THE TIME CRUNCH BEGINS
Any loyal reader of the Empathic Rationalist must know how scrupulous I’ve been over the years in ensuring that there is at least one blog post every week. For the next several weeks, we’re about to test that resolve.
My job is going to require me to be out of town and feverishly busy for the rest of February and much of March. So … I’m warning you now that you should expect very little if anything from this quadrant of cyberspace – at least not until “March Madness” really heats up in earnest.
In that vein, I have only the time today to give you some very cursory thoughts on the events of the week. Here goes:
1. Are you watching closely how the Syrian regime has been behaving? Does that give you a better idea of just how difficult it has been for Israel to make peace with all of its neighbors? That is not to say that all of these neighbors are equally difficult – Jordan, for example, has treated Israel in a much friendlier way over the decades. But the fact remains that what Israel wants is a full peace – not just the kind it obtained with the Camp David accords back during the Carter Administration – and that is no easy task, given the neighborhood.
2. Wasn’t it nice to see the way the Obama Administration handled the great contraceptive controversy? This was clearly an issue that required a compromise, for both sides could point to a strong interest on their side: reproductive freedom versus freedom of religious expression. In situations like that, you look for compromises rather than extreme positions. This is obviously what comes naturally for Obama. He’s a born mediator. Where he falls down is when it comes time to fight for a particular position, since he’s so often pushed around by the other side. In this case, there was no “other side” – just two groups of Americans with legitimate positions.
3. That said, I was personally offended when I was watching Cardinal Wuerl from the District of Columbia appear on the Morning Joe program and try to present the contraceptive controversy as if it were a one-sided issue. The Cardinal was asked his opinion of a proposed compromise in which Catholic hospitals would be directed to give patients a document stating how they can get contraceptive information from other providers. And he had the chutzpah to compare this to asking a school to give children a document on how they can find pornography. Really? This is the top ranking official of the Catholic church in your nation’s capital, and that’s the best analogy he can come up with? Comparing contraception with pornography for children? That’s the worst analogy I’ve heard since Santorum brought up “man/dog” sex in relation to gay sex. What century is this?
4. Speaking of contraception, how insane is it for the major breast cancer charity to take on Planned Parenthood? What millennium is this?
5. You’ve got to love that the new sensation for the New York Knicks played brilliantly in Palo Alto High School but couldn’t get a basketball scholarship so he ended up playing for Harvard … after which he was not drafted by the pros. Why didn’t the schools in the Pac 10 want him? His race (Asian)? His height (a mere 6’ 3”)? The fact that he didn’t carry enough weapons in the locker room, drive drunk, assault women, or generally act like a punk (see, e.g., much of the NBA)? I’ll guess we’re just left to speculate on that one.
6. It’s heart-warming to see Mittens win a caucus again, even if it was in his own backyard (Maine) and by the slimmest of margins. It’s important that he get some love and some votes. After all, from what I can tell, his entire candidacy is about nothing more than the desire to get love and votes. I can’t for the life of me figure out any other reason why he’s running – any agenda, any principles, any vision, any passion ... (See, e.g., the end of the movie “the Candidate,” in which the empty-suit politician played by Robert Redford, after winning the election, asks the proverbial question “Now what do we do?”)
7. Sorry about the Super Bowl prediction. Really, if you want to know which football team to bet on, just ask me before the game, listen to my analysis, and then bet on the other team. You’ll be rich in no time.
8. I can’t believe it took me until now to watch Tarantino’s Death Proof. As flawed as that movie is – and its dialogue is frequently insipid – when it’s good, it’s REALLY good. I haven’t seen a Tarantino movie yet for which I couldn’t make that claim. The guy has serious skills … in addition to his serious perversions. Both are all-too-obvious.
9. Today, I am planning on visiting the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum with a group from the Jewish-Islamic Dialogue Society of Washington. What would this world be like if every Muslim visited a Holocaust museum or Concentration Camp, and every Jew visited a city in the West Bank? How about if I stipulated that they visit them unarmed?
10. If I don’t have much to say over the next few weeks, please enjoy the rest of the “winter” despite the fact that it never seems to get cold. And the next time someone mentions “climate change,” just click your heels a few times, think about Kansas (or some other Red State) and repeat the magic words: “Climate change is a hoax. Climate change is a hoax. Climate change is a hoax.” There, doesn’t that feel better? No? Yeah, it doesn’t make me feel better either. So what do you say we don’t give up the fight; there’s too much at stake.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Saturday, February 04, 2012
REVENGE OF THE NERDS … AND OTHER SHORT STORIES
Every now and then, so many compelling topics arise that I cannot confine my blog post to a single one. So here you go – a few different topics for the price of one.
Allow me to begin with what I call “Revenge of the Nerds,” or perhaps it is better to say “One Nerd’s Vindication.” As a huge fan of the 17th century Dutch-Jewish philosopher Spinoza, I am accustomed to hearing from people how Spinoza’s philosophy is the height of esoterica. One friend compared my interest in Spinoza to having a passion for falconry. He might have just as well said taxidermy, or the study of Klingonese. Curious little pursuits for curious little minds, right?
Well … perhaps not. You may recall that in the summer of 2010, I hyped a play about Spinoza that was showing at Washington’s excellent Jewish playhouse, Theatre J. Here’s the blog post, for those of you who have better things to do than memorize the Empathic Rationalist. http://empathicrationalist.blogspot.com/2010/07/most-underrated-story-ever-told.html
What I didn’t realize when I wrote that post was just how much of a hit the play would be. Now don’t get me wrong, I still don’t expect Hollywood to make it into a film, with Ryan Gosling playing Spinoza. But the fact remains that in the summer of 2010, Theatre J took a play that focused exclusively on Spinoza’s excommunication and sold out one showing after another. Now, as if to drive a stake through the heart of anyone who has ever mocked a nerd for any reason, Theatre J is bringing the play back. That’s right, my fellow bookworms, from February 29, 2012 to April 1, 2012, “New Jerusalem, The Interrogation of Baruch de Spinoza at Talmud Torah Congregation: Amsterdam, July 27, 1656” will be available to Washington DC theatre devotees … and other proud nerds, like me.
I admit there is a bit of irony in having this play begin on Leap Day and end on April Fool’s Day. It suggests that the play is a tribute to the weird and the ridiculous, which is precisely the opposite of what I’m trying to suggest. Now I would concede that Spinoza isn’t for everyone. He’ll never give rise to a popular religion. Hell, he might not even give rise to a viral video. But at least he has become the subject of an entertaining, inspiring and even somewhat popular play. I heard many a non-Spinozist tell me back in the summer of 2010 that they weren’t expecting to like it, but they really did.
So, if you live in or around DC and you missed the chance to see the play in 2010, don’t think twice about it: get your tickets now. And allow me in particular to recommend coming to the theatre on April 1, 2012, which is being hyped as a “Spinozium” -- an all-day event, highlighted by many celebrities. One non-celebrity (myself), will be giving a lecture at noon to introduce Spinoza’s philosophy.
In short, whether you’re a nerd, or one of those “cool people” who always nabbed the girls we liked, if you know the meaning of “esoterica,” “Talmud” or “excommunication,” I’ve got the play for you. Call 202-777-3214 to order tickets.
Next, let’s turn from the mind of a true saint, to the heart of a true politician. I’m referring to a man who has just sewn up the Republican nomination for President, Willard Mitt Romney.
This was supposed to be his coronation week. He won the Florida primary in a rout, and his closest competitor – the guy who was named after an amphibian – seems to have lost either interest or hope in the campaign. So, what does Mittens do to celebrate? He goes on CNN Wednesday morning and belches out the following:
"I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."
I’m not often given the chance to quote Rush Limbaugh with approval, but here’s what old Rush had to say in response to the above comments, and frankly, it’s spot on: “He comes across as the prototypical rich Republican. And it's gonna make it harder and harder and harder and harder to go after Obama because this turns around on him.”
You think? The real problem with what Romney said is not that he expressed his thoughts poorly; it’s that he expressed his feelings well. It has been decades since a President from either Party devoted many of his energies to helping the “very poor.” Presidents take care of the rich, first and foremost, because they give the most money. Secondly, Presidents try to help the middle class, because they provide the most votes. The poor? They can’t do much for Presidents, so why should Presidents do much for them?
Perhaps Romney’s self-disclosure wouldn’t have garnered such exposure if it had not just revealed his lack of empathy, but also the fundamental phoniness of his campaign. His implication that what the poor need the most is a “safety net” thoroughly contradicts the talking points of the far right, which he had been consistently adopting in pandering his way to the nomination. According to the mantra of the GOP, what’s keeping the poor down is the availability of welfare, and once that “safety net” is removed, they’ll be forced to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and seize the opportunity to turn themselves into capitalist success stories … or else. Mitt has been voicing that thought as regularly as a metronome until his gaffe this Wednesday morning. Somehow, an evil Jinn reached into his heart and forced him to tell a national audience what he really thinks: he’s trying to win an election and poor people can’t help him do that. Why is this news? That we finally have an honest politician? Or is it that in order for a politician to be honest, he has to misspeak?
The funny thing about Romney’s gaffe is that there’s no way to spin it so that he can claim to care about the poor. He went on, you see, to double down on the above statement: “I said I’m not concerned about the very poor that have the safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them. The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat Party the plight of the poor. And there’s no question, it’s not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle income Americans. My campaign — you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich, that’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That’s not my focus. My focus is on middle income Americans, retirees living on Social Security, people who can’t find work, folks that have kids getting ready to go to college. These are the people who have been most badly hurt during the Obama years. We have a very ample safety net, and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.”
How much more clearly can he make the point? If elected, he is not going to make the uplift of the poor a major focus of his Presidency. He is specifically differentiating between the needs of the poor and the needs of the middle class, and opting to emphasize the latter over the former – because the needs of the poor are already well taken care of. If that sounds like crazy talk to you, it does to me as well. But apparently, it’s how Willard Mitt Romney, who has been a zillionaire all his life, sees the world. And he now has a good chance of becoming the world’s most powerful person. If that’s not a sad commentary on our current state of affairs, I don’t know what is.
Turning to my next topic, I’m compelled to mention a certain event that will begin at around 6:30 eastern time tomorrow evening and may be witnessed by a billion souls around the world. It’s déjà vu all over again: the Patriots versus the Giants. They played a great Super Bowl game three years ago, and because I have no dog in this fight, I’m hoping above all else for a great, competitive game this year. And I’m expecting one.
The Las Vegas odds makers came out of the chute predicting the Patriots. But since then, all the “experts” have suggested that the Giants will win. Me? I’m duty bound this weekend to go for the Pats, and if you ask why, just consider the title of this blog post. In the Patriots, we have a team led by a coach who attended, not Ohio State, Oklahoma or Florida State, but that other national football power: Wesleyan University. And how has this unimposing graduate of a small liberal arts college led his team to five Super Bowl appearances and three Super Bowl championships in 11 years? Well, OK, he did get caught violating NFL rules by surreptitiously videotaping an opponent; nobody ever said nerds can’t be sleazy. But what was perhaps even more important was that his team drafts not only for speed and strength but intelligence and character. That’s why they always seem to get the most out of their talent level. That’s why their players don’t seem to make the same bonehead plays that so often seem to be decisive in football games.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the pigskin this week, not because of the Super Bowl, but because the college football recruiting season came to a head on Wednesday, and when it was all over, my beloved Stanford Cardinal is said to have had one of the top five or six recruiting classes in the nation. It’s probably their most highly touted recruiting class ever. And I guarantee you that a number of these five-star athletes chose the school not because it had the nation’s best football program but because, of the competitive football programs, Stanford is the one that offers the highest level of academics.
Twenty years ago, Stanford football was barely on the radar screen. Five-star recruits would have laughed at the idea of choosing Palo Alto over Gainesville, Tallahassee, Blacksburg, or Norman. But now, apparently, nerds are hip. You can see it in our choices of theatrical productions. (“Back by popular demand, Spinoza!”) You can see it in our choices of colleges for football players. (“Win one for the physics department!) And tomorrow evening, I suspect you’ll see it in the results of the Super Bowl.
By the way, Patriots Coach Bill Belichick majored in economics while at Wesleyan. Maybe if he wins the Big One and meets up with Mittens on the trail, he can explain that the “very poor” are … what is the word … ah yes -- needy. When it comes to the politicians in our lives, so are we.
And last but not least, I want to wish a happy 19th birthday to one of the people with the biggest hearts I have ever had the pleasure to know. My precious little girl, Rebecca.
Rebecca – whatever you do, stay out of politics.
Every now and then, so many compelling topics arise that I cannot confine my blog post to a single one. So here you go – a few different topics for the price of one.
Allow me to begin with what I call “Revenge of the Nerds,” or perhaps it is better to say “One Nerd’s Vindication.” As a huge fan of the 17th century Dutch-Jewish philosopher Spinoza, I am accustomed to hearing from people how Spinoza’s philosophy is the height of esoterica. One friend compared my interest in Spinoza to having a passion for falconry. He might have just as well said taxidermy, or the study of Klingonese. Curious little pursuits for curious little minds, right?
Well … perhaps not. You may recall that in the summer of 2010, I hyped a play about Spinoza that was showing at Washington’s excellent Jewish playhouse, Theatre J. Here’s the blog post, for those of you who have better things to do than memorize the Empathic Rationalist. http://empathicrationalist.blogspot.com/2010/07/most-underrated-story-ever-told.html
What I didn’t realize when I wrote that post was just how much of a hit the play would be. Now don’t get me wrong, I still don’t expect Hollywood to make it into a film, with Ryan Gosling playing Spinoza. But the fact remains that in the summer of 2010, Theatre J took a play that focused exclusively on Spinoza’s excommunication and sold out one showing after another. Now, as if to drive a stake through the heart of anyone who has ever mocked a nerd for any reason, Theatre J is bringing the play back. That’s right, my fellow bookworms, from February 29, 2012 to April 1, 2012, “New Jerusalem, The Interrogation of Baruch de Spinoza at Talmud Torah Congregation: Amsterdam, July 27, 1656” will be available to Washington DC theatre devotees … and other proud nerds, like me.
I admit there is a bit of irony in having this play begin on Leap Day and end on April Fool’s Day. It suggests that the play is a tribute to the weird and the ridiculous, which is precisely the opposite of what I’m trying to suggest. Now I would concede that Spinoza isn’t for everyone. He’ll never give rise to a popular religion. Hell, he might not even give rise to a viral video. But at least he has become the subject of an entertaining, inspiring and even somewhat popular play. I heard many a non-Spinozist tell me back in the summer of 2010 that they weren’t expecting to like it, but they really did.
So, if you live in or around DC and you missed the chance to see the play in 2010, don’t think twice about it: get your tickets now. And allow me in particular to recommend coming to the theatre on April 1, 2012, which is being hyped as a “Spinozium” -- an all-day event, highlighted by many celebrities. One non-celebrity (myself), will be giving a lecture at noon to introduce Spinoza’s philosophy.
In short, whether you’re a nerd, or one of those “cool people” who always nabbed the girls we liked, if you know the meaning of “esoterica,” “Talmud” or “excommunication,” I’ve got the play for you. Call 202-777-3214 to order tickets.
Next, let’s turn from the mind of a true saint, to the heart of a true politician. I’m referring to a man who has just sewn up the Republican nomination for President, Willard Mitt Romney.
This was supposed to be his coronation week. He won the Florida primary in a rout, and his closest competitor – the guy who was named after an amphibian – seems to have lost either interest or hope in the campaign. So, what does Mittens do to celebrate? He goes on CNN Wednesday morning and belches out the following:
"I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."
I’m not often given the chance to quote Rush Limbaugh with approval, but here’s what old Rush had to say in response to the above comments, and frankly, it’s spot on: “He comes across as the prototypical rich Republican. And it's gonna make it harder and harder and harder and harder to go after Obama because this turns around on him.”
You think? The real problem with what Romney said is not that he expressed his thoughts poorly; it’s that he expressed his feelings well. It has been decades since a President from either Party devoted many of his energies to helping the “very poor.” Presidents take care of the rich, first and foremost, because they give the most money. Secondly, Presidents try to help the middle class, because they provide the most votes. The poor? They can’t do much for Presidents, so why should Presidents do much for them?
Perhaps Romney’s self-disclosure wouldn’t have garnered such exposure if it had not just revealed his lack of empathy, but also the fundamental phoniness of his campaign. His implication that what the poor need the most is a “safety net” thoroughly contradicts the talking points of the far right, which he had been consistently adopting in pandering his way to the nomination. According to the mantra of the GOP, what’s keeping the poor down is the availability of welfare, and once that “safety net” is removed, they’ll be forced to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and seize the opportunity to turn themselves into capitalist success stories … or else. Mitt has been voicing that thought as regularly as a metronome until his gaffe this Wednesday morning. Somehow, an evil Jinn reached into his heart and forced him to tell a national audience what he really thinks: he’s trying to win an election and poor people can’t help him do that. Why is this news? That we finally have an honest politician? Or is it that in order for a politician to be honest, he has to misspeak?
The funny thing about Romney’s gaffe is that there’s no way to spin it so that he can claim to care about the poor. He went on, you see, to double down on the above statement: “I said I’m not concerned about the very poor that have the safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them. The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat Party the plight of the poor. And there’s no question, it’s not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle income Americans. My campaign — you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich, that’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That’s not my focus. My focus is on middle income Americans, retirees living on Social Security, people who can’t find work, folks that have kids getting ready to go to college. These are the people who have been most badly hurt during the Obama years. We have a very ample safety net, and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.”
How much more clearly can he make the point? If elected, he is not going to make the uplift of the poor a major focus of his Presidency. He is specifically differentiating between the needs of the poor and the needs of the middle class, and opting to emphasize the latter over the former – because the needs of the poor are already well taken care of. If that sounds like crazy talk to you, it does to me as well. But apparently, it’s how Willard Mitt Romney, who has been a zillionaire all his life, sees the world. And he now has a good chance of becoming the world’s most powerful person. If that’s not a sad commentary on our current state of affairs, I don’t know what is.
Turning to my next topic, I’m compelled to mention a certain event that will begin at around 6:30 eastern time tomorrow evening and may be witnessed by a billion souls around the world. It’s déjà vu all over again: the Patriots versus the Giants. They played a great Super Bowl game three years ago, and because I have no dog in this fight, I’m hoping above all else for a great, competitive game this year. And I’m expecting one.
The Las Vegas odds makers came out of the chute predicting the Patriots. But since then, all the “experts” have suggested that the Giants will win. Me? I’m duty bound this weekend to go for the Pats, and if you ask why, just consider the title of this blog post. In the Patriots, we have a team led by a coach who attended, not Ohio State, Oklahoma or Florida State, but that other national football power: Wesleyan University. And how has this unimposing graduate of a small liberal arts college led his team to five Super Bowl appearances and three Super Bowl championships in 11 years? Well, OK, he did get caught violating NFL rules by surreptitiously videotaping an opponent; nobody ever said nerds can’t be sleazy. But what was perhaps even more important was that his team drafts not only for speed and strength but intelligence and character. That’s why they always seem to get the most out of their talent level. That’s why their players don’t seem to make the same bonehead plays that so often seem to be decisive in football games.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the pigskin this week, not because of the Super Bowl, but because the college football recruiting season came to a head on Wednesday, and when it was all over, my beloved Stanford Cardinal is said to have had one of the top five or six recruiting classes in the nation. It’s probably their most highly touted recruiting class ever. And I guarantee you that a number of these five-star athletes chose the school not because it had the nation’s best football program but because, of the competitive football programs, Stanford is the one that offers the highest level of academics.
Twenty years ago, Stanford football was barely on the radar screen. Five-star recruits would have laughed at the idea of choosing Palo Alto over Gainesville, Tallahassee, Blacksburg, or Norman. But now, apparently, nerds are hip. You can see it in our choices of theatrical productions. (“Back by popular demand, Spinoza!”) You can see it in our choices of colleges for football players. (“Win one for the physics department!) And tomorrow evening, I suspect you’ll see it in the results of the Super Bowl.
By the way, Patriots Coach Bill Belichick majored in economics while at Wesleyan. Maybe if he wins the Big One and meets up with Mittens on the trail, he can explain that the “very poor” are … what is the word … ah yes -- needy. When it comes to the politicians in our lives, so are we.
And last but not least, I want to wish a happy 19th birthday to one of the people with the biggest hearts I have ever had the pleasure to know. My precious little girl, Rebecca.
Rebecca – whatever you do, stay out of politics.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
AN UNABASHED PLUTOCRAT
I hope you all have been watching the Republican debates. Lord knows I have. I’ve watched them week after week, month after month, despite the incredible redundancy, for the same reason I’ve watched the Godfather movies and various Kubrick movies a zillion times. It’s called developing a taste for twisted humor. There’s no other way to explain how I can spend so much time watching Mitt Romney strut his stuff like the proudest of peacocks without losing my lunch.
In South Carolina, Mitt lost his way because he was afraid – the prospect of releasing his tax returns chilled him to the bone. It was as if he knew he had something to hide. But why? When his returns were released this past Tuesday, it became clear that Mitt was doing everything the system asked of him. And sure enough, his Republican rivals have been rather muted in criticizing Mitt’s tax returns. For a Republican, those returns are practically holy objects. They are the fruits of living the American dream.
Sure, Mitt paid only a 14% tax rate, or well under that paid by workers who make as much in a year as Mitt makes in a one-hour speech. So what? He paid what is required of him under our system, which taxes those who make big bucks through financial speculation at a much lower rate than it taxes the middle class. According to the Republican talking points, there is nothing inappropriate about taking advantage of a low capital gains rate, and every reason to lower that rate so as to encourage investing. They would add that a low capital gains rate is only fair, because the money that is being invested has already been taxed once. How can we justify taxing it twice – especially when this would lower our national investment rate? In the long run, is that really going to help the middle class or the poor?
Or so goes the Republican argument. By the time Barack Obama gets through with him, Mitt Romney will have given that argument a face. And the more that I think about it, his is just the perfect face for the job.
In a twisted sort of way, Mitt is a moral exemplar. His is the classic American success story. Here we have a wonderful family man, deeply committed to his faith, hugely successful in one business venture after another, and highly productive as the Governor of a populous state. Mitt exudes, if not an aura of comfort around other people, at least a high degree of self-adulation. And what’s not to adulate? Mitt is a winner. He knows it, you know it, and if you don’t like him or what he stands for, it must be because of your “envy.” Or so he says.
Deep down, I don’t really have anything against the guy. I remember knowing people like him when I went to Harvard Law School, one of Mitt’s own alma maters. I didn’t generally dislike them – not even the ones who were as aloof as Mitt. They were, after all, upstanding members of the community, people of their word, and altogether sane and rational. (I never had them pegged for being the type who would strap a dog to the roof of their car.) I knew back then that they’d end up making a large multiple of the income that I made when we got out of school, and I never begrudged them their choice of career any more than they’d begrudge me my GS 15. They were making their choice; I was making mine. Envy had nothing to do with the equation. We both could easily have taken the other path. It was totally a matter of choice.
Mitt must understand that liberals don’t support progressive tax policies based on envy but rather because they simply have a different ideology than he does. Not only was he schooled at Harvard – a bastion of progressivism – but he went on to govern the state of Massachusetts, or “Taxachusetts” as it is also known. You can accuse Mitt of many things, but being unfamiliar with progressives is not one of them.
So why, then, would Mitt shrug off his critics by accusing them of envy? Because it was his way of brushing off the discussion about taxes and economic equity. Until recently, he hasn’t been comfortable debating those issues at any length. Rather than engaging his opponents on such a third-rail topic, he wanted to win the nomination in what is known in sports as a “walk over.” Clearly, he was hoping that his superior endorsements and war chest would allow him to simply show up, smile awkwardly at the camera, boast about how damned moral and successful he has been from the minute he has taken his first step on this earth, and watch his opponents simply dry up as soon as their money did the same. Then came a feisty critter known, non-anthropomorphically, as “Newt.” And the next thing you know, Mitt was in a real fight.
Unfortunately, that fight seems poised to end soon. Like many bullies, Newt has a glass jaw. So once Mitt arose from his nightmare in South Carolina and started throwing haymakers to every part of Newt’s head and body, the former Speaker has been asking for a “truce,” rather than throwing anything back. What Newt and Mitt both understand, you see, is that this election will ultimately be about taxes and the Republican Party has no choice but to own our non-progressive system of taxation. And nobody owns it more smugly than Mitt Romney. So given that fact, the GOP might as well select Mitt to be the guy to trade blows with Barack about the roles and responsibilities of the wealthy. Next to such a poster child as Mitt, Newt is as poor and “unsuccessful” as the lowly government workers, whose pay Mitt has announced his desire to slash as soon as he is elected.
I don’t remember in my lifetime a candidate for President who better represented the modern plutocrat than Mitt Romney. He doesn’t exude even a shred of respect for the argument that rich people need to pay more in taxes not only because they are the ones who can best afford to pay, but also because they owe much of their wealth to the working-class or middle-class employees who form the backbone of most businesses. Those principles, for me, are a basic element of fairness. To the modern Republican, however, they are viewed instead as justifications for socialism. The Grand Old Party would give us Americans a choice: virtually unbridled capitalism with a non-progressive tax structure, or Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. In the Republican mind, there is no middle ground – no opportunity to combine private-sector competition with progressive taxation. Romney is holding himself out as the businessman whose noblesse oblige led him to politics but without stripping him of his devotion to Adam Smith’s invisible hand. He will be proud to show that Barack Obama is clueless about the value of the market and all too ready to place trillions of dollars in the uninspired hands of unelected bureaucrats. That’s the Republican game plan.
I don’t know about you, but I’m kind of psyched to see it all play out in the fall. It is high time we had a referendum on whether America should be an unabashed plutocracy. Barack Obama would like to turn this election into such a referendum. And Mitt just might be cocky enough to oblige him.
I hope you all have been watching the Republican debates. Lord knows I have. I’ve watched them week after week, month after month, despite the incredible redundancy, for the same reason I’ve watched the Godfather movies and various Kubrick movies a zillion times. It’s called developing a taste for twisted humor. There’s no other way to explain how I can spend so much time watching Mitt Romney strut his stuff like the proudest of peacocks without losing my lunch.
In South Carolina, Mitt lost his way because he was afraid – the prospect of releasing his tax returns chilled him to the bone. It was as if he knew he had something to hide. But why? When his returns were released this past Tuesday, it became clear that Mitt was doing everything the system asked of him. And sure enough, his Republican rivals have been rather muted in criticizing Mitt’s tax returns. For a Republican, those returns are practically holy objects. They are the fruits of living the American dream.
Sure, Mitt paid only a 14% tax rate, or well under that paid by workers who make as much in a year as Mitt makes in a one-hour speech. So what? He paid what is required of him under our system, which taxes those who make big bucks through financial speculation at a much lower rate than it taxes the middle class. According to the Republican talking points, there is nothing inappropriate about taking advantage of a low capital gains rate, and every reason to lower that rate so as to encourage investing. They would add that a low capital gains rate is only fair, because the money that is being invested has already been taxed once. How can we justify taxing it twice – especially when this would lower our national investment rate? In the long run, is that really going to help the middle class or the poor?
Or so goes the Republican argument. By the time Barack Obama gets through with him, Mitt Romney will have given that argument a face. And the more that I think about it, his is just the perfect face for the job.
In a twisted sort of way, Mitt is a moral exemplar. His is the classic American success story. Here we have a wonderful family man, deeply committed to his faith, hugely successful in one business venture after another, and highly productive as the Governor of a populous state. Mitt exudes, if not an aura of comfort around other people, at least a high degree of self-adulation. And what’s not to adulate? Mitt is a winner. He knows it, you know it, and if you don’t like him or what he stands for, it must be because of your “envy.” Or so he says.
Deep down, I don’t really have anything against the guy. I remember knowing people like him when I went to Harvard Law School, one of Mitt’s own alma maters. I didn’t generally dislike them – not even the ones who were as aloof as Mitt. They were, after all, upstanding members of the community, people of their word, and altogether sane and rational. (I never had them pegged for being the type who would strap a dog to the roof of their car.) I knew back then that they’d end up making a large multiple of the income that I made when we got out of school, and I never begrudged them their choice of career any more than they’d begrudge me my GS 15. They were making their choice; I was making mine. Envy had nothing to do with the equation. We both could easily have taken the other path. It was totally a matter of choice.
Mitt must understand that liberals don’t support progressive tax policies based on envy but rather because they simply have a different ideology than he does. Not only was he schooled at Harvard – a bastion of progressivism – but he went on to govern the state of Massachusetts, or “Taxachusetts” as it is also known. You can accuse Mitt of many things, but being unfamiliar with progressives is not one of them.
So why, then, would Mitt shrug off his critics by accusing them of envy? Because it was his way of brushing off the discussion about taxes and economic equity. Until recently, he hasn’t been comfortable debating those issues at any length. Rather than engaging his opponents on such a third-rail topic, he wanted to win the nomination in what is known in sports as a “walk over.” Clearly, he was hoping that his superior endorsements and war chest would allow him to simply show up, smile awkwardly at the camera, boast about how damned moral and successful he has been from the minute he has taken his first step on this earth, and watch his opponents simply dry up as soon as their money did the same. Then came a feisty critter known, non-anthropomorphically, as “Newt.” And the next thing you know, Mitt was in a real fight.
Unfortunately, that fight seems poised to end soon. Like many bullies, Newt has a glass jaw. So once Mitt arose from his nightmare in South Carolina and started throwing haymakers to every part of Newt’s head and body, the former Speaker has been asking for a “truce,” rather than throwing anything back. What Newt and Mitt both understand, you see, is that this election will ultimately be about taxes and the Republican Party has no choice but to own our non-progressive system of taxation. And nobody owns it more smugly than Mitt Romney. So given that fact, the GOP might as well select Mitt to be the guy to trade blows with Barack about the roles and responsibilities of the wealthy. Next to such a poster child as Mitt, Newt is as poor and “unsuccessful” as the lowly government workers, whose pay Mitt has announced his desire to slash as soon as he is elected.
I don’t remember in my lifetime a candidate for President who better represented the modern plutocrat than Mitt Romney. He doesn’t exude even a shred of respect for the argument that rich people need to pay more in taxes not only because they are the ones who can best afford to pay, but also because they owe much of their wealth to the working-class or middle-class employees who form the backbone of most businesses. Those principles, for me, are a basic element of fairness. To the modern Republican, however, they are viewed instead as justifications for socialism. The Grand Old Party would give us Americans a choice: virtually unbridled capitalism with a non-progressive tax structure, or Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. In the Republican mind, there is no middle ground – no opportunity to combine private-sector competition with progressive taxation. Romney is holding himself out as the businessman whose noblesse oblige led him to politics but without stripping him of his devotion to Adam Smith’s invisible hand. He will be proud to show that Barack Obama is clueless about the value of the market and all too ready to place trillions of dollars in the uninspired hands of unelected bureaucrats. That’s the Republican game plan.
I don’t know about you, but I’m kind of psyched to see it all play out in the fall. It is high time we had a referendum on whether America should be an unabashed plutocracy. Barack Obama would like to turn this election into such a referendum. And Mitt just might be cocky enough to oblige him.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
A PECULIAR INSTITUTION
Today is supposed to be all about South Carolina. And South Carolina is supposed to be all about Newt Gingrich. With one boffo debate performance after another, Newt has taken the Palmetto State by storm. He showed up like a prize fighter, boasting that this primary would be “Armageddon.” And wouldn’t you know it -- throughout the past 10 days, he has retained the kind of fire in the belly that would have made John C. Calhoun proud. Calhoun, you may recall, was the in-your-face South Carolinian Senator who wasn’t satisfied simply by talking about slavery as a necessary evil; he hailed it as a “positive good,” one that resulted in treating working class blacks far more humanely than the “free” working class of Europe. Newt, unfortunately, hasn’t shown Calhoun’s skill in staking out the truly courageous and groundbreaking positions. Instead, he has confined his passion to such issues as whether the mainstream media should begin debate telecasts by talking about infidelity. It seemed a relatively small point to me. Yet somehow, it was important enough to garner TWO standing ovations at the candidates’ final debate. The Palmetto wind is now at Newt’s sail. What a country! What a state.
As a liberal political observer, I could be expected to spend today reflecting on the road kill that is the Republican Party and the fact that its open sores are being exposed in precisely the same state that is most associated with right-wing extremism. This isn’t just the state of Calhoun. It’s the home of Fort Sumter. And more recently, it gave us Strom Thurmond, the refusal until 1969 to ratify the 19th Amendment (enabling women to vote), and the longest tenure for displaying the Stars and Bars at the State House. What Massachusetts has been to the North, South Carolina has been to the South. It’s hardly surprising, then, that this state could be the Waterloo of that smug shape-shifter from Bean Town, Mitt Romney.
The truth is, though, that today, at least until the polls close, I’d rather not think about South Carolina … or any of its “peculiar institutions,” including the one rhapsodized by Calhoun. My thoughts have focused instead on a very different institution, one that is associated not with politics but with religion.
These days, anything identified with religion is mocked. The institution I have in mind is no exception. For many, it is linked primarily with hypocrisy and such values as rampant materialism and narcissism. Then again, we live in a time where it is trendy to expect religious institutions to live up to their ideals, and then blast them to smithereens when they fail to do so. The truth, of course, is that there no institutions – religious or otherwise – that live up to those ideals. But that isn’t an argument against the ideals; it’s merely a reminder that human beings are animals whose greatness consists largely in the fact that we are able to posit grand ideals and at least strive to live up to them. For my money, it is preferable to strive sincerely to live a religious life, even if this means you will largely fail, rather than blowing off the project altogether and mocking religion for its inevitable hypocrisy. That latter attitude is like the curmudgeon who decries romantic love and prefers remaining lonely, bitter and cynical … all the while feeling proud that he will never makes a fool of himself chasing the wrong skirt.
I’ve been thinking largely about a certain religious institution because I have two godchildren who have finally reached “that age.” They are Jewish, you see, and “that age” is 10. That’s around the time that Jewish kids first start focusing in earnest on a rite of passage that will swallow up much of their spare time until they turn 13.
In a society where kids live at home until they are at least 18, and commonly stay in school well into their 20s, it’s peculiar to think of them as “adults” as soon as they become teenagers. But the idea of a Bar or Bat Mitzvah is that a 13-year old boy or girl is supposed to be a “Jewish adult.” (Traditionally, a girl could become a Bat Mitzvah at 12, but most modern Bat Mitzvahs involve 13 year old girls.) S/he is then viewed as responsible in ways that younger children are not – obliged, for example, to honor certain commandments, such as the need to fast on Yom Kippur. As is so often the case in Judaism, what it means to be honored is expressed largely in terms of accumulating more duties. It’s no wonder that we’re not exactly competing for the title of the world’s most populous religion.
If you live in communities with lots of Jews, you’ve probably noticed one oddity of the Bar/Bat Mitzvah process: the biggest and best parties in middle school are all thrown for Jewish kids. Gentiles might get their sweet 16s, but we all know that the middle school years are truly the most formative ones. That’s when kids develop their propensity to work hard, show ambition, and channel their energies … or, by contrast, get disaffected, disgruntled, or disinclined to fight to “do their best.”
Similarly, if you live in communities with lots of Jews, you’ve probably noticed that the B’nei Mitzvah party is often a lavish affair. Indeed, stories abound about how some of these functions are ostentatious to the point of absurdity. Five-figured affairs are becoming the norm, and six- figured affairs are not out of the question for those who have money to burn. Needless to say, the cynics among us have no shortage of material here. According to their narrative, the B’nei Mitzvah process is primarily an opportunity to teach Jewish children that what matters most in life is grabbing attention, making money, and spending money. As for the religious trappings of the event, we can just consider that an “accessory” that goes with the ensemble.
While I have no doubt that such mockery is valid for certain families, and perhaps even for certain zip codes, I’m not buying into it as a general rule. My godchildren, for example, live in an upper middle-class neighborhood of Bethesda, Maryland. Their parents “do OK,” as the saying goes, but they’re not one-percenters, and neither are most American Jews. When we throw a B’nei Mitzvah party, we do it in much the same way that gentile families throw a wedding. Sure it costs a bucket of money, but the idea is not to sell our souls in the process. Quite the contrary – B’nei Mitzvah ceremonies, like weddings, are only successful when they reflect the best of our values.
When I think about the opportunity that my godchildren are about to have, I can’t help but smile. Just at the time of life that is most central to their development as adults, they will engage in one wholesome activity after another. In addition to their regular school and their weekend Jewish school, they will now attend a separate class to learn the Hebrew language. They will be expected at their Bar or Bat Mitzvah not only to read Hebrew prayers but, if possible, to chant sections of Hebrew Scripture with a particular trope. And they will have to chant this foreign tongue in front of many scores of their classmates, friends, family, and clergy. It can be a scary prospect, particularly if you are not gifted at memorizing trope or singing in front of large groups. And how many of us are?
What’s more, these middle-schoolers will be expected to deliver one or more mini-sermons, as if they were a rabbi. These kids will take the weekly Torah portion (in the Jewish calendar, each week is devoted to a different portion of the Torah), focus on certain verses or themes from that portion, and then apply those verses or themes to the thing in life that mean the most to them. Typical B’nei Mitzvah talks focus on economic justice, world peace, environmental protection … the same kinds of themes that are regularly trashed or at best ignored by the politicians in South Carolina. In fact, not only are these kids expected to write and deliver orations concerning these issues, but they usually take on a “B’nei Mitzvah Project” in which they attempt to repair the world through action, and not merely words or prayers. Many of the kids ask for cash, as opposed to other presents, and then give away much or all of this cash to a charity that they’ve selected in connection with their B’nei Mitzvah Project.
In short, far from selling their souls, kids who experience this process the way it’s intended to be experienced are actually developing their characters in wonderful respects. They grow in many ways, including courage, wisdom, dependability, spirituality and generosity. Plus, they are developing these qualities in the context of what is ostensibly an “extra-curricular activity,” which means that they are learning the importance of going above and beyond the call of duty. Indeed, when it comes to what a Bar or Bat Mitzvah can accomplish during the course of this process, the sky is the limit.
As for my own kids, their Bat Mitzvahs were among their most transformative and fulfilling experiences. My younger daughter, Rebecca, went through that whole process with the dream of being a rabbi. Now that she is at college, she is regularly attending Jewish services and planning to devote her life to one of the so-called “helping professions.” As for my older daughter, Hannah, who is graduating college this June, she will begin a five-year program in September in the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College. I can’t tell you how proud that makes me.
So, my fellow political junkies, tonight after the polls close in South Carolina, you will probably be compelled to turn on the television and tune in Newt, Mitt, Rick, Ron and all the talking heads whose lives consist of “idolizing” the political process (that’s the term MSNBC’s Chuck Todd used to refer to his own attitude, when he claimed to be “offended” that Steven Colbert dared to make fun of our political process and the Republican party). Don’t apologize for tuning in tonight, for politics is important and political campaigns are great theatre. But please know that there are far more profound things in life than politics. In other words, we must not let our cynicism about political institutions form our attitudes about institutions in other domains of life. Sometimes, we can come across traditions that are truly inspiring. Even then, a brilliant satirist like Colbert can mock them. And unlike Chuck Todd, we should be able to put up with it, assured as we are that these traditions are beautiful.
Today is supposed to be all about South Carolina. And South Carolina is supposed to be all about Newt Gingrich. With one boffo debate performance after another, Newt has taken the Palmetto State by storm. He showed up like a prize fighter, boasting that this primary would be “Armageddon.” And wouldn’t you know it -- throughout the past 10 days, he has retained the kind of fire in the belly that would have made John C. Calhoun proud. Calhoun, you may recall, was the in-your-face South Carolinian Senator who wasn’t satisfied simply by talking about slavery as a necessary evil; he hailed it as a “positive good,” one that resulted in treating working class blacks far more humanely than the “free” working class of Europe. Newt, unfortunately, hasn’t shown Calhoun’s skill in staking out the truly courageous and groundbreaking positions. Instead, he has confined his passion to such issues as whether the mainstream media should begin debate telecasts by talking about infidelity. It seemed a relatively small point to me. Yet somehow, it was important enough to garner TWO standing ovations at the candidates’ final debate. The Palmetto wind is now at Newt’s sail. What a country! What a state.
As a liberal political observer, I could be expected to spend today reflecting on the road kill that is the Republican Party and the fact that its open sores are being exposed in precisely the same state that is most associated with right-wing extremism. This isn’t just the state of Calhoun. It’s the home of Fort Sumter. And more recently, it gave us Strom Thurmond, the refusal until 1969 to ratify the 19th Amendment (enabling women to vote), and the longest tenure for displaying the Stars and Bars at the State House. What Massachusetts has been to the North, South Carolina has been to the South. It’s hardly surprising, then, that this state could be the Waterloo of that smug shape-shifter from Bean Town, Mitt Romney.
The truth is, though, that today, at least until the polls close, I’d rather not think about South Carolina … or any of its “peculiar institutions,” including the one rhapsodized by Calhoun. My thoughts have focused instead on a very different institution, one that is associated not with politics but with religion.
These days, anything identified with religion is mocked. The institution I have in mind is no exception. For many, it is linked primarily with hypocrisy and such values as rampant materialism and narcissism. Then again, we live in a time where it is trendy to expect religious institutions to live up to their ideals, and then blast them to smithereens when they fail to do so. The truth, of course, is that there no institutions – religious or otherwise – that live up to those ideals. But that isn’t an argument against the ideals; it’s merely a reminder that human beings are animals whose greatness consists largely in the fact that we are able to posit grand ideals and at least strive to live up to them. For my money, it is preferable to strive sincerely to live a religious life, even if this means you will largely fail, rather than blowing off the project altogether and mocking religion for its inevitable hypocrisy. That latter attitude is like the curmudgeon who decries romantic love and prefers remaining lonely, bitter and cynical … all the while feeling proud that he will never makes a fool of himself chasing the wrong skirt.
I’ve been thinking largely about a certain religious institution because I have two godchildren who have finally reached “that age.” They are Jewish, you see, and “that age” is 10. That’s around the time that Jewish kids first start focusing in earnest on a rite of passage that will swallow up much of their spare time until they turn 13.
In a society where kids live at home until they are at least 18, and commonly stay in school well into their 20s, it’s peculiar to think of them as “adults” as soon as they become teenagers. But the idea of a Bar or Bat Mitzvah is that a 13-year old boy or girl is supposed to be a “Jewish adult.” (Traditionally, a girl could become a Bat Mitzvah at 12, but most modern Bat Mitzvahs involve 13 year old girls.) S/he is then viewed as responsible in ways that younger children are not – obliged, for example, to honor certain commandments, such as the need to fast on Yom Kippur. As is so often the case in Judaism, what it means to be honored is expressed largely in terms of accumulating more duties. It’s no wonder that we’re not exactly competing for the title of the world’s most populous religion.
If you live in communities with lots of Jews, you’ve probably noticed one oddity of the Bar/Bat Mitzvah process: the biggest and best parties in middle school are all thrown for Jewish kids. Gentiles might get their sweet 16s, but we all know that the middle school years are truly the most formative ones. That’s when kids develop their propensity to work hard, show ambition, and channel their energies … or, by contrast, get disaffected, disgruntled, or disinclined to fight to “do their best.”
Similarly, if you live in communities with lots of Jews, you’ve probably noticed that the B’nei Mitzvah party is often a lavish affair. Indeed, stories abound about how some of these functions are ostentatious to the point of absurdity. Five-figured affairs are becoming the norm, and six- figured affairs are not out of the question for those who have money to burn. Needless to say, the cynics among us have no shortage of material here. According to their narrative, the B’nei Mitzvah process is primarily an opportunity to teach Jewish children that what matters most in life is grabbing attention, making money, and spending money. As for the religious trappings of the event, we can just consider that an “accessory” that goes with the ensemble.
While I have no doubt that such mockery is valid for certain families, and perhaps even for certain zip codes, I’m not buying into it as a general rule. My godchildren, for example, live in an upper middle-class neighborhood of Bethesda, Maryland. Their parents “do OK,” as the saying goes, but they’re not one-percenters, and neither are most American Jews. When we throw a B’nei Mitzvah party, we do it in much the same way that gentile families throw a wedding. Sure it costs a bucket of money, but the idea is not to sell our souls in the process. Quite the contrary – B’nei Mitzvah ceremonies, like weddings, are only successful when they reflect the best of our values.
When I think about the opportunity that my godchildren are about to have, I can’t help but smile. Just at the time of life that is most central to their development as adults, they will engage in one wholesome activity after another. In addition to their regular school and their weekend Jewish school, they will now attend a separate class to learn the Hebrew language. They will be expected at their Bar or Bat Mitzvah not only to read Hebrew prayers but, if possible, to chant sections of Hebrew Scripture with a particular trope. And they will have to chant this foreign tongue in front of many scores of their classmates, friends, family, and clergy. It can be a scary prospect, particularly if you are not gifted at memorizing trope or singing in front of large groups. And how many of us are?
What’s more, these middle-schoolers will be expected to deliver one or more mini-sermons, as if they were a rabbi. These kids will take the weekly Torah portion (in the Jewish calendar, each week is devoted to a different portion of the Torah), focus on certain verses or themes from that portion, and then apply those verses or themes to the thing in life that mean the most to them. Typical B’nei Mitzvah talks focus on economic justice, world peace, environmental protection … the same kinds of themes that are regularly trashed or at best ignored by the politicians in South Carolina. In fact, not only are these kids expected to write and deliver orations concerning these issues, but they usually take on a “B’nei Mitzvah Project” in which they attempt to repair the world through action, and not merely words or prayers. Many of the kids ask for cash, as opposed to other presents, and then give away much or all of this cash to a charity that they’ve selected in connection with their B’nei Mitzvah Project.
In short, far from selling their souls, kids who experience this process the way it’s intended to be experienced are actually developing their characters in wonderful respects. They grow in many ways, including courage, wisdom, dependability, spirituality and generosity. Plus, they are developing these qualities in the context of what is ostensibly an “extra-curricular activity,” which means that they are learning the importance of going above and beyond the call of duty. Indeed, when it comes to what a Bar or Bat Mitzvah can accomplish during the course of this process, the sky is the limit.
As for my own kids, their Bat Mitzvahs were among their most transformative and fulfilling experiences. My younger daughter, Rebecca, went through that whole process with the dream of being a rabbi. Now that she is at college, she is regularly attending Jewish services and planning to devote her life to one of the so-called “helping professions.” As for my older daughter, Hannah, who is graduating college this June, she will begin a five-year program in September in the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College. I can’t tell you how proud that makes me.
So, my fellow political junkies, tonight after the polls close in South Carolina, you will probably be compelled to turn on the television and tune in Newt, Mitt, Rick, Ron and all the talking heads whose lives consist of “idolizing” the political process (that’s the term MSNBC’s Chuck Todd used to refer to his own attitude, when he claimed to be “offended” that Steven Colbert dared to make fun of our political process and the Republican party). Don’t apologize for tuning in tonight, for politics is important and political campaigns are great theatre. But please know that there are far more profound things in life than politics. In other words, we must not let our cynicism about political institutions form our attitudes about institutions in other domains of life. Sometimes, we can come across traditions that are truly inspiring. Even then, a brilliant satirist like Colbert can mock them. And unlike Chuck Todd, we should be able to put up with it, assured as we are that these traditions are beautiful.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
LEARNING FROM THE BAIN EXPERIENCE
“There are two questions concerning Mitt Romney’s service at the private equity firm Bain Capital. The narrower question is: Did Bain help ailing companies and add value to the economy or did it plunder dying firms? The larger question is: Does Romney’s success in business tell us anything about whether he would be a successful president?”
David Brooks, from his 1/13/12 New York Times column, “The C.E.O. in Politics”
Brooks has indeed put his finger around two issues that many of us have been asking lately. In my opinion, however, he has placed the importance of these issues in reverse order.
Let’s examine the trivial issue first: Does Romney’s success in business tell us anything about whether he would be a successful president? Do you know why this issue is trivial? Because barring some sort of September or October surprise – such as a war with Iran into which Obama is reluctantly dragged – Romney is going down hard, whether we like his business record or not. And why is he going down? Because he fails in the critical test of what it now takes to be elected President of the United States.
I’ve pointed this test out before, and I’ll do it again: when it comes down to the general election, the man or woman we elect as President is almost invariably the candidate whom we’d rather see as the color commentator for a National Football Conference Championship game. Why the NFC Championship game? Because it is typically held on a cold and/or windy day and it is marked by hard hits, guts, strategy and heart. The analyst for this game has to be informed, honest (i.e., willing not only to point out the future hall of famers but also the posers and chokers), and able to relate to the common person in TV land. These games have a lot on the line – a Super Bowl appearance, to be precise – and those of us in the audience don’t have the patience to listen to blowhards, bull-shitters or wimps spew clichés. Not when it’s 20 degrees on the field and some of our favorite players are limping off with injuries, and even those who aren’t limping are hiding the fact that their bodies have taken so many shots over the past few months that the next morning, they’ll have trouble getting out of bed, win or lose.
Say what you want about Tricky Dick, but he knew his football and he knew how to “make it real” when he spoke. Most of us would have rather had him than McGovern do the commentary when the Redskins hosted the Cowboys in the ’72 season.
Now the situation in ’76 was an anomaly. Gerald Ford was once a heck of a football player and yet he lost the election. Still, Ford was the epitome of a dullard when it comes to speaking – so when the Vikings hosted the Rams in the ’76 season, we’d probably turn down the sound rather than listen to the ever-sanctimonious Carter or the bumbling Ford announce the game.
The situation returned to form in the 80s. We’d definitely prefer listening to Reagan (a former sportscaster!) to Carter when the Eagles hosted the Cowboys in ’80, or to Mondale when the 49ers hosted the Bears in ’84. In ’88, when the Bears hosted the 49ers, we sure would have preferred listening to George H.W. Bush, a huge fan of both football and golf, to Michael Dukakis, who was such a geek that he couldn’t even summon some genuine passion when he was asked how he would feel if his wife was brutally assaulted.
In ’92 and ’96, all but the most partisan Republicans would have loved to listen to William Jefferson Clinton display his seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of sports – and maybe throw in a few comments about the cute cheerleaders – when the Cowboys were hosted by the 49ers or the Packers hosted the Panthers. Then, in ’00 and ’04, W would have been our choice to talk about the Giants hosting the Vikings or the Eagles hosting the Falcons. W might not have been as informed as Gore or Kerry when it comes to domestic or foreign policy, but he did once own the Texas Rangers baseball team, and it’s difficult to imagine anything he enjoyed more than sports.
Finally, in ’08, when the Cardinals hosted the Eagles, we would have much rather watched Barack Obama do the game than John McCain. Obama is extremely articulate, likeable, and enamored with sports, whereas McCain comes across as a crusty jerk. We don’t need our announcers to be crusty jerks. The game itself is hard-hitting enough.
I went through all those elections so that you can truly see for yourselves how infallible this test is. Perhaps it didn’t work in 1976. Then again, Ford was essentially given the nomination on a silver platter, and all Carter had to do was show up and say “I wasn’t hand-picked by an impeached President.” (Besides, would you really want to listen to Gerald Ford announce a football game?) In other words, that election was unique, and not representative of much of anything. In all the other cases, the guy who wins the “regular guy” and “sports fan” award went on to win the election. Always.
This year, the Republicans are giving us the second coming of John Kerry. Mittens comes across as smug and out of touch, which is not what anyone is looking for in a color commentator. Obama should win. Hands down.
Now that we’ve dispensed with Brooks’ political question, let’s look at his second question, the one he refers to as narrow: “Did Bain help ailing companies and add value to the economy or did it plunder dying firms?” I suppose that if you frame the question precisely like that, it is of limited interest. So allow me to rephrase it a bit: What can we as a society learn from Bain Capital to better inform us about the industry of venture capitalism?
Once that question is asked, others immediately come to mind. Many of these are being asked by critics on the left (and a few opportunists on the right): Do we believe that venture capitalists often behave like vulture capitalists? Do we want to see additional regulations introduced in this industry? Do we believe that venture capitalists have moral obligations to take care of the communities and employees served by the business that they acquire such that even when they are engaging in legal profit taking, they may still be behaving immorally? Hasn’t the media demonstrated a tragic bias by closely scrutinizing even the slightest misstep by federal government officials, while allowing venture capitalists to plunder corporations with hardly any public attention?
Other legitimate questions can be asked by observers on the right: Does our society owe much of its long-term economic success over the decades to the unheralded role played by venture capitalists? Isn’t the overall track record of venture capitalists one of massive job creation, not job loss? Has our society been poorly served by the constant vilification of venture capitalists by Hollywood, which inevitably dwells on the failures of the industry rather than the successes? Is the current attack on venture capitalists simply a thinly veiled attack on capitalism generally?
Normally, when I post a blog, I don’t raise questions without at least trying to answer them. This time is different, though. I need to raise these questions both because they fascinate me, and because they ought to fascinate anyone who is concerned about our economy. But I raise them as open questions because up until now, our society has made such a minimal effort to shed light in this area that those of us outside of the business world have little ability to answer them. Regardless of the industry, when it comes to the conduct of our big corporations, our media has seemed disinterested. It is only when something disastrous happens that anyone even begins to pay attention, and only then for a short time. The big companies pay for the advertisements that fuel the media, and that fact appears to give these companies Teflon. Sure, you’ll see a few companies vilified on shows like 60 Minutes, but an occasional exposé is hardly going to give rise to a national debate, like the debates we have whenever a politician or a political party acts in a questionable manner. In a democracy, it is essential that our society engages in such national debates in order to give “the people” a voice, and there is no reason why we shouldn’t have a voice in the world of business just like we have one in the world of politics.
There are those in Hollywood who may think that they have been encouraging such a debate by portraying the leaders of big corporations as soulless pigs. That is almost invariably the way Hollywood treats the folks who run companies like Bain Capital. Even when a movie or TV show is not centered around a “greed is good” theme, you can bet that the men and women in the boardroom, whenever they are shown, will be depicted as amoral at best. As a result, those of our “best and brightest” children who are influenced primarily by Hollywood may avoid the world of business like the plague, and concentrate instead on more movie-friendly occupations like law, medicine, law enforcement or vigilante justice.
Something tells me that whereas Hollywood hasn’t been giving these venture capitalists enough credit, the media has been giving them too much of a free ride. Now, hopefully, thanks to the candidacy of Mitt Romney – and the counter-attacks of Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry – we might get a more serious and balanced vision of the venture capital industry. At least that is my hope. I want to learn more about this industry myself. I’ve watched the 28-minute attack ad against Bain Capital by googling “When Mitt Romney Comes to Town” – and while it seemed overly negative, it did whet my appetite for more.
Throughout my adult life, I personally have (a) trumpeted capitalism philosophically as a preferable mode of production to the available alternatives, and (b) preferred to work as a public servant rather than a businessman for moral reasons. And yes, I’ve often wondered if that combination of choices reflects a fundamental inconsistency and unwillingness to come to terms with uncomfortable beliefs. Have I overrated capitalism in the abstract by refusing to recognize that its intolerable excesses are a necessary part of the model? Have I sold short the contribution to our society made by the typical successful venture capitalist or banker? Or is it possible that I have concluded that bankers and venture capitalists may harden their hearts and corrode their souls as individuals, but end up playing a tremendous progressive role in society?
I won’t attempt to answer those questions today. But I hope to be able to answer them better in the upcoming weeks and months. Here’s wishing that the media will NOT drop the ball when it comes to examining Bain Capital. Oh sure, you know they’ll attack these issues to the extent they see them as relevant to the “horse race” of Presidential politics. But I want them to evaluate Bain’s conduct as an exemplar of the large modern venture capital firm. And I want them to use Bain as a window on which we as a society can better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the capitalist system as a whole.
I still have a bias in favor of capitalism, having seen all too well the problems with government as a producer of services. But that is not to say that our approach to capitalism can’t be improved. If the lessons from Bain Capital can enlighten the public enough to demand such improvements, we will all be thrilled that the Republican electorate ignored that Mitt Romney comes across neither as knowledgeable about football, particularly honest, or able to relate to the common person. In other words, though the Republicans are poised to set themselves up for failure in November, at least, as we sports fans would say, they seem to be “taking one for the team.”
“There are two questions concerning Mitt Romney’s service at the private equity firm Bain Capital. The narrower question is: Did Bain help ailing companies and add value to the economy or did it plunder dying firms? The larger question is: Does Romney’s success in business tell us anything about whether he would be a successful president?”
David Brooks, from his 1/13/12 New York Times column, “The C.E.O. in Politics”
Brooks has indeed put his finger around two issues that many of us have been asking lately. In my opinion, however, he has placed the importance of these issues in reverse order.
Let’s examine the trivial issue first: Does Romney’s success in business tell us anything about whether he would be a successful president? Do you know why this issue is trivial? Because barring some sort of September or October surprise – such as a war with Iran into which Obama is reluctantly dragged – Romney is going down hard, whether we like his business record or not. And why is he going down? Because he fails in the critical test of what it now takes to be elected President of the United States.
I’ve pointed this test out before, and I’ll do it again: when it comes down to the general election, the man or woman we elect as President is almost invariably the candidate whom we’d rather see as the color commentator for a National Football Conference Championship game. Why the NFC Championship game? Because it is typically held on a cold and/or windy day and it is marked by hard hits, guts, strategy and heart. The analyst for this game has to be informed, honest (i.e., willing not only to point out the future hall of famers but also the posers and chokers), and able to relate to the common person in TV land. These games have a lot on the line – a Super Bowl appearance, to be precise – and those of us in the audience don’t have the patience to listen to blowhards, bull-shitters or wimps spew clichés. Not when it’s 20 degrees on the field and some of our favorite players are limping off with injuries, and even those who aren’t limping are hiding the fact that their bodies have taken so many shots over the past few months that the next morning, they’ll have trouble getting out of bed, win or lose.
Say what you want about Tricky Dick, but he knew his football and he knew how to “make it real” when he spoke. Most of us would have rather had him than McGovern do the commentary when the Redskins hosted the Cowboys in the ’72 season.
Now the situation in ’76 was an anomaly. Gerald Ford was once a heck of a football player and yet he lost the election. Still, Ford was the epitome of a dullard when it comes to speaking – so when the Vikings hosted the Rams in the ’76 season, we’d probably turn down the sound rather than listen to the ever-sanctimonious Carter or the bumbling Ford announce the game.
The situation returned to form in the 80s. We’d definitely prefer listening to Reagan (a former sportscaster!) to Carter when the Eagles hosted the Cowboys in ’80, or to Mondale when the 49ers hosted the Bears in ’84. In ’88, when the Bears hosted the 49ers, we sure would have preferred listening to George H.W. Bush, a huge fan of both football and golf, to Michael Dukakis, who was such a geek that he couldn’t even summon some genuine passion when he was asked how he would feel if his wife was brutally assaulted.
In ’92 and ’96, all but the most partisan Republicans would have loved to listen to William Jefferson Clinton display his seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of sports – and maybe throw in a few comments about the cute cheerleaders – when the Cowboys were hosted by the 49ers or the Packers hosted the Panthers. Then, in ’00 and ’04, W would have been our choice to talk about the Giants hosting the Vikings or the Eagles hosting the Falcons. W might not have been as informed as Gore or Kerry when it comes to domestic or foreign policy, but he did once own the Texas Rangers baseball team, and it’s difficult to imagine anything he enjoyed more than sports.
Finally, in ’08, when the Cardinals hosted the Eagles, we would have much rather watched Barack Obama do the game than John McCain. Obama is extremely articulate, likeable, and enamored with sports, whereas McCain comes across as a crusty jerk. We don’t need our announcers to be crusty jerks. The game itself is hard-hitting enough.
I went through all those elections so that you can truly see for yourselves how infallible this test is. Perhaps it didn’t work in 1976. Then again, Ford was essentially given the nomination on a silver platter, and all Carter had to do was show up and say “I wasn’t hand-picked by an impeached President.” (Besides, would you really want to listen to Gerald Ford announce a football game?) In other words, that election was unique, and not representative of much of anything. In all the other cases, the guy who wins the “regular guy” and “sports fan” award went on to win the election. Always.
This year, the Republicans are giving us the second coming of John Kerry. Mittens comes across as smug and out of touch, which is not what anyone is looking for in a color commentator. Obama should win. Hands down.
Now that we’ve dispensed with Brooks’ political question, let’s look at his second question, the one he refers to as narrow: “Did Bain help ailing companies and add value to the economy or did it plunder dying firms?” I suppose that if you frame the question precisely like that, it is of limited interest. So allow me to rephrase it a bit: What can we as a society learn from Bain Capital to better inform us about the industry of venture capitalism?
Once that question is asked, others immediately come to mind. Many of these are being asked by critics on the left (and a few opportunists on the right): Do we believe that venture capitalists often behave like vulture capitalists? Do we want to see additional regulations introduced in this industry? Do we believe that venture capitalists have moral obligations to take care of the communities and employees served by the business that they acquire such that even when they are engaging in legal profit taking, they may still be behaving immorally? Hasn’t the media demonstrated a tragic bias by closely scrutinizing even the slightest misstep by federal government officials, while allowing venture capitalists to plunder corporations with hardly any public attention?
Other legitimate questions can be asked by observers on the right: Does our society owe much of its long-term economic success over the decades to the unheralded role played by venture capitalists? Isn’t the overall track record of venture capitalists one of massive job creation, not job loss? Has our society been poorly served by the constant vilification of venture capitalists by Hollywood, which inevitably dwells on the failures of the industry rather than the successes? Is the current attack on venture capitalists simply a thinly veiled attack on capitalism generally?
Normally, when I post a blog, I don’t raise questions without at least trying to answer them. This time is different, though. I need to raise these questions both because they fascinate me, and because they ought to fascinate anyone who is concerned about our economy. But I raise them as open questions because up until now, our society has made such a minimal effort to shed light in this area that those of us outside of the business world have little ability to answer them. Regardless of the industry, when it comes to the conduct of our big corporations, our media has seemed disinterested. It is only when something disastrous happens that anyone even begins to pay attention, and only then for a short time. The big companies pay for the advertisements that fuel the media, and that fact appears to give these companies Teflon. Sure, you’ll see a few companies vilified on shows like 60 Minutes, but an occasional exposé is hardly going to give rise to a national debate, like the debates we have whenever a politician or a political party acts in a questionable manner. In a democracy, it is essential that our society engages in such national debates in order to give “the people” a voice, and there is no reason why we shouldn’t have a voice in the world of business just like we have one in the world of politics.
There are those in Hollywood who may think that they have been encouraging such a debate by portraying the leaders of big corporations as soulless pigs. That is almost invariably the way Hollywood treats the folks who run companies like Bain Capital. Even when a movie or TV show is not centered around a “greed is good” theme, you can bet that the men and women in the boardroom, whenever they are shown, will be depicted as amoral at best. As a result, those of our “best and brightest” children who are influenced primarily by Hollywood may avoid the world of business like the plague, and concentrate instead on more movie-friendly occupations like law, medicine, law enforcement or vigilante justice.
Something tells me that whereas Hollywood hasn’t been giving these venture capitalists enough credit, the media has been giving them too much of a free ride. Now, hopefully, thanks to the candidacy of Mitt Romney – and the counter-attacks of Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry – we might get a more serious and balanced vision of the venture capital industry. At least that is my hope. I want to learn more about this industry myself. I’ve watched the 28-minute attack ad against Bain Capital by googling “When Mitt Romney Comes to Town” – and while it seemed overly negative, it did whet my appetite for more.
Throughout my adult life, I personally have (a) trumpeted capitalism philosophically as a preferable mode of production to the available alternatives, and (b) preferred to work as a public servant rather than a businessman for moral reasons. And yes, I’ve often wondered if that combination of choices reflects a fundamental inconsistency and unwillingness to come to terms with uncomfortable beliefs. Have I overrated capitalism in the abstract by refusing to recognize that its intolerable excesses are a necessary part of the model? Have I sold short the contribution to our society made by the typical successful venture capitalist or banker? Or is it possible that I have concluded that bankers and venture capitalists may harden their hearts and corrode their souls as individuals, but end up playing a tremendous progressive role in society?
I won’t attempt to answer those questions today. But I hope to be able to answer them better in the upcoming weeks and months. Here’s wishing that the media will NOT drop the ball when it comes to examining Bain Capital. Oh sure, you know they’ll attack these issues to the extent they see them as relevant to the “horse race” of Presidential politics. But I want them to evaluate Bain’s conduct as an exemplar of the large modern venture capital firm. And I want them to use Bain as a window on which we as a society can better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the capitalist system as a whole.
I still have a bias in favor of capitalism, having seen all too well the problems with government as a producer of services. But that is not to say that our approach to capitalism can’t be improved. If the lessons from Bain Capital can enlighten the public enough to demand such improvements, we will all be thrilled that the Republican electorate ignored that Mitt Romney comes across neither as knowledgeable about football, particularly honest, or able to relate to the common person. In other words, though the Republicans are poised to set themselves up for failure in November, at least, as we sports fans would say, they seem to be “taking one for the team.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)