In case you had any reservations regarding what the stimulus is really about, President Obama accidentally gave it away - from Yahoo!:
"But I do hope that we can all put politics aside and do the American people's business"
Blogging politics, economics, finance and technology from Wall Street to Wasilla
In case you had any reservations regarding what the stimulus is really about, President Obama accidentally gave it away - from Yahoo!:
"But I do hope that we can all put politics aside and do the American people's business"
Posted by
Andrew Dzwonchyk
at
12:05 PM
1 comments
Labels: Barack Obama, Stimulus
At last, the pageantry of the inauguration has begun to fade, and although the media's chanted refrains ("historic!," in case anyone alive, anywhere, had yet to be informed of the history-making going on) continue to echo across the morning talk show spectrum, we are finally beginning to see what sorts of policies will actually come from the Obama Presidency. Thus far, it has been a decidedly mixed bag. While I have been pleased to see the President backing off of "cut-and-run" campaign promises vis-a-vis Iraq, I can't begin to describe how ironic and condescending it is for Democrats to demand tax increases for the rich, and then to nominate and confirm a rich, tax-evader to oversee the IRS. Ah, yes - not those rich.
I am realistically inclined to believe that the next 4 years will not be kind to the small-government, free-traders amongst us, but I think there are a few possible outcomes we might reasonably hope for:
Posted by
Andrew Dzwonchyk
at
11:02 AM
1 comments
Labels: Barack Obama, Economics, Iraq, Race, University of Chicago
...because, you know, her last name is Kennedy. And her dad was JFK (no, not that one). And her Dad had a dream once, and that dream was Barack Obama. Or maybe it wasn't.
Did I mention her name is Kennedy?
(in related news, Mary Joe Kopechne was unavailable for comment.)
Posted by
Andrew Dzwonchyk
at
10:23 PM
1 comments
Labels: Barack Obama, Election 2008, Ted Kennedy
In the days following the election, several interesting trends have begun to manifest themselves, according to my (admitedly non-scientific) observations. First, staunch Obama supporters seem reluctant to admit to themselves that its over, they won, and the man who billed himself as a grass-roots, hip and alternative "movement" must now assume the mantle of mere earthly politician. I've noticed a surprising number of people around New York City still wearing Obama buttons; not simply on bags or attached to some accessory where its presence could be forgotten, but displayed prominently pinned to the front of their clothing. At the Knicks game on Sunday, several people brought signs referencing the president-elect, and someone held up a full-sized newspaper declaring Obama's victory. That this election was an education in the cult of personality is no new observation, but this is a bit much.
Second, Obama's administration is already being hailed as a success, the primary criteria being that it will happen at all, and one group is actually lobbying for a national holiday to recognize his election (!).
Most fascinating of all, and perhaps somewhat responsible for the previous two, is the renewed discussion of the future role of race in politics now that America has elected a black president. In today's Wall Street journal, Juan Williams writes a lengthy editorial, detailing the sad history of racial politics in America, ending with the hopeful prognosis that peddlers of racial tension will be marginalized by the landmark election:
"The market has irrevocably shrunk for Sharpton-style tirades against "the man" and "the system." The emphasis on racial threats and extortion-like demands -- all aimed at maximizing white guilt as leverage for getting government and corporate money -- has lost its moment. How does anyone waste time on racial fantasies like reparations for slavery when there is a black man who earned his way into the White House?"
Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan declared the election a success, but warned that the (apparently ingrained) racism in America would continue, and perhaps even worsen as a result of Obama's victory(!) What this discussion (if you can call Farrakhan's comments part of a dialog) ignores, or takes as a foregone conclusion, is the role of race in this election. Ironically, I believe that the latter concludes the former, in so far as this election was never, primarily, about race at all. What's more, to the extent it was a factor, it probably helped.
In retrospect, 2008 was a year that was all but tailor made for Democrats to begin with, given the President's approval ratings, the shaky economy, and a sticky public opinion of the Iraq war (despite recent gains). From that perspective, the more important race was really the Democratic primary. While Clinton and Obama struggled to diffrentiate themselves, they were both selling a similar product - bigger, more involved government, an exit from Iraq, and an end to Bush fatigue. Much has been said about the achievement of electing a black man to the Presidency, but I think the fact that Obama was able to defeat Hillary is the more telling indicator of the state of race relations in America, primarily because so little seperated the candidates other than their arbitrary racial differences. By prevailing in a contest where most all else was equal, Obama suceeded on the basis of his skills as a politician (principaly an orator, given the dearth of specifics that has marked his campaign), and proved that race was no longer a factor in seeking the presidency. Choosing amongst apparent equals, voters had no problem selecting a minority. Being able to choose whether or not to elect Barack Obama based on his policies and differences from John McCain, not the outcome of that choice, was the truly historical moment.
Evaluating the results of the general election on the basis of race seems largely irrelevant, given the incredible downturn in the economy, the vastly improved (and underreported) situation in Iraq, and the myriad philosophical and practical differences seperating McCain and Obama. There are simply too many other differences between the candidates, and confounding political variables, to claim that Americans cared much at all about race. True, I imagine there may have been some fleeting number of potential Hillary supporters who couldn't stomach pulling the lever for a black candidate. They would likely have been outnumbered by those who were motivated by the desire to achieve a historic election, merely for the superficial satisfaction of it having been done. Voting for Obama in a way even became the perfect form of progressive bona fides for some ("I'm race blind, except when overtly making note of race proves how race blind I am"). These effects were probably marginal, at best, however. Most of Obama's supporters were probably going to vote for him anyway, and likely would have voted for Hilary instead given the option. And that's just the point - Obama won, in the end, because he ran a better campaign, in a more sympathetic environment, against an opponent who never had it all together. Its that simple. His sucess in the general election tells us much about the dissatisfied American electorate, and the marketability of outdated, populist nonsense in shiny packages, but little about race at all. And more importantly, his defeat (despite the dire prognostications) would have told us equally little.
Either way, as Williams' editorial notes, it appears we have at last transcended the era of race as a limiting factor in politics. Maybe now we can stop hearing about it.
Posted by
Andrew Dzwonchyk
at
4:47 PM
2
comments
Labels: Barack Obama, Election 2008, Race
What a time to be an American, some will say, and they'll be right of course. While he was not my candidate, Obama will be my president; that is the essence of democracy, and a courtesy that many of my contemporaries refused to extend to President Bush (more on that later). And while I did not vote for him, and am disappointed so many did, the election of Barack Obama nevertheless represents a historic moment for America, and a grand opportunity for both parties in Washington.
Last night's election was closer than many expected, despite the eventual electoral count, and I am heartened that even in a year as bad as 2008 (for Republicans), McCain still had a sporting chance. That said, it is essential that those of us on the right re-examine the direction of the conservative movement in America, and where it has fallen short. There will be plenty of time to make such reflections, and I plan on doing just that as I resume blogging, but for today, I wanted to point out a few opportunities for optimism:
Posted by
Andrew Dzwonchyk
at
10:00 AM
1 comments
Labels: Barak Obama, Election 2008, John McCain
The Wallstreet Journal editorial page scolds Obama today for his temper-tantrum response to energy companies and oil & gas prices. Among the better gems:
You may also be wondering how a higher tax on energy will lower gas prices. Normally, when you tax something, you get less of it, but Mr. Obama seems to think he can repeal the laws of economics.
I remain at a loss as how Obama, or Clinton for that matter (she also supports the windfall profit pyramid scheme), plan on lowering the cost of gas to the end consumer by imposing an increased marginal cost on the supply side of the equation. An increase in the tax rate on oil companies means they get less money for selling the same gas at the same price - somehow this is supposed to either flood the market with supply, or magically lower the price, rather than have the predicted effect: companies lower supply and invest elsewhere, or increase price. As the WSJ article points out, we've tried this sort of thing before, and it had the predictably negative effect of lowering supply from domestic producers.
As an added bonus, gasoline demand appears to be relatively inelastic historically, meaning that if domestic suppliers are increasing supply and/or decreasing supply, the excess demand will have to come from the very tyrannical foreign oil meanies we all seem so worried about. The journal ends with the tragically poignant rhetorical, "And these people want to be President?" - but the real sad part, via instapundit, is that one of them probably will be.
Posted by
Andrew Dzwonchyk
at
8:56 PM
0
comments
Labels: Economics, Election 2008, Energy
Bush today awarded The Medal of Honor to Petty Officer Michael A. Monsoor, a Navy SEAL who fell on a grenade to save his fellow servicemen while serving in Iraq. Bush's words are brief, but eloquent, and his emotion is clear and moving as the video shows. Among the more memorable lines, he quotes:
One of the survivors puts it this way: "Mikey looked death in the face that day and said, 'You cannot take my brothers. I will go in their stead.'"
A full transcript of his remarks is available on the Whitehouse website (link). I only wish those who so easily deride the President's character along with his politics could see more videos like this one. Condolences to the Monsoor family; we need more men like their brave son.
Posted by
Andrew Dzwonchyk
at
8:06 PM
2
comments
Labels: Bush, Iraq, Medal of Honor