decline.
If tax rates are too low, available revenues are left on the table. If
tax rates are too high, available revenues are left on the table.
Note that this is neither a conservative nor a liberal argument. When
ideologies are figured in, conservatives don't mind tilting toward
lesser federal revenues because they want to shrink government, and
liberals don't mind tilting toward lesser federal revenues because --
but wait! -- they do mind
lesser federal revenues. They're just stone ignorant about economics
and the functioning of the capitalist markets they've never liked.
Which leads us to the underlying philosophies of the parties the
Republicans should be doing everything possible to exploit and never do.
The biggest Big Lie Democrats and liberals of every stripe subscribe to
is not the idiocy of George
W. Bush and all Republicans in general, bad as that libel is. It's
worse than that. Much worse than that. It's their reflexive allegiance
to the static model and the zero-sum view of human society.
What's the static model? Thank you for asking. It's the belief that the
economy is a machine that behaves according to machine rules, which is
to say that human decision-making in response to changing circumstances
is not a factor. More specifically, it holds everything else constant
when it contemplates some change. All will remain as it is now except
for the one change we are contemplating. That's how the CBO scores
ObamaCare as a net cost saver. ALL OTHER FACTORS REMAINING THE SAME,
ObamaCare will reduce healthcare costs and pay for itself. Never mind
that premiums are already rising as economic participants in the
altered health universe are anticipating huge dislocations of future
income opportunities and historically predictable massive cost
increases associated with greater federal control. (Medicare now costs
dozens of times the most pessimistic Republican projections when it
passed.) That's how the Obama administration scores a big tax increase
on "rich" people. They will continue to make as much money as they do
now and we will simply take a bigger percentage of it. Revenues will automatically increase. The
machine motors on and individual human decisions can't possibly affect
it. Even though the human record itself makes a joke of static analysis
and the machine view.
Interesting perspective for the "party of the people," isn't it? I can
illustrate this fallacy by an anecdote from my business school days,
with an idiotic but triumphant performance by one of the most esteemed
professors at my Ivy League Business School. He said, smirking, "It's
been argued that progressive tax rates create a disincentive for income
generation. I'd like to deal with that right now." He held up a
(Roosevelt) dime. "Here's my proposition. If I offer to give you a
dollar with the understanding that I'll take back 90 cents and leave
you with only a dime, don't you still want the dime? Of course you do."
He smiled happily and repocketed his dime.
I can still remember how very satisfied he was with himself. Of course,
his proposition was a fake. Like most illustrious university
professors, he forgot about the question of work. Give me a dollar, take back 90
cents, and I'll accept the dime. But would I work for that dollar knowing it's
only a dime? No. Not on your life. Because as a human being, I value my
time. The more likely outcome is that I refuse to play if 90 percent of
my effort is paid to someone else.
His was the machine view, the liberal
view. But contrary to the great love, tolerance, and understanding by
liberals of all us weak, fallible humans, the economy is not a machine;
it's an organism, alive, aware, and alert to the decision points
created by every major change in the rules of operation. If you
systematically remove my incentives for effort and risk-taking, by
penalizing my effort and risk-taking, I will withdraw my efforts and
end my risk-taking. I'll make less and have less to tax, regardless of
the rates you impose. The carpenter's level has been tilted un the
direction of reduced revenues. Don't argue with me. Argue with the
damned level and the lozenge that veers out of the optimum zone.
The other Democrat/liberal fallacy -- the second Big Lie they tell
themselves so often they believe it (or do they?) -- is that capitalism
is a zero-sum game. That's the source of their usually unspecified
grudge against the prosperous. The premise of the lie is that every
dollar a rich person acquires is at the expense of a poor or middle
class person. Almost 300 years after Adam Smith, they would have you
believe, they still don't accept the concept of wealth creation, that a
rising tide lifts all boats. In point of fact, they have to know this is a lie they are
telling for political gain.
Every time they make the argument that the rich have somehow unfairly
benefited and need to "give something back," they are explicitly
denying the history of the American economy that has made us the
richest, freest, and most upwardly mobile society in the record of all human civilizations. If
economics were a zero-sum game, we'd all still be sharing the
scarcities of 15th century plague-ridden economies in medieval Europe,
with no indoor plumbing and life expectancies in the late thirties.
Where do they think the contributions they get from Bill Gates, Steven
Spielberg, and the Google Boys come from? Their fortunes weren't ripped
from the mouths of orphans and widows. They were created, not out of
thin air, but out of rich minds who inspired lucrative demand
for attractive products. The same way it's always been done in this
extraordinary land -- by Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, the Wright
Brothers, and (fill in the blanks, ad infinitum).
I understand why most liberals in congress and on the national scene
don't understand America. How pitifully few of them have ever created
anything but a campaign for their own personal politcal ambitions.
What I have a harder time understanding is why there are so few
Republicans who even sense the opportunity to demand a philosophical
referendum that would indict their liberal foes as aliens in their own
country and vipers in its bosom.
I'm taking no prisoners on this. None of the candidates -- not even the
sainted Ron Paul -- has had the wit to state the nub of the argument
without descending into thickets of economic jargon and
ideological/philosophical jabberwocky:
Raising
tax rates does not automatically increase tax revenue,
whereas cutting federal spending always
decreases the deficit.
It's not a class issue. It's
simple physics. Think carpenter's level.
There's plenty of history to cite. We've already had 90 percent tax
rates in the lifetimes of living Americans. In the Eisenhower
administration. JFK cut them back and increased revenues substantially.
Reagan did the same. His tax cuts also dramatically increased federal
revenue, which the Democrat congress happily spent into deficit. George
W. Bush increased tax revenues by cutting tax rates. Why the hell is it
so hard for a Republican to say these simple words?
Raising
tax rates does not automatically increase tax revenue.
Because they're so dumb they can't let go of the idea that their
best chance for election is pretending that it's the federal
government's job to "create" jobs by running things the right way.
The government doesn't create jobs. The right tax
rates aren't about ideology, Paulistas take note. At the moment, the
federal government needs all the revenue it can get. It really does.
The wolf is at the door. Time to take the ideological bullshit and
class warfare out of the discussion.
. Don't get your
hopes up. I overcame my irrational sense of
his hysterical tone and personal creepiness long enough to watch his
interview with Chris
Wallace yesterday. So I'm now prepared to talk not about his personal
creepiness but his platform.
It's possible that he is, as Juan Williams (never mind his motives) was
intimating today on
Imus, a seminal figure in the remaking of the Republican Party. As was
Barry Goldwater. This is not a small thing.
When I was a management consultant, I gave seminars to top executives a
couple decades ago on the subject of "mental models." (A subject I
understand Glenn Beck has recently recycled under another name.) The
idea is that our sense of the possible is determined by a consensus
that can occasionally be wrenched in a different direction, so that
what used to seem insane becomes part of our horizon of possibilities.
I accept that Ron Paul is saying things that haven't been said for a
long time. In this respect, he is
expanding the mental model of what is possible. I'm pleased that young
people are undergoing this mental stretching exercise.
I was also impressed that he answered Chris Wallace's questions so
directly. He's obviously an honest man. More power to him. I am
absolutely convinced that he is sincere.
But here, I confess, is the end of my kudos to Ron Paul. And the
beginning of my message to his followers.
Ron Paul will never be president. He may run and run and run....
...but he will never be a nominee of the Republican Party and he will
never be president. Why? Because he is more ideologue than politician,
and he is running for the presidency of a country that no longer
exists.
I'm not even talking about his foreign policy, which is ludicrous and
verging on criminal. I'm talking about his very conception of the
presidency, the American people, and the state of our culture. It
represents a nostalgia for a time that hasn't existed in the lifetime
of Americans. He wants to be Calvin Coolidge, basically a remote civil
servant located in the White House, with no responsibility for the
disasters, ruptures, and snafus that strike every one of the fifty
states from time to time. "Not my business," he proudly announces.
"That's not who the president is supposed to be."
Fine. But even Reagan knew better than that. Like it or not, the
president of the United States is the most powerful and influential man
in the world.. Americans are long long
past accepting him as a mere accountant of the nation's balance sheet.
There may be value in Paul's view but there is no currency in his
stated
policy. He and all his followers can rue the ancient day when the game
changed, but Americans by an overwhelming majority now believe in a
national safety net. We can debate how safe that net that should be,
battle about its costs and benefits, but if you argue it shouldn't be
there at all, you are simply quaint, a curiosity who will never be
taken seriously. That part of our national debate is no longer on the
table.
Honestly, he puts me in mind of Rip van Winkle. A whole bunch of people
who, for reasons of youth or inexcusable inattention, suddenly became
aware of a crisis in American poliltics without any knowledge of how we
got where we are. Sometimes it seems he's running against FDR in 1936,
still trying to undo the Keynesian disaster of the Great Depression and
forestall the losses of saving the U.S. from war with Hitler.
What's hard to communicate to the new true believers: The oldness of his positions, meaning
not the inveterate wisdom of them but the obsolete temporality in
which they might have made sense. Is it a coincidence that he is also
old and cannot see the world except through old old eyes that only
seem new to youngsters who still think they can turn back the clock to
the days before nuclear weapons, the Cold War, and that distant instant
when we might have passed up the responsibility to be the adult in the
room of the world?
None of him is new. The only thing that is new is the desire of the
left
to tar all of us with his
archaic platitudes. He's having a vogue now because they would like us
to be dismissible, all the way down to him and his simplistic
perspectives.
I don't begrudge him his right to speak and attract followers. I'm
simply tired to death of the evangelical fervor that insists he's
a sage voice telling us who
are old enough
to know better that he's saying anything new. Or, that he as a
personality is anything but another manifestation of the fashion
called retro.
Goldwater? Reagan? No. Stassen? Tell you in 2016.
But I concede he believes what he's preaching to the last breath.
P.S. You
might want to read the exchange between Brizoni and me in the Comments
section. That's why I'm inserting this video.
All the Paulistas might want to compare and contrast this with the
video of Ron Paul's appearance on Fox News Sunday. If you don't know
the history, this is the event known as 'The Speech,' which launched
Ronald Reagan's political career. It was the only shining moment in the
absolutely disastrous 1964 presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater. It
was run again and again, because it was the only positive, upbeat
communication associated with Goldwater's march toward electoral suicide.
I watched it with my parents the first time it aired, 47 years ago. It was absolutely
electrifying. (I was 10 and I still remember the moment; only the moon landing, the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 are as seared into my memory.) I think you'll find that the opening citations of federal
debt and levels of taxation could be the opening of a Republican
candidate address in 2011 almost unchanged.
Like the Paulista Minutemen, Brizoni over-interpreted what I was saying
in the post above. I wasn't disagreeing with Paul's ideals. I was
saying, "Quit telling us oldsters we don't understand. We do. But we
also know that winning the political battles isn't about being a
fusspot curmudgeon who insists that he, just like the liberals, knows
more about what we need than the average people do."
Compare and contrast. Paul harps on everything that's wrong. Everything
he'll undo. Reagan does a lot of that, too. But he also shares a vision
of just how great we can be, a magnificent hope and faith in the
American people. Somehow, constant kvetching about the Federal Reserve
doesn't accomplish the same end result. Note also that the isolationism Paulistas insist is part of the "package" of liberty takes on an entirely different, and far more realistic, spin here.
But I'm sure, as always, you know better, just as you know more about
economics than an old fart with thirty-some years of business
experience and even more than that in the practice of effective
communications.
. You think I spend all my time puzzling over Mike
Huckabee's
intentions? Think again.
All right. I saw two movies, one called "Equilibrium." and one called
"The Day the Earth Stood Still."
Last first. The Keanu Reeves opus almost caused a fight with the
missus. She said, early on, "I hate this." But I was determined. You
know me. I love lefties. I had to watch all the way to the bitter end
to
make the pronouncement that this was the single awfullest big-budget
sci-fi movie ever made. Which it was.
I was no fan of the original, which is where I parted company with Mrs.
CP. She liked Michael Rennie. I despise the whole genre of movies that
make Earth the bad boy of the cosmology set. When the aliens come to
tell us that we are somehow uniquely terrible in the community of
intelligent species, all I can see is the liberal equivalent of
original sin turned back on itself by the presumption of superior
rationality,
English translation. If Darwin is right, as the scientists insist he
is, life erupts into intelligence as part of an inevitable predatory
spiral. The strong eat the weak and get stronger and smarter. How
could it be otherwise? So, when the aliens come, they are interfering
either because they've forgotten their own evolutionary roots or
because evolution isn't an apt description of how mankind came to be in
the first place. In either case, they have a lot of nerve threatening
us with extinction because, whoever they are now, even we backward
whatever-we-ares have never attempted annihilating an
entire species on purpose. Isn't committing
species-level genocide though you're a million years more advanced
than we are a good deal worse than harpooning one too many whales in the early industrial age? You tell me, O You Secular Moralists.
Of course, Keanu had done his intelligence homework. He knew he could
do this whole godlike part without a second of acting. He knew the
script was as brilliant as anything a Keanu could think of. For
example, he got to condemn humanity to death based on a single meeting
with one solitary alien mole who had lived as a human in New York's
Chinatown for 70 years. Even then, doubts were expressed. But hey, one
guy, one neighborhood, one ambigious verdict, how do you think the
universe would decide the fate of six and a half billion non-New
Yorkers? How any New York
liberal would have conducted the research. You just have to love a
liberal's sense of fairness and justice...
Why I loved this movie so much. (Loved it, loved it, loved it.) Perfect
exhibition of the lefty mentality in the northeast. Perfect. Though
maybe one spokesman for all five boroughs shouldn't get the say-so for the whole fucking planet. There's Jersey, too. What
do you think?
Sorry but I have to skip to the ending, where all of modern technology
is wiped out. Supposedly a happy ending. Only 6.2 of 6.5 billion people
are destined to die of starvation, disease, and unspeakable battles
for nonexistent resources, as opposed to the whole enchilada. (Even Escape from LA made this the
apocalypse it obviously is...) And Hollywood thinks we want to see this
kind of crap?
We don't. Which is why the palate cleanser is a very little known movie
called Equilibrium. Christian
Bale, Sean Bean, and the usual British delight with a hopelessly
ecstatic fantasy called
"no emotions whatever." It's as fun a movie as an incredibly depressing
post-apocalyptic nightmare can be. For once, Christian Bale is good
looking. He
has a love interest he actually touches fingers with, briefly, oh so
slightly, before she is burned to death in a crematory oven. What the
Brits call flaming passion.
It's still ten times the
movie described above. And for once it doesn't
seem leftist but about life and living and all that stuff and what it
might mean, even if you're a Brit.
I know that was brief and ambiguous. Whatever you do, Don't watch this
-- or at least not all of it. It has big-time spoilers in it. Final
Word? In comparison to this movie, Neo was a pussy. Okay?