Christian Individualism and January 6

In today's Post, Michelle Boorstein examines the phenomenon of January 6 protesters who are guided by an extremely individualized version of Christianity. Here's an excerpt:

Some scholars see this era as a spiritually fertile period, like the ones that produced Pentecostalism or Mormonism. Others worry about religious illiteracy and the lack of supervision over everything from theological pronouncements to financial practices.

Even before Jan. 6, some sociologists said the fastest-growing group of American Christians are those associated with independent “prophets” who largely operate outside denominationalism. Less than half of Americans told Gallup in March that they belonged to a congregation, the first time that has happened since Gallup started asking in the 1930s.

Boorstein's article highlights the way that America's emphasis on individual expression, combined with the principles of Protestantism (and perhaps a dose of postmodernism?), have led to a situation where people develop their own unique theology, rather than looking to a congregation or other institutional mechanism for guidance.

638. Are other religions becoming as diverse (down to the individual-believer level) as Christianity? Hinduism seems to emphasize individual paths to the divine, but is the general trend in Hinduism towards unity or towards diversity? What about Islam and Judaism?

639. Is it possible to gain as much strength, wisdom and inner peace through a highly individual conception of religion? Or are fellowship and community key reasons that religion helps many people to live a fuller, more meaningful life?

Tropical Storm Elsa has been approaching Florida for the past week. The weather in Virginia, meanwhile, has turned hot (96 today and tomorrow).

The Detention of Central American Migrants

The treatment of Central American immigrants continues to be a major issue.

Many of the immigrants make claims for asylum. They are being held for long periods of time in detention centers which some Democrats have described, this summer, as concentration camps.

Yesterday, Mike Pence visited a facility in McAllen, Texas, which Wikipedia describes as the largest such facility in the country. I was curious about McAllen's location; it is very close to the Gulf of Mexico, at the far eastern point of Texas. Is McAllen where many of the migrants actually arrive, or are they transported there from other crossing points?

Here's an excerpt from this morning's article in the Post:

When Pence visited a migrant detention center here Friday, he saw nearly 400 men crammed behind caged fences with not enough room for them all to lie down on the concrete ground. There were no mats or pillows for those who found the space to rest. A stench from body odor hung stale in the air. 

When reporters toured the facility before Pence, the men screamed that they’d been held there 40 days, some longer. They said they were hungry and wanted to brush their teeth. It was sweltering hot, but the only water was outside the fences and they needed to ask permission from the Border Patrol agents to drink. 

... Pence said it was heartbreaking to hear from children who had walked two or three months to come to America and cross the border illegally, but he ultimately blamed Congress for failing to pass legislation that would deal with the influx of migrants at the southern border.

This is a photo of the inside of the McAllen detention center.

Extremely Tall Skyscrapers Under Construction in NYC

A photo from my evening stroll in Central Park

Accommodations for my conference in New York City were at St. Thomas Choir School, on 58th Street just south of Central Park. I had a couple of lovely strolls through the park.

During my time in the city, my eye was repeatedly drawn towards two skyscrapers under construction. Both towers struck me as extremely tall. However, the general enormity of all things New York made it hard to know if my small town perspective was exaggerating their actual height.

Eventually I did some research -- and I learned that both buildings, are (in fact) high, even by Manhattan standards.

The first tower is being built next door to St. Thomas Choir School, at 225 West 57th Street. It's called the Central Park Tower; construction began in 2014 and the overall cost is $3 billion. Once complete, it will rise 1,550 feet (131 stories). This means it will be North America's second-tallest skyscraper (even taller than the Sears Tower)!

There's some interesting legal wrangling related to the Central Park Tower. The project's developer, Extell, paid $31 million for 6,000 square feet of air rights and the ability to build a cantilever that extends above a neighboring building owned by the New York Art Students' League. 

The purpose of the cantilever is to maximize views of Central Park. Some members of the Art Students' League filed a lawsuit objecting to the sale of the air rights and cantilever, but their claims were dismissed.

The second tower will be located at 111 57th Street, and it will be 1,428 feet tall. I kept noticing that the top of this building seems especially narrow, and my research indicated that it will indeed be the skinniest of New York's major skyscrapers.

I also learned that 57th Street is nicknamed Billionaires' Row. These two new skyscrapers are definitely going to solidify that reputation!

On Friday, I visited an exhibition at the Art Students' League (Perhaps I was curious to see if there were any lingering signs of the litigation?!). This was one of the paintings.

Newsstands Without News

I moved from New York City in June 1999, twenty years ago. I’ve returned only a couple of times since then (I am here this week for a seminar about teaching world religions).

Whenever I am in the city, I am astounded by the way it’s an entire universe unto itself. The physical, cultural and human geography of the streets of Manhattan is unlike anything else in America. Walking north from Penn Station yesterday, I realized New York is one of the few places where I don’t seem to notice the plants – probably because all my senses are overwhelmed by other details.

I recently read an article about the way in which newsstands no longer sell newspapers (since so few people buy the physical version). One company is trying to rebrand some of the stands as a mix between an Apple store and a bodega. Yesterday, I saw evidence that this trend is real.

I was amazed at how few newspapers and magazines were displayed at the newsstands. They’d been replaced by snacks, trinkets, and lots of electronics. It was a bit sad to see. During my time living in Boston and New York, I loved the view of a newsstand displaying hundreds of magazines (the one in Harvard Square was the absolute best) – it was a chance to see the world’s variety in miniature, on the covers of the various papers and magazines.

Another change I noticed is the proliferation of bike rental stations along the streets. I don’t quite understand how the economics of bike (or scooter) rental can work in a smaller town like Charlottesville, but it makes a ton of sense in New York City. I hope that we move quickly towards a European model in which bikes play a more prominent role in how we get around.

A third change is the dominance of financial institutions along New York’s streets, including global banks like Barclay’s and BNP Paribas. Perhaps banks have always been a major part of the urban landscape and I just didn’t notice it when I was younger? In either event, the ubiquity of banking strikes me as a metaphor for both the changing American economy (and its domination by financial and other service institutions) and the problem of inequality.

I closed my afternoon in the peace of Central Park (the Sheep Meadow, specifically). Once there, I did start to notice the plants. For his efforts to preserve natural places in our big cities, Frederick Law Olmsted has to take the prize as one of America’s great visionaries!

American Affairs: A Proposal for Congressional Earmarks

I've enjoyed reading, this summer, a journal called American Affairs. I picked up a copy before our trip to Squam, and I mix it in between the three novels I've been reading (Surrender Dorothy; Dairy Queen Days; Dreamers of the Day).

American Affairs includes a wide range of articles about policy and ideas. It is scratching an itch for intellectual deep dives that my daily review of the Washington Post (satisfying though it is!) does not reach.

For example, an article called "A Case for Congressional Earmarks" (by Robert Koons) explains the philosophical, constitutional and practical reasons that earmarks can (and did, in the past) serve as a helpful mechanism in American governance.

The article provides historical facts that help frame the topic:

The sheer volume of earmarks can be burdensome and time-consuming. The number peaked at fifteen thousand in 2005, a volume that created significant backlog in congressional committees. As a result of the odd marriage of convenience between Tea Party Republicans and progressive Democrats, spurred on by the center-left Citizens against Government Waste (a vestige of good-government types left over from the failed Grace Commission of the 1980s) and the left-leaning Center for Public Integrity, Congress imposed a total ban on earmarks in 2011. To say the least, Congress’s track record in the seven years since the ban has been less than stellar.

Koons argues that we'd be better off permitting earmarks once again. He also suggests certain reforms that could address prior problems -- this is the part of the article that I find especially helpful and thought-provoking.

1. Limit earmarks to appropriations bills that come in under budget.
2. Limit earmarks to appropriations bills produced in the normal way, through appropriation committees. Keep the ban on earmarks added to omnibus spending bills or continuing resolutions.
3. Limit earmarks to projects vetted by public hearings before the appropriate committee or subcommittee.
4. Require prior approval for each earmark from the majority party leader (or his designated agent).
5. Limit the total number of earmarks per representative per year—for example, four per member per year (around two thousand total).

Congress seems less functional now than at any point in my life. Other than health care, the House and Senate are not proposing possible solutions to the challenges that confront us -- immigration, climate change, technology, infrastructure, etc. Actual legislation can only result if there are a range of alternatives on the table, but I don't get a sense that the table's even being set.

That being the case, it's hard not to accept Koons's premise: allowing earmarks could be a way to grease the skids, and get things moving again.

Obama's Trade Agenda

The House of Republicans voted against Obama's requested "Trade Promotion Authority" yesterday, with the majority of the opposition coming from Democrats.

It sounds like there will probably be a second attempt at passage next week, but my sense is that the Democratic opponents really want (and intend) to hold firm. I watched a Judy Woodruff interview with Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) on the News Hour last night, and he was practically seething with resentment against President Obama - it might have been the angriest I've ever seen a Congressman get (especially against his own party's President)!

Nancy Pelosi had been holding her cards close to the vest about her position on trade, but yesterday she came out forcefully against the bill.

600. Is President Obama being honest in promoting this bill; does he genuinely believe it's in America's best interest? Or, does he instead view the Trans-Pacific Partnership as the economically ("big-picture") correct path, even if he actually sympathizes more with the liberal opposition?

Water Shortages in the West

Lake Mead

An ongoing story of 2015 is the drought in California. 

As I understand it, we are in the fourth year of a significant water shortage in the western United States -- California in particular. Based on the articles I've read, I'm not sure whether (most) scientists believe the drought is related to climate change, or whether it's a distinct weather-related phenomenon.

The New Yorker has written several stories about the drought. Because I have always been interested in water and its centrality in our lives, I am fascinated.  In the recent article Where the River Runs Dry (here), David Owen focuses his attention on the Colorado River.

Water rights in the river are governed by a 1922 agreement (the Colorado River Compact) that was entered into by seven states. The Compact divides the river into an Upper Basin and a Lower Basin, and each basin is allocated 7.5 million acre-feet of water per year (an acre foot is the amount of water that would fill one acre of land to a depth of twelve inches). 

The Upper Basin states (Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah) do not use their entire allocation. However, the two main reservoirs on which the Lower Basin depends for reserve water -- Lake Mead and Lake Powell -- have, since 1998, been significantly depleted.

The most fascinating part of the article is Owen's explanation that decreasing water usage can actually exacerbate the water shortage. I would never have guessed this, but here is the explanation:

Reducing waste seems like an obvious solution to overuse, but it can actually make the problem worse. Bradley Udall, a scientist at Colorado State University’s Colorado Water Institute—his family has been prominent in conservation and in regional and national politics for decades—told me that water use can be divided broadly into two categories: consumptive and non-consumptive.  

When a farmer irrigates a field with river water, he said, some of the water is consumed by whatever the farmer is growing and by evaporation, but some is returned to the stream. The ditch system in the Grand Valley carries runoff and surplus irrigation water back to the river, and that water is used again, mainly by other farmers. (Kent Holsinger told me that, on average, river water is used more than half a dozen times before it leaves the state.)  

Excess irrigation water also soaks into the earth, replenishing groundwater and, eventually, feeding surface streams. 

Udall said, “Efforts to improve water efficiency in agriculture almost always lead to increases in the consumed fraction. On an individual field, they make it look like we are using water better, but they actually move us in exactly the wrong direction.” Modern, efficient irrigation techniques can cause crop yields per acre-foot to rise, but also increase water consumption, so downstream users who relied on excess from upstream—the non-consumed fraction—now have to find water somewhere else.

587. What is the current status of water usage in Charlottesville? Several years ago, the size and location of the reservoir were contentious issues. Has everything been resolved, or are their lingering questions and disputes?

588. Do I consume more or less water than the average American (drinking, bathing, gardening, etc.)?

589. Am I correct that people use Lake Powell and Lake Mead recreationally, with lots of motor boats, jet skis, and swimming? If so, how has the depletion of the reservoirs affected recreational use (and property values)?

590. Will water conservation play any significant role in the 2016 Presidential election? Which candidate is most likely to focus on this issue?

Fiscal Cliff Shenanigans

Joe, can you help us here?

According to Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane in the Post (here), the fiscal cliff negotiations have hit (yet another) impasse. 

Mitch McConnell has called on Joe Biden to get involved on the White House's behalf. It sounds like the current sticking point is the Social Security adjustment index -- the Democrats have announced that any change to the rate of adjustment is a deal-killer.

-------------

I have been uniquely unimpressed with the leadership skills of President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell in crafting a compromise on the tax and budget issues that are involved in the "cliff". 

For me, John Boehner is the only party leader who gets any credit, for having proposed the $1 million limit on tax increases, even though he was not able to bring along the Republicans in the House. (Of course I might have this backwards -- Boehner might be the least helpful of the bunch, since he very quickly threw in the towel when his backbenchers refused the $1 million limit).

-------------

I really dislike the new pattern of "government by deadline", and I think the President takes a large portion of the blame for having let it become a pattern these past couple of years. 

I understand that the Republicans have been tremendously uncooperative (are they the least cooperative party-out-of-power in US history?), but the buck stops with the President when it comes to compelling a compromise. 

There are enough different issues involved that Obama, Boehner and  Reid should have been able to propose enough "gives" and "takes" for each party to make everyone a winner (or at least to show that everyone's a loser together). 

And that's the crux of the problem, I think -- our political leaders have become so obsessed with not wanting to "appear the loser" that they are afraid to move any legislation forward. And the irony is that no one can predict, ahead of time, how the details will be perceived in terms of "winning" and "losing", so the politicians end up trying to control something that cannot be controlled.

Drones

The Obama Administration's expansion of the drone program makes me very uncomfortable.

I worry about the morality of killing people with drones. I also worry that any military benefit of drones is outweighed by the hatred of America that they engender, because the hatred increases the likelihood of future terrorist attacks.

My questions/fears/doubts are significant enough that drones are one of the issues that have caused me to consider voting against Obama next Tuesday.

-------

I have trouble articulating my drone questions clearly.  To that end, Kurt Volker's op-ed in the Post last Sunday (What the US Risks by Relying on Drones, here) was very helpful.

Volker says that there are four major problems related to our reliance on drones:
 
1. Morality.

More people have been killed in U.S. drone attacks than were ever incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay. Can we be certain there were no cases of mistaken identity or innocent deaths? Those detained at Guantanamo at least had a chance to establish their identities, to be reviewed by an oversight panel and, in most cases, to be released. Those who remain at Guantanamo have been vetted and will ultimately face some form of legal proceeding. Those killed in drone strikes, whoever they were, are gone. Period.

2. Effects.

Drone strikes may decapitate terrorist organizations, but they do not solve our terrorist problem. In fact, drone use may prolong it. Even though there is no immediate retaliation, in the long run the contributions to radicalization through drone use may put more American lives at risk.

3. The spread of drones to other countries.

[European allies, Russia, China and Iran] ... are acquiring and beginning to use drones for surveillance — eventually, they will use them for killing as well. What would we say if others used drones to take out their opponents — whether within their own territory or internationally? Imagine China killing Tibetan separatists that it deemed terrorists or Russia launching drone strikes on Chechens. What would we say? What rules would we urge them to abide by?

4. National identity.

What do we want to be as a nation? A country with a permanent kill list? ... A country that instructs workers in high-tech operations centers to kill human beings on the far side of the planet because some government agency determined that those individuals are terrorists?

I think Volker's points about morality and national identiy are especially strong. 

I worry that we are collectively going down the drone road without talking and thinking about how it could affect us individually and nationally.

The Third Debate: Lacking a Foreign Policy Vision

The foreign policy debate is tonight. Bob Schieffer's got the moderator's chair.

I generally like Schieffer's calm demeanor (he's kind of got a twinkle in his eye, like he's enjoying the small humors of life), but his questions tonight are too open-ended (a la Jim Lehrer) rather than pointed (a la Martha Raddatz).

----------

During the first half hour my conclusion is that there are very few substantive differences between Obama and Romney on foreign affairs. 

It's amazing how the 2004 election was so focused on foreign policy (Iraq, in particular), and this year the rest of the world is basically an afterthought. It's all about the economy.

To that end: on Schieffer's question just now about America's proper role in the world, both candidates went way off course in order to emphasize domestic policy differences.  I'm reading The Economist's live blog, and one of the writers there just posted "This debate is like the non sequitur Olympics."

----------

I have read several articles criticizing Obama for his lack of leadership in formulating a coherent response to the Arab Spring, and my sense from this debate is that neither Obama or Romney is a great foreign policy thinker.

They both speak in generalities, without a coherent underlying vision. They both seem reactive rather than proactive on Iran, Libya, and Syria. 

I give Obama credit for ending the war in Iraq, but the surge in Afghanistan remains one of the biggest mistakes of his Presidency, and perhaps his decision on the surge stemmed from his reactivity -- his unwillingness to get in-front of public opinion on Afghanistan.

I think that John Kerry, Bob Dole, Bill Clinton, and even John McCain (among others) would out-perform either Obama or Romney in this debate.

I guess that it's a good thing -- given the times -- that both Romney and Obama like to think about economic and domestic policy, but I wish that they had more clarity on foreign affairs as well.

----------

My takeaway, after the first 65 minutes of this debate: It's not going to swing the momentum of the race one way or the other. 

There simply are not significant differences between the two candidates' policies, and both of them are doing fine on the "optics" (neither seems as hyped up as they were for the town hall, which makes for a more relaxing viewing experience!).

Martha Raddatz gets my vote as the best of the four moderators.

Romney Wins the First Debate

It's 10:21 PM and the first Presidential debate is just about over.

 

Mitt Romney has clearly won this debate. 

 

He has been more passionate, more energized, and more engaging. Whereas Obama looks at his notes, Romney looks at Obama. 

Romney has told more stories about specific Americans, and he has come across as more moderate than I anticipated. He's actually been a bit overly fired-up at times, but I think his energy will be appealing to undecided people who want a jolt to the system.

 

Obama is lethargic, and he has not developed any themes in his answers. He was particularly weak in explaining how he will work to increase employment. I am surprised at his poor performance.

 

----------

 

I think this debate will upend the state of the campaign and give significant momentum to Romney.

Paul Ryan

Mitt Romney announced his selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate yesterday. I watched the coverage after returning from an excellent training run in the humid drizzle at Green Springs. 

------------

Romney made the announcement in Norfolk, which drove him again how critical Virginia is to both candidates' prospects. It continues to amaze me how quickly Virginia became a swing state: when I first moved back here, I was convinced that my vote in a Presidential election would never matter because the state was so solidly Republican. Now, it's one of the 3 to 5 most important states, right up there with Florida, Ohio and Colorado.

------------

Ryan is the first candidate in a Presidential election who is a member of my generation. He was born in 1970, which means he would have been a senior in high school when I was a freshman.

I periodically have done the thought experiment of who the national politicians/leaders in my generation would remind me of from my own childhood.  Now I have the first actual example, but Ryan does not immediately bring anyone to mind.

He is clearly charismatic, and based on what I've read he is both book-smart and politics-smart.  I noticed during his speech yesterday that he has an awkward smile: his mouth goes kind of up and then down. He also has a Midwestern-feel to his demeanor and speech, which might be why he does not remind me of any contemporaries.

 ------------

A couple of commentators (Ruth Marcus and Noam Scheiber) have already written that Ryan is a bad pick because he only energizes the conservative base, rather than enabling Romney to capture moderates who are disillusioned with Obama.

I understand the Marcus/Scheiber argument, but I'm not sure it's correct.

I think Ryan's youth and charisma will be a good complement to Romney. I also think the fact that he has articulated detailed fiscal plans/policies will be appealing to people; voters may be less interested in the actual (conservative) fine points and more relieved that there's a politician actually willing to go on-the-record with specific proposals. 

Will Saletan made this point yesterday (here), and he emphasized that Ryan's specific details highlight the shortcomings of both parties' platforms:

Ryan refutes the Democratic Party’s bogus arguments. He knows that our domestic spending trajectory is unsustainable and that liberals who fail to get it under control are leading their constituents over a cliff, just like in Europe. Eventually, you can’t borrow enough money to make good on your promises, and everyone’s screwed.  

Ryan refutes the GOP’s bogus arguments, too. He proves that a genuine conservative, as opposed to a Tea-Party ideologue, votes for bailouts when economic sanity requires them. Ryan also shows that a real conservative doesn’t worship any part of the budget, including defense. His expenditure caps can’t be squared with Romney’s nutty pledge to keep military spending above four percent of GDP. And Ryan destroys Romney’s ability to continue making the dishonest, anti-conservative argument that Obamacare is evil because it cuts Medicare. Now Romney will have to defend the honest conservative argument, which is that Medicare spending should be controlled.

Mitt Romney's Wealth

The Republican nomination contest has been in high gear the past couple of weeks, and South Carolina's primary is today.

Regardless of what happens today, Romney is going to win the nomination. I agree with Jacob Weisberg and others who say that the media is drumming up Gingrich and Santorum momentum in a self-interested effort to prolong the race.

-----------

Romney announced this week that his effective income tax rate is 15% because so much of his income is from capital gains and/or benefits from the carried interest loophole. Romney's 15% illustrates to me the absurdity of the tax code; I hope that if he becomes President, his personal situation -- and the attention it draws -- might encourage comprehensive reform.

On the issue of Romney's wealth, David Brooks had an interesting column yesterday tracing Romney's family history and arguing that his defining character trait is his (and his ancestors') ambition and determination:

Is Romney a spoiled, cosseted character? Has he been corrupted by ease and luxury? The notion is preposterous. All his life, Romney has been a worker and a grinder. He earned two degrees at Harvard simultaneously (in law and business). He built a business. He’s persevered year after year, amid defeat after defeat, to build a political career. Romney’s salient quality is not wealth. It is, for better and worse, his tenacious drive — the sort of relentlessness that we associate with striving immigrants, not rich scions.

Brooks may be getting at why Romney is less off-putting to me than I would expect. Although I have a hard time understanding why someone would be politically ambitious given our screwed up system, I think ambition is a valuable trait in a leader, and a lack of ambition (à la George W. Bush) can actually be more problematic.

513. Has there ever been a less pleasant Presidential contender than Newt Gingrich? He is mean and uninspiring. I don't think he was quite so mean in the 1990's -- back then, he was more of a caricature of a grouchy but ultimately well-meaning conservative.  

514. Who drops out first, Santorum or Gingrich? I think probably Santorum, since he has more of a future to consider.

515. The online piracy legislation has been in the news this week; Wikipedia "went dark" on Wednesday to protest the possible effects of the legislation, and an (alleged) pirate site called MegaUpload was shut down by the Department of Justice yesterday.  Do Obama and Romney support or oppose the legislation? Do I support or oppose it? So far, the fight strikes me as rich Hollywood corporations versus rich internet corporations, so I have a hard time viewing one side as more "right" than the other.

---------------

This morning I looked back to see what I was writing about two Januarys ago. The big news at the time was Scott Brown's surprise victory in the Massachusetts election and its effect on Obama's health care reform effort. 

Here's an excerpt:

I think E.J. Dionne hit the nail on the head in a column this morning (here) when he argued that the Democrats in Congress dithered for too long on the health care bill -- timing and momentum do matter. Here's Dionne:

Brown's victory is also a rebuke to the Senate, which acted as though it had unlimited time to pass health-care legislation and ignored how foolish its listless ways appear to normal human beings. Like a bottle of milk kept out of the refrigerator too long, the health bill went sour for voters who felt they never heard an adequate explanation of what was in it.

As far as Scott Brown, I read on wikipedia that his day-job is real estate lawyer (!) and that he's a graduate of BC Law School. The oddest thing I've read about him yet is in Gail Collins's column this morning (here):

During Tuesday night’s victory speech, Brown veered off-script and offered up his college-student daughters to the crowd. (“Yes, they’re both available!”) As his girls laughed with embarrassment and his wife yelled at him to stop, Brown just dug deeper. (“Arianna’s definitely not available, but Ayla is.”)

OK, that's a bit of a bizarre opening statement on the national stage.

---------

The late-breaking news this afternoon is that Pelosi has announced the House will not attempt to pass the Senate version of the bill.

There's not been much talk, since Tuesday, about the possibility of swinging Susan Collins (to replace Paul Kirk's 60th vote), so I assume that the remaining options are reconciliation in the Senate or a significantly slimmed-down bill.

A New Year is Beginning

Reflections on news about the United States during 2011...

• From beginning to end, the biggest story remained the struggling economy (in general) and persistent unemployment (specifically). Until August/September, people seemed optimistic that things were slowly improving (I assume that the rising stock market contributed to the feeling), but this fall and winter there’s been a noticeable downturn in expectations (even though the unemployment rate has finally decreased a bit). The analysts and columnists tend to blame the problem on “Europe”, but I think the Greeks and Italians are serving as a convenient scapegoat for Americans. I think we are in for continued economic problems, because I fail to see where new jobs will come from. The key will be transitioning away from a consumption-based economy, in which so much depends on all of us constantly purchasing new things (cell phone advertising is everywhere – do people replace their phones every few months?). We need to find a new way to measure (and feel) our individual and collective “growth.”

• President Obama has continued to disappoint me. He generally does well as a compromiser, but I desperately want some bully-pulpit leadership. I want him to get out in-front of the day-to-day discussion and help us to reframe debates. He shies away from doing this. There were several articles this year about Obama’s psychological tendency towards conflict-avoidance, and I think this is correct. There has been so much kicking-the-can-down the road on (1) reforming tax policy and (2) addressing the debt. Although I blame the Republicans for their intransigence, Obama has the top-job, and he is the person best positioned to change the public’s perspective. Also, he focuses way too much on getting re-elected. This reinforces my desire to move to a single 6-year term for the president, so we won’t have to spend half of each presidency focusing on the next election.

494. At the Constitutional Convention, was there any discussion of a Presidential term-length other than 4 years ?  Did anyone propose a 6 or 8 year term, with an explicit limitation to a single term?

495. What's the most likey Constitutional amendment to be adopted in the next twenty years?

496. If Obama does not win re-election, will he move back to Chicago?  Will he run in 2016?

• The big foreign policy development of 2011 was the killing of Osama Bin Laden at the beginning of May, and I credit Obama for keeping his eye on the ball on this task (unlike Bush). I’m comfortable with the targeted assassination of Osama, but less so with the tremendous increase in drone-killings by the Obama administration (the Washington Post has done a good job focusing on the drone issue in the past couple of months). I understand the need/desire to fight the terrorists, but I have to wonder if we are generating more hatred for America by killing people by machine and from a distance. In addition to the practical question (not wanting to make America less safe because it’s more hated), I am unclear in my mind about the morality of drones.

• The quest for the Republication nomination has been a major political story throughout the year, and I have been consistently astounded at the low quality of the candidates (excepting Mitt Romney, per below). I would have thought that with Obama seeming a vulnerable incumbent, there would be at least a couple of legitimate contenders (Mitch Daniels and/or Chris Christie – I am waiting for a piece on longform.org on the real reasons they chose not to run). One good development has been the increased number of debates, although the 60-second format is absurd and keeps us mired in a soundbite culture.

497. If Romney is elected, what Cabinet post does Christie get?  I can't see him as the Vice Presidential nominee (because of the problem of two Northeasterners).  Perhaps Treasury Secretary?

498. Does Daniels or Christie have any regrets right now?

499. Has Tim Pawlenty endorsed anyone yet?  I don't think so - I think the news this fall about Pawlenty was that he may challenge Al Franken for the Minnesota Senate seat, but I don't think he's endorsed anyone.

• Regarding Romney, I think he may have the background and temperament to make him an effective leader. I also like that he’s a moderate (notwithstanding his best efforts to convince Republican primary voters otherwise). If the election were today I’d have to do a lot of thinking in choosing between him and Obama, both because of my disappointment in Obama and because I think Romney might genuinely be able to shift our economic policy in a positive way. I am definitely torn – I want to believe that Obama can become a great leader, but the dashed expectations sting.

500. I should be happy that Obama is so pragmatic and seeking-of-compromise.  Why am I not more enthusiastic about him?  Is the problem with my expectations rather than his leadership? This is going to be a big question to think about in the coming months.

• The Solyndra story was probably the year’s most interesting in terms of the convergence of (1) the proper role of government, (2) nurturing a new American economy, and (3) the potential for corruption when government money is at stake. I remain confused about the extent to which solar and wind energy (and nuclear) could become viable, large-scale alternatives, and Solyndra’s failure makes me worried that solar energy may not be as close to a “breakthrough” as previously reported.

• In terms of my news consumption, I re-subscribed to the paper edition of the Post around mid-November, and I am really getting into the routine of reading it.  I am not impressed with their columnists (Dionne and Robinson are so repetitive), but their investigative, medium-length stories are quite good.

Obama Signs the Tax Cut Bill

President Obama signed the tax-cut extension bill yesterday, after the Democrats in the House chose not to fight him on the estate tax provisions.

The cost of the bill is $858 billion, a tremendous irony after the endless talk about reducing the size of government in the lead-up to the 2010 elections.

For me this bill epitomizes the dysfunction of our political system.  We simply are unable to reduce benefits (Democrats) or raise taxes (Republicans), so instead we give something to everyone: increased benefits and lower taxes. It keeps the economy running on the fumes of consumption but it sure does not strike me as a responsible long-term approach.

----------

The House passed the bill 277 to 148 Thursday night, with 112 Democrats and 36 Republicans voting no.  Here is Peter Baker's celebratory description from today's Times:

With the stroke of a pen, President Obama on Friday enacted the largest tax cut in nearly a decade and, in the process, took a big step toward reinventing himself as a champion of compromise in a politically fractured capital. When he first struck the deal two weeks ago, a sour Mr. Obama announced it by himself, lamented his own agreement and testily denounced his Republican partners as “hostage takers” and his liberal critics as “sanctimonious.” By the time he signed it into law on Friday, little more than six weeks after an electoral debacle for him and his party, he stood with the Senate Republican leader and celebrated the package as a hallmark of cooperation.

I feel a little bit like the Grinch, complaining about tax cuts and extended unemployment benefits during the week before Christmas, but I just do not approve of continuing to run up the national credit card. Also, contrary to the current conventional wisdom, I don't think this bill helps Obama's chances for re-election in 2012: any goodwill garnered with the Republicans will dissipate rapidly, and the left-wing of the Democratic party is not going to be as motivated to support him in 2012.

492.  The repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is expected to pass prior to year-end, thank goodness.  So far, Republicans Snowe, Collins, Brown, and Murkowski have come out in favor of repeal.  Which additional Republicans will change their positions when they realize that repeal is inevitable?  I would think that Lugar and Voinovich would be inclined towards repeal.

493. Mike Shanahan announced yesterday that Donovan McNabb is officially benched (in favor of Rex Grossman!!!) for the last three games of the season. Where does this decision rank in the annals of Redskins absurdity during the Snyder era?

Happier times (not so long ago...)

Ryan Lizza on Climate Change Legislation

Ryan Lizza has a fantastic article ("As the World Burns") in the current New Yorker that explains the failure of climate change legislation during the course of 2009-2010. It's the best article I have read this year in terms of delving deep into a topic, and it's a welcome antidote to the even-worse-than-usual horserace coverage leading up to this year's Congressional elections.

The central character in Lizza's article is Lindsay Graham, who tried mightily (and unsuccessfully) to build a Senate coalition to pass an energy bill. My sense is that Graham may be one of the few "do-ers" in Congress right now, motivated less by ideology than by pragmatism (interesting that his South Carolina colleague Jim DeMint is the exact opposite: an ideologue whose primary goal seems to be show-boating rather than legislating).

Along with Joe Lieberman and John Kerry, Graham made the strategic decision to try to gain the support of special interest groups (in particular the Chamber of Commerce) rather than individual Republican senators (my old faves Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins do not come across very well in the article).

Alas, at the key point in the process (late winter // early spring of this year), Graham was essentially abandoned by (1) the Obama Adminstration (which decided they'd spent enough political capital on health care reform) and (2) Harry Reid (for purely cynical electoral reasons).

It's a really tragic tale of policy and politics, and extremely well-told by Lizza.

Hurricane Katrina

Last night, we watched Rachel Maddow examining the lack of affordable housing in New Orleans (this has actually become a bigger problem in the five years since Katrina).  There's been lots of talk about the anniversary of Katrina.  The images on television over those several days are very much seared into my mind; I remember watching with Liz and both of us being absolutely thrown for a loss at what we saw.

Here's a picture from Jocelyn Augustino at FEMA, which was taken on August 30, 2005.

This one is by Getty Images and was taken on September 2, 2005.

Charlie Rangel

The biggest political news of the past week has been Charlie Rangel's decision not to reach a plea agreement in connection with the House Ethics Committee allegations against him.

Rangel is accused of a variety of misdeeds, including (1) failing to report income on his Dominican Republic vacation home and (2) using New York City rent-controlled apartments as office space (rather than for residential purposes, which evidently was the requirement for these particular apartments).  The biggest charge is that he changed his vote on a particular tax code provision after meeting with a person or persons who agreed to donate to the Charlie Rangel Center and who benefitted (significantly) from the tax law change.

(As an aside: I love the picture of Rangel that I've posted here.  Something about legislators who wear their glasses low on the nose cracks me up.  Carl Levin is the most prominent example, but this picture reminds me that Rangel does it a lot too.  I assume it's done for reading purposes, but it gives the impression of a person who takes himself a bit too seriously.)

If Rangel's case goes "to trial" before the Ethics Committee, it would be the first time in close to a decade of such a trial - I think the last one was for James Trafficant. I get the sense that his fellow Democrats are extremely frustrated that he is being obstinate (in their opinion) in not agreeing to a plea, particularly since the trial would occur in September and very much play into the Republicans' "throw the bums out" narrative.

Another Rangel side-note: whenever Mark Shields talks about Rangel on the News Hour, Shield's visible discomfort is a classic case of the too-close alliance between DC media and politicians. I guess Shields is just being human in showing his personal admiration for Rangel, but something about it plays into a larger problem (for me), which is the unwillingness of many members of the media to truly hold politicians to account.

Ross Douthat on White Anxiety

I think Ross Douthat might be surpassing David Brooks in the "big picture" analytical insights of his columns. Well, at least I'd put it this way: I now look forward more to reading Douthat's latest pieces than Brooks's. This is a major development given how much I have (historically) loved reading the two weekly Brooks columns.

I can't figure out if it's because Douthat seems to take on a broader range of issues (including religion and popular culture) or that Brooks is stuck in the rut of criticizing Obama's belief in technocracy, but something is making Douthat more compelling recently.

Yesterday's column was vintage Douthat: a really provocative examination of why lower and lower-middle class whites feel "put upon" by the ruling class. 

Whereas many columnists struggle with saying anything new about race/racial tension in America (I am thinking particularly of the stable of Post columnists, who with the exception of Kathleen Parker have not been very good recently - not even Robinson or Cohen), Douthat uses a recent study by Princeton sociologists to explain the phenomenon of lower class whites feeling that they (rather than minority groups) are the subjects of discrimination:

[According to the Princeton study,] while most extracurricular activities increase your odds of admission to an elite school, holding a leadership role or winning awards in organizations like high school R.O.T.C., 4-H clubs and Future Farmers of America actually works against your chances. Consciously or unconsciously, the gatekeepers of elite education seem to incline against candidates who seem too stereotypically rural or right-wing or “Red America.”

This provides statistical confirmation for what alumni of highly selective universities already know. The most underrepresented groups on elite campuses often aren’t racial minorities; they’re working-class whites (and white Christians in particular) from conservative states and regions. Inevitably, the same underrepresentation persists in the elite professional ranks these campuses feed into: in law and philanthropy, finance and academia, the media and the arts.

This breeds paranoia, among elite and non-elites alike. Among the white working class, increasingly the most reliable Republican constituency, alienation from the American meritocracy fuels the kind of racially tinged conspiracy theories that Beck and others have exploited — that Barack Obama is a foreign-born Marxist hand-picked by a shadowy liberal cabal, that a Wall Street-Washington axis wants to flood the country with third world immigrants, and so forth.

Immigration, Part 1 (Mexico to United States)

Jan Brewer - A lightning rod for 2010

Ever since the health care debate ended, there's been lots of media focus on immigration -- notwithstanding the fact that there's no chance at all for legislation to pass this year.

I guess the explanation is that the media needs attention-grabbing "handles" for stories (for instance, last summer's "handle" for the health care debate was the death panel allegation), and the Arizona law has provided a handle to present the immigration debate in a simplistic way.

-----------

Last week I listened to John McCain being interviewed on This Week. 

McCain has completely switched his position on immigration reform, and his explanation is that the "situation on the border" has deteriorated seriously.  He claims that Phoenix, Arizona has the second highest incidence of kidnapping in the world (!) and that there has been a tremendous rise in violence stemming from immigration and the drug trade.

When I heard McCain's interview, I thought to myself: Is any of this true or has he just bought into the anti-immigrant hysteria?  It's very difficult to tell fact or fiction on this story, but I am extremely skeptical of McCain's claims.

In the past week, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has further stoked the hysteria by referring to beheadings related to illegal immigration.  Dana Milbank is having nothing of this: in today's Post, he flat out states that Brewer is lying:

There's not a follicle of evidence to support Brewer's claim. The Arizona Guardian Web site checked with medical examiners in Arizona's border counties, and the coroners said they had never seen an immigration-related beheading. I called and e-mailed Brewer's press office requesting documentation of decapitation; no reply.

Immigration is an issue on which I need to find some good, balanced analysis. I think there's a very legitimate claim to make that the federal government is being negligent in not systematically addressing various issues related to immigration, and I credit Bush with having tried harder than Obama to actually do something.

But, McCain/Brewer/et al. are not adding anything to the debate by stoking irrational fears and advocating for a mass deportation of 10 million people.

450. Who has the lead in the polling for Arizona's Republican primary: McCain or J.D. Hayworth?

451.  What are Obama's true (deep) feelings about immigration policy?  Is he a totally open border advocate, or does he actually have a law and order angle/perspective?  I'm having a really hard time deciding what I think Obama's true beliefs are, as opposed to his modified (political) positions (the puzzle is most dramatic re: Afghanistan).

452.  How many illegal immigrants have entered the United States in the past couple of years (since the recession began), versus the two years prior to the recession?

453. Were most Latin Americans rooting for or against Spain in today's World Cup final?

454.  At the trial court level, will the federal government succeed in arguing that Arizona's law should be pre-empted?  My prediction is that the feds win in district court, and then (assuming it ends up at the Supreme Court), they again prevail 5-4. I think this could actually be an issue where the standard Supreme Court "voting blocs" do not hold -- ie, you could have a strange alignment of liberals and conservatives in the majority.