A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Presidency of Barack Obama

Obama’s Downturn

by Leave a Comment

Official presidential portrait of Barack Obama...
Image via Wikipedia

Obama came into office riding a wave of hope about change. Now that he has been in office for a while, the big change seems to be a loss of hope.

While the Obama administration managed to succeed in the health care matter, there seem to be few other clear victories. One aspect of the problem is that much of what he has done was focused on damage control in regards to the economy and handling the two wars that he inherited. In the case of the economy, his efforts probably helped prevent something significantly worse. However, telling people “hey, it could be a lot worse” generally does not win them over or make them glow with positive feelings. What people focus on is not how much worse it could have been, but how bad it is and that they want it to be much better. While the Republicans have worked hard to foster this perception, the folks in the Obama administration have failed to fight an effective propaganda war. More importantly, while the big companies are growing fat once more, “main street” Americans are still facing high unemployment and other economic woes that were largely created by the companies that are doing quite well now. Obama and his fellows seem to be unable to solve this problem.

Obama and his administration are also the target of a massive propaganda effort on the part of pundits like Rush and Beck. He is also the prime target of Fox News. While the rest of the media is supposed to be liberally biased, they seem to be quite willing to criticize him now.  This, of course, does not help Obama. The administration seems to have lost the old Obama magic that enabled him to charm (or, some might say, dominate) many folks in the media. Now, it would seem, he is just another President.

Obama has also been hampered by Congress. While his party is in charge, the Democrats are…well, Democrats. While comedians such as Jon Stewart like to make fun of the Democrats ability to screw themselves, much of the mocking is grounded in solid facts. To use a specific example, Obama promised that he would get “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repealed. While most Americans favor his plan, the attempt to repeal it failed in an orgy of political bickering. This makes the administration look ineffective and also makes congress look even worse.

I think some of the problems Obama is having can also be attributed to his lack of experience as well as his character. He does not seem inclined, as of yet, to do the sort of things that are needed to actually get things done in the fetid swamp that is Washington. He also seems unable to herd the Democrats (to be fair, that is harder than herding drunken cats), keep the confidence of those who believed in him, and effectively fight against the Republicans and their media allies.

Obama still has time to turn things around. Of course, he also has the time to win the undesirable title of Carter The Second.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Racism Monster

by Leave a Comment

Promotional photo of Boris Karloff from Franke...
Image via Wikipedia

Once upon a time, in a place nearby, there were two monsters. One was the monster of racism. He was the metaphor of the evils of racism. Like Frankenstein’s creation, he was stitched together of various parts. These parts included specific things such as antisemitism and general things like bigotry. While this beast was sometimes well loved by certain people, it is now regarded widely as a monster.

The brother of this monster is the racism monster. Ironically, those who fought against the monster of racism helped spawn this metaphorical menace. In their attempt to defeat the monster of racism, they helped create a metaphorical killing machine that swiftly and mercilessly attacks almost anyone who attracts its attention.

The most recent victim of the racism monster is Shirley Sherrod.  An incomplete video of her was posted on YouTube which seemed to provide evidence that she was racist. In response to the video, she was pressured into resigning and the NAACP issued  a statement condemning her. Naturally, certain conservative pundits were having a field day.

All this was done, it must be said, without anyone actually reviewing the entire video or considering the full facts of the situation. The racism monster, it could be argued,  struck swiftly, savagely and mindlessly.

If it had turned out that the monster had actually struck down a racist, then perhaps it could have been forgiven for its zeal.  However, the full video seems to make it clear that the allegedly racist incident was actually an experience that changed her views. The evidence also shows that she helped the farmer in question and the fact that the farmer’s wife is defending her lends credence to these claims.  Other important details include the fact that the incident she mentioned  took place long before she worked for the USDA and that her record shows no signs of racism. These facts were, obviously enough, not considered by the Obama administration nor by the NAACP.

I suspect that one reason the NAACP rushed to judgment is because of their recent condemnation of the Tea Party for racism. When they heard a black woman saying what appeared to be racist things, they probably worried that if they waited, they would be accused of following a double standard-condemning white racism while condoning black racism. While this is understandable, such a condemnation should be based on facts and it is reasonable to expect at least a minimal investigation (such as viewing the entire video). Such a leap to judgment and condemnation is, to say the least, unjust. Even if she were, in fact, a racist, the NAACP had a moral obligation to properly confirm this.

Interestingly, Roland Martin appeared on CNN to defend the NAACP’s condemnation. While he admitted that the NAACP had not seen the whole video, he argued that people in government should censor themselves and not say anything that could taken as racism. He did note that this was a matter of political reality rather than a desirable situation.

While I do agree that it is wise to watch what one says, my real concern is with the existence of the political reality in question. If people need to be worried that even a story about how they overcame their past biases can be taken as proof of racism, then there is something seriously wrong with the political reality.

In the case of the administration, they also worry a great deal about race matters. While it is morally correct to remove known racists from such positions, there is also a moral obligation to investigate such allegations thoroughly. If Sherrod had been charged with committing a criminal offense, presumably her guilt or innocence would need to be established before she could be fired. However, in the case of a charge of racism the assumption is clearly that a person is guilty until she can prove otherwise.

While the monster of racism is a fearsome beast, letting the racism monster run free is not a solution. While we should condemn racism, we have a moral obligation to confirm before condemning.

From a moral standpoint, the NAACP and the government owe Sherrod an apology. At the very least she should also get her job back. This situation should also serve as  lesson about the misuse of charges of racism as a political tool.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Arizona vs. Obama

by Leave a Comment

Jeffrey Toobin, author of The Nine: Inside the...
Image via Wikipedia

In the latest chapter of the Arizona adventure in immigration, the folks in the Obama administration have decided to challenge the law. The challenge is not that the law violates the rights of individuals but that it intrudes into the domain of the federal government.

The gist of the case was nicely summed up by Jeffrey Toobin’s analogy: if Arizona was invaded by Mexico, the state would not have the right to declare war-that is a power possessed only by the federal government. Likewise, immigration falls under the auspices of federal power and hence the state has overstepped in this manner. Toobin did, however, note that this matter is rather complex and the case is not entirely clear cut.

Using Toobin’s war analogy, it could be argued that while a state does not have the legal right to declare war, a state would have the right to defend its citizens. So, if Mexican troops rolled into Arizona, the governor could not (legally) declare war on Mexico. However, even if the federal government elected to do nothing, the authorities in Arizona would have the legal and moral right to defend the state using force.

In the case of the law in question, this could be seen as being less analogous to declaring war and more analogous to defending against an invasion (in this case, literally). As such, it could be argued that Arizona is acting well within its rights as a state.

From a political standpoint, the proponents of the law can point out that the federal government seems to be more concerned with imposing its power over a state than with providing meaningful immigration reform. Although most folks are ignorant of all the details of the law, it does seem to enjoy considerable popularity (deserved or not). As such, the lawsuit by the federal government might have some serious political ramifications come election time.

However, Obama and his folks are not fools and they stand to gain politically from this gambit. After all, the law is not very popular with Hispanics and they are the fastest growing segment of the population. They also tend to have a significant impact on certain elections. While the lawsuit will increase the support given by certain people (such as white conservatives) to those opposing the Democrats and Obama, it will probably result in more support for Obama and certain Democrats.

While this move does involve some risk, it does seem like a gamble worth taking for Obama. If he can use it to gain (and keep) Hispanic votes, this could nicely offset any losses he would sustain among other groups. Also, to state the obvious, many of the folks who would support the law are probably not inclined to vote for Obama and the Democrats in the first place.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Obama & Leaks

by Leave a Comment

Logo of the United States White House, especia...
Image via Wikipedia

Obama has, in many ways, attempted to define his presidency in terms of doing things differently from his predecessor. One change that is being put into place is that the Obama administration seems intent on cracking down on leaks of classified material. This is supposed to involve a more streamlined process for handling leaks as well as commitment to dealing with leaks rapidly. One rather interesting aspect of the new approach is that the Obama administration seems to be more willing to go after journalists. Naturally, this approach raises numerous concerns.

On one hand, an excellent case can be made for cracking down on leaks. The defense of the United States from foreign and domestic enemies often requires strict secrecy. Leaked information of this sort could do serious harm to the United States. As such, cracking down on leaks seems to be an excellent idea and perfectly legitimate.

On the other hand, there is the concern that the crackdown on leaks will also serve to be a crackdown on those who would expose corruption, incompetence, mismanagement, and other serious problems. For example, a formed NSA official was recently indicted for allegedly revealing a mismanaged computer program.

This nicely reveals the two key concerns here. First, there is the need to ensure that legitimate classified information is properly protected. One way to help reach this goal is to ensure that leaks are swiftly investigated and properly punished.

Second, there is the need to ensure that misdeeds are not allowed to flourish in the shadows created by secrecy. As such, there also needs to be a proper mechanism in place for cases involving legitimate whistle blowing. While it is tempting to say that such cases should always be handled within the cloak of government secrecy, there is the obvious concern that such secrecy will often allow such problems to remain uncorrected. As such, whistle blowers might have to turn to the press to reveal certain problems.

While such whistle blowing might be seen as being against the interest of the United States, this need not be the case. After all, wasting money on useless programs, engaging in deeply flawed operations, or participating in grossly illegal activities do not help the United States become safer. In fact, the opposite is true. As such, those who blow the whistle in cases in which the official channels cannot or will not address the problems should not be treated as criminals. Rather, the investigation should focus on the problem as well as the defects in the official channels that allowed the problem to remain hidden.

As far as the press goes, the general principle should be that if the leaked information exposes misdeeds, corruption or similar problems, then the people involved should be regarded as doing service to the country. If, however, information that should be legitimately kept secret is leaked, then those involved should be regarded as acting in a harmful manner. Of course, officials will tend to believe that exposing their problems or misdeeds is harmful. It would be, of course, to them. But, since they are harming America in this manner, they have no right to expect to be able to hide within the shadows.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Recurring Themes

by Leave a Comment

BP Logo
Image via Wikipedia

Interestingly, the various disasters that have been dominating recent news are playing out like bad movie sequels. To be specific, each new disaster takes the dominant theme of the previous one and then seems to try to top it. In the case of Toyota, it was found that they were a bit too cozy with the folks who were supposed to be regulating them. In the case of the financial mess, it was once again found that the regulators and the “regulated” were very cozy. It was also found that some of the foxes guarding the other foxes (to keep them from the hen house) were viewing naked foxes online. In the latest disaster, the BP oil spill, the regulatory agency folks seem to have been cozy with the drilling companies and some were also apparently viewing porn. The new twist was that at least one regulator admits to using Meth. God only knows what will be next.

Since Obama is president now, he will be criticized for these regulatory failures. However, the problems with the regulators of drilling are prior to Obama (2000-2008). While it is tempting to put the blame on the Bush administration, this problem seems to be a systemic one that crosses party lines and administrations. After all, the Obama administration is rather cozy with Wall Street.

The main problem in these cases is that there is a lack of enforced regulation that keeps the people who are supposed to be regulating from getting too cozy with the people they are supposed to regulate. In short, there is a serious problem with corruption and undue influence. While some aspects of the problem can be addressed with revised regulations (and enforcement of existing laws), regulations are only as good as the people who enforce them (or fail to do so). This indicates the classic problem of how to get ethical and competent people into such positions and how to keep them from succumbing to corruption. It is, in short, the general problem of good government.

Some obvious fixes include outlawing gifts, having regular “inspections” of regulators to determine what they are doing (or not doing), and checking for conflicts of interest (such as close relations to the folks in the industry to be regulated). Other fixes including having stronger regulations that are harder to bypass or work around. After all, weak points in the laws make it easier for corruption to grab hold.  Of course, these weak points are not the fault of the regulators-they are created by politicians by accident or by design. In the case of designed weak points and loop holes, these serve to undermine good regulatory practices by building in ways for companies to get around regulations. Typically companies have to use their influence to take advantages of weak points, which is how corruption can get started.

So, good laws and good people are the fix. As always. Good luck with that.

As a final point, I want to discuss the drugs and the porn. My rough hypothesis is that the cozy relationships played a causal role. One possibility is that corruption breeds corruption. In other words, when a person has a moral weakness in one area, it makes it easier for other moral weakness to take hold. A second possibility is that one corruption did not contribute to another, but that both are the effects of bad character. A third possibility is that the cozy relation between industry and the regulators left the regulators with little real work to do.  As the saying goes, idle hands do the devil’s work (that is, clicking links to porn).

Interestingly enough, porn would probably be a useful indicator. To be specific, if a government employee has the time to view porn at work, then s/he is probably not doing his/her job properly. As such, checking for porn in the workplace would be a good idea (and not just for the usual reasons).

.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Arc of American Hate

by Leave a Comment

The April 12, 2010 issue of Newsweek featured a a graphic on page 14 showing  (using bullet icons) the number of militias in the United States, by year. Interestingly, the graphic was titled”The arc of American Hate.”

Assuming Newsweek’s data is correct, militias hit their peak in 1996 with well over 300 in existence. The number of militias dropped dramatically in 1997 and they declined even more until more or less stabilizing during the Bush presidency. The number of militias began to swing upwards again in 2009, with a bit over 100 in existence (according to Newsweek).

While I found the numbers interest, I found the title even more interesting.  It seems to be based on the assumption that the militias are hate groups and that their rise and decline is a measure of hate in America.

While some militias are clearly hate groups, condemning them all as hate groups seems to somewhat of a hasty generalization.  Also, as far as the arc of hate goes, it is not clear that the rise and fall of militias measures hate in America. Of course, it could be taken to be a sign of a specific sort of view, namely the distrust of the central government that seems to be a major tenet of most militias.

However, the militias dropped off considerably during the Bush years, despite the fact that these years also saw a considerable increase in the powers of the central government (the Patriot Act, for example).  If militia membership were driven primarily by the fear of a strong central state, then membership should have started increasing.

Perhaps the lack of expansion was due, in part, to the impact of 9/11 and the following wars: Americans, even those prone to being the type to join militias, were pulling together in the face of a common enemy.

Yet, despite the fact that we still face  common threat, the militias spiked in 2009. This might mark the exhaustion of the post 9/11 unity, or it might also be due to an obvious factor: the election of Obama.

Obama has been cast as the sort of person the stereotypical militia member fears.  As examples, Obama has been cast as a non-American, a Muslim and an intellectual.

Also, his alleged and actual policies and views are also no doubt very threatening to such people. As examples, Obama has been presented as having a socialist/Marxist/fascist/Muslim agenda, an anti-gun agenda, and so on. Pundits and politicians have also really stepped up the fear mongering and accusations about Obama and no doubt some folks find this very scary.

Since militias seem to be based on a certain type of fear, it is hardly shocking that their numbers are rising, just as they did during the Clinton administration.

Militias persisted during the Bush administration, perhaps because there are people who fear the central state, regardless of whether this state is seen as more left or right leaning. However, militias clearly spike during times when the president is seen as being more left leaning. After all, such a president is more likely to enact anti-gun legislation and their diplomatic attempts seem to be more likely interpreted as attempts to form a world government (a major worry of some militia members).

If the Clinton pattern is a good indicator, then we should expect an increase in militia groups and we should expect the possibility of domestic terrorism and other criminal acts being committed by some members of the more extreme groups.

Naturally, as the government steps up efforts to police such militias, this will create greater resentment and perhaps actually increase their membership. While some people might be tempted to lump all militias together under the umbrella of hate groups, this is a mistake and can actually contribute to radicalizing people.

Far more significantly, botched and extreme attempts to “deal” with the militias would also have serious consequences. After all, one likely causal factor in the militia spike of the Clinton era was the bungled raid on the the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas.

Hopefully, some lessons have been learned about how not to deal with militias and the Obama administration will be able to handle the rising militias better than Clinton did. This would require being able to deal with militias that are acting in a criminal and dangerous manner properly yet avoid acting in ways that actually serve to create more such dangerous groups.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
%d bloggers like this: