Public Policy and Governance – Page 311

The Scariest Thing About Mitt Romney

This morning’s New York Times asked an important question: is there a “Romney Doctrine”?

The article detailed the multiple ways in which Romney has ignored the advice of seasoned members of his foreign policy team, and rejected the more nuanced positions that Bush junior came to embrace in his second term (after learning lessons the hard way). Instead, Romney–who has zero foreign policy experience–has repeatedly engaged in hard-line, uninformed saber rattling.

Of all the things we are learning about the man who could very well become the most powerful person on the planet, this lack of appreciation for the complexities of the world America inhabits is the most worrisome.

Given Romney’s approach to campaigning–a full-throated pander to the most retrograde elements of the GOP base–it is certainly possible that his foreign policy positions are simply as self-serving as his domestic ones. This is, after all, a man whose only obviously genuine belief is in his own entitlement to be President. But unlike uninformed, simplistic statements about domestic issues, a presidential candidate’s foreign policy pronouncements are news around the globe. They become part of the intricate diplomatic calculus that the United States must engage in every day. When those statements are unreflective or contrary to current U.S. policies and interests, they complicate and disrupt ongoing international discussions.

If Romney the candidate is unaware of the effect of his bellicose statements, what evidence do we have that he would be more thoughtful as President? Thus far, we have seen no signs of self-reflection or intellectual curiosity–and certainly, no hint of recognition that there might be deficits in his understanding of a complex world.

The more we learn about Mitt Romney, the more convinced I become that he would be a disaster as President. Not because he is an evil man, but because he is an empty one.

Comments

The Marketplace of Ideas

The theory behind freedom of speech was pretty simple: a robust consideration and debate of all ideas will lead to adoption of the better ones. When all points of view can be examined, people will opt for those that are best for that society.

The history of civil rights in the U.S. would seem to support that thesis; despite some pretty grim periods, the nation has consistently—if sometimes painfully– moved to a more inclusive, more humane interpretation of equality.

During the past several decades, however, the advent of an ever-more pervasive electronic media has facilitated spin and micro-targeting. As a result, political operatives have been able to target their respective base voters with messaging that rarely breaks through to the general public, depriving that public of the sort of arguments that free speech advocates believe are essential to good policy decisions.

Thanks to Barack Obama’s endorsement yesterday of same-sex marriage, however, we are going to have one of those truly public debates.

On the one hand, Obama has come out (no pun intended) for the equal protection of the laws, for a government that applies the same rules to GLBT folks that it applies to heterosexuals. On the other, Romney has endorsed a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, and has personally contributed to anti-gay and anti-marriage equality organizations.

Perhaps more importantly, this stark difference of position comes at a time when those who do not follow politics closely are beginning to see just how radical the Republican base—to which Romney is in thrall—has become. Here in Indiana, the 2-1 defeat of Richard Lugar by a Tea Party yahoo has been a wake-up call. Despite being routinely characterized as a moderate, Lugar was a very conservative Senator (probably a great deal more conservative than many of his supporters realized). As E.J. Dionne noted this morning, he wasn’t “moderate”—he was civil. He actually engaged in conversation with people he disagreed with. To the rabid know-nothings who currently control the GOP, that was evidently sin enough.

Indiana is not alone, unfortunately; the radicalization of the once Grand Old Party has been proceeding for a long time now. But that radicalization has occurred largely out of view of the people who are simply going about their everyday business. What has been obvious to us political junkies is just now becoming obvious to the general public.

With Obama’s announcement, however, the “agendas” of base voters, Republican and Democrat alike, are receiving widespread attention. The choice is stark, and it isn’t limited to same-sex marriage.

If you think about it, positions on same-sex marriage are indicators of political and moral philosophies. People who favor civil liberties and equality for LBGT people tend to believe in separation of church and state, in women’s rights, in government neutrality and even-handedness. They value diversity.

People who are adamantly opposed to the extension of equal rights to gays and lesbians, on the other hand, tend to believe in authoritarian government, tend to support the GOP’s “war on women,” and tend to reject the principle of separation of church and state in favor of a belief in America as a “Christian nation.” Diversity makes them uncomfortable, and–let’s be honest—so does the presence of a black man in the White House.

Bottom line? Different positions on same-sex marriage are often proxies for dramatically different world-views.

What Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage has done is shine a very bright light on these differences. It was a decision to reject the continued micro-targeting of messages—the “wink-wink” approach favored by political operatives of both parties—in favor of the very public, very robust debate envisioned by the Founders.

It’s a debate well worth having. I just hope the Founders weren’t overly optimistic.

Comments

Sorry, Ericka–It Isn’t Change Indy Is Spurning

I generally like Ericka Smith’s columns–indeed, she and Matt Tully generally write the only things worth reading in what used to be a real newspaper. But she got this one really, really wrong.

I know a fair number of police officers, and a significantly larger number of politicians. I also have several colleagues who work closely with IMPD as consultants and researchers. I have not heard any of them criticize Frank Straub’s ideas for change. What I have heard–frequently–is criticism of Straub himself.

I have never personally met the man, but the picture painted by those who do is consistent: he came to Indianapolis with an “attitude.” He gave orders but never listened. He let everyone know that he was from a real city, and knew lots more than the “rubes” here in India-no-place. As willing as he was to dish out criticism, he was incredibly thin-skinned and defensive if anyone dared question or criticize him.

Think about your own job: how likely would you be to accept changes initiated by a boss who acted like that?

We teach public and nonprofit management at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs. One of the central points we make is the importance of “owning” change. Most people–not just in Indianapolis–are uncomfortable with change; in order to effectively shift an organization, a manager must create an atmosphere of trust, must obtain not just the acquiescence, but the understanding and “buy in” of the employees who must implement that change.

If a manager doesn’t do that, it doesn’t matter how great the ideas are. (Remember Steve Goldsmith?)

Indianapolis isn’t rejecting Straub’s changes, Ericka. It’s rejecting Straub.

Comments

Priorities, People!

Well, I see that Congressional Republicans bowed to the inevitable–aka looming voter outrage–and passed an extension of the measure to keep student loan interest rates at their current levels. The rates would have doubled without congressional action, and while the Tea Party faction supported letting the rates increase (who cares about those snotty little elitists who go to college?….), the few remaining realists in the party prevailed–at least to the extent of a one-year extension. (Down, Rover! Once the election’s over, then we can screw the college kids, but not now!)

Of course, the legislation had to be paid for. So the “family-friendly” party emptied out a fund that had been established to pay for poor children’s immunizations and women’s health–pap smears, breast exams, silly shit like that.

After all, we couldn’t expect them to take the money out of the massive subsidies we give the oil companies! How long will those obscene profits last, anyway? And god forbid we might raise the marginal rates on those overburdened “job creators” raking in a paltry million or two a year.

We have our priorities!

How unbearably despicable these people are.

Comments

The Buffet Rule and the Self-Made Myth

Predictably, the Buffet Rule–which would have raised tax rates on those making a million dollars or more a year–failed for lack of the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster. The GOP defended its position as necessary to encourage entrepreneurship and job creation, despite literally mountains of data disproving the link between lower taxes and economic prosperity.

It may be instructive to consider a couple of observations from a new book written by Bill Gates Senior. It’s titled “Self-Made Myth.”

In the book, Gates explains that Bill Jr. could not have built Microsoft without the United States’ publicly-supported infrastructure, tax laws, government-funded scientific research, public education and patent protection.

The book cites a number of other successful entrepreneurs who readily acknowledge their immense debt to the broad-based, publicly-financed goods our society offers, from the roads over which they ship their goods to the police and firefighters who maintain public safety.

A foreign student of mine once observed that there are plenty of bright, entrepreneurial people in third-world countries who cannot succeed on the scale Americans can, precisely because they lack those public goods, and because the absence of our extensive but largely taken-for-granted public infrastructure prevents the development of a middle class with the wherewithal to purchase their products. Market-based economies require–duh!–markets.

The question we face right now is what happens if we continue down the reckless path we seem to be traveling, a path that promises–among other things–to eliminate or vastly reduce the American middle class?

Ironically, in their zeal to avoid even moderately higher taxation, their unwillingness to repair or improve our crumbling infrastructure, their attacks on the public servants who provide security and education, the wealthiest Americans and their apologists and courtiers run a significant risk of killing the goose that makes their golden eggs possible.

The reality, as Neil Pierce has recently noted, is that government has been an indispensable player in developing America’s prosperity, from the early canals to our transcontinental railways, great dams to the interstate highway system, the first telegraph lines to the government-funded research that led to the Internet. It’s equally true at the local and state level, from public schools for all to our great public universities, the first minimum wage and workplace safety laws.

None of these public goods are free. They are an investment, and over the years, they’ve generated a remarkable rate of return in general prosperity and in all of those “self-made” men.

Comments