This week the House of Representatives is taking up their own health care measure, a $1.2 trillion bill which so far has the endorsements of both the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), two very important organizations representing the medical community and the elderly (though AARP welcomes anyone 50 or over).    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is wheeling and dealing to get a vote by Saturday; though there are over 280 Democrats, many moderate and conservative Democrats dislike the cost and scope of this bill, she needs to find one palatable to at least 218.

While political junkies find this fascinating inside politics, most people see it as a side show.   Senate moderates in both parties have no desire to pass something as broad as the House bill, and so more attention is placed on the threats made by Joe Lieberman or Olympia Snowe to resist something too ambitious.   But what if the White House has made an unannounced change in strategy?   What if the Obama Administration, recognizing that the drawn out effort to pull in moderates and build something bi-partisan is only hurting Obama’s credibility and helping the GOP energize its base, decides to forego bi-partisanship and get passed the best bill they can pass?

In that case, the Senate would pass a bill based on the procedural maneuver of “reconciliation.”   Although the purpose of reconciliation, as put in the 1974 Budget bill, was to allow contentious bills to by pass filibusters if they are needed to cut spending, it has been used far more broadly.   Most recently President Bush used reconciliation to drive through his second tax cut, with Vice President Cheney breaking a 50-50 Senate tie.

If the Senate uses this procedure (no doubt with Joe Biden presiding), the Democrats need only 50 votes to pass the bill, Biden can break any tie.  That means they can lose up to ten Democratic moderates and still win the vote.   The Republicans will scream “foul,” but the Bush tax cut will be shoved back in their faces.   The public virtually never gets incensed about parliamentary procedure anyway, so the big story will be how close the vote might be.

This could play out in three ways.   First, once the House passes something, the possibility of reconciliation of a bill like that from the House could hang in the air as an unstated threat, subtly putting pressure on moderates.   Pundits would talk about it, but Obama would insist he still wants to find bi-partisan compromise.   However, it’s also possible that Majority Leader Ried could make it clear that if the GOP doesn’t give the Senate an acceptable bill to pass, he’ll use reconciliation to pass the House version.   Theoretically this could be done to pressure moderate Democrats and Republicans to say “if you don’t do something to get your concerns into a bill acceptable to us, we’ll ram this down your throat.”

At that point, the Republicans would have to wonder if it’s just a bluff — will they really pass something so major on slight vote margins?   This could also be used to get something this year rather than next year.   That would be an overt threat, with the White House playing hardball.

However, there is a third possibility.   What if Obama has given up on the Senate moderates, and decided to get something through sooner rather than later?  What if Reid’s statement that a bill may not come until next year, and the continuing emphasis on moderates is really a diversion to prevent people from seeing just how important the House vote on Saturday might be?

Here’s how that could play out:  The House passes a bill by a relatively narrow margin.   Reid, having already conferred very secretly with top allies in the Senate and White House, would see if he could patch together at least 50 votes for a House like version of the bill.   If he could, we could see dramatic action in a relatively short time period, with health care reform passed this year — maybe even this month.

I’m not predicting this will happen, nor do I know if the Senate has fifty votes for something akin to the bill in the House.   But at this point in time Obama is not helped politically by having this stretch out, and he needs accomplishments.   He has one year before the Mid-term elections, and needs to move on other matters currently put aside due to the health care conundrum.   Doing this quickly — and even a bit on the sly to catch the opposition by surprise — would have the added benefit of limiting the time the lobbyists have to really pressure Senate Democrats.  Many in the House might vote “yes” for Pelosi, thinking that the bill is just setting up negotiations with the Senate in the future.

All this is unlikely.   Moreover, it’s hard to imagine them working it in this way without any leaks.  Still, if Obama and the Democrats need a game changer to shake up the political world and re-take the initiative, an unexpected success on health care legislation would be a dramatic statement.

President Obama finds himself in an almost surreal situation.   He leads a country that stands at the abyss of a major economic collapse, with massive debt threatening the foundation our system, yet the politicians in the House and Senate are unable to come together and try to figure out a way to overcome this mess.   In part this is because the two sides have different perspectives about the world, but in part it is because Americans, including our political leaders, remain in denial.  The US is too big to fail, after all.  China needs our markets, the dollar is still dominant, and we’re the center of the (wounded) world financial industry.

Perhaps.   But twenty years ago this very month the breaching of the Berlin Wall by East Germans wanting freedom (more about that on November 9th) harkened the collapse of the Soviet empire; no country is really too big to fail.  France in the late 18th century was the dominant European power, whose economy had been the most successful in Europe.  Yet as the French refused to change with the times, unsustainable imbalances in their system led to bankruptcy and ultimately revolution.   They didn’t see it coming for the same reason the Soviets didn’t — they were so used to being a major power that the idea of collapse was preposterous.

The US faces a similar threat.   If the lessons of the past are any guide, the economic policies of massively increasing debt to create a short term stimulus will fail.   The most dramatic example of such an effort came in Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1938 (and NO, I’m not calling Obama a Nazi!).   Germany experienced a short term boom, and became convinced their new leader was a miracle worker.   Soon it was clear that this boom would go bust, leaving  Germany’s leaders to choose between war and the collapse of the Nazi regime.   Hitler chose the former (and, of course, had been planning war all along).

Obama’s debt is different.  The stimulus is not based on military spending (which tends to ultimately be a drag on the economy), but infrastructure investments and efforts to create jobs.   The gamble is that this will work, and make the US productive again.  During the past thirty years we’ve moved from being a strong manufacturer of world goods to a consumer of cheap goods made elsewhere.  We consume, but don’t produce.   Obama’s plan is focused on opening new avenues of production — the green economy, new sources of energy, innovative products — to increase our production and allow us to overcome the imbalance.

To pull this off he has to handle three problems.   One involves radically reducing US military commitments abroad, which I won’t discuss today.   The second is the need for radical transformation of our costly health care system which is currently spiraling into a severe crisis.  Insurance premiums are skyrocketing, hospitals are losing money, and millions remain uninsured.   Solving this in a time of economic decline will require us to find a way to ration health care, reduce compensation to doctors, minimize duplication of services, and prioritize care.   All of that sounds scary, so neither party in Congress really tackles the issue.   My hunch: Obama has to get some kind of health care reform which can be built upon as the inevitable deterioration of the system occurs.   Whether its triggers or opt outs or whatever, he needs something he can build upon.   Clearly neither the public nor the Congress comprehend the scope of the problem or, if they do, they prefer to look for short term political gain rather than long term solutions.

Third, there must be aggressive cuts in debt and deficits.   This seems counter-intuitive if we need an economic stimulus.   The problem is that as soon as the US starts getting out of the recession, the inflationary pressures are going to be immense, and the dollar may fall precipitously in value.   In the past the position of the dollar as the world’s global currency allowed the US to essentially export inflation.   This time the imbalances are such that we can’t do that any more; we actually have to figure out how to live within the normal laws of economics.  Moreover, a health care program will cost money and stimulate the economy as well.   If not matched with spending cuts (or tax hikes), inflationary pressures will mount.   There is real disagreement about the possibility of hyperinflation, which is runaway inflation that destroys the savings (and retirement plans) of the public.   To avoid that the US would have to do something like default on its loans, which has other severe ramifications.   In any event, this is a risk we can’t afford taking, we have to find a way to cut debt as soon or sooner than the economy starts bouncing back.

Part of avoiding this is psychological.   Global bankers want a stable dollar and are skeptical of both the Euro or the ideas floating around of some new global currency.  If they have reason to think inflationary pressure will ease, they may act in a way that helps the greenback keep value.   Obama thus needs a plan of spending cuts (or tax hikes) which is realistic and do-able.   Then, he has to pull it off.

To do all this — alter our military commitments, transform the health care system into something sustainable, and work on a mix of budget cuts and tax hikes — will take all the skill any politician could muster.   Obama will need to sell the country on voluntarily taking some pretty strong and distasteful medicine, and he can’t do it with happy talk.   When President Bush took us to war, he did so with flippant optimism.   Obama can’t make that same mistake if he is to pull this off and bring America back from the economic abyss.  He has to tell it it like it is, without worrying about soundbites or political ramifications.

Right now, I get the impression that they are convinced that “we can’t handle the truth” and thus the warnings are vague, the optimism superficial, and more is being hidden from us than made clear.   You can find the reality of the situation if you dig, and there have been documentaries and well publicized reports about the scope of the problem.  But you have to want to look for that, otherwise, it all gets buried by the political noise.

Barack Obama needs to refocus the country on why he was elected — to bring change, and to deal with immense problems left by  not only the last administration, but really the last four administrations.   He should show graphically the state of the budget, the upcoming costs of entitlements, the problems in the health care system, and the devastating consequences doing nothing will have.  He should note how close we came to economic collapse in 2008, and state that we are literally at a crossroads, America could go into steep decline if we do not act aggressively.

He should invite Republicans and Democrats to work together, to put aside ideological purity for the sake of finding common ground to find solutions.   The idea that two parties should fight on “principles” (an oft abused word) and have the “winner” govern in a “pure” sense is un-American and irrational.   Rather, we compromise and find something neither one really likes, but that we can live with.   All sides will have to make concessions, and chart a new path for America.   It has to be honest, bold, and create an atmosphere for real initiative.

I still sense that most people don’t realize how bad the situation is.   Most seem to think the economy will start moving again, and the debt, well, trillions, billions, tens of trillions…it’s just numbers!   But it’s not just numbers.  The fundamentals of the economy are completely out of balance and in danger of collapse.   Unless we work now, we’ll get to a point where solutions become almost impossible and we’ll be forced into a massive downsizing.   President Obama, it’s time to start doing what we elected you to do!

Last night by a margin of about 53-47% the “Yes on One” group seeking to overturn the state legislature’s approval of same sex marriage scored a victory.   What might have been an historic vote to allow same sex marriage turned out to be just another setback.

Reading Facebook last night and this morning as the results became clear, the disappointment among so many students (and faculty) was evident.   Many said they were “ashamed of Maine,” wondered “how people could be so bigoted and closed minded,” and found it hard not to “hate the haters” who insult and degrade a segment of the population for no reason.   “Gay marriage will harm no one,” one person remarked, “but not allowing it harms families and loving couples.”  Many of these people were the same ones who were thrilled one year ago today when Barack Obama won an historic election for the Presidency.   Within a year they learn that political activism can inspire great highs and great lows.   So what happened, what does this election mean?

First, as I noted awhile back in the post Culture Shift, the very fact this election was so close is a sign that the world of 2009 is far different than the world of 1999, when Mainers rejected a law to end discrimination against gays in work, housing, and other similar circumstances.  At that time, a same sex marriage referendum would have had no chance.   The gay rights measure did get passed in a referendum a few years later, and its worth remembering how upset so many people were when the first attempt was defeated.   The game gets played again.

Go back even farther — though not much farther — and you can find a time when interracial marraige was seen with the same kind of disdain by a large part of the population that same sex marriage is today.  Yet over time that stigma slowly changed, and now we have a President who had a black father and a white mother.   That slow change, of course, came from political activism that suffered numerous setbacks, but yet slowly moved forward.

Not only do cultures change, but once change starts it’s hard to hold back.   Anti-gay efforts have become less ambitious in recent years.   In the 70s they wanted to fire gay teachers or anyone who helped them, in the 90s they wanted to stop civil unions, and this year the “Yes on One” people claimed that civil unions were a legitimate alternative to same-sex marriage.   Each battle is hard fought, such as the non-discrimination battles a decade ago, but movement remains inexorably towards equality.  Especially when one takes into account changing values amongst young people, I suspect within decades we’ll not only have same sex marriage, but an openly gay President.   People will look back at this form of discrimination the same way that we now look at bans on interracial marriage as odd.

Patrice in a comment to yesterday’s post ended with a five word sentiment many share:  “I just don’t get it.”   How can people be so cruel to others in our society, denying them equality, and acting as if their sexual orientation makes them inferior, evil, dangerous or second class?   That seems so profoundly ignorant and hateful. And, to be sure, there are bigots out there whose homophobia and hatred eats them from within.   It’s tempting to hate them back, but better to pity them.

That does not describe 53% of Maine, however.   Most who voted yes are not hateful bigots.   The “Yes on One” people approach the issue from a whole different perspective.  They are less concerned with the individual than with the collective cultural identity of the people.   Conservatism is at base a collectivist ideology seeing society as a kind of organic whole, held together by cultural norms and traditions.  True, in the hyper-capitalist United States conservatives have also embraced free market economics, creating a kind of schizophrenic collectivist libertarianism (whose consequences were seen this election in the 23rd district of NewYork).  But real social conservatives are at base worried about society over the individual.

To them, marriage is not just a legal status, but  a social institution built around the family which has shaped and defined the core of human existence since the beginning of recorded history.  And, though some cultures have embraced polygamy, child brides, and other things we abhor, marriage has never been associated with homosexuality until recently.  To them, this is a radical jolt to their understanding of the world and how it operates, and seems to be an unreasonable effort to change society in order to ‘appease’ the interests of a minority — a minority they often think are acting ’sinfully’ or ‘unnaturally.’  I know many such conservatives who are not hateful people, and who grimace when told the impact their view has on gays — their intent is not to hurt.  They see same sex marriage as a radical upending of tradition and what they consider the natural order of things.  It seems like a minority is trying to change how their world operates.

Those are legitimate perspectives.   One can’t just dismiss those who want to protect traditions as they know them by calling them names or labeling them bigots.  Most of them are being presented with perspectives that they did not grow up with, and which seem strange to them.  Some will never give up their opposition to change, but many if not most can over time be persuaded.

What the “No on One” campaign did so well is they humanized the issue.   They showed same sex couples and their families, and moved away from abstract reasoning to show those who are skeptical the human impact of discrimination.   They had lobstermen, pastors, Catholics, the elderly, and numerous people from every day life in their images and commercials.   This wasn’t about “changing marriage,” it was about letting other loving couples have marriage as well.   Traditional marriage was not under threat, traditional marriage is what same sex couples want.

So despite my disappointment — I really thought the ‘No’ side would win — I feel like this was still a small movement forward.   Even Ari Fleischer, former Press Secretary to President George W. Bush, said that while he opposes same sex marriage, he believes the culture is clearly heading that direction.   Civil rights movements always meet resistance, cultures change slowly, and there will always be those who use fear tactics and predictions of dire consequences to try to convince people not to let go of the status quo.   But things are changing.  And ultimately, I don’t think those who won the election yesterday will be able to stop the tide.   I would not be surprised if within five years same sex marriage is legal in Maine, and within 20 years young people will think it odd that it ever was not.

Other elections: Though I’ll have more on those and what Obama needs to do moving forward in coming days, the surprise victory of Owens in NY -23 is a gut punch to the “teaparty” movement, and made what was overall a bad evening for the Democrats not quite so bad.   They lost two Governorships, but gained a seat in Congress.   Still, I was hoping for the second year in a row to be writing about an historic election.   That’s not been canceled, just postponed.

Exactly one year ago today, Monday November 3, 2008, I posted my longest and most viewed blog entry: a preview of the next day’s election.   I was pretty close — I got the Senate almost exactly right (I had Coleman beating Franken, but that was close), and I over-estimated the size of Obama’s victory.  Still, it’s hard to believe a year has past.

Today I’ll have a very short preview of tonight’s elections.

The most important election today takes place here in Maine, a referendum to overturn a legislative decision to allow gay marriage.  If the “Yes” side wins, that means the law is overturned and gays cannot legally marry.  If the “No” side wins, gay marriage is not only legal, but for the first time a state referendum will have approved it.   I will write about that election tomorrow, however it turns out.    I believe the “no” side will prevail, and perhaps by a larger amount than people anticipate.  However, it could go either way.  This is a very consequential election.

Other than that only three elections of national note are occurring, and only one seems hotly contested.   A quick run through:

Virginia:  Bob McDowell (R) should easily defeat Creigh Deeds (D), as the polls show a double digit margin.   Spin from the right: this shows that Obama’s magic has faded, and the GOP is resurgent in a Virginia that had been shifting to the left.   Spin from the left: this wasn’t about Obama but state politics.   Reality: It isn’t about Obama, but it does reflect a mood more cynical of the Democrats than existed a year ago.   The party in power usually does poorly in off year elections, it’s starting now.

New Jersey:  The incumbent Jon Corzine (D) is locked in a tough fight with challenger Chris Christie (R), with most polls giving Christie a slight edge.   A wild card is the third party challenger, Christopher Daggett.  This is a true toss up.   On the one hand, the trend has been towards Christie, and the bad economy in an off year election works against the incumbent Democrat.   However, New Jersey is a more Democratic state.   My hunch is that voters will stick with Corzine, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

New York – 23:  This is the only other race of consequence, and it should be a no-brainer.   A Democrat has not won this northern New York district for 150 years, it is solidly Republican.  Yet weird internal GOP politics has made this into either a yawner whose ramifications will remain within the GOP, or a wild upset which could really give the Democrats something good to take away from this election.   The likely scenario (and the one I’m predicting) is that Doug Hoffman (Conservative) will defeat Bill Owens (D), with the Republican who dropped out, Dede Scozzafava, getting in single digits (her name remains on the ballot).

The race represents political intrigue.  Scozzafava was chosen to run for the seat after John McHugh (R) was chosen by President Obama to become Secretary of the Army.   But she was too moderate for conservatives, especially those “tea party” activists who helped convince Hoffman to run as a conservative.   At first, this looked like it might give the Democrat an unlikely shot at winning this solidly GOP district by splitting the Republican vote.   Then as big name conservatives around the country jumped on the Hoffman bandwagon, it was clear that the top two contenders were Hoffman and Owen.   At that point, Scozzafava dropped out and out of anger at Hoffman’s attacks and the conservative vitriol against her, endorsed Owen.   Hoffman should win easily.   If, however, Owen pulls it out, this would be poison to the currently ebullient tea party conservatives.

Not only would a Hoffman loss show the conservative movement to be far weaker than they believe they are, but it would be a lesson to the GOP: replace moderates with hardliners, and you’ll lose places you should win.    An Owen win will be a big victory for both the Democrats and moderate Republicans.  If Hoffman wins, it might ultimately help the Democrats even more in the long run.  They can say “we expected to lose, this is one of the most solidly Republican districts in the country,” and then comment on the way the “Stalinist” wing of the GOP (as one commentator labeled it) is trying to force ideological purity within the party.   That could cause an internal “civil war” within the Republican party and weaken them going into 2010, which otherwise should be a good year for the GOP.

So there you have it.   One election that could be historic here in Maine, one hotly contested Governor’s election in New Jersey, one easy GOP victory in Viriginia, and a New York Congressional election which should go GOP (and if it doesn’t, that would be big news).    What a difference a year makes.

Living out of town a few miles, it’s necessary to head into town to go trick or treating.   We met up with a few other families, and made our way through the streets of Farmington, Maine, criss-crossing the street to hit every house with a light on.   The town was full of trick or treaters.  Families had to stock up on mass amounts of candy in order to serve all the kids that prowled the streets…robots, ninjas, hippies, zombies, skeletons, ghosts, witches…the sidewalks were so full of kids and parents making the rounds that it was sometimes like a traffic jam.   We ran into friends, people were laughing, having side conversations, and the spirit of community was intense.   This is how trick or treating was meant to be.   One house even had a tub full of apples kids could grab or bob for.   None of us had even a passing concern that a razor blade would be in one (unlike my parents when I was growing up).

Halloween is holiday numero uno in our family.   We have our annual halloween party every year (this year it was on October 25), usually with 20-30 children and just as many parents.  Our spooky woods in the back yard were elaborately decorated.  Not only did we go out there in the afternoon to play and have a scavanger hunt with some games, but the highlight was going back there after dark.   The play house, a small log cabin, had a laughing witch, a spider that descended from the ceiling, and numerous little decorations.  The kids would ring the scary doorbell, go in (only four or five could comfortably fit at a time), and then go through the spiderweb netting down the exit slide.    Watching all the kids laugh and have fun (and ingest lots of sugar — that’s part of the holiday spirit) was fantastic.

We start decorating for Halloween in early September.   The kids started getting excited, talking about what they were going to be, and of course planning the party.   This year was the third annual party since Ryan was 4 and Dana 1.   Our Halloween decorations even outnumber the Christmas ones.    For the last month and a half we’ve been playing Halloween songs (Wee sing for Halloween, Kidsbop Halloween, etc.)   We made a conscious choice to make Halloween the “big holiday” for the kids, and so far it’s paid off.

The reason has nothing to do with religion.  Some Christians eschew Halloween because of all the pagan symbols (I think they take that too seriously).   Wiccans, of course, see it as the most important Holiday.   For us, it’s a mix of a few things.  First, we love autumn, and with our back woods play area, it’s beautiful even in late fall.    Second, Christmas is about family, and our family is far away.   Many Christmases we spend either alone with the kids, or going to friends.  We play the Christmas carols, and talk about the spirit of the season, which is first and foremost LOVE.

But if not family, Christmas for most people is about religion and a church community.   We have neither.  I have strong spiritual beliefs and want my children to learn about all major religions and respect them, but I can’t with good conscience make them become part of one.   Thus, Christmas is usually not the kind of social season for us that is for others.    Since the university is on break, many of our friends travel, though it’s been hard for us to afford to get out to South Dakota.  For me I think Christmas is personally much more meaningful than Halloween, since I experience Christmas as a time to reflect on the power of love and connections between us all, but so far the kids are too young to really understand that with much depth.

Halloween, on the other hand, also has a sense of ritual and community.   It’s fun.  A few places go all out with haunted walks, and there are, of course, spooky hay rides and a place we didn’t get to this year, a massive corn maze.  But walking with friends on crowded streets full of laughing children on a warm full moon night, that’s priceless.  When he saw the full moon, Ryan was beside himself, “Daddy, look,” he said eyes wide open with excitement, “It’s Halloween and we have a full moon!!!!  Oh man, this is the best day of my life.”  (That would make it about the 100th ‘best day of my life’ he’s had this year, but who’s counting?)

This weekend we also mowed the yard to mulch the leaves, raked the back woods play area, cleaned the garage so the cars can fit there in winter, and it felt like we were getting everything ready for the onslaught.  The leaves are almost all fallen, though still beautiful on the ground — and who cannot help but love the smell of fallen leaves.    The grass is still pretty green, but within weeks all will be covered with snow.   We played on the swings and took down the Halloween decorations, realizing that this is the time of the year when the summer growth gives way to the stark and cold beauty of winter.   Late fall has an eerie beauty, Halloween is the perfect holiday to celebrate that.

To top it off, the Vikings beat the Packers 38 – 26 in an exciting game which puts the Vikes clearly atop the NFC North.   “It’s the most wonderful time of the year…”

Wednesday night was an indication of how a satirist and comedian has been able to outflank serious journalists in earning a reputation of integrity.   Stewart had two Mideast activists on his show, a Jewish human rights activist Anna Baltzer and a Palestinian pro-democracy advocate Mustafa Barghouti.   Their message: the way to peace in Palestine is through diplomacy and non-violent reconciliation.   They criticized Israel for creating the problem through its long repression of the Palestinians, and occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.  They suggested that such conditions certainly can inspire extremist reactions.   They spoke of reason and non-violence.

At the time I didn’t realize I was watching something extremely controversial.   In fact, I graded papers, thinking the “good” part of the show was over.   Only this morning do I read that pro-Israel groups are incensed, angry that Stewart wasn’t “fair and balanced” enough to have a hardline Israel proponent on the show, and calling for a boycott of the Daily Show.

Before taping, the Daily Show and the two guests were pressured to cancel and not go on.   It was clear that powerful forces did not want this discussion to air on US television, and if the station involved had been CNN, FOX or MSNBC, it certainly would not have.   The mainstream stations would have wilted under pressure and threats from pro-Israeli voices, feeling forced to talk about “Palestinian suicide bombers” and focus on this as a conflict that must be settled by one side “winning.”   Such a discussion would not be allowed, it would risk advertising dollars and generate negative publicity.

Yet the myth of “fair and balanced” news is more poisonous to accurate reporting than even the real existence of bias.  Consider: if someone is talking about the holocaust, does one need to have a holocaust denier present to have the news be fair and balanced?   If one is interviewing a free marketeer does one have to have a Communist present to rebut the points?   If you interview survivors of 9-11, are you required to have Islamic extremists present the pro-terrorism viewpoint in order to have balance?   No, I’m not saying Israel’s position is akin to any of these, only that the idea of ‘fair and balanced’ is really always a biased and subjective call.   The range of ‘acceptible positions’ is relatively narrow, and it is not at all uncommon to leave out many perspectives.

Jon Stewart is Jewish.   One of his guests was Jewish, the other Palestinian.   Could it be that the Israeli hardliners are really upset about the fact that a perspective friendly to the concerns of the Palestinians is being put forth by Jews?   Does that perhaps risk undercutting the myth that there are only two points of view, the Jewish and the Palestinian, and that the question is whether terrorism is worse than Israeli security actions?   Is the real threat the reframing of the debate, meaning that the pro-Israel side can’t frame it in a way favorable to themselves?

Perhaps one way to be fair and balanced is to consider different ways of framing a debate.   It can be a Jew and a Palestinian discussing ways to peacefully solve the problem, or it can be Jews and Palestinians arguing about who is more to blame.   In the former, violence is seen as misguided form both sides, and each are called to take steps to bring a peaceful resolution to the problem.   In the latter, you have to choose which side’s violence is legitimate by deciding which kind of violence is worse.  In the former, both can work together for mutual benefit.  In the latter, one side must win and the other side lose.

If the mainstream media stays “fair and balanced” by going with the latter perspective without taking into account the Barghouti-Baltzer perspective, isn’t Stewart doing the public a service by showing the other perspective, one generally silenced by the mainstream media?   Isn’t the courage to do so in the face of massive pressure from those who want to shape the public framing of the debate something we want from our newspeople?   Why do they not provide it, why do we rely on our satirists?   This isn’t the first time I’ve made this point about Stewart’s contribution, I also brought it up when he had his monumental interview with Jim Cramer.

Yet it may seem odd that an academic whose methodology has involved analyzing media (the subject matter has been German foreign policy) should promote a comedian to the status of the most trusted name in news.   Jon Stewart is not truly a journalist nor a newsperson.    He should not be the most trusted name in news, and if pushed I’m sure I could find a number of serious journalists who do dig and are unafraid of pressure; indeed, most news anchors are not true journalists but good looking hosts.   Still, Stewart does seem to show the hypocrisies and dis-ingenuity of politicians of all stripes in a way most mainstream journalists do not.

He mocks the way the mainstream news media covered a so-called “Obama war on Fox,” and then juxtaposed a Cal Thomas condemnation of Obama for trying to silence the media with un-American pressure with praise he gave a year earlier for the Bush Administration’s similar attack on MSNBC.  If only the mainstream media would out hypocrisy so clearly — and Stewart shows no mercy to the Democrats on such things either.

The problem seems to be that the news media is caught in a voyeuristic effort to present different narratives without seriously trying to investigate the internal coherence and evidential support of each one.    They bow to pressure prefer a ‘he said, she said’ reporting to ‘what might be wrong with what each of them said.’   The result?   People trust a comedian more than their news media for understanding current events.  And, as much as I enjoy Jon Stewart, we shouldn’t have to leave it up to our satirists and comedians to help us critically assess world events.

Conservatives argue against social engineering.  The idea that the power of the state can be brought to bear on society in a way that will shape and transform that society is seen as arrogant and dangerous.   It is dangerous because the government will be tempted to abuse power to achieve transformation, denying liberty and free choice; it is arrogant because the government and political leaders put themselves on a pedestal to determine how the proper society should look.

This is a powerful conservative argument, and the dangers of over-bureaucratization and government intrusion into every day life have been proven time and time again around the world.   It also is, at base, not an ideological argument.  It’s not saying that government has no role to play, or that the state should “leave everything to the markets.”  Rather, the state’s role should be complementary to the culture and social norms of a society, and in fixing problems should go slowly and avoid attempts to radically manipulate the culture.  Indeed, conservatism is fundamentally anti-ideological because it distrusts those who claim to know the “Truth” with a capital “T.”

In the US, the so-called conservative movement has veered away from this.   In the Limbaughs and Hannitys, as well as many Republican leaders in politics, conservatism has sometimes become a radical ideology in its own right.   Many conservatives have their own view of how the country should be, and see their political movement as a force for change.  Looked at this way, Senator Olympia Snowe, who considers health care reform as a problem solving approach but wants to minimize the scope of change, is a truer conservative than those who want to fight an ideological jihad.   True conservatism is pragmatic.  Original conservatism in fact saw society as an organic whole, with culture and tradition trumping theory and ideology.

Nowhere has the Republican party veered farther from conservatism in recent years than in foreign policy.  In both Iraq and Afghanistan an ideology-driven view of reality convinced President Bush that democracy would flourish there if only the dictators were removed and the US made the region “safe for democracy.”   This envisioned a massive big government social engineering experiment in the region, remaking post-Ottoman culture into one that would support an enlightened democracy.  This would require tolerance of diverse opinions and groups, political compromise, effective rule of law, and accountability.  This so-called “neo-conservatism” was really a radical militarist liberalism, with ambitious designs to shape the world in our image.  Its aggressive dismissal of “old Europe” when France and Germany wouldn’t play along, and belief that somehow the US would succeed and convince others to join has a brashness traditional conservatives would reject.

Democrats, on the other hand, tend to embrace a neo-liberal foreign policy which focuses on building economic links and transnational efforts at building global governance.   The goal is to build institutions to facilitate cooperation and provide predictability in world politics so that states can cooperate with confidence, and make sacrifices when need be, knowing that other states will do likewise.  The goal is to minimize the danger caused by relative power differentials so that states don’t see the system as a competitive anarchy.   Rather, it is an orderly confederation, with systems of conflict resolution.   Included in this is a focus on international law, with a hope for cooperation to promote human rights.

When Obama was elected, Europeans had high hopes that Obama would radically shift US foreign policy from neo-conservative unilateralism to a cooperative institutionalist approach.   Yet the role the US is expected to play in such a system is wrought with contradictions.   The US is the premier military power, and thus should play the lead role in Afghanistan.    We should provide most of the muscle, but not try to dominate the decision making — that’s a tough thing to ask anyone to do in any context!   The American public remains skeptical of many international institutions, especially if we’re not leading.   Neo-liberal institutionalism is out of step with US political culture.

Is there a third way — a conservative foreign policy?   A conservative foreign policy would recognize first that as a superpower the US faces international obligations in a manner differently from other states.  Canada, Germany and EU states can devout their entire armed forces to peace keeping missions, but the US clearly cannot.  That would be a much larger burden.   The US by dint of its size and geographic position has different interests, and culturally the US is not as ‘global’ minded as the EU.    So how might a conservative foreign policy look?

First, it would be more realist in character than activist.   The US would rethink its global role and redefine interests more specifically to protect the US, and defend against threats from abroad.   This might include a rethinking of NATO and other alliance obligations, and certainly would require a downsizing of foreign commitments.    By moving away from either neo-conservatism or trying to be a guarantor of global stability, the US would save a lot of money and not get sucked into interventions that weaken the country and kill US soldiers.   In short, the US would give a nod to its “isolationist” heritage and step back from trying to shape world affairs.

In response to pressures from neo-liberal institutionalism, the US could agree to be involved in institutions from a perspective of national interest.   This would mean that the US might not be as involved in building international governance as the Europeans would prefer, but it also would mean that the US wouldn’t feel a need to undercut major global treaties or institutions like the International Criminal Court.   In my heart I would like a more activist US, but the reality is that given the political culture, the difficulty in passing treaties, and the specific interests of the country, a gap in perspective and policy between the EU and the US is inevitable.   If we’re not trying to shape or undercut global efforts, that’s better than trying to shape or undercut them.

This still leaves open a wide range of unresolved questions.   Is a tough global climate change treaty in our interest?   What are our interests vis-a-vis the third world?   How do we respond or deal with countries whose human rights policies we oppose?   Those issues would be worked out politically within the US, and we’d choose to cooperate to the extent that a public will to cooperate emerges.

I write this as someone whose foreign policy perspective is far more European than American.   I tend to embrace the kind of multilateral approach of Germany, which is skeptical of sovereignty and very supportive of institutions.   Yet in looking at the state of American politics, that kind of approach isn’t likely to emerge here any time soon.   Given the economic and global challenges the country faces, the “Cold War mentality” is anachronistic, and neo-conservatism has already failed.   A conservative foreign policy may be the best way to avoid disasters which occur when a state tries to maintain a level of power and control it is no longer capable of exercising.

The left will want more active engagement to solve problems, focus on human rights, and work on global concerns.  The right will want the US to recapture its role as the superpower guarantor of peace and stability, and try to maintain a global leadership role.    The left will be disappointed because their goals aren’t reflected yet in American political culture.  The right will be disappointed because the US lacks the money and capacity to maintain a hegemonic role.  The best alternative for now would be a conservative approach or cutting back on our commitments, focusing on direct interests, and cooperating with others in a mutually beneficial manner.

It’s been almost one year to the day from one of the most remarkable confessions in recent political history.  Alan Greenspan, speaking before a Congressional hearing, admitted that he had been wrong.   Not only had he been wrong about policy, but wrong about “how the world works.”  Greenspan said it was distressing, but his ideology — the lens through which he interpreted reality — turned out to have been proven faulty.

Greenspan was a libertarian, a firm believer in markets and devotee of Russian fiction writer and political activist Ayn Rand.  In fact, she and he were friends, and he counted her as among the greatest influences in his life.   Rand’s work, for those who haven’t read her, is very inspirational.  It connects emotionally with the desire and need people have to take control of their lives and be masters of their own destinies.  She tried to turn her work into a philosophy (which she called ‘objectivism,’ an odd term since it can also be an adjective that describes even Marxian philosophy), but in that endeavor she failed.   To really buttress libertarian ideology you need to turn to the likes of Friedrich Hayek, who offered a more profound defense of markets.   Still, her spirited defense of laissez-faire capitalism and, as Greenspan always used to say “the markets get it right” shaped the world view of the former Federal Reserve leader.

Greenspan admitted that he had to make compromises with his principles to become a Central Banker.  He would have to enforce laws he didn’t agree with, and work in a system which he felt was fundamentally flawed in its embrace of big government.  Yet he also believed he could work from within the system to reform it, rather than stand on the sidelines and curse.   In that, he was effective.   His work assured that even the liberal Clinton administration would embrace the free market principles Greenspan promoted.

Last week Frontline aired a segment on PBS called “The Warning,” which detailed the losing battle of Brooksley Born , head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to try to regulate the growing over the counter derivative market.   These financial instruments allowed big players to leverage small amounts of capital into vast fortunes, and thus make a killing in the market.   She saw, correctly, that this kind of instrument was very dangerous, and could cause a financial meltdown if not regulated.   As it was, no one knew the extent of the trading, fraud was easily possible (these trades weren’t reported), and the entire financial system was at risk.

Greenspan, Jerry Rubin and Lawrence Summers (the latter two on Obama’s economic team) lead the free market charge against reform, working with banking industry lobbyists and Congress to fight against the regulations, and ultimately take the power to regulate these markets away from the CFTC.  That lead to Born’s resignation in 1999, and Greenspan for the next few years seemed king of the economic world — the wizard, the guru, the genius that somehow managed to shepard in a long period of GDP growth, low inflation, and vast expansion of stock and then property values.  Things would never be as good as they were in 2006, the year Greenspan retired.

We know now, of course, that these unregulated financial instruments caused disaster in the system.   While some want to blame it on mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them, that sector of the market would have been small and insignificant if it hadn’t been fodder for derivative leveraging and other shady unregulated financial instruments.   In fact, the reason why so many experts dismissed the subprime crisis as minor is because they thought it was simply a problem with some loans that shouldn’t have been made.   They didn’t realize that a stack of cards had been built on that shaky foundation, and whose collapse would endanger the entire world economy.

What’s amazing in watching the video of an obviously distressed and some would say broken Alan Greenspan is that he saw his life’s work and reputation going from that of a successful economic genius guided by a clear moral and economic philosophy of free markets, to the man whose inaction and inability caused economic crisis.  He was unable to recognize the way in which “stupid mistakes” and “irrational exuberance,” unregulated, could bring immense harm to an entire economic system.    He realized too late that markets are not magic, and cannot work without effective rule of law and regulation.

Greenspan let an ideology guide his view of practical reality.  That has been proven disastrous throughout history.  Yet humans, wanting to have a coherent view of the world, and wanting to think themselves “right,” grasp at ideologies as ways to explain reality and justify their actions and political perspectives.   It’s much like religion — people want to think they have the capacity to understand reality and how it works, and they seek an set of beliefs and assumptions to structure that understanding.  There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as it doesn’t become dogma.

As long as someone recognizes and embraces the fact that, as a fallible human, his or her beliefs might be wrong, and thus recognizes the need for not only tolerance of other views, but real consideration of diverse perspectives, it’s good to have a coherent core belief system.  As long as one is not just other-critical but also self-critical, it is something to build upon.  Greenspan was convinced he was right, and for awhile, the evidence seemed to strongly support that view.

Yet when he sat before that committee chaired by Henry Waxman, he had the intellectual integrity to admit to the country, the Congress, and most importantly to himself that he had gotten it wrong.   The world doesn’t work the way he thought it did, the world surprised him.

The lesson from Greenspan to us all is that no matter how much we think we understand reality, and no matter how convincing our own core beliefs seem to be, any of us may be wrong.   Greenspan is a genius.  He had apparent success for decades.  Yet he really should have seen the warnings on the horizon.   In hindsight it’s easy to recognize the inevitability of this crisis and, to be fair to libertarians, another libertartian economist, Peter Schiff (Austrian school) did see how the economy was heading for a collapse.

We humans have a real hard time with cognitive dissonance.  We will go to great lengths, sometimes consciously, but usually subconsciously, to find ways to fit reality into our pre-existing belief system.  We will interpret events, religious teachings, philosophy, and history to fit our beliefs of how the world works.  I do that.  You do that.  That seems to be a constant of human nature.

Greenspan, like all of us, are not completely right or completely wrong, but right on many points and wrong on many others.  An ideology is also not correct or incorrect, but a simplification of reality designed to help us understand and predict.   Ideologies inevitably work well dealing with some aspects of reality, but fall short on others; indeed, the meaning of an ideology varies across cultural contexts.   Greenspan’s confession does not mean all of what he believed was disproven, it means only that reality didn’t quite hang together the way he thought he did.

And lest we get too smug about the Chairman’s fall, we’re all in the same boat — our errors usually aren’t as easily noticed and publicized.  And, of course, all humans tend to need a crisis now and then to jerk them out of their complacency.   To really embrace this view is, in its own way,  liberating.   If we realize that we can’t be right all the time, then we relieve ourselves of the pressure of thinking we must.

Barbara Ehrenreich is one of my favorite authors, and last week she was on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, talking about her new book which says that “positivity” and the emphasis on positive thinking in America is destroying the country.   I’m a firm believer in the importance and power of positive thinking, and believe attitude is fundamental to having a joyful, successful life.   Yet I also agreed with what she said in the interview.   She wasn’t talking about having a healthy positive attitude, but superficial or artificial positivity that leads to delusional thinking.   Learning to distinguish between the two is important.

The examples Ehrenreich gave were things such as telling people sick with something like breast cancer to embrace their illness and see the positive side the experience, or the wild new agey schemes about ‘drawing wealth through positive thoughts’ or businesses promoting positivity in order to increase profits and assure success.   The most potent example is how so many people refused to see the underlying problems in the economy due to an effort to be positive — the housing market will continue to rise, the economy is in great shape.

As readers of this blog know, I’ve been a pessimist on the economy for a long time.  Unsustainable imbalances involving debt and massive current account deficits have created the perfect storm of a deep and severe economic crisis.  I don’t think we’re anywhere near done with it, nor can it be wished away with happy thoughts.   Yet I’m also a firm believe in the power and importance of a positive attitude.   Is this a contradiction?

No.  Superficial positivity in denial of reality is nothing but delusion.   Tell a person who is upset, angry or depressed to simply ‘think positively’ is like telling someone sneezing and coughing to “think a clear nasal passage.”  You can’t do it.

Let’s say the most spiritual and extreme views on positive thinking are accurate.   Let’s assume for a second that your thoughts do form reality, your internal mood and self is reflected in external conditions, and your attitude determines which probable quantum reality you inhabit.  Even making these radical assumptions, superficial positivity is destined to fail.

If mantras,  affirmations, and thoughts directly shape reality, I should be able to, oh, grow another inch, know the winning powerball numbers, walk on water and swim through dirt.   I think it’s fair to say that I can’t do it, and it appears no one can.   Our personality is largely subconscious and contains a myriad of beliefs, thoughts, and values that we are not aware of.  If I deeply believe that “people are basically selfish” that belief is much more powerful than an affirmation that “people are good,” even if were repeated all day.    If positivity is going to work, it has to be deeply held and believed by someone, not simply used in a gimmicky way.

Our deep psychological drives, identities, and beliefs do not change on a dime.   Moreover, even as we mouth phrases and affirmations, our interpretations of reality both consciously and subconsciously constantly suggest to our minds thoughts and ideas that may be diametrically opposed to those of superficial positivity.

Consider this new age favorite: “think positively to draw wealth to yourself.”  Contained within such a suggestion are a few assumptions:  “I need money, I do not have wealth, wealth is necessary for my well being, I want wealth, wealth will solve my problems.”   All of these thoughts are, at base, negative.  The idea that wealth is necessary for happiness, meaning and well being is a fundamentally negative view on life and the spirit.  The idea that superficial positive thoughts would overcome these negative perspectives is absurd.   Even if positive thinking works to draw experiences to people, it probably would only draw wealth to someone who truly doesn’t believe they need it.    The only real positive perspective is to see wealth is irrelevant.   Few among us are that positive!

Positive thinking about the economy, a war, a business deal and the like all suffer similar flaws.   The superficial positivity masks core values and beliefs which contradict that positive view.     Even worse, efforts to push out conscious negativity lead one to embrace delusion and not only ignore but actively ridicule and reject dissonant perspectives.    Someone thinking positively about their stock portfolio has not only the host of contradictory negative thoughts (I need my stocks to rise, wealth is important to me, I’ll be happier if I’m rich, etc.), but the ego is hampered from engaging the reality principle to stop impending disaster.   The Id screams to the Ego “don’t worry be happy,” while the superego, now convinced that the correct path is positive thinking, agrees with the Id!

If you believe positive thinking is powerful, and if you believe that reality reflects internal thoughts and beliefs, the best path towards a better future is introspection, personal growth, and an honest working through issues of depression, anger, sadness and stress.   Building a positive attitude may require re-examining core beliefs, and trying to alter habits and behaviors.   It means recognizing and often rejecting the myriad of little suggestions sent to our brain about what we need or want in order to be happy and have meaning.  It requires an effort at self-liberation from cultural hypnosis.

Superficial positivity is like a fat man thinking “I will be thin,” but not changing his eating or exercise habits.  The path to positive thinking requires something akin to a work out regimen and a strict diet.  It means taking the spiritual side of life seriously, trying out what works, and learning to live with the ignorance principle — that when it comes to figuring out the nature of this reality, we have no way of knowing for sure if we have it right or not.   And that’s OK!

I don’t know if spiritual positivity is true or not; it seems to work for me in my life, and I continue to try to examine and improve myself with a love and appreciation of life.   I am convinced, however, that superficial positivity is destructive and delusional, more likely to lead to crisis than happiness.

It’s been a busy month, as the lowered number of blog entries this October shows.  Today, nothing heavy — just a short bit of praise for life in Maine.

Saturday the neighbors have an old fashioned “Big Squeeze” party, turning apples into cider.  We spent a few hours on a beautiful autumn day drinking some cider and chatting about various things, with the kids running around with other kids having fun.   The neighbors have a beautiful rural Maine yard, with some sheep, right on the woods, and the setting and socializing was relaxing and enjoyable.

Sunday was soccer, as kids Kindergarten through sixth grade play, learning the game, taught by high school coaches every Sunday in September and October.   They have their uniforms, cleats, shin guards and play pretty good.   The Kindergarteners have their own learning sessions, while the rest are in two divisions — the younger (grades 1 through 3) and older (grades 4 through 6).  They play four ten minute quarters, and all together just under 200 kids are involved.  We mingle and talk to friends and other parents, as people good naturedly cheer on their teams.

After soccer, we decide to go to the local theater to watch “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.”   Tickets are $5 for adults, and $3 for children.  Popcorn is $2.   The seats are big and comfortable, reclining slightly — the best movie theater seats I’ve ever experienced.  The leg room is exceptional.   The movie is fun.   When we arrive we see the college soccer game over in the nearby fields — a series of ball and soccer fields next to the river.  It’s tempting to go watch, but of course the movie is starting soon.

Monday is the first day of soccer playoffs.  It feels almost like a Norman Rockwell painting as the kids sit listening to the local high school coach praise their efforts.  The sun is setting — it’s 5:30, but it is a warm autumn night, about 50 degrees.  The lights are on for the field, kids are laughing, and though its past peak, the autumn leaves on the trees are blowing around.   They start with the national anthem, a recording played as people look on to the flag out on the far end of the field.   The kids are told they can put their hand on their hearts “if they want to,” but they should be quiet.  The coach wants them to demonstrate being quiet by asking “do you understand me” and having them be silent.  He tries about ten times, but the kids never get it.  First they yell “yes,” and then “no,” thinking that’s what he wants…and finally the recording starts playing and the children become quiet.

Ryan’s team wins 1-0 to advance to the semi-finals, thanks to some really good players on the team (Ryan is unafraid, but inexperienced — he’s lucky to be on a good team), but the parents are good natured on both sides.  The teams have fun, and now that it’s cold after dark, the bigger kids take the field for their game.  The kids are laughing and enjoying themselves.   A few are disappointed that their season ended tonight, but that’s one of the lessons of sports — you don’t win all the time.   Semi-finals on Wednesday.

Tuesday evening I decide to try to give Ryan some practice so I pick the boys up from day care/after school care, and after grabbing a snack at the local down town market, head to the school.   We get out the soccer ball and run around.  Other kids are there, and for awhile they play a game of anarchical soccer — no goals or rules, just having fun.   They take a break and play on the playground with some other kids, I play monster for three year old Dana who is laughing hysterically as we run around.   The other kids leave, it’s after 6:00, and the boys are still kicking around the soccer ball, as it gets darker and darker.   Though it’s getting chilly, they refuse their coats.  Finally, they’re tired and it’s time to go home.

At some point tonight as I watched them run around, and thought about this weekend, I realized that at least for this small town, the Maine motto “the way life should be” rings true.  The community putting together a soccer program that creates real fun and learning for young children, the cheap but comfortable movie theater, the glorious beauty of autumn.  Having fun with neighbors, children laughing playing outside, this is magical.  In a world where it’s easy to feel nostalgic about the past, or spend time planning and worrying about the future, I spent this weekend basking in and enjoying the present.