"Did We Do That?" - Friedman 10/28/07

Today, Friedman penned a column on global warming and climate change that focuses on the question as to if certain cataclysmic events that are occuring (e.g. Southern California fires) are directly the fault of mankind. The idea that a specific event is atrributable to global warming is a stretch, to say it is specifically attributable to human action is even more difficult. It is, however, important in my mind that these types of anecdotal connnections be made in the general imagination of the populace. The thing that I find resonates most for people is when they think about the things they or their loved ones have seemingly noticed changing over time -- Be it the later freeze or the earlier thaw of farmers or the ability to golf in November in the suburbs of Chicago. These discreet events are what powers our imagination, which can lead to a collective consciousness that realizes there is a cost to our actions.

There is no completely conclusive evidence that a catastrophic and tumultuous weather period lies in wait, but as Friedman and his interviewees point out -- Weather change is occuring and if these disastourous events do continue to come in higher than expected frequencies, we are severely lacking in our infrastructure to handle these issues:

"Getting society focused on meeting these new infrastructure needs is huge. Our creaky power grid or leaky water pipes really matter in prolonged, record-shattering droughts like the one Georgia is now experiencing. “Some scientists have suggested giving droughts names, like we do hurricanes,” Ms. Cullen noted. “If we did, this Southeast drought would be called Katrina, and it would be about to hit Atlanta."

The failure of the world (with the likely exception of the Dutch-- they've been ready for years) to address how we will handle a 3 inch rise in ocean levels and the inablility to recongize the critical importance of having a water distrubution system that can handle and accommodate a severe drought are two (there are many) examples of how we are not preparing for what may not be certain but is becoming more and more likely.... and you just don't build flood walls overnight (just ask the Dutch)!

I know, I’m not keeping up on my promises of posting twice weekly... maybe I should run for office? In the meantime, I’ll offer an interesting NYT editorial that promotes a nifty little site that can keep you busy.

“The site features not just the expected arguments, like how government protects the rights of the disadvantaged, but discussions of why capitalism requires government, and a spirited defense of bureaucracy.” (emphasis mine)

I am consistently confused by the Reagenesque “government is the problem” mentality. Of course it is the problem, sometimes – while other times the problem is lack of adequate health care for an increasingly growing underclass – other times it is an issue of individual choice. There are lots of problems in the world, but eliminating an institutional arrangement that has overseen the greatest increase of inclusive self-deterministic growth is just plain silly. Return to feudalism, anyone?

“Death of the Machine” – Krugman – 10/19/07

Friday's NYT has Krugman discussing corporate campaign financing via K Street.The ability of the Republican Party to raise significantly more funds, especially from the business community, has been considered a given over the last few election cycles. The methods of Rove and elected Republicans, such as Santorum, to garner a permanent majority were predicated on the ability to grossly outspend opponents in elections. The current election cycle is strongly challenging this given, as Democrats are receiving more funds from each of the top ten industries in America. The question at the core of this issue is why is corporate America abandoning the GOP at this rate? The easy answer is political calculus. This argument holds that businesses know how to read the signs of an impending bomb of an election for the GOP in 2008. With 22 of the 34 contested Senate seats held by Republicans, a wave of GOP retirements in the House, and a lackluster presidential field the corporate world is quite simply hedging on the likelihood of a unified Democratic government for the first time since 1993. This calculus, along with the business community getting tired of seemingly being held hostage by the Republican Party, are two of the likely reasons for the funding shift.

Another possible cause of the growing gulf between business and the GOP is the lack of competency by the current administration. Though it is hard to argue that Bush has been unfriendly to business, his actions and policies have not exactly been the most conducive to growth and stability in the national and world economy. Disruption, volatility, and incoherent policies are bad for business, and the current administration has had no shortage of any of the three.

I would add two additional reasons for this growing disaffection between GOP and business. The first is that as the GOP maintains its intimate relationship with social conservative organizations and groups, the business community is forced to recognize that the GOP isn’t always with them – but occasionally must pander to the vote base. A singular example of this issue is the public financing of research facilities for stem cells – here in Madison the business community is very receptive to the idea, while the religious organizations are vehemently opposed. The final reason, and most disturbing, that I can come up with regards to business money flowing to the Dems instead of the GOP, is that the Democratic National Committee and the presidential candidates are viewed as in the pocket of big business.

Krugman, I think, would disagree with this last point being intentional, but he recognizes it as a real possibility:

“Many progressives, myself included, hope that the next president will be another F.D.R. But we worry that he or she will turn out to be another Grover Cleveland instead – better-intentioned and much more competent than the current occupant of the White House, but too dependent on lobbyists’ money to seriously confront the excesses of our new Gilded Age.”

The idea that a Democrat may be well intentioned, but unable to make some necessary politically bold moves seems more likely when the influx of corporate dollars is noted. The business community is often inherently conservative in nature – along with being enemies of volatility and incoherent policies; they also fight against change and any policy that is assumed to be harmful to the bottom line. I am, like Krugman, very concerned that we have established such a low baseline over the past seven years for leadership, that the progressives in America will rally behind a candidate that is primarily financed by some of the very industries (pharmaceuticals and insurance) that are most impeding necessary social changes.

“Sliming Graeme Frost” – Krugman – 10/12/07

Last Friday, Paul Krugman took issue with the lambasting of Graeme Frost at the hands of the right-wing media machine. It is frustrating for me to watch our political discourse continually fall to this level. I loathe the carelessness in the media of presenting information and the corresponding laxity with which the populace consumes it. Though I am unwilling to exclusively condemn one side of the political spectrum, it does seem that this program of personal attacks by innuendo and lies is utilized entirely too often by the “mainstream” conservative pundits. Krugman points out that these are not “fringe elements” within the right wing media, but folks like Limbaugh and Malkin who are often cited and greatly respected (within their portion of the spectrum) sources of political information.

Believe it or not, I think America needs these folks on the right to stir the political pot with their perspective. The unfortunate reality is that this role of biased (not in a bad way) media outlets is being, along with many other aspects of our discourse, continually polarized where the other side cannot be given quarter at any time. This mentality is, in and of itself, not political – but a zero-sum war game where by one side always wins and the other loses. This is to me one of the biggest failures of a portion of the political spectrum that claims to be so pro-business. The failure to recognize a basic premise of economics - that win-win outcomes are where the most value is added – informs me that there is little interest in making America better in aggregate. The point is to make America better for a certain constituency.

“Politics aside, the Graeme Frost case demonstrates the true depth of the health care crisis: every other advanced country has universal health insurance, but in America, insurance is now out of reach for many hard-working families, even if they have incomes that some might call middle class... ultimately, this isn’t about the Frost parents. It’s about Graeme Frost and his sister. I don’t know about you, but I think American children who need medical care should get it, period. Even if you think adults have made bad choices – a baseless smear in the case of the Frosts, but put that on one side – only a truly vicious political movement would respond by punishing their injured children.”

Thank you Mr. Krugman. This is not as much of a political issue as it is an ethical one. I, along with many others, have lived through a childhood of no health insurance coverage. Children in these positions are exposed to countless health issues that if treated or addressed at an early age may not have a serious impact on their lives, but left untreated we put these kids at a health disadvantage as they enter adulthood. I guess our land of equal opportunity doesn’t apply to health, or education, or dynastic wealth....

“Generation Q” - T. Friedman – 10/10/07

On Wednesday, Thomas Friedman penned an op-ed piece that is quite appropriate for the initial post here on Donkey Behind The Times. The column focuses on college age and other young (I’m assuming up to about 35 here) Americans and their methods of influencing the world. Generation Q, according to Friedman, means “the Quiet Americans, in the best sense of that term, quietly pursuing their idealism, at home and abroad.” The main thesis is that though our generation is idealistic and optimistic, we are failing to become as engaged (and enraged) as we should be on the political scene. I have to agree that our generation is seemingly abandoning the political arena for the opportunity to affect social change at a more micro level. We are guilty of promoting our ideas, thoughts and networks via the internet (irony point for me), in lieu of the old-timer method of grassroots organizing (As in, we can all stand together on the same grass and conduct an in your face protest – not join a defunct-on-creation Facebook group). We are also caught up in “grassroots” social behavioral change, by which I mean to lower CO2 emissions we change to fluorescent bulbs at home and buy a Prius. These methods are commendable and essential parts of improving the world, but unfortunately the most prolific changes need to be implemented from the top. This is not to say that the idea should (or is likely to) come from the top, but engaging and influencing politics can get our generational values injected into public policy. I am aware that the term “our generation” tacitly implies that we are all on the same page politically, which I am 100% sure is untrue. I do, however, believe that we are failing to address issues that will affect each and every twenty-something for the rest of our lives. Friedman points to three questions that “Generation Q” needs to be asking of political leaders:

“What is your plan for mitigating climate change? What is your plan for reforming Social Security? What is your plan for dealing with the deficit – so we all won’t be working for China in 20 years? America needs a jolt of the idealism, activism and outrage (it must be in there) of Generation Q. That’s what twentysomethings are for – to light a fire under the country.”

Word to your moms, Mr. Friedman! These three questions should be at or near the top of our “to fix” list. I also have to admit that I found the deprecating term, “Greediest Generation,” applied by Friedman to his own cohort to be an interesting choice of terminology – of which I concur to a great extent. They have left us with many debts to pay; the longer it takes for us to influence action the more interest is accumulating.

• PS: If you happen to be in the “Greediest Generation,” please don’t take this as a personal affront, there are numerous reasons that these failed policies have been created and promulgated. Instead of feeling berated by the young, consider engaging us – we aren’t as stupid as you think we are.