Pete Seeger

Pete Seeger died yesterday at 94.   The New York Times did a great article summarizing his very long career.  But I wanted to add this footnote.  I've played bluegrass/old time music on the 5 string banjo since the early 1960s.   Like many of my generation a good part of the reason I started to play was based on several people/groups - the Kingston Trio, Harry Belafonte and most especially Pete Seeger.

Seeger had an instruction book called "How to play a 5 string banjo" which in the original version was quite good.  It had a folkways record that went along with it which had a number of tunes, including "Ode to Joy" that were fun to learn. A few years ago I found a copy of a later version of the book which became a lot more political.   That is too bad because the original was a good way to learn how to play the banjo.   One of the strengths of the manual was its lack of purity.   He taught you a number of styles and the whole point was to learn how to play the instrument not in a particular style.   One of his odd riffs in the book and the record was to suggest that music should come from many sources and should be traded pretty freely.  A lot of his instructional style came from many venues including classical.

Pete Seeger, unlike the other two artists, was never a raging commercial success - although he had more than 100 albums and with the Weavers and the Almanac Singers sold a lot of records.   One of Pete's favorite banjos was a long neck Vega - one of my first banjos was a Vega (although I never liked playing a long neck - which has some extra frets to allow different keys without retuning.   Now one of my favorite instruments  is a Deering Parlor Banjo which has fewer frets.).

Pete Seeger introduced me to a lot of music including a lot of the labor organizing songs which in turn led me to learning a lot about Appalachian music and ultimately to old time string band music.  When my kids were little a lot of their lullabies were coal mining songs - which were often overtly political.   I became more of a frailer than a three finger picker (Scruggs style) as a result of the Appalachian influences.  But  Pete became a jumping off point rather than a constant place to refresh.

My family was pretty musical - my mother had a Master's in Music.  Both parents loved Opera.  I took piano lessons for a short time when I was young.   But I think both my parents thought my attraction to folk music was a bit strange.   I had two aunts in North Carolina who encouraged my interest and even sent me some albums from local groups.

By the time I began to play somewhat professionally (I played in a couple of bands and actually received some fees for it) I had migrated to the work of his brother Mike and the New Lost City Ramblers.   Although a lot of their music certainly included lots of political topics it was less overtly political than Pete's.  Mike died in 2009.   I then went off to a number of other old time musicians including somewhat obscure people like Charlie Poole.

In the 1960s in LA there were two places to hear a lot of folk music - the Ashgrove on Melrose and the UCLA folk festival (ultimately there was also McCabes which had a music shop in Long Beach).  In the 1963 UCLA event I actually played with the Rev. Gary Davis and was photographed for the Saturday Evening Post.   We were jamming between the regularly scheduled concerts and he walked up with his handler (he was blind) and asked if he could play with us.  That was a thrill.  I spent a lot of time at McCabes and the Ashgrove - although I am pretty sure I never heard Pete play at either venue.   McCabes had an odd assortment of musicians including an old Wobblie organizer who taught me a lot of the songs from the IWW song book.

Pete became an icon of the left, including the far left.   As I grew up I became disenchanted with his constant harangues for left of center causes. I also realized that like a lot of the left of the 1940s he never acknowledged that his support for Stalinist causes created a lot of harm in the world.  A lot of the things he espoused for I partially agreed with for example- I thought the Vietnam war was wrong - not because all wars are wrong but because that particular exercise in policy was confused.    I understand that music can often be political but I thought many other musicians were able to separate their politics from their music.

So in the end Pete Seeger was an important influence on me in two ways.  First, he introduced me to some music that has become a deep part of me.   But second, I parted from his politics - a lot of what he talked about between songs - turned me off.

Justice revealed

On our way back from San Miguel we got to the Leon airport early and as these things happen we faced a flight delay; the plane that was supposed to take us back to Houston had mechanical troubles and had to turn back.   United began calling me (because I was in their highest category of fliers for the last 20 years - called 1K) with updates.    And after about 3 hours they offered us a spot on a flight that had originally been scheduled for three hours after our original flight - which had been rescheduled to a half an hour later than that flight.

When I originally went through the original check-in I saw a young man who seemed attached to his computer - it was open even while he was standing in line.  Eventually United got a plane there - indeed two and the gate agent came into the waiting area and announced that two flights would be leaving in sequence - our original flight would leave within a half an hour of the scheduled flight which was leaving on time.   The young man started to rant at the gate agent - yelling all sorts of things including that he had "taken away a day of my life that I will never get back."   He petulantly declared that he "had to get back to Chicago."  (As if the rest of us did not want to get back home.)

In the wait time we had met a couple of interesting people - a retired pipe fitter whose son and daughter in law were living in Guanajuato and an investment banker whose family had been visiting San Miguel.   All but the jerk understood that it was probably better to fly on a plane without mechanical problems.   We got on to the (now) earlier flight and were seated when we found that the jerk had been given the last seat on the plane.

When we landed in Houston, the jerk got off the plane and my wife said, "I hope you are feeling better."  He ignored her.   We went to the Global Entry line and took the usual 90 seconds to get through customs.   For all of his "sophistication" he went to the regular customs line which had more than 700 people waiting (several flights in addition to ours had disembarked at the same time).

If this guy had any brains he would understand that in air travel things happen.   While airlines try to treat their heavy frequent fliers a bit better - they cannot cater to them exclusively.  But he probably went home thinking he was a tough SOB and only his strong negotiating skills had enabled him to get into Houston a half an hour earlier.

Winston Churchill - Hedgehog or Fox?

When my wife and I take a longish car trip we listen to books on tape.  On this trip we are listening to the Churchill biography the Last Lion - which I read when it came out but I am such an admirer of Churchill that I never cease to enjoy hearing more about him.

He was a master of phrases - when the labor party took over he said that "what had started out as utopia is now queue-topia."   Many of his wartime speeches represent economical use of the language that almost no other politician could master - "We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

But as you go thorough this very thorough book I began to think about Isiah Berlin's famous essay on Hedgehogs and Foxes.   Berlin divided the world into two types of people - people who attempt to define the world through a single lens (Hedgehogs) and those who extrapolate off a wide variety of experiences (Foxes).  

Churchill was clearly a product of his time who viewed the world through a particular lens or set of lenses.   One can pick out elements in his life from fashion, to speech patterns to even great speeches like the Westminster College Iron Curtain speech - where he seemed to be defining the world that most had not recognized.   That would make him a hedgehog.    And yet, as you look at his life's work, especially his stint as a war time Prime Minister - he often seemed to have figured out how to fit the facts to the situation.   In some cases the perception of a single lens was completely off base.  That makes him look a lot like a fox.

So what do you think?

Sophistry ad absurdum

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve went to Princeton to give the Commencement Address and seems to have misunderstood his role.  I've given a number of these addresses and have always taken a fairly modest approach to them. Indeed, I am giving one at a university in Mexico at the end of the month.  I work from three rules.   First, they should be brief.   Graduates and their families are there to celebrate their commencement into a new phase in life not to listen to endless meanderings in erudition.    Second, if possible, they should have a bit of humor.  Third, if you cannot satisfy the second rule, you still need to satisfy the first.

The speech is a series of short explorations (they are even numbered) into a several fields.   One part of his address was remarkably candid, which started  after a short comment on Lily Tomlin and cynicism.   "Honest error in the face of complex and possibly intractable problems is a far more important source of bad results than are bad motives."  One might send him a copy of Hayek's paper on "the knowledge problem" which argues that centralized solutions are doomed to fail because they cannot ever understand the complexity of human perceptions/motivations across the spectrum.   From my experience most players in the political system are motivated by ideology not cynicism but they are also motivated by a sincere belief that their opponents are motivated from ignorance.   Part of the perceived intractability of many problems is the failure to recognize that we often cannot know enough to understand the consequences of our actions and as importantly that our perception of the ability to affect human behavior is far more limited than most in the political system understand.   Adam Smith, in the Theory of Moral Sentiments (what many economists call "his other book"), call the man on the chess board problem.

Where I was bothered by his talk was in his riff climbing on to the "you did not build it" myth.  Admittedly he started out the talk with a nod toward the virtues of striving.   But then he said  “The concept of success leads me to consider so-called meritocracies and their implications. We have been taught that meritocratic institutions and societies are fair. Putting aside the reality that no system, including our own, is really entirely meritocratic, meritocracies may be fairer and more efficient than some alternatives. But fair in an absolute sense? Think about it. A meritocracy is a system in which the people who are the luckiest in their health and genetic endowment; luckiest in terms of family support, encouragement, and, probably, income; luckiest in their educational and career opportunities; and luckiest in so many other ways difficult to enumerate-these are the folks who reap the largest rewards.”   Bernanke does not make an absolute claim on the "you did not build it" riff but in my opinion    Luck always plays a role in life.   But any system which denigrates human effort and ingenuity is designed to fail from the start.   Part of the rationale for establishing equity compensations in a just society is to make some accounting for the role of chance.

Some writers on the left, like the author of Wonkblog, jumped on the "you did not build it" section.  From my view, the speech is worth reading in its entirety (which is why I gave you the link to it above).   But were Bernanke a bit more modest in his expectations for the role of a commencement address - it would have been a much better product.   Come to think of it, his role in making policy at the federal level could have benefited from the same level of modesty.

Government's Role in "Noing Thyself"

I am reading Amity Shlaes excellent new biography of President Coolidge (and will write a full review when I have finished it) but three disparate decisions caught my eye yesterday that would have been of interest to the thirtieth president.    All are evolving stories and so their outcome is unclear, but each would seem to be a validation of Coolidge's propensity to just say no.

The first was Judge Milton Tingling's decision to overturn the New York City Nanny State regulations on sodas.  Mayor Bloomberg claimed that the limit on sodas sold in fast food joints under the silly notion that it would somehow help to control obesity.  The judge saw through that nonsense and declared a regulation that banned only certain kinds of drinks in a limited set of establishments, "arbitrary and capricious."   The NPR story on the decision concludes that lawmakers in Mississippi are hot to trot to pass a ban on bans (prohibiting local entities from enacting Bloomberg type regulatory schemes).  Like many other people who grew up before the extra large drinks were available, I have been surprised at the size of sodas available today.   But the simple answer to not consuming too much soda is to simply not buy it.

The second story is a developing one in Mexico.   Major parts of the Mexican economy have been collared by monopolies, especially in the communications fields.   Monday, Mexico's new President declared that competition in telephones and television might unleash some very positive competition.   I will confess that when I have been to Mexico over the last two decades that I am confused and annoyed at the way Mexican phone service works.   In the last few trips things have started to be simplified but the much of the current system is outdated.   The new Federal Communications Institute may be a step in the right direction.   One friend from Mexico wrote me this morning and quipped "No mas vacas sagradas?(No more sacred cows?)"  If Peña Nieto succeeds it will be a big step.

The third story is about the North Central Association of Schools and Colleges' new accrediting standards.   North Central adopted a new standard in their accrediting guidelines which states that “The institution’s educational responsibilities take primacy over other purposes, such as generating financial returns for investors, contributing to a related or parent organization or supporting external interests.”   Inside Higher Education commented that the new rule(s) were aimed at the for profit institutions and indeed a first implementation resulted in proposed probation for the University of Phoenix.   Part of the growth of proprietary institutions over the last several decades comes from a vague notion in federal law called "ability to benefit" - which was aimed at assuring a wide range of students opportunity to education after high school.   

Each of these issues relates to thinking about the proper role of government in our lives, from Shlaes biography which Coolidge was thoughtful practitioner.   In the first, if we want to control obesity is there a better way to do it than creating "arbitrary and capricious" regulations?   In the second, mercantilist grants of power from government do not serve the consumer nor the society - and Peña Nieto's new Institute has the possibility of doing something right for Mexico's continued robust economic growth.   In the third, a non-governmental entity, despite a wide opportunity created by government policy, is re-establishing a notion that should be paramount that education has some public goods aspects that we should not ignore.  (But public goods are not created exclusively by government.)

Concentric Circles

Moyers and Company is not a show I watch very often - Bill Moyers remains a staunch left of center commentator and I don't find much useful in his stuff.    But this afternoon as I was driving back from a board I worked with on Saturday, I was able to listen to the attached program - called Faith and Politics.   Moyers invited two Catholic activists on the program to discuss their perspectives on the issues in this year's campaign.  They were Sr. Simone Campbell who heads a group called Network, which describes itself as a "Catholic Social Justice Lobby" and Robert Royal who heads something called the Faith and Reason Institute.

On the Institute's home page is the following statement - 
"In his encyclical on Faith and Reason, Pope John Paul II praised the authentic achievements of modern thought, but pointed to a difficult contemporary problem: “reason, rather than voicing the human orientation towards truth, has wilted under the weight of so much knowledge and little by little has lost its capacity to lift its gaze to the heights…. has preferred to accentuate the ways in which this capacity is limited and conditioned.”  His lament reflects the condition of all advanced societies: an abundance of wealth and practical means coexists with an extreme poverty of purpose and vision.

In his Farewell Address, George Washington made a similar observation: “Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”  For Washington, national morality was also the “spring of popular government.”  American liberty was thus closely allied with faith. Reason and experience affirmed that truth."

They discussed two concepts that are important in Catholic theology - subsidiarity and solidarity.   Sr. Simone has an odd understanding of subsidiarity - from her perspective government is first and foremost the provider of welfare in society.    Thus, from her perspective there is no harm in jumping the minimum wage to $12 per hour (or even $20 at one point).   She seems to be a clone for the Obama arguments about the budget.   Equity only comes from government.

Subsidiarity is, according to the OED a concept that aruges that "a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level."   The word authority is chosen carefully,  notice it does not say a central "government."    Sr. Simone also suggested in her discussion that solidarity applies (which ultimately means a compassion for everyone in society, especially the poor).   Unfortunately, Sr. Simone seems ignorant of the purpose of the movement that gave "solidarity" prominence.   It was about throwing off the yoke of government, in that case communist oppression.

Conceptually, I have always thought of government as a subset of civil society.   We decide to delegate some things to government but the larger controlling instrument in society is not government but civil society.   While this may seem like a small point, it is ultimately a very large one.   Part of my own thinking has been heavily influenced by Catholic teaching about subsidiarity - but part of it has also been influenced by an understanding of the ideas presented in the Federalist - which is about as close to a business plan for our system of government as one can find.   If government creates civil society, then government can abolish it.  And that certainly is not the idea that the founders of the nation offered.

I am not a big fan of the term "social" justice because it has at its base an odd understanding of the term justice.   Social Justice, for those who use the term, cannot be actuated without governmental involvement.  Where is the role for civil institutions - for example, the church, in assuring justice?  And can the church operate without relying on government to arbitrate justice?

Sr. Simone sees the language in Matthew 2:21 is only one sided - "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" - her logic would be that there is no necessary rendering to other places such at God because Caesar takes care of all that.  What twaddle.  But Sr. Simone is convinced that she is correct.  So she is not at all bothered by the rapid increase in the number of food stamp recipients in the last four years, nor or the continuing unemployment problems in the economy.  What does it matter unless the rich truly pay their fair share.   When it is pointed out that the top 10% pay a disproportionate share of their income to taxes and to the support of government - she discerns that is still not enough.   

Robert Royal was more balanced. He understands a difference between civil society and governmental society.   He also made several strong points about the risks of trusting too much in government.  One of the distinguishing marks of American society that has been observed as far back as DeTocqueville - was the American use of civil institutions to solve social problems.   Sr. Simone does not see the inherent perils attached to thinking government is the first avenue for solving societal problems.  When you start with that assumption, important issues like both clauses of the First Amendment become secondary.

The false balance of "false balance"

A few years ago, I began to hear a phrase mostly raised by the left, called "false balance."   On first glance it is an alluring concept.  The argument is made that for some issues, where the facts are known that it would be odd to offer equal coverage to a side which does not have the facts on their side.   For example, if we could find a proponent of 2+2=5, it would be silly to offer them equal time in discussion concepts in addition in a math textbook.   All that has some logic.  

That is until you begin to deal with an issue raised first by Thomas Kuhn in his book called the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.   Kuhn argued that many "facts" build upon each other until someone begins to challenge the conventional orthodoxy.   Think for a moment about living in the time of Galileo.   The "facts" when he first started to deal with whether the Earth was the center or simply part of a universe - were all on one side.  Using the logic of "false balance" the media of the time would simply dismiss his thinking as wrong.   There should be no coverage of this wild idea that the Earth is not at the center of the universe - the science is clear.   Kuhn makes the argument that ultimately progress in science, and indeed in other fields, comes from the outliers.  There is already an almost natural balance on coverage for issues where there is pretty common understanding.  So this extra argument for preventing false balance is unnecessary.

There are two issues where this discussion has been used frequently - Climate Change and Evolution.   Both represent complex theories where a large portion of the scientific community have come down on one side of the issue.   But there are enough anomalies in the data and enough alternative ways to look at the issue - that we should not accept calls to close down alternative points of view.   Does that make me a Creationist?   No, of course not, although many writers on evolution argue that to even express doubts about Darwin is to propose heresy.   Climate Change discussion are even more unsettled.   From a nonscientists perspective, a lot of the discussion seems to be based on a model which one part of the scientific community has bought into but which other parts still continue to want to raise doubts.

There is a second issue here.  As often happens with the left, the idea then gets extended to issues, where while there is a preponderance of opinion or judgment on one side.  As you think about the concept the sillier it becomes.   The President has used this argument frequently.  One column suggests that Obama "has talked about the concept of “false balance” — that reporters should not give equal weight to both sides of an argument when one side is factually incorrect. He frequently cites the coverage of health care and the stimulus package as examples, according to aides familiar with the meetings."   The President is trying to dismiss legitimate criticism of policies.   In the case of both the healthcare and stimulus decision - there is plenty of evidence that the alternative approaches may have yielded better results.   Unfortunately, often what happens is a linkage between the yammering about "false balance" and then a demand to accept only one set of solutions (always involving more government) to solve the problem.   As Bjorn Lomborg has repeatedly pointed out you can buy into ideas like the potential effect of human actions on climate without buying the lock, stock and barrel of cap and trade.

Ultimately, the argument for resisting "false balance" is a call to accept conventional logic or authority.   I can understand why the left would resort to this type of discussion, but I cannot understand why so many people would fall for it.

Descartes, Woodrow Wilson and America's Future

The Heritage Foundation did a recent retrospective on Woodrow Wilson claiming he was  the first of the progressives/liberals.  Wilson is an interesting figure.  His scholarly work had two characteristics.  First, beginning with Congressional Government (1885) - he was one of the first practicing political scientists. He did what political scientists do today - that is to collect research and analyze it.   Second, throughout his work, he expresses skepticism about whether the Founder's notions were current (then or now).  For example he argues "The legal processes of constitutional change are so slow and cumbersome that we have been constrained to adopt a serviceable framework of fictions which enable us easily to preserve the forms without laboriously obeying the spirit of the Constitution, which will stretch as the nation grows."   Wilson was a product of his time and a good deal of his writing, as well as his political efforts, was based on a strong commitment to Descartesian thinking which argues that logic can conquer almost anything.   Even thinkers on the right believe in logic, but most also recognize that there are inherent human traits that may not be changeable.  The founders argued that a strong constitutional system would make provision for those issues as in "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." (Federalist #51)  Wilson would reject those precautions.

About 20 years ago Vincent Ostrom started a controversy in Public Administration about who the appropriate forefathers were in the field.  Professor Ostrom argued that Madison not Weber should be the founding father of the field.  Weber was much more in the Wilsonian tradition or Wilson was in the Weberian tradition.   I think a lot of the dissents around that book's thesis (one  professor wrote a series of scathing attacks on the thesis in the Public Administration Review - to which Ostrom responded in kind) came back to the same confidence that Wilson exhibited in his writing.   It was a simple standard - "you cannot turn back the clock" and its close corollary "the Constitution is a living document."   The folly of the first is that time is not continuous.   The folly of the second, is that if you carry that idea to its logical conclusion then there is no need for a Constitution or as one conservative wag commented "some would like to have the Constitution written in pencil."

On August 7, John Kessler, a professor at Claremont McKenna College in Los Angeles did a piece called the Crisis of Liberalism which argues that if Obama loses the liberal side of the electorate will be moved to reasses and probably recofigure itself.  Kessler writes "Beyond its bureaucratic shortcomings, however, looms a deeper problem with liberalism's understanding of human nature and the purposes of government, which led it to presume to lead and administer a free society and concoct rights to health care, housing, and a job in the first place. Heightening the contradictions could soon produce a kind of revolution all right, but not the one Obama believes in and anticipates."

I am not sure I would go as far as Kessler but believe that if Obama loses, we might well see the redeployment of the Blue Dog democrats.   The American polity is horrible divided at this point and yet there seems to be an emerging consensus that neither party has recognized.   On the one hand most Americans are skeptical of the ability of government to solve all problems.   They are concerned about bureaucratic and regulatory excess.   On the other, most Americans would extend that principle to personal choices.   On both sets of issues - economic and social - they believe in a limited form of government - much less expansive than their counterparts in Europe or for that matter much less than the line of thinkers that began with Wilson.   Whichever group can put together a coherent vision of those combined notions will have a winning majority in elections for a long time.

The Fascist Rahm Emmanuel

There is a lot of chatter about the Mayor of Chicago (and a couple of other wannabe proto Nazis) has argued that he will try to prevent the Fast Food Chain Chick-fil-A from locating in Chicago because the founder of the chain has commented that he is opposed to changing the definition of marriage.   I have never asked a fast food vendor about their views on marriage or for that matter catsup.   What I want when I visit a fast food place is food.


Emmanuel comes from a long line of proto-fascists.  Those that would deny Walmart a chance to build a big box store in their locale because they disagree with the ability of the chain to offer consumers large discounts are in the same tradition.


In the 2008 election I wrote a post on this blog opposing the Proposition on the ballot which would have limited the ability of the state of California to change the definition of marriage.   With that history one might expect that I would be supportive of this storm-trooper.  But that is not the case.


The role of the state in regulating commercial enterprises should be quite limited.  A city should be able to regulate two types of behavior for commercial activity.  They should be able to have some direction, according to community standards, about where particular types of businesses should be able to locate.   For example, California prohibits liquor stores from being located near public schools.   At the same time they should have some authority to assure consumers that what is being served meets some reasonable standards of cleanliness.


But Emmanuel's pronouncements argue that if a company does not meet what he defines as "community standards" then they should be dumped from consideration.   From my view that is classic Fascism - for those of you that do not remember the definition - here is the one from Wikipedia.  (With the exception of nationalism, it seems to fit the mayor to his brown shirt.


"radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology.^[1][2] Fascists seek elevation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry and culture through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline,indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics."


The simple answer for Mr. Emmanuel is if some, or even many Chicagoans, don't like the fast food being offered they can chose not to frequent the restaurant.

Visions of the Economy

Several decades ago, Leonard Reed developed a brochure called I, Pencil - which made the point that as a result of the marvelous coordination in free markets - no one is responsible for creating a pencil but everyone benefits from all those different steps.  I recently found the updated version of the piece called I, Smartphone.

The piece takes on more importance because of a couple of recent speeches that the President gave; for example  in Roanoke he commented "Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen..."

In another he claimed the private sector is doing "fine."  In that speech he argued "Keep in mind that the private sector has been hiring at a solid pace over the last 27 months. But one of the biggest weaknesses has been state and local governments, which have laid off 450,000 Americans. These are teachers and cops and firefighters. Congress should pass a bill putting them back to work right now, giving help to the states so that those layoffs are not occurring."   In both speeches two things happened.  First, the GOP pounced on the remarks.   But second the President's defenders pounced to suggest that his remarks were being taken out of context.  (I offered the extended remarks in both cases to show that the import of what he said was correctly interpreted.) 


This line of reasoning is quite consistent with the statements of a number of other left of center pundits and officials who have taken the original notion of Leonard Reed and turned it on its head.   You can hear it from Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren or even in the thoroughly forgettable book that Hillary Clinton wrote called It Takes a Village.


Ultimately if you take the logic to its conclusion, these figures are arguing that government, not individuals create prosperity and we as individuals benefit from the wonderful things that government does for us..  In the first quote, he seems to be arguing that hard work and individual determination are not enough; that individuals only prosper when government does.    In the second he seems to ignore the labor market participation rate, the 8%+ unemployment rate and the meager GDP growth and suggest that our economic doldrums are caused because we are not hiring enough public officials.   He ignores that a lot of those people were hired with the false promises of the original "stimulus" bill.


One of the key concepts when you begin to study economics is "market failure"  - the concept that in some exchange, benefits from markets will not be realized.  In those cases, it is sometimes appropriate to have the government intervene.  (In many cases market failure is corrected by itself - when entrepreneurs step in to force a different result.)   What should concern voters in this election is that the President and his allies seem to ignore that if there is the possibility for market failure there is, as Gordon Tullock once pointed out, an equally strong possibility for government failure.   Ultimately, the strength of the system which Obama and his supporters would like to change is its flexibility.   The market system offers both benefits and risks.   What the President and his supporters fail to grasp is that a lot of us believe that the government directed alternative includes equal or greater risks and lower rewards - that seems like a bad bargain.

Constitutional Theology

In a column on July 4 E.J. Dionne discussed the unique American characteristic to engage in high principled debate.  He states in part "We are a more philosophical people than we give ourselves credit for. Constitutional questions enter the political conversation in the United States more than in most countries because our diverse nation is bound by our founding principles, not by blood, race or ethnicity.
This has advantages and disadvantages. The biggest advantages are our openness and the fact that we tend to argue on the basis of high principles. The biggest disadvantage is that differences over policy are often disguised as differences over whether a preferred choice is constitutional or not. When we should be addressing pragmatic questions — Will this approach work? Will it solve the problem it’s designed to solve? Is this a problem government should do something about? — we instead fall back on rather abstract discussions of whether a given idea violates the Constitution."
He goes on that we should not treat the Founders as theologians not the Constitution as scripture.   While I get his point, I think he misses an essential element of the American system.


The Constitution was made to evolve but it also includes some eternal principles.  The Founders were products of their times but they also understood some ideas like the dangers of having a government that was all encompassing.  They enumerated powers to Congress and then put in that pesky "necessary and proper" clause - but that was not there to rescind the limits on the other powers.    So while I agree with him that pragmatic questions are always appropriate - one of the most pragmatic questions is what will the proposed policy do to the underlying American fabric, that the Founders recognized so well.    That is not theology, it is common sense.

Why the Episcopal Church is in trouble

Yesterday we attended the ordination of our nephew at Grace Cathedral.  I have not been at Grace for a long time and it is a marvelous place.  Our nephew completed seminary and was ordained a deacon yesterday with the expectation that he will become a priest in about six months.   He has a position in Jacksonville, Fla.   As part of the service the President of the Episcopal Foundation gave a homily off the following gospel (according to Mark 8:34-38):

³⁴ And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

³⁵ For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.

³⁶ For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

³⁷ Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

³⁸ Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

As a part of the his homily he argued that being a priest in these "Post-modern (Postmodernism is a range of conceptual frameworks and ideologies that are defined in opposition to those commonly associated with ideologies of modernity and modernist notions of knowledge and science,such as formalism,materialism,metaphysics,positivism, realism,reductionism, and structuralism. ) and "Post-Christian" times is tougher than it once was.  I've always thought the term post-modern to be as Wikipedia defines it - a silly bit of muddled thinking.   Just what is post modern?  Is it antiquated?  Does modernity or change happen in one direction?   And what about being a post Christian?  

What bothered me about the discussion was that besides the sloppy thinking - it clearly had only occasional acquaintance with the passage he was explaining. It is hard to think of a time when Christianity was the dominant force.  Certainly there have been times when parts of the world had a larger share of Christians than they do today.  But fundamentally the notion that living a Christian life has been easier in other times is just plain nonsense.   The challenges that are presented in the passage are both universal and timeless.   Mark's challenge in the passage is that it is hard work to live up to the ideals set by Jesus.   That was true in Christ's time; it was true in the modern period (whenever that was) and it will be true in the future.

AARP v. AMAC

For months now I have been hearing about the Association of Mature American Citizens or AMAC - they say they are the conservative alternative to the AARP.

AARP is a horrible organization.  It is a construct of fantasy that somehow is able to contact every person in the US at age 50 to tell them of all the benefits that it offers to "seniors."   When I turned 50 I wrote the then CEO of AARP and argued that they were a bunch of "greedy bastards" intent on bankrupting the country.   I knew the CEO then and he wrote me back a personal note, complimenting me on my moderation from when I knew him when he worked for Chuck Percy.   But I was not joking.  AARP claims to represent all people over 50 but fundamentally and dogmatically represents only the left of the spectrum.   Want to privatize part of Social Security like Chile and a host of other countries did?  No, that would be wrecking Social Security.   Want to balance the budget?  Not on the "backs of seniors."  The AARP is all of what is wrong with Washington politics.

AMAC was developed as a conservative alternative to AARP.  They present a more conservative approach to issues including support for balancing the budget.  And at the same time they offer a raft of services to seniors similar to the group buying programs of AARP.

But I have chosen not to join.  Were I forced to choose between the looney left of AARP and AMAC, I would, of course choose AMAC.   But I fundamentally disagree with the need to be represented as a senior.   Shouldn't we be trying to reduce the size of government by all reasonable means?  I really do not want my concerns presented to Congress - what I really want is Congress to reduce its intrusions into my life.

Coming Apart

Charles Murray has been a prolific scholar.   I first became acquainted with his thoughts in Losing Ground which looked at the development of welfare policy.  He detailed the debilitating effects of welfare both for society and the individuals who received the payments.   Murray has a keen understanding of the principles that created the American system and the notion that "happiness"  is a lot bigger than material wealth.   Some suggest that his 1984 book eventually led to the welfare reform act twelve years later.

His newest book is about the divergence of wealth in white America between 1960 and 2010.  He compares the one class (who make lots of dough - in a place called "Belmont") to the another (who make very little in a place called "Fishtown").  What he finds is that the first group and the second have a significant divergence of core values and behaviors. And more importantly those values and behaviors have begun to diverge significantly from earlier times.

What Murray refers to as the new upper class might number one and half million people in the country.  They live in special places (only a limited number of zip codes) - in essence they are isolated as the upper class has never been before.    Murray suggests that this class developed as the demand for cognitive ability began to become more valuable.  If you want to see whether you are a member of this elite - Murray has constructed a quiz of issues that the elites might not be familiar with.  (Example who is Jimmie Johnson?)

He then goes on to explain some details which he believes are inherent in the American character - industriousness, honesty, marriage, religiosity.  In each he suggests that these core principles are being eroded in both groups but more significantly in the Fishtown residents.   He suggests that there are three "problematic" categories - Men who are not making a living, single women with children and isolates. (those "disconnected from the matrix of community life.")

After all this data (and the book is filled with data) he argues that there are several possible responses to this problem - if one sees it as a problem.  A social liberal might argue for more redistribution of income. A social conservative would attempt to make a compelling case for policies to re-estabish those lost values.   But Murray thinks that a better way to solve these issues is to go back to a more limited vision of government.   He worries that if our political system evolves into a more European model (with the attendant loss of those elements of character) that we would evolve into a system where we get lots of freedom, except on economic issues.   When government intervenes, personal responsibility and the attached links to community institutions are reduced.

Murray's book has generated a lot of discussion.  Paul Krugman wrote a scathing response that seemed at least to me that he had not bothered to read the book before writing about it.   David Brooks did a pretty fair review of the book although he concludes that the way to solve issues raised by the book  is to create national service program which would require the residents of Fishtown and Belmont to interact, at least for the period of service.  In my mind expecting that we will rebuild the elements of national character that we have lost in recent years by forcing national service is odd.  It certainly did not work that way when we had the military draft.

The Wall Street Journal had a very interesting interview with Murray which gives you a cliff notes version of his thesis.  But like his two earlier major books (Losing Ground and the Bell Curve) the better course is to read the book.   It is bound to make you think.

Ideological Pap or Substance

In an article in the New York Times yesterday titled "What the Right Gets Right" Thomas Edsall responded to an earlier question about what conservatives understand.   He asks in the second paragraph "What insights, principles and analyses does this movement have to offer that liberals and Democrats might want to take into account?"   It is a good question.  Unfortunately, Mr. Edsall seems predisposed to ignore the answers.

He began the article with his interest in an "intriguing and unexpected debate" about the dangers of what Joseph Schumpeter called "creative destruction."  I do not believe that the nattering in the GOP primary about Governor Romney's role at Bain Capital is actually a substantive debate.   It is an example of increasingly desperate candidates like Gingrich trying to bring back the limelight to themselves.  There may be a reason to discuss the long term implications of the changing face of the economy (indeed two recent short E-books do just that - The Great Stagnation (Tyler Cowen) and Race Against the Machine (Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee) - both can be purchased for less than $8.)

Even if the discussions about Bain Capital are indeed substantive, Edsall ignores some very good information.   He had posed the question to conservative think tanks like Heritage - how would conservatives deal with issues like unemployment, government benefits or "losers" in the new economy.  Heritage was diligent enough to send him a set of policy papers which he said "evaded the question and in my view amounted to ideological pap."   Well Mr. Edsall what then would you describe as substance?

Take one issue - unemployment - which you listed first.   The first paper from Heritage was in my opinion, a good discussion of why extending unemployment benefits actually exacerbates the problem of unemployment.   If he had bothered to read the paper instead of reacting to it, he would discover that the heritage people actually argue that the extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks increases unemployment by .5-1.5% and actually increases the duration of unemployment by five to eleven weeks.  The paper even quotes one of President Obama's economists in support of their research.   Had the conservative approach been followed unemployment might actually have been lower today.

Edsall's solution to his problem is to consult with a bunch of intellectuals from the left.  They came up with some characterizations that were interesting but were opinions not " insights, principles and analyses .. that liberals and Democrats might want to take into account?"   Ultimately, the divisions in the American political system would be improved a bit if both sides bothered to read what the other lays down as analysis.  

The Hosanna Tabor Decision

The decision yesterday by the Supreme Court in a major First Amendment case relating to hiring was stunning in several ways.   First, unlike several other SCOTUS decisions this one was unanimous; and it included two concurring opinions - from Justice Thomas and a joint one from Justices Alito and Kagan.

The main decision was written by the Chief Justice and is superbly clear.  Evidently, Constitutional Law is not a required course for EEOC lawyers.   In trying to persecute this small church related school the EEOC had made some outrageous claims.  The facts of the case are simple.   A teacher for a small Lutheran school in Michigan took a leave for a health issue (Narcolepsy).  The school hires two types of teachers - lay teacher and "called" teachers.  The latter were assumed, in addition to their teaching responsibilities to have special training and were required to perform religious functions in the school.  The school expressed a preference for "called" teachers.  While the "called" teachers performed many of the same functions that the lay teachers did - they were clearly different in terms of training and function.   The complainant came back to the school and reported for work, but school officials said they believed she was not ready.  She demanded that the school officials sign a written document that she had reported for work.  One of the tenets of this branch of Lutheranism argued that individuals should solve their disputes without resorting to the courts.  Clearly the complainant did not want to follow that tenet.   After the complainant said she would file an EEOC action the school board fired her.

The opinion makes it clear that both sides of the First Amendment support the school's point of view.  Robert's opinion argues that on the side of the Establishment Clause that the American system is clearly different from the British one.  He argues that at the founding of the Republic that a clear implication was that we rejected the Act of Supremacy - which was adopted when Henry VIII wanted to break from Rome and set himself up as the head of the church in England.  The American story is quite different.  Government is proscribed from involving itself in governance issues.

The opinion repeatedly argues that the Free Exercise Clause gives wide latitude to religious organizations in who they shall choose.  The EEOC had made the specious argument that Hosanna Tabor and the local chapter of the Junior Chamber of Commerce are functionally equivalent and the opinion makes quick work of that bit of twaddle.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the decision is the concurring opinion offered by Justices Alito and Kagan.    They make a strong case that in order to exercise their religious rights religious organizations and associations need to be able to make their own decisions about what constitutes a minister (which the concurrence even argues is not a proper title in many religious organizations).

Some observers have minimized the importance of this decision.  In reality the unanimity and the clarity of the arguments against the expansive views of the EEOC will make this decision an often cited case.

Differences in Perceptions

I had an interesting discussion this morning about the uses of Facebook and of political issues in general.  I lamented that a college roommate who recently discovered Facebook has tended to post opinions like "I had lunch with some friends today and all of them agree with the idea that we should raise taxes."  My friend was a national debate champion so at one point - where he had posted a Mother Jones article which he agreed with - I responded by reading the article and going through it for each chart and posting responses which I think suggested that the justifications used in the article were factually wrong.  He did not respond.  One of my hiking companions suggested that  my friends' response was simply a feeling but not one he wanted to debate or discuss.  

There are a lot of things that bother me about that response (which I believe is accurate with many people). First, public policies should be based on some careful analysis not simply on whether you feel good (or bad) about something.   There are honest disagreements about results and even research but that should not inhibit discussion and debate.  But if a political figure exploits feeling over substance - does the political system benefit?

I raised a real issue - the Ryan plan on Medicare/Medicaid (which was also developed by democratic stalwart Alice Rivlin).  One could argue about whether the proposal would actually solve the problem of the rising costs of Medicare.  One could also argue that more involvement by the government would be a better way to solve the problems.   But the response by most congressional democrats so far has been to simply say "those mean old republicans are trying to take away the safety net."  Without true engagement by both sides the country will continue to fall into an economic abyss which at some point we will not be able to recover from.

Apocalyptic Arrogance

Faith is an important part of my life.   One of the key tenets of my faith revolves around the appropriate role for the unknown.   None of has an idea about when their life will end.   And likewise, none of us an idea about when or if the world will end.

That uncertainty forces individuals to consider that each moment is important.  Faith should not encourage complacency.  At the same time it should encourage some humility.  We have the appearance of being able to control events not the reality.   In my profession, a lot of politicians have a more robust belief in their ability to see for the rest of us.

The stories about a radio preacher who projected with precision the end of the world struck me in two ways.  First, while I am not able to quote scripture at will - I do know that the Bible is pretty clear on whether any human being can use their power of reason to know things like the date of the end of times.  Regardless of whether the scripture about the end of times is an allegory or an actual event - we are told pretty clearly that this is not something we can discern.

Second, I could not figure out whether this preacher was hyping his radio preaching or whether he fell into the pit of arrogance that we often see politicians fall into - I am smarter than the rest of you.   In one sense it did not matter to me.  The result is the same.  What all the hype actually did for me was to reinforce the absolute necessity that we understand the limits of human capacity and then try to work to improve our condition within those limits.

A stunning public conversation

This video from the Heritage Foundation is a real demonstration of the differences in perception and message between the public employee unions and the average taxpayer.   Governor Walker's proposal would make significant changes in the way Wisconsin public employees deal with their employer but it would also set some balance that has not been present in many states for a very long time.  Public employee pensions and benefits are significantly out of the market.  So, indeed, are their salaries.    This is a superb demonstration of how the issue is being formed.

Reading the Constitution

The House of Representatives, as one of the first acts of the current congress read the text of the Constitution into the record this morning.   These kinds of ceremonial events are seen as either a way to set the tone for the session or as a waste of time.  One can figure out who thought what.

But perhaps the most idiotic comment of the day went to Keith Olberman.   I hesitated about whether to credit his absurdity since his dwindling audience makes him even less of a household name than he once was (although MSNBC does confirm that the six people in East Murgatroid, IA still watch him.

Olberman wondered aloud about whether the exercise would include reading of the 3/5 Clause.   In the original Constitution there was a clause which temporarily allowed slaves to be counted as 3/5 of a person in the decennial reapportionment.  Evidently, Mr. Olberman, who often claims to cite constitutional authority for his blatherings, has never bothered to read the document.  In Article V it states "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

I restate that because as a result of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, the 3/5 clause was excised from the Constitution.   When one reads a Constitution into the record presumably they would read a current version.  But evidently Mr. Olberman does not realize that.   He thinks the "living Constitution" (a term coined by Saul Padover) is one where he can interpret the meaning by fiat.  Actually Mr Olberman our Constitution is living because we can amend it; but only using the process in Article V.