Category Archives: Trends

Saving the Environment – We All Need to Give

President Obama’s inaugural address has gotten me thinking about responsibility and sacrifice. The President said what we have all known for a long time: that Americans are too profligate – spending money we don’t have, burning energy we can’t afford – and that a day of reckoning would come. In fact, the President made clear that the day of reckoning is here: “our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed.” As a result, I am planning a series of entries on this topic, on the theme of sacrifice. Today’s item: the environment.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal (regular readers know I love my WSJ) discussed Cape Wind, which aims to put 130 windmills off the coast of Cape Cod, reducing greenhouse gas emissions an amount equivalent to taking 175,000 cars off the road. A no brainer project, right? Wrong, because the wealthy folks who have their weekend houses on that part of the Cape don’t want their views marred by windmills out on the horizon. They have been protesting the project and putting up legal barriers, enlisting the help of their most powerful neighbor, Teddy Kennedy, whose family has a fabled compound in Hyannisport.

Massachusetts is famously liberal, and based on my two years in Boston, the people who weekend on the Cape would consider themselves environmentalists. They recycle, they install solar power, they drive their Prius to Whole Foods to buy local produce. But when it comes to windmills in their expensive view, suddenly they aren’t so green. This is where they need to listen to our new president and stop protecting their narrow interests. They need to sacrifice a little for the good of the environment.

Broadening the scope of this discussion, if we are going to defeat global warming, everyone is going to have to chip in. The NIMBY (not in my back yard) protests that stall projects like new power lines, or wind farms, are going to have to stop. Of course, nobody wants a giant tower in their back yard, or a windmill right off their front porch. But nobody wants temperatures to go up several degrees either, or ocean levels to rise to a point where Cape Cod weekend houses are under water. Global warming is a major problem that affects everybody, and we are all going to have to sacrifice a little – give up our SUV, or allow windmills near our weekend house – if we are going to solve it. As theologian Sallie McFague put in her new book regarding climate change, “either we will all make it together or none of us will.”

The GOP is Splitting in Two

In the wake of sweeping Republican losses on November 4, we are seeing the GOP fracture into two wings. The first wing is the traditional, intellectual wing, as personified by George Will. This is the low taxes, small government, muscular foreign policy wing. The second wing is the Main Street, rail against the elites wing, as personified by Sarah Palin. This is the social conservative, religious right, law and order wing. These two wings always had a tenuous coexistence in the party, with the intellectual wing using wedge social issues to get the Main Street wing riled up, and then screwing them economically. The intellectuals provided the money and ideas while Main Street provided the votes.

This tenuous coexistence, however, has now turned into open hostility, with each side blaming the other for McCain’s loss. And as the GOP tries to figure out what it really is, and how to avoid a third consecutive stomping in 2010, these two wings are fighting for dominance. Unfortunately for the future of the Republican Party, the two wings can’t reconcile, and neither wing can win an election on its own. After all, even with the wings combined, they just got smoked by Barack Obama’s politics of hope. On their own, they are doomed.

The intellectual wing itself has two components – the rabid neocons and tax cutters versus the more moderate Rockefeller Republicans – but they both share a commitment to lowering taxes and shrinking government. They also share a slavish devotion to President Reagan. McCain, despite his campaign rhetoric in 2008, is part of this wing. As Joe Klein from Time described him:

He believed in the unilateral exercise of American power overseas, with an emphasis on military might rather than diplomacy. He believed in trickle-down, supply-side, deregulatory economics: his tax plan benefited corporations and the wealthy, in the hopes that with fewer shackles, they would create more jobs.

But widening income disparity and the financial crisis of 2008 have fundamentally discredited that economic approach. Reaganism failed. And while the Rockefeller Republicans might be able to craft a workable economic theory, they are so marginalized in the party that they can’t ever win. Moreover, there simply aren’t enough Americans driven by desire for lower taxes to support this wing of the party. There are too many citizens who actually want their government to provide something.

The Main Street wing of the GOP is the part that believes there is a “real America,” as opposed to the liberal “fake America.” It’s anti-elite, anti-intellectual and anti-media. Which is its main problem: it’s against everything and for nothing. It is fueled purely by anger and self-pity. This is unsustainable; without new ideas, this wing will wither and die. It will be consumed by a black tumor of hate, like Lee Atwater‘s brain.

Also, much like the intellectual wing, the Main Street wing isn’t large enough to win on its own. There aren’t enough voters who buy into its false dichotomy. This wing, however, has a chance. If it were to embrace a truly populist economic strategy, it might be able to peel off enough blue collar Democrats to build a winning coalition. Even the Wall Street Journal notes that “new Republican voices are popping up to argue that the importance of working-class voters means the party needs to develop economic policies more obviously directed toward the working class than the capitalist class.” But that would require a complete reworking of Republican economics: supporting unions and trade protection at the expense of corporate interests and wealthy individuals. It would require an approach that sounds strikingly similar to….the Democrats.

This is the problem facing GOP strategists as they figure out what to do. They want to chase the voters, but that will require moving away from their core philosophy, because that’s what the voters are doing. As Politico put it, the GOP is “a party that is overwhelmingly white, rural and aged in a country that is rapidly becoming racially mixed, suburban and dominated by a post-Baby Boomer generation.” Some strategists want to pursue growing demographics, namely black and Hispanic voters. But how do you do that when your two wings cater to wealthy WASPS and white rednecks, respectively? Both wings of the GOP have painted themselves into electoral corners, and there is no obvious way out.

Perhaps the recent election marked the generational shift that we all knew was coming. For the past 20 years government has catered to, and been run by, people of our parents’ generation – those who grew up in the 1940’s and 1950’s – often leaving those of us from later decades mystified at the decisions being made. And we kept wondering, as old fogeys (Ted Stevens!) retired or died, and young folk grew old enough to vote, when our generation would start making decisions. Nobody WE knew hated blacks, or thought that poor people should be abandoned, so why was government pursuing such crappy policies? Why was the GOP so out of touch with our generation? After all, when you belong to a generation where a third of you have tattoos, it’s hard to see how branding a black candidate as “Muslim” is going to work. And it didn’t: Obama won, while conservative congressional candidates lost.

The GOP isn’t dead; its basic message of small government and individual liberty will always resonate. But it needs to do a lot of work to retool that message into a governing philosophy that will appeal to the new generation.

Sitting at the Front of the Bus

No, sorry, this isn’t about Rosa Parks, nor is it a riff on the great Otis Redding song, although I listened to his greatest hits this morning. This post is about a far more quotidian subject, namely my daily commute.

Every day I take the express bus downtown to my office. Here in San Francisco, express buses are double-length, with some seats running along the walls and other seats perpendicular to the walls. The first several seats, 10 or so, are all along the walls, and they are all meant to be given up to elderly or handicapped passengers. In fact, a big blue sticker above these seats clearly states that:

Federal law mandates that the front seats of the bus be given up for seniors and persons with disabilities. Please do not sit in those seats if a senior or person with a disability needs a seat.

The express bus is a commuter bus, so there are almost never elderly or handicapped passengers. 99% of the passengers are healthy yuppies heading to work; therefore it would be silly to leave those front seats empty, waiting for some Nana who will never board the bus.

However, I find it interesting that it is nearly always women who sit in these seats. Men will move to the back, standing if the bus is full, rather than sitting in the front seats. Women, on the other hand, often don’t even look to the back; if the front seats are open, they plop their apple-shaped derrieres right down.

I’m not sure of the reason for this disparity, but let me throw out a few possibilities:

  • Women wear high heels and want to sit down as soon as possible
  • Men are afraid of breaking the rules
  • A man knows that if a senior actually boards, he will be expected to give up his seat before a woman, and he doesn’t want to hassle with the mid-ride change
  • Women internalize that one day they will be pregnant, and these seats thus will be reserved for them

Again, nobody is actually taking seats from seniors, so there is nothing wrong with sitting in these front seats, but I find the strong gender difference to be fascinating. Any suggestions?

In Defense of Elitism

The McCain-Palin campaign, and Republicans in general, keep attacking “elites.” What’s so terrible about being elite? When the US military has a difficult assignment, who does it send? Its elite commando teams, the SEALs and the Green Berets. If you want to win a gold medal, who do you send? An elite athlete like Michael Phelps. If you have a heart problem, what doctor do you want? An elite cardiologist.

For doing difficult things, we generally want the best prepared person we can get. After all, you wouldn’t get on an airplane piloted by someone who had barely gotten through flight school. But when it comes to the presidential election, the contest for possibly the hardest job in the world, suddenly the approach gets reversed. Advanced training and cerebral approaches are eschewed in favor of plain speakin’ and gut instinct.

I’m not saying you have to go to fancy schools in order to be a good president. George W. Bush went to two of the fanciest, and he’s pretty well cheesed things up. But neither should prestigious degrees or eloquent speech preclude one from being elected. There is nothing inherently bad about being elite, nor inherently good about being average. That being said, I don’t want Joe the Plumber running this country, although I want my president to remember who Joe the Plumber is. Or as Jon Meacham put it, “Do we want leaders who are everyday folks, or do we want leaders who understand everyday folks?”

Francis Fukayama Redeems Himself

Francis Fukayama may have restored his reputation, at least with me, by writing an article in Newsweek recently in which he was actually right. Fukayama, a professor at Johns Hopkins, is probably best known for writing The End of History, in which he claims that liberal democracy has won and is dominant. He was also an early supporter of George W. Bush’s Iraq invasion, providing intellectual justification from a non-Pentagon neocon that was essential to selling the war.

But Fukayama was so wrong on both counts that I was beginning to think that maybe he taught at Johns Hopkins preschool rather than the University. His Newsweek article, however, is possibly the best summary I’ve seen of where the US has gone wrong over the past several decades. To summarize his summary: the Reagan revolution was about A) lower taxes and less government; and B) supporting liberal democracy worldwide. We’ve gone too far on A, as demonstrated by the current financial crisis, and we’ve ruined B by doing it at gunpoint rather than through persuasion. Rather than adding more commentary, I encourage you to read his article here.

Seth Rogan and the Mortgage Crisis

Professor Gary Cross, of the University of Pennsylvania, has a new book out, called Men to Boys: The Making of Modern Immaturity. In it he traces concepts of adult masculinity from Victorian gentlemen to the man in the gray suit of the 1950’s through the deconstruction of tradition in the 1960’s counter culture and culminating in the modern boy-man, exemplified by the genial slackers portrayed by Seth Rogan in virtually every movie he has ever been in.

What does that have to do with the mortgage crisis? I place Professor Cross’ cogent analysis in a broader context of evading responsibility, which has become more and more the American paradigm during the period Dr. Cross analyzes. As men have transitioned from working downtown to getting stoned while they play video games…

….so too Americans have transformed themselves from a thrifty nation of hard workers into a society of debtors who leapt at the “free money” given them by cheap mortgages and (falsely) rising house prices.


Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

And while Mr. Rogan’s character in Knocked Up became responsible toward the end of the film, it took the crisis of Katherine Heigl’s pregnancy to force that maturation. In the same way, not until this year’s financial crisis did Americans recognize that they were living beyond their means. They would have continued to toke at the mortgage-backed bong, one hand on the joystick and the other in the Cheetos bag, had not Fannie and Freddie’s financial water suddenly broke, uncomfortably thrusting us all into mandatory adulthood.

Post Scripts

None of this should be taken as an attack on Seth Rogan himself. He is clearly way too busy to actually be a stoned slacker, and I’m sure he now has more than enough money to support several giant mortgages.

Also, lest you think Professor Gary Cross is something of a dilettante, you can download his extensive publication list from the Penn website. Full disclosure, however: he is a fellow graduate of Harvard Divinity School, so I tend to support him.

The Myth of the Dehydrating Cocktail

People say that drinking alcohol dehydrates you. We all know the clichés: drink a glass of water between each cocktail, sip water along with your wine, chug Gatorade before you go to bed. Virtually everybody I know has a secret for surviving a long night of drinking, and those secrets always revolve around aggressive hydration. Science agrees, telling us that alcohol serves as a diuretic by inhibiting a hormone that regulates water absorption in the kidney.

I don’t care what science says. I know that my mouth waters in anticipation when I am making a cocktail; how could my mouth make this mistake? Moreover, common sense tells us that the dehydration risk is overstated. Consider the screwdriver, that most basic of cocktails. Two parts vodka to five parts orange juice. Orange juice — so wet, so delicious, so not just for breakfast any more – can’t be dehydrating, not with just two hits of vodka. Or contemplate a single beer, which has the same amount of alcohol as one shot, but diluted down with 11 ounces of sky blue water. That’s 11 times as much hydrating liquid as dehydrating alcohol.

But I don’t even care what common sense says. I reject the myth of the dehydrating cocktail because I know that drinking alcohol is more mental than physical. Drinking is a metaphysical act, transcending any impact on the body. I posit that drinking is an act of self-realization, one that affirms our own humanity. By drinking, we establish that we are more than just physical manifestations; we are controlling our minds, and thus our beings.

How can being drunk affirm the self? Because our minds make us human. Ever since that crisp French morning when Descartes said “cogito, ergo sum,” philosophers have situated the self within the mind. With lesser minds we would be nothing but tall bald monkeys; but with our big brains we achieve self-consciousness, the ontological root of humanity. By drinking, we focus on that human brain, not our bodies. With alcohol we seize control of our mind – its inhibitions and fears, the dark doubts that plague our sober thoughts – and bend it to our will.

Indeed, drinking is an act of free will, of choosing mind over matter. By controlling our mental state we control our very being, rejecting the nausea or dizziness with which our bodies seek to reclaim their concreticity. Just as we choose our minds over our bodies, we can similarly choose to reject dehydration. When drinking I affirm all that is human – and humane – about me; I prioritize my mind, and thus necessarily subjugate my body and its paltry claims of dehydration.

Privatizing Gains and Socializing Losses

Someone asked me yesterday if I was going to do a post on the big bank bailout, and I reviewed my notes from a post I was going to write just two months ago, after the Fannie and Freddie bailouts. At the time, it seemed egregious that those were going to cost $50 billion, or around $170 per person in the US. How naïve and innocent we all were in those days.

Rather than writing about the current bailout per se, other than to say that it’s prima facie an utter Mongolian cluster f**k, I’d like to put it in the broader context of privatizing gains and socializing losses, which has been a special hobby for the current administration but seems to be a general approach in Washington DC.

As regulations were peeled away, leaving hedge funds free to trade opaque securities and mortgage bankers free to write unsustainable loans, members of the financial community made fortunes. These fortunes range from Wall Street titans buying Hamptons estates to Phoenix mortgage brokers buying a new Hummer, but they were all built on a house of cards. And now that the card house has fallen like a Jenga tower at the end of a drunken evening, the fortunes are still there while the taxpayers are picking up the tab.

Just to choose someone at random, let’s look at Michael Perry, the longtime CEO of IndyMac bank, until it was taken over by federal regulators. His total compensation in 2006 was over $4 million. In 2007 it went down to $1 million, but that didn’t include payments to his father ($86,925: independent inspector), his brother ($346,621: loan originator) and his sister-in-law and cousin, both employees making over $200k per year. But most of Mr. Perry’s fortune was made in equity. In May 2005 he netted $6 million from exercising options and in August 2005 he netted another $4 million. He filed SEC forms for many other option exercises, but I got tired of looking them up. You get the point: this guy made tens of millions of dollars while running his bank into the ground. And courtesy of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, he got to keep more of his ill gotten gains than he ever would have before.

The FDIC is currently estimating the takeover of IndyMac will cost nearly $9 billion. None of this money is coming from Mr. Perry. He gets to keep his tens of millions of dollars, while we all (anyone who uses a bank, since the FDIC is funded by banks, not taxpayers) pay the cost of his terrible management. This pattern – operator is unburdened by regulation, takes excessive risks, makes fortune, is bailed out by society while keeping fortune – has become almost paradigmatic for the Bush administration. Officials preached deregulation and markets while fortunes were being made, but now that things have soured, suddenly society is expected to bear the costs.

This is clearly a bad idea. Even an old Republican hand like George Schultz recently said “People and institutions behave more responsibly when they have some of their own equity at stake.” George and I are not the only ones who think it’s a bad idea; here are links to some other folks who agree:

  • NY Times writer David Carr, who recently described a mortgage broker right out of college: “We ordered three, four bottles of Cristal at $1,000 per bottle.” The taxpayers aren’t getting those bottles of Cristal back.
  • Foreign Policy magazine: “What is reprehensible here is that losses have now been socialized to taxpayers.”
  • The Financial Times: “Is the reality of the modern, transactions-oriented model of financial capitalism indeed that large private firms make enormous private profits when the going is good and get bailed out and taken into temporary public ownership when the going gets bad, with the tax payer taking the risk and the losses?”
  • Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz: “Those on Wall Street may have walked off with billions, but those billions are dwarfed by the costs to be paid by the rest of us.”
  • Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Solow: “And once the banking system is involved in a big way–owning, and holding as collateral, assets whose likely value is hard to understand and impossible to calculate–then we are all at risk.”

Five data points do not make reality, but let’s just say, for fun, that most people would agree to my proposition: it is bad to keep gains private while taxpayers cover the losses. So why does it keep happening? Here are some ideas:

  • Bankers are wealthy while taxpayers aren’t, and Republican policies generally benefit the wealthy
  • Banks and financial firms hire lobbyists and make campaign contributions, while taxpayers don’t
  • Republicans think that markets are self correcting, but they aren’t (there will be an entire post on that philosophical faux pas soon)

But another reason it keeps happening is because the voters let it happen. When Phil Gramm was jamming though poorly designed deregulation laws, none of his constituents voted him out.  Maybe Texas voters bought his “big government is bad” argument. Or maybe they didn’t realize the possible implications of unregulated trading in financial derivatives. Or maybe they simply weren’t paying attention. Whatever the reason, if voters don’t punish politicians for acting stupidly, then voters (ie. taxpayers) are going to end up paying the costs, all the way up to (and beyond) $700 billion.

Republican Energy Policy

When writing about any energy policy, there are certain facts which need to be put on the table:

  • the amount of oil in the world is finite
  • most of the currently known reserves are in places unfriendly to the US: the Middle East, Russia and Venezuela
  • demand for oil from emerging markets (India and China) will continue to grow

With those facts as a backdrop, the Republicans have decided on an energy policy that is summarized in their convention chant: “drill, baby, drill.” They have embraced drilling off both the west and east coasts of the US as their solution. But that’s not an energy policy: it’s a band-aid trying to cover a gaping wound.

Not that drilling is bad. But drilling isn’t enough. It’s nowhere near enough. The Department of Energy’s own study states that drilling in the areas the Republicans want to open would generate 200,000 barrels of oil per day (1% of US daily consumption), but not until 2017. Other than in the Gulf of Mexico, where we already drill, there just isn’t that much oil off the US coastline.

Which means that the Republicans can place drilling platforms all over the California coast – it will have virtually zero impact on gas prices. Nor will it reduce our dependence on enemy states for our oil. “This is a troubling trend” understates Bruce Bullock, director of SMU’s energy institute.

After drilling – way after drilling – the Republican policy looks at nuclear and coal power. Nuclear power produces zero greenhouse gases, and the newer reactors are supposed to be much safer, although there is that pesky toxic waste. Coal is a dirty fuel, both in the mining and the burning, and the new clean burning technology is far from ready. But the main problem with nuclear and coal is that you can’t put them in your car.

Right now gas is still at around $4.00 per gallon and that price is at the mercy of oil sheiks, Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin. Do we really want to let those guys control our driving habits? I don’t. But nothing in the Republican plan helps free us from our oil dependence. Automobile fuel efficiency, alternative fuels, conservation – none of this is mentioned. Nothing but drilling, which won’t really help. So whose interests does the Republican plan represent?

Politics and Culture, Part 2

Tuesday’s post was about Lee Siegel’s theory that Republicans win by focusing on heartland culture while Democrats waste their time talking about policy. Today’s post addresses what Democrats can do about this problem.

Some of the easiest, fastest responses are tactical. For example, Democrats should divide and conquer: they can discuss policy with standard liberal audiences and talk culture to the heartland. In addition, they should be advancing their own cultural narratives, particularly those that tap into Siegel’s call for “vicariousness.” Show Obama and Biden being regular people: shopping, going to church, driving their kids to soccer practice. Distribute the message via the cultural milieu itself rather than through the media. Have the candidates talk about their personality and their dreams. And Obama, please, lighten up a little. The Democrats should take Spiegel’s trope of “ordeal and humiliation” and use it, playing up their own descent and rebirth narratives. Obama has the single mom/neglectful dad angle, and Biden has his car crash (yes, it’s utterly debased to use it, but his son already opened that door during the convention).

But these tactical moves don’t really turn Siegel’s thesis to our advantage. A larger solution is to emphasize the Democratic culture. Fortunately, that culture actually synchronizes with policy, unlike the Republican culture, which fundamentally conflicts with Republican policy. But what is this Democratic culture, and is it lived like the Republican one?

I posit that the Democratic culture is the culture of the founding fathers, which is so ingrained in the American psyche, so elemental to our identity, that we live it every minute of every day. The Democratic culture is one of equality and opportunity, where people who work hard deserve a better life for themselves, regardless of class, color, creed or gender. This is a culture that takes seriously the words “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The Declaration of Independence is one of America’s totemic documents, and I think just as powerful as the Jungian archetype of descent.

For the Democrats, this culture is not a political strategy but the very essence of the party, the manifestation of their values, and thus is inseparable from policy. This is a culture, backed by policy, which favors hard work over family connections. It sides with student loans, not yacht owners; with sick children, not insurance companies; with producers, not paper pushers; with main street, not Wall Street. During a week when financial debacles are destroying value at unprecedented rates, it is worth remembering whose culture, and whose policies, support a market that is free but regulated. Democratic culture lives in churches that help the needy, in safety nets that help the disadvantaged, in methods of supporting families’ choices, and yes, in the ability of a mixed-race man with a single mother to become president.

If indeed people respond more powerfully, more viscerally, to culture than to policies, then let’s talk culture. In both red states and blue states people believe in the culture of forming “a more perfect union,” but only one party includes everyone in that union.  The Democratic culture is built on supporting the average American, on making real a “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” so don’t hide that culture – embrace it, spread it, and follow it to victory. Because what’s great here is that Democratic culture can speak to the heartland just as forcefully as the Republican culture can, and the Democrats can back their culture up with policies that reflect and actualize their culture of equality and opportunity.

Many thanks to Septa for her thoughts and edits.