I've been taking some pride in the intellectual influence of the Tea Party Movement. I feel like I was sort of on the ground floor of it myself when I posted my first blog "Visualizing a One Term Obama Administration" at www.resistnet.com back on January 19, 2009.
I remember feeling so overwhelmed by the popularity of the Obama administration and anxious to do anything possible - within the law - to take our country back.
In my case, my alarm was fueled by my personal experience of knowing that the young Barack Obama was already a convinced Marxist at the beginning of his sophomore year at Occidental College. Since I had seen the evidence of his early Marxism face-to-face, I knew that it was wrong of him to hide and deny this fact to the general public during the Presidential campaign.
At the very least, I thought that if he was no longer a Marxist, then he owed the American people a description of the intellectual thought process which lead him away from that belief system.
In truth, his later associations with Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright demonstrated that he really hadn't outgrown his early Marxist beliefs. The fact that he appointed both Van Jones and Anita Dunn - as Glenn Beck properly reported - demonstrate that his Marxist faith is still alive and well today.
As a political scientist, I feel safe in suggesting that the Tea Party Movement arose as a response to the extreme Marxist socialist agenda of the early Obama administration.
Today, I think conservatives are winning the battle of ideas again. I feel safer this year knowing that Democrats were pushed back in NJ and VA and that a Congressman from Alabama defected to our side over the health care reform issue. I'm also grateful that the new social media - Twitter, Facebook, Ning - allowed so many of us to bypass the mainstream media and to take positive action under difficult circumstances.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
I've been a little obsessed lately with trying to get up to speed on the whole climate change issue. I've been ignoring up until now. Nevertheless, my quick review of the available information tells me two things: 1) The link between increased CO2 and increased global temperatures is greatly exaggerated, and 2) The proposed fixes for the U.S. are a 90% reduction in our production of CO2 - and absurdly drastic and unrealistic remedy. I think the more people study up on this the more outraged they will become.
A couple of quick points bear mentioning. First, the Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW)folks predicted that 2009 would be the hottest year ever and 2009 turned out to be an average year. Their prediction is based on the idea that increasing CO2 levels cause global warming. Since the world produces more CO2 each year, it would be shocking - from the point of view of their model - to see temperatures decline. The problem is that even their own data demonstrates that there is no causal relationship between these two factors. The cooler than predicted 2009 should cause grave doubts among the true believers who still think there is evidence of AGW. The video linked below will give you a nerdy look at the controversy going on behind the scenes:
Take a look at Al Gore's global warming chart in An Inconvenient Truth. You'll see that increases in CO2 levels trail increases in temperatures. This is the EXACT opposite of what the ClimateGate folks' beloved models are predicting will happen.
Apparently, this is why the folks at University of East Anglia were scrambling to "trick" up their models to match their theories...and looking for ways to discredit and cut out their critics. I guess their use of tree rings to measure past temperatures wasn't so accurate looking into the past - during the Little Ice Age - or looking into the future - the last 20 years.
The reality is that climate change is a lot more complex than these folks suppose and they really don't have a strong, predictive model in place yet. For example, as the folks at Powerline indicate, it maybe that the SO2/sulfate being generated by the rising emissions from China is having a cooling effect on the planet.
One of the reasons I'm an "award-winning" political scientist is that I'm not blinded by conventional wisdom. I look at the facts.
Among these facts is the truth that Greenland, in warmer - pre-industrial - times, used to be green, that is covered with grass. To a certain extent, there is evidence that mankind would be better off if the Earth was a little warmer because it would encourage plant growth and longer growing seasons.
At any rate, what is shocking is that so many political types, including Al Gore, have relied on this faulty, dishonest science to promote a political agenda which is destructive to individual freedom. (Al Gore, for example, was recently caught lying by suggesting that these controversial e-mails were all over ten years old.)
Nevertheless, I've seen this before during the welfare reform debates of the 1990s. I was personally attacked because I believed the evidence which showed that welfare programs created poverty. Just because liberals don't have the evidence on their side never seems to keep them from thinking that they know best. Also, as a political scientist, I'm skeptical of scientists living off grants to study the AGW hypothesis. They are an interest group, pure and simple.
The Climategate e-mails are very helpful to all of us right now because they show how this modelling is completely dominated by politics - not hard science. I think anthropomorphic global warming is dead as a theory. It will take some time for the true believers to catch up to the reality that they've been had. As an ex-Marxist socialist myself, I feel their pain...
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
As you may know, the girls at Occidental College liked to dress up young men and take their pictures. There are some famous pictures of the young Barack Obama while he was at Occidental College in Los Angeles, CA floating on the internet. Posted above, I have the rough equivalent from my own spell at this small liberal arts college. Personally, I was one of the founders of the anti-apartheid group that Obama mentions in his book, Dreams of My Father.
From what Obama writes, I guess I had the unusual opportunity to meet the young Barack Obama at a turning point in his life. According to his book, Dreams of My Father, Obama got one of the early signs of his interest (and ability) in public speaking during his participation in an anti-apartheid rally at Occidental College in Los Angeles in the fall of 1980.
I had graduated from Occidental College in 1979.
I met him later that same year in late December 1980. At the time, I was in my second year of graduate school at Cornell. I was visiting a girlfriend who was still attending Occidental College who introduced me to him and his friend Hassan.
My most vivid memory of my time visiting with Obama was the way he strongly argued a rather simple-minded version of Marxist theory. I remember he was passionate about his point of view. As I remember, he was articulating the same Marxist theory taught by various professors at Occidental College. Based on my more detailed studies at Cornell, I remember I made a strong argument that his Marxist ideas were not in line with contemporary reality - particularly the practical experience of Western Europe.
What is significant to me now, in retrospect, was the way he conceded to my argument. At the time, I remember that this was an early victory in my life...the ability to make a powerful, fact-based argument that changed minds. In retrospect, I don't know if he was just trying to restore peace...my gut feeling is that I persuaded him - at the very least - that his education at Occidental College was not really up-to-date or terribly valuable.
Ironically, he ended up leaving Occidental College and transfering to Columbia University in 1981.
I can identify with those "intellectuals" who report that Obama is easy to talk to and seems to take advice well. I think I was one of the first to see this behavior in action...at least according to the timeline presented about his intellectual development in Dreams of My Father.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
The GOP win in NJ was a huge victory and a huge rebuke of Obama. Accordingly, this is an excellent time to recruit the next generation of conservative activists and political candidates.
Here’s my take on what these results in NJ and VA mean for President Obama.
First, it is clear now that Obama cannot help Democrats in tough elections. What ever influence Obama has over the voters cannot be spread over to benefit other candidates. This means that Obama’s political influence is weakening in line with his declining job approval numbers.
The White House is trying to make it look like Obama didn't even watch the election results. The reality, of course, is that Obama knows as well as I do that these elections were extremely important to his presidential power. Now, it is clear to the whole nation that Obama threw everything he had into electing Democrats in NJ and VA and couldn't make it happen. I watched some of Obama's passionate and emotional statements supporting Corzine and Deeds. He wasn't holding back at all. Obama placed his own administration's prestige on the line. Today, however, Obama looks like an empty suit...a loser...and a greatly weakened political leader.
Second, the suggestion that Obama was leading a massive realignment of our political system appears to be untrue. Reversals within the states he carried last year demonstrate that voters are not swept up with Obama’s radical, leftist agenda. Thus, Obama has lost the momentum and energy of his first year in office. As the voters learn the reality of his radical leftist agenda, they are turned off and eager to support anyone except Democrat party loyalists.
Finally, the newly emergent Tea Party movement appears to be more powerful and more energized than Obama’s base voters. The strength of this conservative, anti-Obama movement cannot be minimized any more by political pundits. This means that Democrat party over-reach will be punished in the upcoming mid-term elections. This is a great time to recruit the strongers Republican candidates. Next year will be a great time to be on the ballot.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
Lincoln once said: "Stand with anybody that stands right, stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong." In that spirit, Tricia and I did a crazy thing today and drove up to attend Speaker Newt Gingrich's book signing at the Barnes and Noble in Fashion Island, Newport Beach, CA.
It seemed like a crazy thing to do and so we did it. We drove along the coast and didn't have a clue where the bookstore was located. In the parking lot Tricia surprised me by asking some other folks for directions. We drove to the other side of the mall and were right in time to see Speaker Gingrich signing books with a thick felt tip pen.
I was first aware of Rep. Gingrich in 1988. I was a hopeless GOPAC candidate back back then and I was recruited by the local Republican party to play a small role in keeping some of Gov. Michael Dukakis' top lieutenants pinned down in MA instead of working for Gov. Dukakis in Iowa or where ever. The whole thing was a disaster, in part, because I was a registered Democrat at the time and needed to change my party registration and run for office at the same time.
Nevertheless, I listened to Rep. Newt Gingrich on tape for hours learning the details of how to run a political campaign. The summer I spent running for a state assembly seat in MA was one of the happiest of my life.
I wanted to use my scarce moments with Speaker Gingrich wisely so I shared with him something he probably already knew - that I had met the young Barack Obama while he was a sophomore at Occidental College and that he was definitely a Marxist at that time. "Did you ever think he would become President?" Gingrich asked. "No...never," I said, "he was a drinker and a drug user...a party guy when I knew him." After that, we fumbled through the photos and Speaker Gingrich was gracious and charming with us. He observed that I was "efficient" and sort of made my day.
In a larger sense, however, I was wanted to make the extra effort to see Speaker Gingrich today because he is taking heat for defending a liberal Republican running for office in New York's 23 Congressional District. This is a special election caused by Obama's willingness to attract an otherwise unbeatable GOP Congressman, John McHugh, into quitting Congress to become Secretary of the Army.
The liberal Republican candidate emerged, in part, because New York state law requires each party's 11 county chairmen in the district to pick their candidate. The local GOP county chairmen chose Dede Scozzafava, a five-term state assemblywoman. Unhappy with this result, one of the more conservative nomination seekers, Doug Hoffman, bailed on the Republican party and got into the same race through a different party affiliation - the Conservative Party.
Gov. Sarah Palin and a lot of other Republicans I admire have endorsed Hoffman. Gingrich, however, has pleaded with them to show more deference for the local New York Republican party. As you might suppose, Gingrich is in a lonely position right now. Nevertheless, I think he is right to suggest that we should be focusing more on our enemies and less on the qualifications of our Republican candidates. I think he is right to assert that a stress on ideological purity makes it impossible to assemble large majorities. Purges of imperfect Republicans is the sure road to minority party status.
Part of the reason why ideological purity burns out political parties is systemic. Our U.S. Constitution sets us up with single seat, majority rule Congressional elections. Such election rules are murder for third parties. Luckily for Republicans, however, only a small change in the electorate can produce broad and massive change in party control of Congress and subsequent public policy achievements. As such, I think Newt Gingrich is on the right track in asking for some ideological slack in an environment where the conventional wisdom is demanding righteous purity to Republican ideals.
All in all, it was a pleasure and an honor to met Speaker Newt Gingrich face-to-face today. I was proud to stand with him.
The folks at the Innocent Bystanders blog have been providing a wonderful service by tracking the current unemployment rate and comparing it to what Obama and his advisors predicted would happen - with and without the impact of their stimulus bill.
To those of us who study political economy, however, these results are not surprising since government spending programs take money from useful, high-return private investments and transfer it into low yield, wasteful government expenditures. To see how, FDR's New Deal programs actually lengthened and worsened the Great Depression, see Burton Folson, Jr.'s book, New Deal or Raw Deal: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America (2008).
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
I'm noticing that Democrats are howling mad that folks are starting to see President Obama as a second Hitler. Above, I've posted a video that illustrates the issues. These videos are pretty common on YouTube. Most of the one's I've seen feature Hitler complaining about a video game or a pop star. Here's a link to a NYT The Caucus Blog that discusses the controversy: http://bit.ly/57mx6
To the Democrats, the Obama as Hitler meme is an outrageous charge. What they are missing is the way that Hitler was loved by the German people, the way Hitler was eager to control private sector businesses, and the fact that the NAZI abbreviation actually stood for the National Socialist German Worker's Party. Hitler wanted his own Olympic Games to celebrate his regime too.
Reviewing Democrat outrage, it seems to me that they think independents and conservatives do not understand that Hitler's government killed six million Jews during the Holocaust. Liberals seem to attack this comparison without fully appreciating the honest fear of big government and Obama that fuels this comparison. I do not think they completely understand how much damage Obama has already done to our economy with his stimulus package or the considerable danger of moving the U.S. toward a single-payer socialized medical system.
I have been the victim of Democrat ideology - due to affirmative action - so I know how Democrat ideals create real pain and suffering for innocent people. The fact that so many Democrats seem completely blind to the hurt and damage they do makes comparisons with Hitler surprisingly appropriate and healthy for our nation’s future.
Here’s my take away, when large numbers of people are comparing you to Hitler, it’s time to slow down and ask what are you doing to create this sort of extremely negative feedback…
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
In other news, it looks like our inexperienced new President has made another bad mistake. He was looking to make the Olympic games into some sort of heroic celebration of his tenure as President and the IOC sort of choked on the idea.
I watched some tape of Obama's pitch to the IOC and it was a lame attack on the U.S. and a pathetic request for them to sign-off on Obama's partisan ideology. As far as I can tell, the Obama administration invested a lot more time and energy into this mission than they are letting on. It was a terrible mistake. It is all the worst because it follows in the wake of Obama's failure to sell his health care proposals to the American people.
Update - May 2013: Although Obama has been re-elected, I still think it is important to remind people that he has been among some of our worst Presidents in terms of the damage he has done to the economy and the job market. As I have indicated in the past, the young Obama was an all out Marxist socialist extremist when I met him in 1980.
Ironically, new research by David Maraniss confirms that young Obama was in the San Francisco area at exactly the time when I first indicated that I confronted his naive faith in a coming Communist revolution. For my confrontation with David Maraniss, please check out this article at American Thinker.
Here is the Youtube video of me and Maraniss together at Occidental College. According to Maraniss, he did not know that my story was out there until after he published his book. This is obviously crazy. My take on young Obama appeared in about four other books before Maraniss published his book on Obama.
I think Obama's ties to Bill Ayers and Alice Palmer demonstrate that he never really abandoned his socialist point of view. At the very least, Obama has never explained his conversion story. I have a conversion story. Where is Obama's? Meanwhile, I am surprised that there has been so little attention devoted to the fact that the young Obama acted like a white guy while he was at Occidental College. To read my take on young Obama's cultural identity, please check out my new article, White Like Me.
Also, for more information on what it was like for me to be a conservative teaching at a liberal college, please see the following articles.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist. He applies his skills as a grant writing consultant in the Southern Calfornia area. His website is at the following link: http://drdrewguaranteedgrants.com/about-us/
I thought it might be interesting to see what foundations have been giving money to ACORN in 2008. Here's a chart which shows the name of the foundation, the ACORN recipient, the date of the grant, and the amount of the grant. It seems to me that we ought to be asking some of these foundations what, if any, changes they will be making in response to the videos created by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles. Just click to enlarge the image below:
As I was loading up this data I listened again to the sting operation they conducted at the ACORN office in Baltimore, MD. I had forgotten that ACORN employees signed off on his plan to use prostitution to raise money for his congressional campaign.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
I thought it was a good idea to simplify my life and start posting under my real name. Part of the reason is that the world seems to be waking up to the reality of the Obama administration, and President Obama's own commitment to Marxist socialist thought.
Under these circumstances, it does not make sense to continue anything that makes my communications more difficult than they need to be. For a while, of course, I was sort of proud to be part of an American tradition of anonymous posting which dates back to the days of the American revolution. Accordingly, I'm a little sad to put the anonimity of Augustine 25 behind me. It's the end of a very short era. :)
I'm reminded of the story of how a top banker met with Napoleon and was pleased when he learned that Napoleon did not want to take away any of the deposed King's deposits. Napoleon made a clear distinction between business and politics. When the King returned to power, he put no pressure on the banker to confiscate Napoleon's wealth. In this spirit, I'll find fresh new ways to keep business separate from politics.
For those who do not know me, here's my official bio:
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is known in the Southern California area as an award-winning author, teacher, and speaker. Combining his market research skills with fundraising expertise, John has helped turn around some of the Southland’s most famous charities including the Museum of Latin American Art, the Friends of the Cerritos Center for the Performing Arts, Opera Pacific, the Los Angeles Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Walking Shield American Indian Society. John has taught at Cornell University, Hope International University, University of Oregon, and Williams College in Massachusetts. He and his wife Patricia have lived in Laguna Niguel, California since 2003.
As pundits like Maureen Dowd speculate about whether or not opposition to Obama's health care reform plan is motivated by racism, I find myself much more concerned about a scene on television where a black adult harms a young white person. Specifically, I'm thinking about how Kayne West treated the 19 year-old Taylor Swift when she received a Video Music Award (VMA).
As far as I'm concerned, Kayne West emotionally abused and attacked that poor girl by spoiling a once-in-a-lifetime moment of victory that was supposed to be hers alone. In West's twisted ideological point of view...his behavior was justified by his own "hurt" according to his statement later of the Jay Leno Show.
Sadly, the ideology of the Democrat party opens the door to the dehumanization and mistreatment of young white people. The assertion that honest criticism of Obama is racist simply feeds into the dysfunctional ideology which facilitates attacks on the most vulnerable members of the white population - weak, defenseless young people - as a way of articulating the larger "hurt" caused by racist social structures.
Part of the reason for the mistreatment of young people like Taylor Swift is that liberal ideology teaches us that all white people are racists and that our social system is stacked in favor of white children. Folks like Kanye West are not properly labeled as "abusers" simply because their actions are seen with in the revolutionary context of "hurt" blacks fighting systemic white oppression.
I define racism as hatred of another race. By this definition, black people can be considered racists when they fall into this behavior. Sadly, racism - by my definition - appears to be quite active in the news today.
I also spent time watching the video of the young white teen being attacked by four black teens on YouTube earlier this morning. I've been watching a little BET too. I also reviewed the most recent FBI crime statistics to verify that black on white crime is far higher than white on black crime. In my view, the vilification of the white community in liberal ideology is a major contributing factor to black on white crime...and to the tolerance of affirmative action programs - including programs similar to those which are now illegal in CA.
One of the patterns I'm noticing is an alarming tendency for leaders in the black community to minimize the pain and suffering of the victims of black on black and black on white crime...and to treat black criminal behavior as a normal and acceptable rite of passage for a young black man. There is also virtually no appreciation for the damage that affirmative action does to young white people.
The problem with this cultural meme is that it promotes a profound lack of empathy for other people, the sort of lack of empathy that Kanye West showed toward 19-year-old Taylor Swift.
I think that one of the keys for creating a better and more prosperous world is for those of us who have empathy for others to speak out and fight harder against the people who set poor examples for America's youth. Paying more attention to the victims of juvenile crime might be an important place to start. It is also important to define racism in a way that makes sense and calls attention to the fact that people of all races can be, and are, true racists...the sort of racists who are abusive and dangerous to other people.
In my own life, I've been face-to-face with the insensitive people who thought it was a smart idea to harm me and my career simply because I was Armenian-American and not the member of a politically powerful racial/ethnic category. I even had people who told me to my face that the way I was mistreated by affirmative action was good for me because it taught me how it felt to be the victim of discrimination. I've been told to just "shut up" and get over the mistreatment I experienced in the mid-1990s...even though the way I was treated is now illegal in the state of California.
Unfortunately, we live in a sick world where the villains in the Harry Potter movies are blonds and vicious attacks on real people are tolerated...simply because the white victims are seen as deserving their mistreatment and fate. As far as I'm concerned, those who suggest that opposition to Obama's policies is rooted in white racism are partners in Kayne West's abuse of Taylor Swift. Like him, they are guilty of stepping on kittens and they deserve to be boycotted and shunned... In a larger sense, however, we have a solemn responsibility to address the vicious ideology which facilitates the abuse of others for the achievement of so-called "lofty" goals.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
I only met Sen. Ted Kennedy once...at a parade in North Adams, MA. I was recruited to run as a Republican assembly candidate in 1988 and one of my jobs was to walk in the parade and wave to all the registered Democrats lining the parade route. I felt so uncomfortable with the idea that one of my brothers sent me a bullet proof vest to wear during the festivities.
I tried it on...but it looked so boxy under my suit that I decided it was better to die of a gun shot wound than to look like I was wearing a cardboard T-shirt.
Herded into the parade starting area, I was surprised to find myself introduced to Sen. Ted Kennedy who - like me - was waiting to march in the parade. I immediately noticed that his eyes seemed to sparkle as if the departed President John Kennedy was looking at me. It was eerie. This face-to-face meeting helped me understand the unreasonable affection that voters in MA seemed to have for Sen. Ted Kennedy.
The second thing I remember is that his bullet proof vest was a lot smoother and rounder looking than the one I had left behind in my Williamstown apartment. It was apparent to me that wealth and power had its privileges...include the ability to protect yourself while still looking cool to the general public.
Although Sen. Kennedy took out time to greet me and exchange pleasantries, this superficial wholesomeness was not enough for me to forget or forgive his past. Even today, I see Sen. Kennedy's legacy in the burnt out buildings of Detroit...the crumbling gang-infested inner-city neighborhoods of Los Angeles...and in the shattered lives of everyone harmed by high unemployment and racial preferences for minorities.
Like his sad personal life, Sen. Kennedy's policies did great damage to our nation, even as he received the praises of those who, momentarily, thought they benefited from his ideas.
Sen Kennedy left a profound amount of wreckage in terms of the people harmed by his life including his ex-wife, his children, and - of course - his most famous victim - Mary Jo Kopechne (July 26, 1940 – July 18, 1969). Of course, I didn't mention Ms. Kopechne during that face-to-face meeting with Sen. Kennedy. For that tiny moment, I was part of the general lethargy of the living, too constrained by social niceties to vent my true feelings - that Sen. Kennedy should have been a felon and not a U.S. Senator.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
I trust Rasmussen Reports because they look at likely voters, the registered voters most likely to actually make a difference by turning out for elections. Moreover, Rasmussen has demonstrated an uncanny degree of accuracy in predicting the exact results of Presidential elections. Accordingly, I think Barack Obama and his administration have just gotten the clearest possible warning from the American people that the administration is going in the wrong direction.
For example, in today's Rasmussen survey, Obama reached the lowest point of his presidency - an overwhelmingly negative -14 on Rasmussen's "approval index." Rasmussen constructs this approval index by subtracting the 27 percent who now "strongly approve" of Obama's performance from the 41 percent who "strongly disapprove."
I think these negative approval numbers are a little unfair to President Obama since they include people who disagree with Obama on policy issues and others who agree with the President and are upset that he is not winning the battle on health care or other prized liberal issues. In a larger sense, however, low approval numbers undermine a President's credibility and political influence. These numbers indicate that it will be easier for Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans to claim that the President is making mistakes and that they should not follow his direction - particularly when he leads us towards his beloved Marxist socialist utopia.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
It’s kind of fun to watch the Democrat party self-destruct over its insistence on sticking us with a public option, an option that would pave the way to single payer. The good news for the vast majority of us who vehemently oppose single-payer is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now trailing a top Republican challenger by 11 points according to a new poll.
The Mason-Dixon Polling and Research survey of 400 registered voters shows GOP candidate Danny Tarkanian leading Reid by 49 percent to 38 percent in Nevada.
Sen. Reid, of course, has been among the most vocal in stressing that he would push through single-payer no matter how little support it had in the Senate among Republicans…even if it means violating long-held Senate norms and procedures. I sincerely hope his friends in the Senate realize that this ruthless politician is in a precarious position.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
Rasmussen Reports indicate that Obama's health care reform program is still dropping in the polls. This, of course, is one of the reasons he wanted to push it through before the August recess. Rasmussen also indicates that opposition to single-payer medical care (socialized medicine) - which Obama supported quite publicly in the past - runs at 57% to 32%. To me, the larger question is why does Obama keep pushing a project that is so unpopular with the American people? This can't do anything but undermine his influence and reduce his power overall.
Part of the answer, according to Rasmussen, is that Democrats strongly approve of single-payer. Democrats support single-payer at the rate of 62%. In contrast, Republicans reject single-payer at a rate of 87%, while those not affiliated with either party reject single payer by a 63-22% margin. The lesson here, I think, is that single-payer is a terrific "wedge" issue.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
The posters show Obama made up like the Joker in the movie the Dark Knight. This is particularly creepy to me because I remember that Heath Ledger died of a drug overdose and that Obama has been a hard drinker and smoker nearly his whole life.
Also, like the Joker, Obama wears a mask as a centerist - despite his extreme left-wing ideology. Even now the White House is angry that new videos show that Obama has long believed that some sort of public option would be the gateway to socialized, single payer, health care. This poster is a timely reminder that the real Obama is a frightening guy who would take away our cherished freedoms.
I just read in the NYT that the Obama administration is holding a special review and strategy session this weekend. According to the NYT, a White House aide said 22 officials with Cabinet rank will meet with administration advisers at Blair House this weekend. They will use this time to take stock of what the administration has accomplished and plan for the future.
I've been watching Obama's steeply dropping Presidential approval ratings...so I think I understand why this July 31 - August 1 working weekend is so important. As a management consultant, I know that there is only one real reason for organizational failure - the behavior of the leader at the very top of the organization.
I've had the unique experience of being an award-winning political scientist, a successful management consultant, and an early advisor to the young BHO. In that spirit, I would make the following recommendations to him for turning around his struggling presidency:
1. Quit your substance abuse. You can't perform as President and also damage your brain with alcohol, tobacco or other drugs ATOD.
2. Pick the brains of those who predicted the failure of the stimulus package...these are the economists and social scientists who really understand how a modern economy functions, prospers and produces jobs. (Give Steve Forbes a call.)
3. Remember that the most successful Presidents of the past have done what has helped them stay high in the polls. This is one of the unique blessings of the American political system. If the President is doing well in the polls, then he is usually making wise decisions that benefit the nation.
I don't expect BHO to ever read this post. Nevertheless, this would be my sincere advice based on what I know about him and the larger patterns of U.S. politics.
Augustine 25 is the pseudonym of an award-winning political scientist.
There is plenty of good news in the paper today. Rasmussen Reports, for example, now shows a majority of likely voters disapprove of President Obama's performance. They indicated that 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve, while fifty percent (50%) disapprove.
Rasmussen Reports have a tendency to make Obama look relatively less popular because they are based on a sample of likely voters.
Other firms that are more popular with the mainstream media base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. As Rasmussen indicates: "President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters." The reason? The younger voters who are among the most ardent supporters of Obama are actually less likely to show up and vote in mid-term and later presidential elections.
Augustine 25 is the pseudonym of an award-winning political scientist.
Gov. Palin's experience with the mainstream media and the Democrat party has reminded me, once again, of the sheer hatred liberals have for the white working class population in the U.S. They are quick to attack the folks who are devoted to their families, strengthened by their religious beliefs, and committed to a positive view of U.S. heritage and our role in the world. I'm glad that Gov. Palin is fighting for Joe the Plumber, Frank Ricci, and Sgt. James Crowley - the people most abused by the Democrat party and its sick, dysfunctional ideology.
Augustine 25 is the pseudonym of an award-winning political scientist.
From Obama’s comments, I can see why the AP and Rasmussen show his poll numbers steeply declining despite his appealing personal charm.
First of all, it’s silly to blame the banks for problems that were caused, and most likely solved, by the changes in accounting rules - specifically, the absurd mark-to-market rule.
Second, Obama doesn’t take responsibility for the damage caused to the job market by two years of Democrat party control and six months of the Obama presidency. He really doesn’t explain why his predictions were so off-the-mark concerning the stimulus package, while Limbaugh and others (including me) easily predicted its failure.
Finally, I don’t think Obama is addressing the issue that he would be “forcing” people to buy health insurance if they don’t want it and are okay of living with the danger of managing their own healthcare. As Ann Coulter observed in her column today, socialized medicine is like being forced to "...share a restaurant bill with Michael Moore."
Augustine 25 is the pseudonym of an award-winning political scientist.
I listened to Sotomayor’s abrupt, opinionated, and rude treatment of the lawyer in the Ricci case. This audio recording shows you how “policy is made” by Judge Sotomayor.
In America, we deserve better and more restrained courtroom behavior than what’s illustrated on this audio tape. I can see why even among Second Circuit judges, Sotomayor was considered to stick out like a sore thumb when it came to being a bully.
Being a bully, in my view, is the logical outcome of her ideological stance that she is a “wise Latina” who is entitled to make policy by redefining the common meaning of language to suit her own policy preferences.
Here's the new Augustine 25 logo video. I got inspired to put this together when someone said they just now realized the dove returning to the ark logo was not some abstract lines and a spark.
Watching the events in Iran this week, I cannot help but think that a quick course in successful revolutions would benefit the freedom-seeking people of Iran.
The most important thing I would stress is that the popular Marxist socialist ideas of the past really aren't relevant to a real revolution. Marx completely underestimated the importance of the power of the state. Successful revolutions occur, in real life, when the existing regime is unable to repress its people because it runs out of ammunition, money, and willing soldiers.
Moreover, what usually tips the balance is outside foreign influence. Without the support of extra-national resources, the existing regime generally manages to temporarily concede enough, temporarily repress enough, and temporarily bluff enough to pull through the crisis. I recommend Theda Skocpol's book, States and Social Revolutionshttp://www.amazon.com/States-Social-Revolutions-Comparative-Analysis/dp/0521294991/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245217542&sr=8-1 which is a comparative analysis of political revolutions in Russia, France, and China. This book provides readers with insight on the reality, and not the emotional fantasy, of revolution.
The main point I'm trying to make is that Chairman Mao's ideas are probably more valuable than ideas like wearing green or having everyone show up at the same time, some place on a map. As Mao wrote: "A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous." Right now, I think most U.S. official observers are betting on the success of Ahmadinejad because they don't think the people in Iran have the willingness to take their revolution up to the level it would need to be to truly succeed. This cold realism, in part, is responsible for Obama's lackluster support of freedom fighters in Iran. For more details on the militaristic reality of modern day Iran, please see an excellent little article by Danielle Pletka and Ali Alfoneh at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/opinion/17pletka.html?ref=opinion.
Nevertheless, based on Skocpol's theories, what would need to happen to make the "Green" revolution in Iran successful?
1. Focus efforts on undermining the financial stability of Ahmadinejad's police and military powers. In a crisis, there is no better friend than ready cash. Thus, one of the secrets for success in overthrowing a corrupt regime is to drain it of the cash it needs to survive. Financial isolation of Ahmadinejad and his allies is extremely important. This means that anything which disrupts his ability to pay the police or the military is a great idea right now. Freezing bank accounts, slowing down financial services, cutting off foreign investment...all of this will have more impact than anything designed to emotionally "rally" the people.
2. Accept that outside assistance should be welcomed, not shunned, and open the gateways to international assistance. Under the old Marxist model, outside intervention was unnecessary...even counter-productive. The reality of revolution, however, is that it is extremely difficult to overthrow a corrupt regime without outside support. The Shah of Iran's family would probably still be in power if it had not been for the influence of U.S. President Jimmy Carter. Outside intervention is essential because a revolution is not usually winnable if it is a "fair" fight that only involves domestic vs. domestic forces. Even the U.S. was dependent on France during our revolutionary war. This means that the opposition to Ahmadinejad and his allies should look for outside cash and other resources to assist them at this crucial moment.
4. Beware of new faces. In moments of crisis, your best friends are your oldest and dearest friends. You know their strengths and weaknesses and you know the extent of their loyalty. The greatest danger for those seeking to overthrow a corrupt regime comes from their "new" friends. Although many of these new friends are decent and honest people, they are also more likely to be spies sent in to undermine your small and developing organization.
5. Trust your own perception and understanding. One of the great advantages of revolutionaries is that they see things fresh and trust their own judgment. This is actually a force multiplier for the freedom fighters because "trusting yourself" speeds up the decision-making process and activates the full use of your mind to take advantage of small moments, brief opportunities, and scarce resources that can make all the difference.
There are more and more ideas and insights I could offer, but sometimes - in emergency situations - it's best to keep things simple. Nevertheless, I'll close by saying that with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan all weakened by their own internal problems...this is an ideal time for a revolt in Iran along the lines articulated by anti-Ahmadinejad forces. My comments above are meant to represent the best distillation of my understanding of politics and social science. Personally, I'm convinced that the long-term prosperity of the whole region will be dependent on the full compulsory education of both men and women, the end of child labor, and the intelligent efforts of all of us - inside and outside of Iran - to adjust to a modern world were religions are judged by their unintended consequences....not their carefully planned promises.
One of the ways Americans divide themselves up is according to which side they root for in foreign wars and insurrections. In the case of Iran, I think it would be wise for everyone who opposes the Democrats to line up on the side of the freedom fighters supporting Mir Hussein Moussavi. As far as I can tell, the conflict surrounding Moussavi is not going away. Apparently, more than 100 opposition members have been detained and Moussavi reportedly “remained at home Sunday with the police closely monitoring his movements.” Even worse, the Obama administration has decided to line up with Iran's most senior cleric, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who called the election a great success and “has once again approved its result.”
Obama appears to be following the typical appeasement strategy which hopelessly believes that doing nothing wins us international support when, in truth, it signals a weakness that allows folks like Moussavi to get ground up by Iranian military and government elites.
I think the smarter option is for us to start wearing green, to use our modest Twitter and social networking tools to support the Iranian opposition, and to encourage those who would put greater military pressure on Iran. It is silly to think that revolutions occur when the public reaches an emotional boiling point. The reality is that revolutions only succeed when governments fail to repress them with military force. Accordingly, the more distractions we can provide for the Iranian military, the more we can expect to see public emotions turn into a beneficial change of regime. Also, I think it is unrealistic to think that axis of evil type governments change only through internal stress.
All in all, I think this is an important time to send a strong message to the protestors in Iran that we support their efforts and will do whatever we can to help them achieve their freedom. We can encourage them by pointing out that they are on the side of justice and winning history. Iran will be a silly, weak, and backward place as long as it abuses gays, women and children with an outmoded religious/political ideology. The starting point for the U.S. is that Obama should stand up and support a second election with international monitors. As a political scientist, I know the polls cannot be that far off - even in Iran.
I ran across a great article and graphic from Power Line which shows how the Obama stimulus plan is already failing to perform as advertised. The dark blue line shows where Obama predicted unemployment numbers would be with the assistance of the stimulus plan. The light blue line was his prediction of what would happen in the absence of the stimulus plan.
The reality of our present situation is indicated by the magenta dots that show actual unemployment numbers. It looks to me like the curve is going straight up. If so, I think this will be further evidence that after two years of Democrat control of Congress employers are terrified of adding new workers to their payrolls.
President Obama's job approval rate now equals his job disapproval rate for the first time in his Presidential term. What is the cause of this uptick in disappointment with the new President? My guess is that higher disapproval ratings are tied to negative news stories about the Obama administration. Negative stories have been associated with his desire to close Gitmo and bring terrorists to U.S. territory, with Judge Sotomayor's questionable statements regarding the superiority of the "wise Latina," and bad news about the GM bankruptcy. Traditionally, however, a key factor in personal judgments about Presidential approval is the voter's view of the economy. Here, increased unemployment rates are probably most highly correlated with Obama's declining job approval numbers.
As one of the nation's more visible victims of affirmative action, I've experienced a lot of good, old-fashion indignation as I read up on Judge Sotomayor and her decision in the Ricci v. New Haven case, the case where she allowed reverse discrimination to run free. I was especially saddened to read that Obama got a nice positive bump in the polls when he announced her nomination. Nevertheless, it takes time for the public to pay attention to even the worst forms of injustice.
Thankfully, Obama's bump in the polls has now faded away as people learn the reality of Sotomayor's unpredictable, self-indulgent judicial philosophy.
For example, Rasmussen Polls show 41% now favor her confirmation while 36% are opposed. This is in dramatic contrast with the situation a week ago when those numbers were 45% and 29% respectively. What was positioned by the Obama administration as a slam-dunk nomination now appears to be less and less popular with the people who matter the most - the voters.
In terms of promoting affirmative action, Obama and his liberal allies are on the wrong side of history and contemporary public opinion. Quinnipiac University, for example, released new polling data showing that affirmative action is a losing issue for Democrats. The Quinnipiac poll shows Americans reject affirmative action policies based on race by a 55% to 36% margin. This result, of course, is consistent with electoral results including the rejection of affirmative action by voters in both California and Nebraska.
Likewise, the respondents reported that they disagreed with Sotomayor's ruling in Ricci v. New Haven by 71% to 19%.
Most important, the Quinnipiac poll - a random sample of 3,000 voters - shows divisions within the Democrat party base on this issue. Only a plurality of black voters support affirmative action in government hiring, while a majority of Hispanics oppose it. By taking a principled stand against Judge Sotomayor's racist comments and her position on affirmative action, Republicans have an opportunity to win back majority support and take a stand on behalf of all the teachers, police officers, and firefighters who are harmed by affirmative action on a daily basis.
As I understand it, Speaker Gingrich sort of set off a conservative response to the nomination of Sotomayor by pointing out the racism in her comments regarding the physiological roots of "wise Latina" superiority. What's interesting to me is that he started this movement with his Twitter account.
In a slightly similar way, the Sotomayor nomination has been an unusual opportunity for me to test the usefulness of both Twitter and various social networks as channels for influencing political events. In my case, I feel a special anger over the Sotomayor nomination since I'm one of the folks who spent 10 years living in poverty preparing for an academic career only to be told at the end of the process…”oops, you’re White.”
So far, I've been using my blog, my Twitter account, and various social networking sites...including goptechsummit...to tell a story that is sort of worse than even what Frank Ricci experienced with the City of New Haven, CT. In my case, for example, Sotomayor (and both Obamas) were among those who harmed guys like me by providing preferential treatment to minorities in the education field. (As a poor Armenian-American, no one seemed to care that I grew up poor of that I was the first on my mother’s side of the family to even graduate from college. Instead, the wealthy children of other races would be advantaged over me for political reasons.)
Right now, Augustine 25 - my political pseudonym - has about 15,500 followers who are receiving automated messages regarding the Sotomayor nomination, links to one of her outrageous articles, and links to my other blog sites. The questionable article I'm circulating came to me through a connection on Twitter.
Twitter, of course, is a sloppy and imprecise tool right now. Many of these "followers" are folks running porn sites, get-rich-quick scams, and marijuana legalization campaigns. Still, my aim is to develop and test a network of like-minded people.
In the process, my strategy has been to follow as many people as I can and to make my views crystal clear even when I thought I would lose followers. My aim is to have a network of like-minded people who will have access to the best possible information regarding key issues in the conservative movement.
I'm startled to see Augustine 25 is in the top 50 list for Top Conservatives on Twitter. Personally, I feel grateful to have an opportunity to connect with others in a manner free of the interference of the MSM.
Apparently, Judge Sotomayor's wisdom does not yet include a basic understanding of the value of compound interest. Sotomayor's recent financial disclosure statement for 2008 tells us she would be one of the least wealthy people on the Supreme Court.
Part of the problem is that she does not seem to be too good at managing her $180,000 per year salary. The disclosure report indicated she only had between $15,000 and as much as $65,000 in her savings and checking account, and - most surprising - that she had no other investments.
Instead of socking away money in intelligent investments, she has got four separate credit cards - each with a balance of less than $15,000. Who knows how much money she owes to the Chinese...
Judge Sotomayor's faith in her superior judgment, however, is not based on any quantitative measurement of her skill as an investor. In my view, her faith in the superiority of a "wise Latina" comes from her investement in the ideology of the Latina "empowerment" movement. This movement teaches that Latinas have special gifts because of their roots in both Native American and traditional Catholic culture. For example, see Ana Nogales' book Latina Power! Using 7 Strengths You Already Have to Create the Success You Deserve.
In this philosophy, Latinas enjoy a special power because of their willingness to combine Native American practices (like herbs, magic and faith healing) with traditional Catholic virtues like loyalty to the priest and the traditional family.
Although this movement was meant to counter negative messages about Latin American culture, it can - at times - border on a promotion of the superiority of Latinas compared to other people. Sotomayor's understanding of the superiority of the "wise Latina" is stated fairly clearly in the words that preceed her now famous and justly distrubing comments:
"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Frankly, I do not think Sotomayor is joking when she suggests the superiority of the "wise Latina." She means it. Assuming her own Latina superiority, she cannot be criticized for being a bully, or for failing in her marriage, or for not getting the main point of an argument, or for wasting other people's time with trivial details. She cannot even be criticized for being a poor steward of her own financial resources. Whatever she does is perfectly all right - in her own mind - because she is born with the "inherent physiological or cultural differences" that make her superior.
Unfortunately for her, the negative results of her self-righteous philosophy are apparent to the general public in her willingness to make fun of those who think judges should not create policy, in her blindness to the pain and suffering of victims of reverse racism in New Haven, CT, and - predictably enough - in the lack of fruitfulness of her personal finances.
The nomination of Sotomayor brought up some bad memories. As a victim of affirmative action, I can feel the pain of those White and Hispanic firefighters in New Haven, CT who were treated so cruelly by the decisions of Judge Sotomayor in Ricci v. DeStefano.
For whatever reasons, I do not think liberals appreciate how painful it was for me to study to be a political science professor throughout my 20s, only to be told at the end of the process..."oops you're White." In my case, I spent about two years coming in 2nd for various full-time political science teaching jobs before I figured out that I was wasting my time and that academic elites didn't like me simply because I was the wrong sex and wrong color.
That 10 year investment of time is particularly painful to remember because I grew up poor and lived in poverty most of those years. Despite a lack of resources and family support, my academic work was good enough to win public recognition, citations, and publication. However, I was rejected for various jobs - not all jobs, of course - simply because of my ethnicity.
Accordingly, I feel a special sympathy for Frank Ricci and others who have studied hard and overcome various challenges only to become the victims of reverse discrimination. I know liberals like to pretend that the victims of affirmative action just get over it and go away.
In my experience, however, the pain is just as fresh now as it was then... It was cruel of the liberals to have me prepare for and perform exceptionally well in a series of interviews when - all along - the decision was going to be made by racial/gender and not merit reasons. This is a humiliation I really don't want to see anyone else endure...
Consequently, I think both Sotomayor and Obama underestimate the degree to which her nomination is a big mistake for the Obama administration - close to his hasty and flawed decision to close the Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp without a plan.
Part of the problem is that their liberal "the-ends-justify-the-means" ideology makes all the pain and suffering they cause for other people okay in their own minds.
In a larger sense, however, I think that Obama has made another hasty and unwise decision and that he will be surprised by the outrage and anger caused by his nomination of a prominent promoter of racial injustice. I think Obama’s nomination of Sotomayor may be particularly useful in helping swing voters - particularly Asian-American voters - see that Obama is not the centerist he pretended to be when he ran in the general election.
I read through the speeches by Obama and Cheney. It was clear to me that Cheney outperformed Obama, in large measure, because Cheney knows what he is doing...
The first thing I would say is that Cheney was perhaps too modest about the results of the tough on terrorist approach of the Bush administration. Under their approach, Libya flipped to being a peaceful influence in the world and Iran dramatically slowed its progress on nukes. Unfortunately, I think it is sometimes difficult to claim credit for these successes, if only because we do not want to embarrass the folks who bent under U.S. pressure. Nevertheless, it seems silly not to call attention to those who reacted positively to U.S. resolve now that Obama is charting a new, more dangerous course. In this vein, I do not think it is wrong to call attention to the two U.S. female journalists currently being held hostage in North Korea as evidence of Obama's weakness.
Next, Cheney was right to call attention to the persistence of terrorists who attacked U.S. interests prior to 9-11. The fact that we have been quite safe since 9-11 is remarkable evidence that the Bush administration did the right thing and that Cheney is right to suggest: "In the fight against terrorism there is no middle ground, and half measures keep you half-exposed."
Third, Obama's speech was timed to minimize the impact of Cheney's words. Cheney had scheduled the speech well in advance and Obama dropped right on top of it - on purpose - with the aim of lessening Cheney's impact. Obama's effort looks all the more weak and defensive because of the role that Senate Democrats played in slowing down his plans to shut down the Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp by cutting off funding for that effort. This was a huge embarrassment to Obama and he and his staff felt they needed to take public action. Historically, this is similar to LBJ scheduling presidential announcements to undercut Sen. Robert Kennedy's charisma, visibility, and campaign efforts.
Finally, I was very pleased that Cheney used this brief moment of national attention to "leak" the truth about Speaker Pelosi.
“On numerous occasions leading members of Congress, including the current Speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods,” Mr. Cheney said. He also pointed out: “Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs. They support them in private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.” In my view, these comments show that Cheney is still on the job, protecting the United States.
I agree with Chairman Michael Steete that Republicans are at a healthy turning point. Ironically, I trace this favorable development mostly to Obama’s hard work for the creation of the new, international Democrat Socialist party.
Personally, I say he’s a socialist and anti-American because of his track record, his associates, and his Marxist ideology. (I knew him when he was a Marxist socialist sophomore at Occidental College in Los Angeles in the 1980s.)
Since the opposition has gone off the deep-end, it is easier now to rally a broad range of folks - conservative, independent, and libertarian - who are terrified that Obama and his friends are willing to lie to turn our country into a pale imitation of the old USSR. It all started when Obama insisted to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to "spread the wealth around."
I think pundits are starting to catch on that President Obama is crashing and burning. This predictable "Obama Fail" can be traced to his limited experience as a chief executive, his non-experience in the business world, and his utter cluelessness on military matters. How else can we explain his inability to push through his political agenda regarding credit card and home mortgage reforms despite his big Democrat majority in Congress?
Given these circumstances, I think Republicans would be wise to think through how they can help swing voters who voted for Obama in 2008 feel comfortable voting against Obama in 2012.
The problem, in my view, is some voters will be afraid to vote against Obama because they feel it sends a negative message that an African-American cannot be a successful President. In addition, they may be embarrassed to admit that they were wrong about Obama's character, ideology, and inexperience. Here are my initial ideas for helping them feel okay with a one-term Obama administration.
First, I think the most gentle approach would be to erase the stigma of being a one-term President. For example, we can suggest there is no shame in being a one-term President, or any obvious honor in being a two-term President.
Second, we can help swing voters save face by suggesting - truthfully - that they did not have full knowledge of Obama’s ties to folks like Gov. Blagojevich or Sen. Burris or Rev. Wright when they made their initial choice. After all, Obama's campaign team and the liberal media did a great job of covering up his flaws. For example, they covered up his difficulty in speaking without the help of a teleprompter. They pretended that Obama's links to Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, and members of the U.S. Communist party would not impact his policy leadership.
Third, we can also suggest that Obama deserves to be replaced because he did not live up to his own campaign promises regarding setting high standards. Who knew that he would fight so hard to have a tax cheat like Sen. Tom Daschle on is staff, or that he would prove to be so spinless in hiring lobbyists?
Finally, the best argument - in my view - is to say that we have a new anti-socialist Republican party which has arisen in reaction to his extreme and dangerous policy preferences. These preferences have been revealed to the public now that he has been forced to finally start making decisions. Ultimately, swing voters need to make a decision that Obama's not-so-secret-any-more Marxist socialist ideology isn't working and that they strongly reject the leadership of the new, international, Democrat Socialist party.
The wealthy, of course, have a lot of financial cushions to protect themselves from irresponsible decisions. The rest of us, however, need to be careful and cautious if we are going to thrive and leave some wealth behind for our children and grandchildren. In my view, neither "redistribution" or "trickle down" is going to reduce poverty caused by bad decisions among poor and middle class individuals.
If Republicans are going to regain power, they are going to need to do it by pursuing ideas that are realistic, will pay-off, and which Democrats cannot afford to endorse because it harms their political base. Accordingly, the issue of school choice is ideal for Republicans because the public schools are a disaster and Democrats cannot embrace real reform because of their ties to the teacher unions. Just because McCain lost doesn't mean that he was wrong to suggest school choice was the Civil Rights issue of our century.
Another hot idea is to fight any attempts to rollback welfare reform and efforts to encourage single motherhood. Ann Coulter has some great stuff in her new book, Guilty, that documents the damage done by single mothers. Attacking single motherhood makes the case that our economic prosperity will advance through changes in behavior at the personal level. Our heros ought to be married couples that adopt, couples that stay together for the sake of the children, and folks that repair their marriages as they become clean and sober. Whenever, Obama tries to lean on the single motherhood issue...he gets blow-back from Rev. Jackson...who fathered an out-of-wedlock child with his mistress.
Finally, I'm 100% against any effort to blame the U.S. for poverty in developing nations. These countries tolerate child labor and don't enforce compulsory schoolng. We can dump all the money we want on them, but we won't see any change in prosperity until they clean up their own behavior. Stopping child labor is one of the keys to becoming a civilized society...we should insist on this now as a precondition for any aid we provide overseas.
Obama had far less of a honeymoon period for his Presidency than might have been expected given his large majorities and high popularity. The reason for this, in my view, was his lack of skill. One of the things that people forget is that politics is a skill, just like anything else in life. It takes practice and effort. Obama, due to his inexperience, is now facing some key challenges that crimp his political power.
For example, his lack of experience in legislating cost him early when his efforts failed so publicly in the area of bipartisanship. The explanation that makes the most sense to me is that he trusted the House leadership to draft a fair stimulus package, but they took advantage of his inexperience and harmed his image in the process. One consequence of this “bone-headed” mistake was a startling 100% united opposition to his efforts among Republicans and fractures in his own party as moderate Blue Dog Democrats split off from Obama’s coalition.
His inexperience also harmed him through a string of terrible high-level appointments. The worst one, in my view, was his effort to jam through Sen. Daschle, a fellow who would have had great power in Obama’s administration because of all the former Sen. Daschle staff on hand. I think this was a major victory for conservatives, because Daschle would have been a powerful player in pushing through socialized healthcare.
Visually, the great symbol of Obama’s inexperience was his surprising dependence on the use of teleprompter technology. This dependence cost him both credibility and respect. Even worse, he was ridiculed for his use of the teleprompter at precisely the time in his Presidency when he needed an illusion of smarts, mastery and professionalism.
I guess, for full disclosure, I should point out that I got in on the teleprompter feeding frenzy myself with this little video.
Unfortunately for Obama, the American people had an opportunity to see the “real” Barack Obama quite early in his Presidency when Obama went on the Jay Leno show. In a brief unscripted moment, Obama revealed that - without the help of the teleprompter - he’s the sort of fellow who would make fun of Special Olympics kids.
Obama, for his part, apparently knew the teleprompter was signaling his inexperience and inability to speak eloquently off-the-cuff. However, he made matters worse when he substituted a big screen television for the teleprompter at his second press conference.
Given Obama’s life-long commitment to Marxist socialist thought, I’m breathing a sigh of relief that his honeymoon period has been complicated by his own missteps. His administration would be a lot more frightening if – like FDR or LBJ - he was experienced enough to know what he’s doing. Neither of those political geniuses would have squandered their first 100 days.
Acknowledgements - The Anonymous Political Scientist gratefully acknowledges the following people for helping edit and proofread this post: http://twitter.com/culturalofferin
Back in March 2009, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida, revealed that for the last year, she had battled breast cancer. What surprised me, as a student of politics, was her ability to keep this information secret. Apparently, Rep. Wasserman had seven major surgeries, including a double mastectomy and removal of her ovaries with out this information leaking out the the general public. Only in March of this year did she reveal her decisions to have such cancer-prone areas removed because of a genetic predisposition.
Rep. Wasserman, in her early 40s, said she didn’t release the news for a few reasons. “I really wanted to make sure that I could protect my children; they were 8 and 4.”
This story caught my attention because I know charismatic leaders have a powerful incentive to hide the bad news about their health. Reagan, for example, was quite hurt after he took a bullet…but he looked all cheerful and robust peaking out of his hospital window.
As a political scientist, I think I'm sort of offended by Wasserman’s suggestion that she kept her personal health a secret to protect her children.
I think this is largely a lie spoken to deceive the gullible. I’ve seen her on television and she’s pretty cold and ruthless with others. She’s very focused on her talking points. She also strikes me as an extremely angry person. Besides, at those ages, I don’t think the kids would really understand.
Based on what I know of other political leaders, I think it is safe to say that she kept her health problems a secret for primarily political reasons. Quite simply, news about her poor health would harm her fundraising and campaign activities. Some of her supporters, I imagine, would even suggest that she quit politics and devote herself to private matters. Given the severity of her health issues, I’m sure other healthier and younger candidates in her area would be a better investment for the time and resources of her political party. I know this may sound insenitive to those new to politics, but I’m certain that this is the calculation she was making herself…
The larger issue, for me, is media collusion with this secret-keeping. In the case of Sen. John Edwards, I think the media knew about his affair (his wife certainly did) but they kept it quiet because they did not want to interfere with a Democrat running for President…or to interfere with the impact of Edwards’ endorsement of Obama.
The main point I would like to make…for the journalists who read this…is that not disclosing a politician’s health strengthens their political power. Keeping health issues a secret is not a value-neutral decision…it directly impacts the leader’s influence and longevity in politics. It is a secret that impacts the sub-leaders competing for power, sub-leaders who are always part of the charismatic leader’s decision-making.
At any rate, I’m here because I feel I have a temporary mission to share what I know about politics and economics…at a time when I believe our nation is in grave danger. The more people understand about how charismatic leaders create winning images for themselves...the safer we will be.
Here’s my advice to our new President. When the Chinese communists think your economic policies are moving us in the wrong direction, I think is time to set aside those vodka martinis and started listening to conservatives, especially those conservatives who understand that most of our current economic problems can be traced to two years of complete Democratic Party control of Congress.
This evening, my wife and I watched the presidential press conference. We were shouting and cheering for the media representatives willing to ask Barack Obama the toughest possible questions. All in all, 64 days into Barack Obama's presidency, I'm starting to feel more comfortable that he will not be able to implement the dangerous Marxist socialist ideas he holds close to his heart.
The collapse of his own party’s attractiveness in the polls is a welcome indication to me that we will not see “cap-and-trade” or even socialized medicine on his watch. What's responsible for this pleasant turn of events? A big part of the success must be the unification of Republicans who have finally woken up to his extremist ideology. (I know my wife and I are eagerly looking forward to participating in our first tea party event in Santa Ana, California on April 15, 2009.)
Next, Obama made big errors in trying to arrogantly jam through his poor quality appointments including tax-cheat Sen. Daschle.
Also, Obama has broken a large number of his campaign promises to the American people. Consequently, Republicans and independents are starting to see him as a typical Chicago politician, the sort of fellow who looked the other way at the corruption of Tony Rezko.
I guess I sort of share the pessimism expressed by the Chinese communists. Watching Obama's press conference this evening, I think he looks like he is in over his head. He just doesn't have command of the details and knowledge needed to make sensible decisions about the direction of our country. I'm glad he was elected by a democratic process, I'm just sad that the process did not give us a candidate equal to our current challenges.
Declining Presidential approval ratings are as predictable as the falling tides. Historically speaking, no President is immune from buyer's remorse.
A recent poll by the Pew Research Center - released March 16, 2009 - put Obama's approval at 59% compared to 64% last month. The Pew poll found that a growing number of Americans see him as listening more to the liberals than to the moderates in the Democratic Party. Elsewhere, I saw Gallup has determined that the major factor in these lower poll numbers has been a decline in support among Republicans, from 41% to 26%.
To a certain extent, this is simply a normal occurance. It is impossible for newly elected Presidents to maintain their initial popularity. As they make decisions they will disappoint people. As they endure in office, the allure of their earlier promises turns into the grim realization that they have not been able to produce the changes they promised. This is why the first 100 days are so critical to understanding the success or failure of a President. After the first 100 days, it will become increasingly difficult for President Obama to get much accomplished from his perspective.
Luckily for Republicans, Obama's administration appears to be headed into the ditch already, in part, because he will insist on giving more bailouts to AIG. This looks like a bad idea to most of us, since AIG gave out $165 million in bonuses even though the company received more than $170 billion in federal rescue money.
Given Obama's political inexperience and lack of management skills, his declining popularity should do more damage to his overall power and influence than would normally be expected at this point in a President's term of office.
I've been taking some pride in the intellectual influence of the Tea Party Movement. I feel like I was sort of on the ground floor of it myself when I posted my first blog "Visualizing a One Term Obama Administration" at www.resistnet.com back on January 19, 2009.
