Archive for the ‘Domestic Affairs’ Category

« Older Entries

Why Do Conservatives Push Climategate?

February 21, 2010

On any given day, if one is browsing through the current discussion on global warming, the topic of “Climategate” will often come up. Climategate alleges that climate scientists exaggerated the data to support global warming as part of their hidden agenda to push the theory.

Climategate will almost invariably be mentioned by a conservative commentator, seeking to attack the scientific consensus behind global warming. Conservative backing of Climategate is just another part of a long-standing pattern; for years, some conservatives have sought to deny the existence of global warming.

The point of this post is not to discuss the validity of Climategate. Scientists are not the all-seeing Gods society often labels them; they are humans too and prone to human errors. That does not mean that their conclusions are incorrect (notice how the controversial data always seems to be “exaggerated” but still actually backs global warming).

The puzzle, rather, is why some conservatives do this. There doesn’t seem to be a point to it, simply put. Conservative philosophy is not inherently anti-global warming; being a Republican does not necessarily mean one must believe global warming doesn’t exist.

This is different from other, more understandable stands a conservative might take. If a scientific study came out whose conclusions supported the pro-choice movement (e.g. fetuses don’t actually feel pain until they’re born, or something like that), it would make sense for conservatives to question the study. Being pro-life constitutes a fundamental part of conservative ideology; it goes with “traditional values” and “family.” Similarly, if a hypothetical study found that tax cuts are ineffective, one would also expect conservatives to attack it. This is because cutting taxes constitutes part of the conservative philosophy, which emphasizes smaller government and individualism.

In contrast, denying global warming does not have anything to do with what conservatives stand for. Unlike abortion or taxes, global warming is not an issue to be fought over but a coming challenge to be faced.

Moreover, there exists a conservative solution to the challenge. This is called cap-and-trade, which uses the power of the market to solve a fundamental problem. Conservatives are supposed to like this stuff; free markets constitute the bread-and-butter of their philosophy. Conservative President George H.W. Bush implemented a cap-and-trade program which essentially solved the problem of acid rain. In contrast, a liberal solution to global warming (one which many liberal institutions theoretically favor) would be a carbon tax, which uses government to solve the problem.

The problem, of course, is that that radical socialist Barack HUSSEIN Obama also supports cap-and-trade. As with so many issues facing the nation today, the stances of conservatives seem purely based upon being against what liberals favor (even if they favor conservative ideas such as cap-and-trade).

Now, to be fair, liberals also have a job to do. Too often their arguments have been made with the wrong tone: the type of arrogant, “I-am-better-than-you” style which does nothing more than harden stances on both sides. The scientific community is not exempt from this critique (if anything, it is even more guilty of claiming intellectual superiority over the rest of us mortals). When liberals label those who disbelieve global warming “idiots,” that does not convince conservatives that global warming is real.

Indeed, both sides must mature their stances with respect to the problem of global warming. Liberals ought to address conservative grievances with respect, not arrogant high-handedness. Conservatives ought to realize that questioning the existence of global warming has nothing to do with being a conservative and stop pushing nonsensical theories like “Climategate”.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Environment | 2 Comments »

Terrible News for Democrats

February 17, 2010

Democrats ought to be quite worried about recent events, which will greatly help Republican efforts to retake the Senate. They forebode something quite ominous for the November 2010 mid-term elections.

I am talking, of course, of the February 5th unemployment report, in which unemployment declined from 10.0% to 9.7% (sorry politics buffs, this post is not about Senator Evan Bayh).

On the surface this sounds like good news; any decline in unemployment is good for the economy as a whole. Good economic news correlates directly to Democratic performance in November. If unemployment continued to decline substantially until November, then Democrats would be in pretty good shape.

Unfortunately for both the country and Democrats, the White House forecast is nowhere near as optimistic. It predicts unemployment to remain in the double-digits throughout 2010. By 2012, when President Barack Obama faces re-election, the unemployment rate is still projected to be around 8% (see page seven of the report for specific numbers).

Figures like these almost guarantee massive Democratic losses in 2010. No amount of political posturing or campaign rhetoric can change this reality. Moreover, if the White House forecast holds true for 2012, Mr. Obama will face a very tough re-election campaign.

Unless a sudden unanticipated economic boom begins tomorrow, the short-term future for Democrats remains bleak. The medium term looks stormy too. Time for a new jobs bill, and quick.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in 2010 Congressional Elections, Economy | Leave a Comment »

Before Obama Signs the Health Care Bill…

December 26, 2009

Dear Mr. President:

Congratulations – two days ago the Senate passed a comprehensive health care bill, achieving a long-sought liberal initiative regarding a system that badly needs reform. Unless something extremely unexpected occurs, it will soon be on your desk, for you to sign into law or veto.

I highly doubt that you will ever read this post and the advice it offers, and I’m fairly sure you’ve made your mind up to sign the bill a long time ago. Nevertheless, I will deign to offer you some thoughts.

Before signing health care reform into law, I urge you to carefully review the bill one final time – to consider the immense consequences of this action. Take a long hard look at the proposal: Will the market exchanges really work? Will the bill really succeed in bending the cost curve? Health care reform will impact the nation on a vast scale, affecting millions of citizens and the financial health of the United States. It may constitute the defining issue of the Obama presidency.

A number of critiques have been raised with the law, from both left and right. Some probably lack intellectual seriousness – “death panels killing granny,” for instance. Others, however, constitute legitimate concerns which many Americans share. Republicans have raised the issue of the deficit; this bill utilizes ten years of revenue to pay for its first five years of spending. That cannot last forever. Some intellectuals also worry about the bill’s similarities to the recent Massachusetts health care endeavor, which has run into significant difficulties.

There is one consideration, however, which should not enter your mind for even one second – but Beltway politics is obsessed with at the moment. I am speaking, of course, of the 2010 congressional elections. The Washington consensus proclaims that a failed bill will doom Democrats to a repeat of the 1994 Republican landslide. Yet signing the bill to do better in next year’s congressional elections constitutes a terrible idea. Say the worst happens – Democrats lose the House in November. That is a small price to pay for the nation’s continued well-being, if vetoing the bill will achieve this. In two years nobody will remember the results anyways. Who remembers Republican congressional losses in 1862 under President Abraham Lincoln, or those in 1982 under President Ronald Reagan? The 1994 elections hurt President Bill Clinton so badly that…he cruised to re-election, ended his term with approval ratings in the mid-60s, and today carries a legacy as an effective leader who presided over an economic boom.

In reading this letter, one may be under the impression that I am against the bill in its current form. Certainly the bill is far from perfect; personally I would have preferred far, far more cost-cutting measures. Nevertheless, I do think the reforms represent at least some improvement over the status quo; politics, if nothing else, is the art of compromise and this reform is much better than nothing. I support the bill with strong reservations.

But I am not the president of the United States; that title and the power with it belongs to you, along with the choice to sign or veto health care reform. I hope that before signing the bill, you take a long hard look at whether it will really work – and when you do sign it, that you do so not for political reasons (such as next year’s congressional elections), but for the country’s welfare.

Best of luck, and God bless,

–Inoljt

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Health Care | Leave a Comment »

The Real Reason Behind Increased Global Warming Skepticism

December 16, 2009

As the Copenhagen conference rolls on, American concern for global warming appears to have reached a nadir. Poll after poll indicates that Americans are more skeptical of global warming; meanwhile the Senate cap and trade bill appears to be going nowhere fast. As with so many other liberal issues nowadays, the news is grim.

Most pundits attribute this skepticism to partisan politics. The theory goes something like this: with partisan bickering at an all-time high, Republicans are tending to reflexively oppose any Democratic proposal, and vice versa. Because preventing climate change has become associated with liberals, Republican voters are now automatically treading against it. This Times article exemplifies the strain of thought; it is titled “Rising Partisanship Sharply Erodes U.S. Public’s Belief in Global Warming.”

On the surface, there is a certain credence to this claim. Most would agree that partisanship is “rising.” Belief in global warming is also undeniably falling. Add consistent conservative disbelief of global warming, and everything links together.

There is only one problem with this theory: it is not true.

In fact, increased skepticism over global warming is not confined to the United States – as would be the case under the “Republicans v. Democrats” explanation. In Australia, for example, an October Lowy Poll indicated that only 56% considered tackling climate change a “very important issue” – a 19% drop from two years ago. More globally, an online Nielsen poll revealed concern about climate change falling in 37 out of 45 countries, compared to October 2007.

There is only one thing has affected the entire world since October 2007: global economic recession.

As the picture above shows, it is this shift which holds responsibility for climate change skepticism – not partisan bickering in the United States or leaked e-mails of scientific lapses. (Also note the graph’s previous decline, which took place in the midst of the technology bust.) When people’s pocketbooks suffer, the environment automatically lessens in priority. The immediate disaster takes precedence over the disaster that will come in fifty years. Or, if one is a climate skeptic, it may never come.

To give conservatives credit for increased global warming skepticism, therefore, would be akin (warning: bad sports analogy incoming) to claiming Pau Gasol single handedly brought the Lakers last year’s championship ring.  It is to miss the elephant in the room: the economy, stupid.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Economy, Environment | Leave a Comment »

Looking Forward to the Debate on Financial Reform

December 11, 2009

Today the House passed a far-reaching bill to reform the financial industry, a useful and much-needed endeavor.

Out of all the possible things Congress can do, making life tougher for Wall Street probably constitutes a can’t-go wrong effort. One would expect this bill to pass with a soaring bipartisan vote, a pledge of unity that would make everybody – Democrats, Republicans, the president, and the government itself – look good. Who would be against punishing those who initiated the economic crisis?

175 Republicans and 26 conservative Democrats (plus Dennis Kucinich), it turns out.

This opposition is puzzling, to say the least. The reforms, to be fair, probably are not tough enough. A vote against the bill as too weak would constitute a legitimate critique.

The Republicans opposing the bill, however, do not appear to have such grievances. Their complaints, rather, appear to run along two paths.

First, financial reform hurts the banks too much. According to Republicans, “the measure would tighten credit, cost jobs and give the government too much power over private enterprise.” All these constitute consequences of overregulation – “too much power over private enterprise,” for instance, is a common critique of government regulation.

Second, financial reform helps the banks too much. Republicans also complain that “the creation of a new $150 billion fund to dissolve failing businesses would mean a continuation of the bailouts.” Representative Scott Garrett notes, for instance, that “continuing a situation where you have bailouts, continuing a situation where you hurt jobs and expand the authority of government entities…is not the way to do it.”

That in one breathe Mr. Garrett can criticize financial reform as too strong and too weak hints that Republican concerns are not truly philosophical in content. It appears, rather, that Representative Eric Cantor and the Republican caucus made a conscious decision to oppose financial reform, in order to weaken the leader of this country and win congressional elections. They then sought a reason – any reason – to criticize the regulations.  If Democrats took out the “$150 billion fund” (a good, practical idea) Republicans would merely latch onto another aspect of the bill to criticize. Not a single one would change his or her vote.

It constitutes the same strategy Mr. Cantor used with the stimulus; when the president offered a bill with 37% in tax cuts, Mr. Cantor and the Republicans said that a $288 billion tax cut wasn’t good enough. Instead, every single house Republican voted for an alternative package containing almost 100% tax cuts – a proposal probably not meant to be taken seriously.

In the following months, as financial reform becomes a top priority of the administration, Democrats and Republicans will open a debate into the merits of financial reform. Republicans will oppose the bill, hoping to lower support for this nation’s leader. Democrats will do the opposite.

On the surface, Democrats appear to have the stronger case. Reforming Wall Street constitutes a vital necessity; strengthening federal regulations will help prevent another financial crisis (which came about in part due to inadequate regulation). Doing this, moreover, would be an initiative extremely popular with the public.

But Republicans are extremely good at making implausible criticisms sound logical through sheer repetition (this is what Fox News does every night). They are simply better than Democrats at the spin-game, at appealing to emotion and using populist nonsense. They won against Vice President Al Gore and Senator John Kerry, while hobbling President Bill Clinton’s presidency. They were winning against President Barack Obama, until Wall Street imploded. They did damage to the stimulus, to the cap-and-trade bill (a Republican idea, in fact, adapted by Democrats), and to health care reform.

They may do it again to financial reform. How such a politically popular and necessary reform can get derailed seems quite impossible at first glance. But if anybody can do it, the right-wing machine can. One has to admire it, sometimes.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Economy | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries