A New Republican

@ FutureChallenges: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: It's the Fundamentals

2012-01-26T12:33:00.000-05:00

My newest article at FutureChallenges has just been published. Linked to the content package, Work in the Developing World, the article, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: It's the Fundamentals, explores the current economic issues faced by the United States and offers a discussion on a possible way to attack the jobs problem.

It is clear, to even the most casual observers of American politics, that one of the most pressing problems of the past several years and a poignant issue in the 2012 election cycle is jobs. With unemployment rates at dismal levels—8.5% as of December 2011—and not having fallen below 8.0% since January 2009, Democrats and Republicans have been slogging it out over who is to blame and what steps need to be taken to ameliorate the situation.

This marks a significant change in the focus of the American electorate. Following 9/11, security and terrorism were, for at least a decade, the primary issues on most Americans’ minds. However, as Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy, argues, the 9/11 era is over. Over the next few years, economics—especially jobs—will be the driving force behind politics, both in the United States and abroad.

But while politics shift to an economic focus and politicians and pundits began to scrutinize, bolster, and tear-down each others’ and their own job-creating records, many gloss over the fact that governments are rarely directly responsible for creating actual jobs. This is particularly true in free-market systems with relatively small public sectors such as the United States. Instead, governments can indirectly facilitate job creation by generating a favorable economic environment, thus establishing the foundational prerequisites needed for the private sector to flourish.

To see the remainder of the article, please click here.

State of Class Warfare

2012-01-25T12:10:00.000-05:00

Last night's State of the Union Address was rather dull. The President offered little in the way of anything new. He continued to spin his usual bombast and, while trying to portray himself as a cross-aisle conciliator, continued his divisive rhetoric and class warfare. He even went as far as to acknowledge (and failed to deny) that many might perceive his proposals and language from a polarizing perspective.

As the State of the Union Address and Obama's past record both indicate, class warfare is a key ingredient in the Left's worldview. It is a perspective that relies upon separating Americans into groups—classes—where the supposedly more fortunate have certain responsibilities to members of other classes. The Left tries to portray itself as the defender of the lower- and middle-classes, against the excesses of the uppermost classes. Accordingly, the Democrats attempt to cast the Republicans as defenders of the rich. Naturally, a dynamic develops, a divisiveness and a sort of warfare, of two-sides where the Democrats, from their perspective, try to claim the mantle of defending the average American against Republican-backed elite.

Unfortunately, this plot line is often successfully bought by the media and many in the electorate. But it unfairly distorts the Republican position. The Republicans (at least most) are not defending the rich, but are defending every American's right to own and keep their property.

This is an inclusive agenda. All Americans should be treated the same, regardless of one's income level. Each has the same claim to the product of his work or investment, whether labeled low-income, middle-class, or rich. In fact, the Republican ideology, if allowed, could completely do away with all of these labels. From the perspective of the government and its laws, there should be no class separations. All Americans should be afforded the same rights and should be treated equally under the law.

This stands in direct contrast to the Democratic worldview, which relies upon labels and divisiveness. The Left loves to classify and categorize individuals, grouping them by economic background, race, or other arbitrary division. Each group is then offered unique treatment, privileges, or responsibilities. This separates Americans and creates undue tensions between truly artificial groups.

Grievously, many accept this portrayal of American society. They cannot help but view America through this lens of autonomous and distinct groups, even though there are far more cross-cutting similarities among Americans than there are Balkanized group identities.

Nevertheless, many other Americans see through this distorted worldview. The low-income Republicans that many academics and pundits like to claim consistently vote against their economic interest are a prime example. It is not necessarily true that the so-called rural social conservatives choose social policy over economic interest. Instead many see the Republican economic position for what it is meant to be—a defense of every American's economic interests.

Whether one is rich or poor, it is in one's interest to have a system that believes that the product of each American's work is his or her own property. The government does not, as the Left likes to believe, have an a priori claim on one's income, thus graciously allowing individuals to keep the residual amount after "proper" [arbitrary] redistribution has occurred. Instead, our income and wealth are our own property and we have the right to do with it as we please. Taxes are to be paid to support the essential services that a government must provide, but these should be based on the proper needs of the system and our responsibilities as citizens to meet these needs, not on some arbitrary definition of "having too much."

Obama and the Democrats continue to distort this message, attempting to confuse Americans into believing that somehow some Americans owe something to others. This is simply not true, yet deeply divisive. Americans are in this together. We have one country in which we must share responsibilities and we should have one set of laws that treats everyone the same.

No Black Eyes

2012-01-24T10:06:00.000-05:00

The Republican primaries are getting ugly. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have been attacking each other with venom in their quest to secure the GOP's nomination. And while last night's debate in Florida had quite a few moments of real issue-based discussion—NBC's moderator, Brian Williams, should be commended for running a respectable and informative debate—a large portion of the debate descended into ad hominem attacks between the two front runners.

The termination of all personal attacks in election campaigns would be a noble and significant goal, however, it is probably unrealistic. The electorate too often jumps on juicy and vitriolic stories and character assassinations, even if voters simultaneously claim to abhor such behavior. The truth is that such tactics unfortunately work and candidates know this.

However, if running only issue-based campaigns is too lofty of a goal in general election campaigns, it is indubitably wise to terminate these tactics in party primaries. While primary candidates are rivals they are also allies in a broader conflict. By relying on tactics that may further their immediate goal, they often simultaneously undermine the longer-term goal. In the interest of winning the metaphorical war, not just the battle, Republican presidential candidates would be sagacious to change their tactics quickly.

By attacking each other in such personal ways, whether drawing out Herman Cain's infidelity, portraying Mitt Romney as a rich, out-of-touch, low-tax-paying elite, or labeling Newt Gingrich an "influence peddler," Republican candidates are only doing the Democrats' dirty-work. The GOP campaigns are unearthing truths and partial-truths that the Obama campaign may never have seized upon and will certainly use in the general election. This has gone a long way towards facilitating the reelection of Obama, particularly as the primaries head towards the spring.

Even more damning is the fact that the Republican candidates are systematically tearing each other down. These candidates seem to be forgetting that while they are currently competing for the votes of Republican primary voters, they are also being watched by the independent and liberal voters that they need to sway the general election towards the right. The things they say now will stick; if, for instance, Romney is successfully portrayed as an elitist, it will be hard for him to shake that image over the summer and fall.

Whether Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich ultimately wins, the loser will inevitably endorse the nominee. Neither prefers Obama over his Republican rival. Yet after such a brutal campaign it is hard to see either able to successfully stump for the other, particularly when there are hours of footage personally castigating the former rival. Instead, the ultimate winner runs the risk of Pyrrhic victory, defeating his Republican rival only to face Obama in a beauty contest with two black eyes and a chipped front tooth.

The primary campaign should be a time of sincere and honest discussion over issues. Candidates should attempt to distinguish themselves on the subtleties of their positions and the nuances of their beliefs. It is okay, even necessary, to indicate how one candidate differs from his opponents. Republican voters should know which type of conservative candidate they are selecting. Ron Paul's interactions with the other candidates are usually exemplary in this regard. Paul, for example, outlines significant differences in his foreign policy beliefs. He will criticize the mainstream Republican foreign policy, but rarely descends into personal attacks. This behavior is generally reciprocated by Romney and Gingrich, who may call Paul's foreign policy dangerous [it is] but do not attack the congressman personally. As a result, Republican and non-primary voters are informed and learn a bit more about their prospective presidents.

This is how a primary campaign should be run. It should be about the issues, not about deconstructing an opponent's character or personal life. Lively disagreement and debate is a must, but ultimately the GOP is a team. The candidates should compete vigorously, but not in a way that undermines the ultimate goal. They should fight on the issues not on the alleged personal failures of their Republican rivals.

Government Healthcare Interferes in Private Lives

2012-01-23T11:16:00.000-05:00

Many are outraged at the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) recent decision to force religiously-affiliated organizations to provide reproductive and preventative services without co-pay or deductible, as required under the new Obamacare law. HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius announced that while synagogues and churches would be exempt from the rule, other religiously-affiliated organizations, including non-profits would not be. Religiously-affiliated organizations, however, were provided an extra year to prepare for implementation.

This decision has highlighted the excessive overreach of Obamacare into the private sector. The law is facilitating gross interference in the private lives of individuals beyond what is appropriate for government involvement. It not only gives the government an undue amount of arbitrary coercive power, but greatly impedes the ability of the individual (person and organization) to choose their own way of life and even make their own mistakes.

Many religious leaders have spoken out quickly and decisively on the ruling, arguing that it forces them to provide for services, such as the morning-after pill, that challenge their personal and religious beliefs. The archbishop of New York, Timothy M. Dolan said "In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences...."

This is not a commentary on the wisdom of providing or not providing contraception. The issue at stake here is not whether these religious groups and leaders are right about the provision of these services—if one can even make the claim that there is a "right." Instead, it is about whether individuals and private organizations should have the right to choose the services they provide to their employees and the manner in which they conduct their operations.

Private bodies should not be forced, by the government, to behave in certain ways because some, who happen to be in power, believe that one way or another is a better way to conduct one's live. The wielding of such power by the government moves far beyond the pale of the proper role of government and descends towards a dangerous tyranny. While the government certainly has to make laws and use coercive power to alter the individual's behavior in some instances, there is a wide gap between, for instance, preventing murder or theft, which essentially protects one citizen from another, and forcing citizens to provide services or goods to others when the provider (and possibly the recipient) objects and the recipient can obtain these services elsewhere if they so desire.

By allowing the government to inflict such arbitrary and minute decisions on the lives of private organizations, Obamacare has ventured too far into the realm of totalitarian control. The rule has offered no clear delimitation of what is appropriate and what is inappropriate intervention in the private sector, relying upon a perspective of government that essentially allows any meddling if some policymaker believes the outcome would be "better." An argument that science or policy deems such practices better (even if true) is not sufficient to warrant government control.

The proposed alternative, exemptions, as provided to houses of worship, are not a fair or appropriate remedy. Everyone must be treated the same under the law. Allowing some to avoid following a law because of personal reasons relies upon the same arbitrariness that should not be present in legislating and government rule-making. Why, one must readily ask, should religious objections be acknowledged but not other personal or economic ones?

The truth is that the government has no business in deciding what employers should provide in terms of healthcare and reproductive services. There is certainly a worthy debate to have over merits of providing birth control—a debate that would most likely be lively and impassioned. But it is a debate that should happen in the social sphere not in the government. It is a debate that will ebb and flow as social values and mores change, as people, for instance, choose to associate and work for organizations that provide or refuse to provide benefits that coincide with their personal beliefs. But it is not just for coercion to be used to force some to adhere to the beliefs of others.

Policymaker in Chief

2012-01-20T14:39:00.000-05:00

The media has been abuzz with Newt Gingrich's push-back against inappropriate questions asked by CNN's John King during last night's Republican primary debate in South Carolina. Responding to opening questions about allegations, made by Gingrich's ex-wife, of a request for an "open relationship," Gingrich refused to play by the standard rules of the game and fired back at the "despicable" line of questioning.

Gingrich's response is refreshing. Far too often politicians play by the media's rules, failing to push back against unwarranted assumptions, questions, and rules that have come to govern America's political process. This has unfortunately made too many good politicians look bad and has distracted the electorate from substantive issues (the Lewinsky scandal is a prime example). Gingrich said it well, "I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run of for public office and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that."

In truth, far too much emphasis is placed, in political campaigns, on what should remain strictly personal. Accordingly, candidates often fail to draw a clear line emphasizing what is relevant and what is off limits. Instead, they act guilty and try to avoid direct answers, implicitly accepting underlying assumptions that reside within a question. This not only leads to discussion about issues that are irrelevant to an office-holder's job responsibilities, but also develops a culture that unquestionably accepts certain behaviors, even if they are unjustifiable. [This same failure to challenge implicit assumptions has lead, as argued elsewhere, to additional problems.] Instead, what should be relevant is the candidate's ideas, policy prescriptions, and how he will act as an office-holder.

Other candidates would be wise to follow Gingrich's lead. Romney, for instance, should make a similar argument regarding calls for the release of his tax returns. His past income, he should argue, has no bearing on his ideas and ability to be a successful president. He could easily link this to Gingrich's argument, defending a separation between the public (job-related) and private realms of a candidate's life.

Critics, of course, love to argue that these personal issues are somehow relevant to understanding a candidate. But such arguments fall flat. It is not relevant what income your attorney, accountant, or grocery-store bagger makers, nor does it matter what your gardener, professor, or firefighter does in his free time or in his personal relationships. What matters is if the individual has the required talents, ideas, and ability to execute the responsibilities of his job. America would find that it attracts more talented, intelligent, and more capable candidates, if it focused on the policies not the politics of their officials. The rest is just a distraction.

Newt Undermines GOP Arguments on Capitalism

2012-01-11T10:52:00.000-05:00

A desperate and angry Newt Gingrich has relinquished his remaining grip on smart primary campaigning and unleashed an all out assault on Mitt Romney's economic record – and, by association, capitalism. Gingrich's attacks on Romney's experience, however, only serve to undermine Gingrich's stance as a responsible, non-negative campaigner and isolate him from the sensible Republican voters whom he needs to court to have any chance at receiving the GOP nomination.

However, aside from the damage that such attacks seem to be having on Gingrich's campaign, this anti-capitalist line of campaigning is causing monumental damage to the very economic basis that the Republicans are supposed to defend. In his quest to take down his rival, Gingrich is relying on the same Occupy Wall Street-style rhetoric that dominates the left. (To be fair, Governor Rick Perry has resorted to similar tactics, as the WSJ reports.)

The pernicious results are, at least, twofold. First, these attacks greatly help the Obama campaign. These are the precise attacks that the anti-freedom, anti-capitalist forces of the left will unleash on Romney come the general election. There could not be a better way to bolster their argument than by dishing it out for them. As the presumptive nominee, Romney will have an uphill battle to convince those who succumb to the easy anti-capitalist rhetoric that bashes the free market system. Obama can only be gleeful to have help in his mission in the form of Newt Gingrich.

Secondly, and arguably more importantly, Gingrich's attacks solidify misconceptions and distortions about how the free market works. The underlying assumption in his argument is the same as those held by the worst populists in OWS and the anti-Wall Street fringes of the Tea Party. The central argument is that somehow those who have money must justify their possession based on some social, communal good. This is simply false. The freedoms of the American political system guarantee that individuals have the right to their property. Provided they do not engage in illegal activities, individuals have no obligation to justify their earnings to the state in any regards. In other words, the rich, the middle-class, or the poor, need not demonstrate a social purpose or benefit from their occupation in order for the state to deem it acceptable. A free market functions precisely because no government body determines these things.

However many populists and the left implicitly rely upon this assumption when attacking the "rich." Accordingly, they argue that financiers cannot justify a socially-beneficial purpose and thus their "unjustly" earned wealth should be, at least partially, relinquished to the state. Gingrich has gone on record stating that the likes of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Sam Walton deserve their billions because they invented something real. By contrast, goes the argument, Wall Street is just a "handful of rich people [who] manipulate the lives of thousands of other people and walk off with the money...."

This is a gross distortion of the role that finance plays in a capitalist system. Finance is an essential service – it moves capital from those who possess it to those who can use it best. It allows entrepreneurs, who do not possess the needed resources, to obtain them fairly and efficiently. And like anything in business, sometimes it succeeds and sometimes it fails. Capitalism's success is not because it always creates jobs, but that it allows resources to be successfully and most efficiently allocated to the right places, something no one person or institution (government) could do alone. This inherently implies hiring and firing, buying and selling, and investing and divesting. Firing, for instance, moves labor from an area that does not need it and thus frees it up to be used in a more productive fashion.

But Gingrich's attack plays into the leftist and populist rhetoric that ignores the importance of finance. Not only does it confuse voters who are unfamiliar with finance, providing fodder for the left to continue the myth that finance and Wall Street are greedy robbers that need to be stopped by the government (Progressive blogs have jumped on this Gingrich quote.) but it does a great disservice to the purported Republican goal of changing the direction of this country.

Gingrich should be ashamed at such low-brow politics. As an academic and a genuinely smart guy, he must know that the quest to hold political office should not undermine the long-term goals of righting the direction of this country. Relying upon political expediency rather than education only reinforces the anti-free market myths that dominate the public sphere. Republicans have unfortunately excelled far too much at this game. They choose to battle on the Democrats' terrain, using leftist arguments and thus continuously fighting on the defensive. The GOP will only be able to transform this country if it starts to think for itself, if it directly targets these sort of implicit assumptions that underline much of the political dialogue and replaces them with truth. Gingrich's behavior flies in the opposite direction by not just failing to break down the "Wall Street" is bad assumption but strengthening it.

Government Questions Employer's Right to Require High School Diploma

2012-01-03T17:12:00.000-05:00

Once again the government is slowly pushing its tendrils into the private sector. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has recently released a non-binding letter indicating that employers may be in violation of the American Disabilities Act (ADA) if they require a high school diploma as a prerequisite for employment. The letter, which as of now is only an informal expression of the EEOC's position and does not have the force of law, states:

[I]f an employer adopts a high school diploma requirement for a job, and that requirement “screens out” an individual who is unable to graduate because of a learning disability that meets the ADA’s definition of “disability,” the employer may not apply the standard unless it can demonstrate that the diploma requirement is job related and consistent with business necessity. The employer will not be able to make this showing, for example, if the functions in question can easily be performed by someone who does not have a diploma.

Even if the diploma requirement is job related and consistent with business necessity, the employer may still have to determine whether a particular applicant whose learning disability prevents him from meeting it can perform the essential functions of the job, with or without a reasonable accommodation. It may do so, for example, by considering relevant work history and/or by allowing the applicant to demonstrate an ability to do the job’s essential functions during the application process. If the individual can perform the job’s essential functions, with or without a reasonable accommodation, despite the inability to meet the standard, the employer may not use the high school diploma requirement to exclude the applicant. However, the employer is not required to prefer the applicant with a learning disability over other applicants who are better qualified.

While fortunately not yet legally binding, the argument behind this letter continues a worrying trend of arbitrary government interference in the private sector. However, putting aside the incremental threat of government micromanagement of the economy, this policy has the potential for significant negative economic and social effects.

First, the policy can arguably cause undue economic burdens to employers and restrict their ability to recruit appropriate candidates. The possession of a high school diploma is often used as a filter to screen out less than desirable candidates. While, like any such screen, it will be imperfect—sometimes keeping out good matches and other times allowing bad candidates to move on to interviews or even employment—methods of filtering job applicants allows employers to reduce overhead costs and save resources. Employers will have a much longer and costly hiring process if they are forced to consider every applicant without the ability to employ screening techniques as they see fit.

Likewise, employers will be faced with growing costs related to litigation and preventative legal steps, such as developing rubrics to discern if "the diploma requirement is job related and consistent with business necessity." The policy will open the door to expensive legal battles and direct corporate resources from primary business operations to the legal department.

Such costs will, of course, be passed on to consumers or taken from employees paychecks—results that are not needed during tough economic times. Additionally, higher expenses related to hiring can lead to damage to the job market. Companies will become more hesitant to expose themselves to regulatory action or litigation by quickly entering the job market when, particularly, short-term needs arise. Any job market needs to be largely unencumbered—to facilitate easy hiring and firing and thus allowing employers and employees to rapidly find mutually beneficial arrangements. This policy will have the opposite effect on the job market.

These economic concerns are rivaled by the pernicious implications that this proposed policy has on the value of education. Many opponents cite that this will limit incentives to a high school education. This argument carries some weight. After all, if employers are limited in requiring a high school diploma, students will have less pressure to avoid dropping out. More jobs that do not require a diploma will be available and legal action will always be a viable route.

Inevitably, the social effects of devaluing education could yield unfortunate ramifications—handicapping an already flagging economy and continuing the dumbing-down of our relatively declining pool of human capital. America needs to increase its productivity and human capital; high school education is a first step in this process.

America does not need disincentives to high school education. It does not need to continue providing excuses for people to disavow personal responsibility. Nor does it need to invent ways to try to "protect" Americans against every conceived stroke of bad luck, injustice, or risk. What America needs is to increase productivity, allow economic forces to freely operate, and afford Americans the opportunity to face and overcome challenges—and sometimes also fail.

UN Embarrasses Itself - Again

2011-12-22T17:34:00.000-05:00

The United Nations General Assembly (GA) has once again made a fool of itself. In proceedings today, it held a minute of silence as a sign of respect for the death of North Korean dictator (and general madman) Kim Jong-il, who died this past Saturday. The president of the GA, Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser, called for a twenty-five second ovation, stating:

It is my sad duty to pay tribute to the memory of the late Kim Jong-il, Secretary-General of the Workers Party of Korea, Chairman of the National Defence Commission of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army, who passed away on Saturday, December 17...

While Western leaders boycotted the ceremony and the GA meeting was sparsely attended, the honoring of such a tyrant as Kim Jong-il rudely displays the daftness of the UN, representing yet another utter failure to even approach a reasonable interpretation of the United Nations' founding principles. It also signifies a capitulation to the worst form of North Korean propagandizing, creating even more material for the North Korean leadership to brainwash their people into accepting the supposed successes and laudatory nature of the failing regime.

Of course such behavior from the UN General Assembly is not surprising. However, as it continues to let itself be used as a political forum for the world's most hateful regimes, despotic dictators, and terrorist organizations to spew their hatred, it only serves to undermine any sense of morality in the international system.

Was It Wall Street or the Government?

2011-12-22T10:03:00.000-05:00

A recent Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that were integral to the housing boom and bust, now formally argues that these two organizations committed massive fraud, which underrepresented their exposure to subprime mortgages and contributed to the economic meltdown.

The Wall Street Journal expounds how this investigation blows holes in the argument, often proffered by anti-capitalist Democrats, that Wall Street is solely to blame:

Democrats have spent years arguing that private lenders created the housing boom and bust, and that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac merely came along for the ride. This was always a politically convenient fiction, and now thanks to the unlikely source of the Securities and Exchange Commission we have a trail of evidence showing how the failed mortgage giants turbocharged the crisis.

That's the story revealed Friday by the SEC's civil lawsuits against six former Fannie and Freddie executives, including a pair of CEOs. The SEC says the companies defrauded investors because they "knew and approved of misleading statements" about Fan and Fred's exposure to subprime loans, and it chronicles their push to expand the business.

And while the GSEs were somewhat independent from the legislature and the bureaucracy, the paper trail seems to go further back. At least some of the incentive for the alleged fraud was directly caused by government's social policy of getting every American his or her own house - regardless of the ability to afford it.

The Beltway story of the crisis claims that Congress's affordable housing mandates had nothing to do with it. But the SEC's lawsuit shows that Fannie degraded its underwriting standards to increase its market share in subprime loans. According to the SEC suit, for instance, in 2006 Fannie Mae adjusted its widely used automated underwriting system, "Desktop Underwriter." Fannie did so as part of its "Say Yes" strategy to "provide more 'approve' messages . . . for larger volumes of loans with lower FICO [credit] scores and higher LTVs [loan-to-value] than previously permitted."

Unfortunately, this is what happens when the government meddles in private-markets for social engineering purposes - prices (and risk) get mispriced, bubbles are grown, and then busts bring the economy down. And while this does not fully absolve Wall Street (fraud did occur and non-criminal stupid decisions were made) or the consumer (the role that greedy homeowners played in buying too much house or refinancing to buy flat-screen TVs and BMWs is unfortunately overlooked), it does shed light on the harm government can do. Sometimes trying to help people ends up with a worse outcome than doing nothing, especially if all potential consequences are not considered from the outset.

Stop Trying to Control Everything

2011-12-19T10:07:00.000-05:00

For a long time, Americans have turned to the government to solve their woes. When things "go wrong" the government has been the readily accessible and presumably best organization to make things right. Social problems, economic recessions, health concerns, cultural discords, and the like have all been placed under government oversight.

Government officials have often done a poor job at solving these problems, partially because the solutions are outside the scope of what a government can successfully do, partially because legislators and bureaucrats often fail to appreciate unintended consequences, and partially because rigid bureaucracy is generally ill-formed to adapt to changing circumstances in the real world. Yet, unfortunately many Americans still turn to the government as the problem-solver. This impulsive desire to turn to the almighty government comes from a general malaise in the American psyche that wants others to carry the tough burdens (or at least a lack of confidence in the ability to achieve), a human desire to control his environment, and an undue confidence that the government is the only institution that can solve big problems. The latter, of course, is rooted in a fundamental lack of imagination on how other forces can have tremendous impacts. The government can be seen, it is tangible, and thus to the naive it is the only means to implement solutions. The less tangible - social, cultural, and economic forces - are summarily dismissed.

But while there has long been criticism of expansive government, there appears to be growing popular antagonism to these outmoded ways of thought. Former Florida governor, Jeb Bush, writes a powerful critique of the need for the "right to rise." He argues that government causes more harm than benefit by its incessant interloping in the marketplace and its attempts to solve the 'problem' of risk.

But when it comes to economic freedom, we are less forgiving of the cycles of growth and loss, of trial and error, and of failure and success that are part of the realities of the marketplace and life itself.

Increasingly, we have let our elected officials abridge our own economic freedoms through the annual passage of thousands of laws and their associated regulations. We see human tragedy and we demand a regulation to prevent it. We see a criminal fraud and we demand more laws. We see an industry dying and we demand it be saved. Each time, we demand "Do something... anything."

He goes on to discuss the pressures he faced, as a governor, to always find a solution, to always be the one to "do something," even though there was not always something to be done. The pattern is emblematic of the corrosion of the American way, where Americans now look for the easy way out, for someone else to solve their problems, and for a cushy, utopian lifestyle free from any possible harm.

In a similar vein, Robert J. Samuelson argues that Keynesian economics, the economic theory that has justified government management of and intervention in Western economies since the interwar period, is on its deathbed. Government management of the economy may have been appropriate when governments were small, nimble, and able to tweak the economy at the margin; however, now these policies are increasingly a disaster.

Deficit spending and pump priming were plausible responses to economic slumps. Now, huge governments are often saddled with massive debts. Standard Keynesian remedies for downturns — spend more and tax less — presume the willingness of bond markets to finance the resulting deficits at reasonable interest rates. If markets refuse, Keynesian policies won’t work.

However, governments have long since abandoned prudent use of such policies, distorting the original intent of Keynesianism to justify massive government control and intervention in the private sector. This has not only rendered Keynesianism ineffective but created ripples of problems across the American landscape. The death knells of this philosophy, are deeply rooted in a growing lack of confidence that some enlightened, technocratic government is truly able to solve the country's woes.

Unfortunately, some still tenaciously cling to the outmoded confidence in government. They cannot envision an alternative. They cannot accept that not only can we as humans, with our minimal capacity, not fix every problem, but that it is often not desirable to try and do so. Failure can be a good thing, self-reliance can be empowering, problem solving can build character, and being independent can yield a better world than stifling, top-down control. Mankind cannot control every aspect of its environment, not through individual or government action. The sooner we let go of this pernicious desire to shape our surroundings into some ideal and the sooner we let go of the false hope that only through government's magical hands will we better our world, then the sooner this country will be able to progress.

Grabbing the Center

2011-11-24T12:37:00.000-05:00

Elections are won and lost in the center. So seems to be an increasingly vocalized mantra from some of the more sensible on the right. The argument is fairly simple: while America is generally a center-right country, a large number eschew extreme candidates, whether on the far left or right. The politician that can successfully grab the middle stands to win the election.

Some conservatives, though, have long been arguing against this perspective, claiming instead that a more "pure" (read: further right) candidate is needed. But this logic fails. The far-right will vote for a moderate conservative over the leftist Obama, and, given their intense dislike of the incumbent, will undoubtedly head to the polls for Mitt Romney rather than seeing the president re-elected.

The independents, those who voted for Obama three years ago and are now sorely disappointed, will be more hesitant to vote for what appears to be an extreme GOP candidate, than a more moderate one, like Romney. Since, these are the powerful swing voters, their apprehension could be disastrous, giving Obama yet another four years.

Karl Rove, architect of the Bush Jr. campaigns, seems to agree. He has argued that a successful candidate needs to draw votes from both the left and the right and be representative of all of America. This is the strategy that worked for the "Big-Tent" Republicanism of Ronald Reagan, who created an entire new group of Democrats - the Reagan Democrats.

In the Wall Street Journal, syndicated radio show host Michael Medved provides a powerful argument to this effect. He concludes:

In short, the electoral experience of the last 50 years does nothing to undermine the common-sense notion that most political battles are won by seizing and holding the ideological center. In the last two presidential elections, more than 44% of voters described themselves as "moderate," and no conservative candidate could possibly prevail without coming close to winning half of them (as George W. Bush did in his re-election).

The notion that ideologically pure conservative candidates can win by disregarding centrists and magically producing previously undiscovered legions of true-believer voters remains a fantasy. It is not a strategy. At the moment, it is easy to imagine Mitt Romney appealing to many citizens who would never consider Rick Perry or Herman Cain. It is much harder (if not impossible) to describe the sort of voter—Republican, Democrat or independent—who would refuse to support Mr. Romney (over Barack Obama!) but would somehow eagerly back Messrs. Perry, Cain or Gingrich, let alone Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum or Ron Paul.

Conservatives, as well as their moderate and progressive neighbors, may have plenty of reasons to oppose Mitt Romney in favor of some rival candidate. Electability can't reasonably count as one of them.

Ideology certainly has its place, but those that are truly committed to correcting the misguided course this nation is on must be careful not to be blinded to their own detriment. Democracy is fundamentally about compromise, even if a compromise is worse than some alternative "pure" option. If the Republicans want a seat at the table, if they want to be able to influence the direction of the country, they must be politically smart as well.

A Tyranny of Language

2011-11-12T10:08:00.000-05:00

Republican Congresswoman, and presidential candidate, Michele Bachmann was heckled off of the stage at a recent foreign policy speech aboard the USS Yorktown, by a group of Occupy Wall Street protesters. The protesters interrupted her speech by reading in unison their own prepared words. Bachmann, who was visibly shocked and perturbed, was briefly escorted off of the stage. Upon returning she commented, "Don't you love the First Amendment?" She later went on to criticize the protesters as "ignorant" and "disrespectful."

While Bachmann is certainly right on the latter point and is justifiably annoyed at this abominable behavior, she gives the protesters far too much credit by calling what they did an exercise in free speech. Free speech is an essential right that prevents the silencing of other perspectives and ideas because one (particularly the government) disagrees with them. It primarily exists to allow opposition to freely challenge the ideas of those who have power.

However, it is not a shield behind which individuals or groups can hide to silence other's speech. This is precisely what the protesters did. They made noise to prevent Bachmann from voicing her perspectives and robbed her of the right to speak. This is the same tyranny that occurs when a speaker (or protester) is thrown in jail or punished in order to be silenced.

Free speech is not about words or sounds which emanate from one's mouth. It is about prohibiting coercive force from being used to silence one's ideas; regardless of how smart, crackpot, or weird these ideas are and certainly regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with them. The coercive use of the weapon of language to prohibit another from speaking is as tyrannous as using any other coercive method to silence different opinions.

It does not matter who one is, whether a Tea Partier shouting down a Democrat or an OWSer shouting down a Republican, these techniques are abhorrent. They are a direct affront to and violation of free speech, despite trying to hide behind the banner of this right. Free speech is needed to preserve the dialogue that underpins democracy. If we allow anyone to silence others, we will destroy the fabric of our system.

@ FutureChallenges: An Artificial Protest: Occupy Wall Street

2011-11-10T11:06:00.000-05:00

A discussion and analysis of Occupy Wall Street has been published at Bertelsmann Foundations FutureChallenges.org, that argues that OWS has severe structural issues and is thus far from a real protest movement. Not only does it lack a coherent message (although that is slowly changing), most of its constituent members are motivated by factors that are not conducive to a successful political force. OWS is driven by an obsession with the David-and-Goliath complex, a romanticization of protest, and a large amount of cognitive dissonance. While economic grievances may be real, OWS is far from a potent political force.

The American media has been awash with jubilant exaltations of Occupy Wall Street (OWS). However, despite many claims, the movement is not a transformative revolutionary force. While indubitably there is a small core that is committed to dramatic, even revolutionary, change, they are not representative of most Americans, or even, arguably, of most protestors in the streets. Accordingly, OWS will not have the dramatic impact championed by the chattering class.

Great Friends of Israel

2011-11-10T10:55:00.000-05:00

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and President Obama failed to turn off their microphones when they decided to bash Israeli ally Prime Minister Benyamin Netanayhu. Sarkozy was overheard saying that, "I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar." Obama responded with sympathy stating,"you're fed up, but I have to deal with him every day."

While the two are certainly entitled to their opinions, one would think it wise not to let such criticisms come out in such an embarrassing and public fashion. No one has doubted Obama's animosity towards the Israeli government (and, well, the French were never questionable on this front), but such statements only confirm the dismal relationship that the president has developed with an important ally. Such gaffes can only continue further deterioration in the US-Israeli relationship and hinder any ability for the US to serve as an honest mediator in the peace process. If Obama has not done enough to thwart a just peace in the Middle East through his foolish foreign policy, this vocal outburst certainly helping the cause.

Is the Mainstream Losing Interest in OWS?

2011-11-09T15:51:00.002-05:00

Here's an excerpt from a poignant critique of OWS from the Washington Post's Michael Gerson. The whole article is worth a read.

At what point does a protest movement become an excuse for camping? At what point is utopianism discredited by the seedy, dangerous, derelict fun fair it creates? At what point do the excesses of a movement become so prevalent that they can reasonably be called its essence? At what point do Democratic politicians need to repudiate a form of idealism that makes use of Molotov cocktails?

The emergence of Occupy Wall Street raised Democratic hopes for the emergence of a leftist equivalent to the Tea Party movement. The comparison is now laughable. Set aside, for a moment, the reports of sexual assault in Zuccotti Park and the penchant for public urination. Tea Party activists may hate politicians, but they venerate American political institutions. Veneration does not always involve understanding. But the Tea Party’s goal is democratic influence.
...
And we are beginning to see what direct action means. Occupy DC protesters recently assaulted a conservative gathering, then took over a public intersection to prevent the passage of luxury cars. Blocking the path of one driver and his 2-year-old son, an activist shouted, “Sorry, but you have no power right now.” That is the opposite of participatory democracy — the use of power to intimidate a fellow citizen on a public street. It is the method of British soccer thugs.
...
Defenders of OWS dismiss this as the work of a few bad apples. But the transgressors would call themselves the vanguard. And they express, not betray, a significant ideological strain within the movement. Since the 1960s, some on the political left have sought liberal reform through the democratic process and nonviolent protest. Others have sought to hasten the crisis and collapse of fundamentally illegitimate social and economic systems. Both groups can be found within OWS, but the latter is ascendant.

As ANR has argued before and has been written elsewhere, Occupy Wall Street is fundamentally a flawed, if simply a "fake," protest movement. While there are certainly real grievances throughout America, OWS is not a viable movement that can address them. This isn't an argument about OWS's ideology (if it has one), which is certainly open to criticism on its face, but a structural criticism. It seems that the mainstream is starting to recognize this too.

The Economic Harm of OWS

2011-11-03T10:44:00.000-04:00

For a movement that professes to be protesting the dismissal state of the economy, including the lack of jobs, Occupy Wall Street (OWS) appears to believe that hampering the mechanisms of capitalism is a smart move. Yesterday, members of Occupy Portland shut down the Port of Portland, preventing any trade from proceeding. The Port of Portland is the fifth largest port (by tonnage) in the United States and is thus responsible for an enormous amount of trade and jobs, both at the port and in markets that rely upon the trade.

Why the Occupy movement thinks that stopping economic flows is an intelligent tactic is beyond comprehension. Not only would it seemingly undermine any potential support they could garner from those who do not sit on the far-left of American politics, but such strategies undermine attempts to improve the economy. It is nonsensical to prevent people from working and interrupt economic activity in this economic climate.

OWS has had pernicious effects on small businesses, particularly those located in the vicinity of the protests. Shops, for instance, have been forced to close as protesters have driven away paying customers. Other businesses have had to lay-off employees in order to stay afloat. And many banks have been forced to close their doors for fears of potential violence. None of this helps the economy or the newly minted unemployed.

But the follies of OWS do end there. There have been reports, admittedly isolated for the time being, of Occupy protesters attacking banks, stores, and other institutions of "capitalism." While not yet the mainstream of the movement, which has largely been peaceful, such violent trends are worrisome. The last thing this country needs is to descend into further turmoil.

Some Sense Regarding the Housing Market

2011-10-27T09:57:00.000-04:00

It is about time someone talks honestly about the economy. According to The Wall Street Journal, Mitt Romney commented about the housing market and foreclosure:

One is, don't try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom. Allow investors to buy homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up. Let it turn around and come back up. The Obama Administration has slow-walked the foreclosure processes that have long existed, and as a result we still have a foreclosure overhang.

Number two, the credit [that] was given to first time homebuyers was insufficient and inadequate to turn around the housing market. I think it was an ineffective idea. It was a little bit like the cash-for-clunkers program, throwing government money at something which was not market-oriented, did not staunch the decline in home values anymore than it encouraged the auto industry to take off.

The Journal went on to say:

How's that for refreshing? After five years of politicians trying without success to postpone disclosures and levitate the housing market, Mr. Romney dared to tell the truth. Parts of the U.S., including Nevada, still have too many homes, and that supply needs to be sold off and fixed up so the market can find a bottom before home prices can start to rise again. The faster that process proceeds, the faster the recovery will take hold.

While the personal plight of many individual Americans is heart-wrenching on the personal level, meddling in the housing markets is the sort of disastrous policy that helped push the economy to its current state. Why can so many correctly criticize the bailout of big banks, insurance companies, and auto manufacturers, but not realize a bailout of Main Street is just as dangerous? The government's expressed desire to "prop-up" or "boost" the ailing housing markets are simply other terms for "create a new bubble."

By distorting incentives the government encourages individuals and institutions to incorrectly calculate risk. Inevitably, this will lead to sub-optimal outcomes. As difficult as it may be to watch the nefarious outcome of poor risk management, it is sometimes better for all to simply do nothing. The government not only does not have the ability or resources to "help" everyone, but it creates awful drags on the economy, as current policies have demonstrated, and breed future problems when it foolishly tries to become a superhero.

The Hypocrisy of OWS

2011-10-24T12:49:00.000-04:00

NRO's Jim Geraghty points out just a touch of irony that exists in Occupy Wall Street (OWS). OWS cannot seem to avoid the fact that the very things it is supposedly protesting against, are essential aspects of human nature and society—characteristics even OWS cannot escape from demonstrating.

[The full text is not available online since it is an email newsletter, NRO's Morning Jolt. I have included the it below.]

I'm just fed up with the greed of the rich and powerful, man, like those Occupy Wall Street organizers. The New York Post offers us a great belly laugh: "Even in Zuccotti Park, greed is good. Occupy Wall Street's Finance Committee has nearly $500,000 in the bank, and donations continue to pour in -- but its reluctance to share the wealth with other protesters is fraying tempers. Some drummers -- incensed they got no money to replace or safeguard their drums after a midnight vandal destroyed their instruments Wednesday -- are threatening to splinter off."

One occupier laments, "The other day, I took in $2,000. I kept $650 for my group, and gave the rest to Finance. Then I went to them with a request -- so many people need things, and they should not be going without basic comfort items -- and I was told to fill out paperwork. Paperwork! Are they the government now?"

You can hear the laughter at UrbanGrounds:

The obnoxious drummers are upset that their vandalized drums won't be replaced from the $500,000 in the general fund nor will they be getting funds for infrastructure (a shed) to keep them safe. The money collected is actually sitting in a bank, that's right a BANK! Isn't this motley crew opposed to banks AND capitalism? What bank and what is the name on the account? Is it an individual account or is it a corporate account? Is the person or group that the account belongs to registered and is making required filings? The Schadenfreude is strong in this one!

When the "Parasites On Parade" finally ends, and it will, some one or some small group is going to have a lot of "walking around" money, while the smelly masses who panhandled for it will be in the same sorry condition they were in before, blaming unknown individuals and corporations for all their troubles.

The Post also shares:

Filth-ridden Zuccotti Park is a breeding ground for bacterial infection loaded with potential health-code violations that pose a major risk to the public, an expert who inspected the area warned.

"It's like Walmart for rats,'' Wayne Yon, an expert on city health regulations, said yesterday.

"There's a lack of sanitation, a lack of controls for hot and cold water," Yon said. He saw at least 15 violations of the city's health code -- the type that would easily shut down a food establishment.

He noted the lack of lavatory facilities, as neighbors repeatedly complain about protesters defecating in the area and the stench of urine.

A.J. Strata wonders if the Occupy Wall Street crowd understands that they are inadvertent advertisements for why their vision of the world can't work:

So when I watch a tent city culture play government and cry for equality I see [it] for what it really is. Look at these people living in tents, calling one a kitchen and one a counsel center, fighting law enforcement while crime runs rampant amongst them. It's a sad joke!

What, am I supposed to trade in my upper middle class home I worked a life time to obtain, turn in my cars and motorcycle, give up all I have to go play communist commune in a park somewhere?

Are they nuts? Herman Cain wants to change the tax code and is getting nervous ninnies taking shots at him from all sides. These silly people in these occupy zones want to replace our entire society!

Good luck with that one.

Eat Local?

2011-10-19T22:38:00.000-04:00

Here is an article that will make the elite "organic" crowd spew out their tofu in frustration. Foreign Policy writes how the "buy local" movement is horrible for the world's poor and not necessarily any better for the environment (or your health) than your standard internationally traded produce.

[T]hese First-World food fetishes are positively terrible for the world's poorest people. If you want to do the right thing, give up on locavorism and organics über alles and become a globally conscious grocery buyer. This should be the age of the "cosmovore" -- cosmopolitan consumers of the world's food.

The article goes on to discuss how genetically modified (GM) crops are not the horrible, unsafe perversion of nature that many on the left (and Europeans) make them out to be. While arguing they may not be a "panacea," the author correctly points to their possible current and future benefits.

Additionally, the article blows holes in the accepted wisdom that eating locally actually helps the environment. It states:

For example, it is twice as energy efficient for people in Britain to eat dairy products from New Zealand than from domestic producers. It is four times more energy efficient for them to eat lamb shipped from the other side of the world than it is to eat British lamb. That's because transporting the final product accounts for only a small part of the energy consumed in the production and delivery of food. It's far better to eat foods from places where production itself is more efficient. For example, New Zealand cattle eat clover from the fields while British livestock tend to rely on feed -- which itself is often imported.

The bottom line is that (global) trade is good. Economies of scale, which are often the result of international trade and improved technologies (GM crops), help both the environment and the poor—the latter by providing jobs and supplying cheaper food. Those that profess otherwise seem to widely out of step with their supposed enlightened aim of helping humanity. While anyone is certainly entitled to spend their personal money as they choose, they should at least be clear regarding their motivations and effects. The "eat local" and "organic" trends are a luxury that can be afforded in many Western countries; they are not noble solutions that positively address the global problems that many who live these lifestyles purportedly want to solve.

Occupy Wall Street: An Inflated Movement

2011-10-15T11:53:00.000-04:00

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is "inept, incoherent and hopelessly quixotic"—and this is from their gushing supporter Eugene Robinson, who goes on to offer effusive and saccharine praise. The media has been awash with such puerile punditry—half-baked attempts to turn this rabble into a meaningful cause. But the truth is that these characteristics—the disorganization, lack of coherence, lack of mission and purpose—that Robinson and his compatriots are trying to turn into redeeming qualities are precisely why OWS is asinine.

The basic problem with OWS is that they do not know what they are criticizing nor do they know what they want. Instead they just want to make some noise. They have descended on the streets to join a protest-cum-fiesta, with no agenda in mind. In other words, they are pointlessly trying to create turmoil (or just trying to be part of the "crowd").

There are two underlying tenets of leftist philosophy that are implicitly driving this movement to the streets. The first is the so-called "problem of the underdog" (alternatively the "David and Goliath complex"), where the underdog is automatically granted moral superiority while the "overdog" is castigated as evil, corrupt, abusive, and the like. In cases where there is no clear underdog, a battle of words and propaganda usually ensues to claim the mantle of the oppressed. This conceptualization of the world is generally a driving theme on America's left. The underdog is to be reflexively defended against the oppression of the overdog, without any consultation with facts, history, logic, or other essential inputs that often underlie rational behavior. Whether the powerful is white, male, American, Israeli, rich, or a business owner, they are rubber-stamped with moral opprobrium.

The incorrectness of this knee-jerk damnation should be self-evident. Certainly while those in power can be in the wrong, their identity does not automatically imply that such is the case. However, this unfortunately has become a guiding principle of the left and a motivator of OWS. The unwashed have flocked to Zuccotti Park, the "headquarters" of OWS in NYC, because of an innate bias against the supposed overdog. Wall Street, CEOs, and bankers have been pilloried simply because of their identity and their perceived positions of power. And while there was indisputable wrong-doing by some on Wall Street (just as there is indisputable wrong-doing by those in Washington and on Main Street, the latter unfortunately far too often ignored), the attack on the system shows a lack of understanding of Wall Street's purpose and how basic things, like economics and finance, work. Instead it shows the deeply rooted bias, endemic to leftist ideology, of anyone who is perceived as being "top dog."

Secondly, OWS is motivated by the romantic aura that the left drapes around social revolution and protest. Acts of civil disobedience are lauded simply because they are performed, generally regardless of the cause. Protest has become an end unto itself, the mission and message are secondary, if existent at all. In a sense, a segment of the left wants to "recapture" the spirit of the 1960s, a time when protest was successful, partially because there were causes to protest about (some justified, others less so). "The Occupy Wall Street movement is an exercise in nostalgia. It’s an attempt to recreate the excitement of 1968, when the world’s youth took to the barricades," says a blogger at The Telegraph. The hippie mentality is evident in the drum circles, tie-dye, and other throwbacks filling Zuccotti Park. OWS is not really protesting—they have nothing to protest about—they are throwing a party, living in a revolutionary dreamworld, and trying to recreate some romantic notion that never existed.

The movement, if it can be called that, has tried to link itself not only to the 1960s, but to the Arab Spring and even the Tea Party. But the truth is, it shares little in common with any of these movements. The key lacking feature is that OWS has no agenda. They have no demands nor do they offer any alternatives to the status quo. There is, in fact, nothing political about them. The Arab Spring has a clear agenda of removing the tyranny and dictatorship that has lorded over the various Arab nations for decades. They have a goal and can clearly define when part or all of that goal has been achieved. For all their problems, (and ANR has been critical of the Tea Party), the Tea Party has a clear platform and agenda. They propose and can judge legislation according to a set of principles.

OWS possesses none of this. Their vague discussion about "economic justice" is meaningless. They are grossly out of touch with any sort of philosophical underpinnings of their beliefs. There is no social or political argument to be found.

Charles Krauthammer has decisively described the condition of OWS.

To the villainy-of-the-rich theme emanating from Washington, a child is born: Occupy Wall Street. Starbucks-sipping, Levi’s-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters denounce corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over.

These indignant indolents saddled with their $50,000 student loans and English degrees have decided that their lack of gainful employment is rooted in the malice of the millionaires on whose homes they are now marching — to the applause of Democrats suffering acute Tea Party envy and now salivating at the energy these big-government anarchists will presumably give their cause.

Except that the real Tea Party actually had a program — less government, less regulation, less taxation, less debt. What’s the Occupy Wall Street program? Eat the rich.

The sad thing is how much some circles want to turn OWS into something consequential. Whether for nostalgia, a romantic notion, political expediency (look at the unions and many Democratic politicians), or simply because anyone in a suit must be a bad guy, many are beating their drum-circle drums to create meaning out of this "protest." But OWS cannot go anywhere, certainly not in its current state. Instead it just disrupts and distracts, removing focus from the very real problems many Americans are facing. At worst, it may lead to wholesale violence and division, precisely what America does not need. America's economic woes are all of our faults—we should be coming together to find solutions, not playing rounds of "point the finger."

Israel's Terrible Blunder

2011-10-13T10:46:00.001-04:00

Israel is usually pretty smart when it comes to security and mitigating the threats from terror. There is, however, one area where they repeatedly fail to maintain their vaunted standards: their willingness to negotiate for hostages. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Tuesday that the Israelis had reached a deal with Hamas, the terrorist group and Gaza's governing regime, for the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Shalit, who was abducted five years ago by Hamas agents, will be swapped for some 1,000 Hamas prisoners currently being held in Israeli prisons, many of whom are serving life sentences for terrorism.

The deal, however, is dreadfully foolish. By rewarding Hamas's kidnapping, the Israelis are only facilitating the re-occurrence of such heinous events. It is never wise to provide hostage-takers with incentives to continue their behavior. The payment of ransoms is a sure way to put future Israelis at risk. The only successful way to deter such behavior is to ensure that abductions will never be rewarded and that kidnappers can expect severe punishment for such transgressions.

Equally damning is the price that Israel has agreed to pay for the return of Shalit. It will now release scores of murderers and terrorists, many of whom are sworn to Israel's destruction. At least some of them will undoubtedly commit further terrorist attacks—in all likelihood causing the deaths of more Israelis. It is impossible for the Israeli government to morally justify the release of terrorists when death for some unfortunate Israelis is the inevitable outcome. Trading one captured prisoner for potential, even if undetermined, dead is unfathomable.

Finally, as harsh as it may seem, Israel will not be getting back the national hero that Shalit has been romanticized into over the past five years. As anyone who is familiar with Stockholm Syndrome knows, five years of isolation in a Hamas prison will not have worn well on the young Shalit, who was only 19 at the time of his capture. It is highly probable that Shalit has been completely brainwashed and indoctrinated by Hamas through years of psychological and physical control and torture. In all likelihood, over the course of his imprisonment, his handlers were able to break him. A worst case scenario is that he comes out of captivity as a mouthpiece for Hamas, slamming the very Israelis who sacrificed to gain his freedom. Obviously, such an outcome would be a huge propaganda win for Hamas and a demoralizing blow for Israel. Needless to say, it would only contribute to the mounting costs of this foolish prisoner swap. ^[1]

However misguided, the venerable roots of Israel's policy should not be denied. The intention is pure—to ensure that no solider is left behind, whether alive or dead. This is at least understandable, if not in some simplistic way commendable. It is undoubtedly comforting for the soldiers of such a small state to feel protected by their government. Nevertheless, while one's heart bleeds for the tragic Shalit, the government must consider the broader picture. There are better ways to maintain a commitment for the safe return of one's soldiers. Finding alternative means to punish Hamas, deter abductions, and obtain Shalit's release are the only method to fruitfully maintain Israeli security. Prisoner swaps will only lead to further tragedies and should never be a policy option.

Note:

[1] This is not meant to say that Israel should not do what it can to ensure Shalit's return—it should—but simply that the benefits the Israelis will get from a swap are not only most likely lower than they expect but certainly not worth the broader costs.

Redistributing GPA

2011-10-12T22:07:00.001-04:00

University students in California put accepted liberal wisdom to the test in a well-executed video. Posing as petitioners, they asked bewildered classmates to sign a petition that would mandate redistribution of GPA points from those fortunate enough to have high GPAs to those with low GPAs—in order to bring everyone closer to the university median. Unsurprisingly, most students demurred, claiming it was unfair to take what they had worked hard to earn and give it to others. Regrettably, most were then unable to reconcile this belief with their contradictory support of a "tax-the-rich" mentality. Its quite sad how so many Americans, particularly our budding scholars, accept such arguments whole-cloth without thinking through the underlying reasons and implications.

The video is a few months old, but highly poignant given the equally obtuse rhetoric coming from the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Netanyahu on Meet the Press

2011-09-25T17:09:00.000-04:00

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sat down with David Gregory on Meet the Press to discuss the current state of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Netanyahu forcefully explained why Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's bid for unilateral statehood at the UN is untenable. He offered that the only way to a secure and viable peace, consisting of two independent states, was through direct negotiations.

Chris Christie: In It, To Win It?

2011-09-24T16:42:00.000-04:00

The New York Post reports that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has stepped back from his adamant refusal to run for president and may be jumping into the race. According to the report, Christie will provide an answer this week "after getting lobbied hard from some of the GOP’s top leaders and money men."

The Post states that Christie has offered criticism of the current batch of GOP candidates, arguing they are not providing voters with the answers they are looking for. Christie stated:

I think what the country is thirsting for, more than anything else right now, is someone of stature and credibility to tell them that and say, ‘Here’s where I want us to go to deal with this crisis.’... The fact that nobody yet who’s running for president, in my view, has done that effectively is why you continue to hear people ask [Indiana Gov. Mitch] Daniels if he’ll reconsider and ask me if I’ll reconsider.

Christie's entry would certainly unsettle what has become essentially a two-candidate race. Current front-runners Mitt Romney and Rick Perry have seemingly taken the lead not because of any intrinsic qualities but because they are merely better than the rest of the pool. Romney would certainly do a commendable job as president but is rather bland and not overly appealing to the Tea Party-base. This has allowed Perry to steal part of the spotlight. However, some of his positions and unfortunate gaffes have put the essential independent voter ill-at-ease with his candidacy.

Christie would undoubtedly break the mold. As the pugnacious Republican governor of the very Democratic New Jersey, he has been able to appeal to independents and some Democrats. His no-BS style is precisely what the electorate wants in Washington. In many ways Christie is the opposite of Obama—he is a leader that eschews the pettiness of politicking and pushes through needed and helpful legislation. His early battle with the teachers unions demonstrate his ability to stand behind necessary legislation despite misleading rhetoric from opposition special interests.

Christie is precisely what the Republican Party needs—a candidate that can fire up the base, appeal across aisle, and honestly and forcefully communicate a better way forward. While Obama's odds of reelection are slipping of their own accord, Christie would offer the best chance of a desperately needed change in the White House.

Obama Turns to the Rabbis

2011-09-23T20:46:00.001-04:00

President Obama is starting to worry about the growing divide between the administration and American Jews, a normally solid constituency in the Democratic base. Last week's special election in NY represented the most recent signal of the Jewish voter's distaste with Obama's administration.

According to recent Gallup poll numbers, 40% of Jews disapprove of Obama, while only 55% approve of the president. This represents a sharp falloff from historical numbers. Obama received 78% of the Jewish vote in the 2008 election.

Aside from general economic concerns, much of this decline in support is due to Obama's lackluster policies in the Middle East. His attempts to push an Arab-Israeli peace have unsurprisingly backfired. His two major sins—pushing Israeli PM Netanyahu on settlements and demanding an agreement based on the 1967 borders—have greatly angered many Jews. These policies have led to stalemate, as they forced both Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to become locked into non-negotiable positions.

Obama's naive meddling has led to the most recent disaster today at the UN—a unilateral call for statehood by the Palestinians. Not only has this dealt a blow to the possibility of peace, but it has put Obama in an untenable position. If, as expected, this petition goes to vote in the Security Council this coming Monday, the United States will use its veto, undermining Obama's futile attempts to reach out to the Arab world. The administration's poor foresight has boxed them into a horrible corner, leaving them with little saving grace in the eyes of the international community. Somehow Obama has managed to anger everyone on all sides of the issue.

While there is little to be done about the international community at this point, Obama is apparently desperate to shore up the Jewish vote—a key constituency in what is an increasingly uphill battle for reelection. Obama has directly reached out to a wide community of rabbis, attempting to garner Jewish support by sprinkling High Holiday ^[1] sermons with administration talking-points:

...[T]he Obama administration on Thursday convened a conference call with several hundred rabbis and Jewish leaders. According to a participant on the call, President Obama promoted his jobs bill—noting that those who have been more blessed should pay their fair share—and briefed the rabbis on U.S. efforts to counter the push for a declaration of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations.

Phone calls with religious leaders is apparently a regular event, but one that has increasing importance as the president gears up for the 2012 election. The administration is clearly on the defensive, sending out Democratic National Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (a Jew), to assure pundits that Obama has firmly maintained the Jewish vote. Wasserman Schultz rejected any indication of trouble with the Jewish vote, stating:

That is absolutely not the case, and it will be demonstrated in the election next year that the natural home for Jewish voters, both domestically in terms of policy and in our Israel policy, is the Democratic Party and President Obama as our candidate.

Wasserman Schultz must either live in la-la land, oblivious to the poll numbers, or simply be hoping that if she states the illogical enough it will become true. Unfortunately for Obama, it is unlikely that simple rhetoric will help his waning support among Jews—or other demographics, for that matter. If Obama wants to win reelection he has to change his strategy: cut out the meaningless speeches and actually show some good policy. The administration needs to turn around the economy and straighten out foreign policy, not beseech rabbis to indoctrinate their congregations.

Note:

[1] The Jewish High Holidays, Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year) and Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) will occur over the next two and a half weeks.