Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Politics

  • I Hope He is Right

    Gaegan Goddard’s Political Wire reports that John McCain thinks he will be the last candidate to accept federal matching funds. One of the best savings, though small, we could make at the federal level would be to end public financing and also end all of the regulations on fundraising except for transparency.

  • Liberal illiberalism: Olbermann on Banks and News Outlets

    Keith Olbermann, regularly angry about many things, is angry about the bank bonuses. (I blogged some about this here.) His answer?

    Break up the banks. Regulate the financial industries, to within an inch of their existences. Roll back corporate legal protections. Make liable the officers of corporations, for their debts, and for their deeds. Resurrect the rallying cry of a hundred years past: bust the trusts! (from MSNBC)

    It amazes me how quick people on either side of the political spectrum are to throw law, reason, and caution to the winds when they’re angry about something. If the Bush administration, for example, had gone after businesses in such a manner because of some security issue, doubtless Olbermann would have been shocked at their perfidy–rightly so. There are right and wrong ways to go about these things.

    But more importantly, the reason the banks are behaving badly with the money they were given is that:

    a) they behaved badly
    b) they got in trouble
    c) the government bailed them out without asking them to change their behavior

    In other words, our government has been rewarding just this behavior. We’re asking when who knew what. But my question is this: What reason did anyone have to expect anything different? The obvious result of a set of actions takes place, and people are shocked.

    But Olbermann, who is quite capable of recognizing something unconstitutional or illegal (or sometimes even stupid) when done by his opponents is unable to see it when he himself proposes it. What he suggests in that paragraph involves punishing the guilty with the innocent, destroying the very foundation of corporate law, and would certainly tromp right on across constitutional boundaries.

    But Olbermann is not finished. Because the media didn’t get out the information, we need to get the government to make sure that the media is fair and that good information get out. Remember, this is the same government that failed to provide any reason why these people should not behave in this manner. People who can’t even write a decent contract for a loan are then asked to make sure that the American people get accurate information.

    Never mind that he is now jumping all over the first amendment. He’s on a roll. If people don’t choose good information sources, make sure that they have to do so.

    Like this:

    Make sure both sides are heard. Re-regulate the radio and television industries to limit station ownership and demand diversity of management and product. Re-instate the old rules that denied one man all the voices in a public square. End all waivers of multiple ownership of television stations and networks and newspapers in the same market. (from MSNBC)

    He continues by calling for similar regulation for the cable industry.

    This is rampant stupidity. Olbermann wants to limit ownership to produce diversity. I think that was wrong even when there were limited broadcast outlets, but in the modern world, it is close to insane. People are not that limited as to what they can hear, but even more, there’s no reason to expect that having the government decide what is “in the public interest” and what the people need to hear is going to somehow improve the flow of information.

    Besides some folks in the corporate world, who is close to the information here? The government. And who is falling flat and lying to cover it up? Those very government agencies charged with the task of keeping it from happening!

    So let’s see. In order to improve the regulation, let’s give the people who failed more power, to “[r]egulate the financial industries, to within an inch of their existences.” Of course we have been told all along that these institutions must somehow be protected. But when the veneer is stripped off, we get down to the real idea–let’s destroy them.

    Having admitted that goal, Olbermann proposes similar treatment for media outlets. Can one doubt that destruction of even the value that there remains in our media would be the ultimate result?

    I am often called liberal, and I don’t argue. I am certainly libertarian. When it’s time to deal with issues such as the rights of the accused at trial, a willingness to provide every opportunity for exoneration if there is evidence, providing safety nets to the weakest folks in our society, or taming rampant militarism in foreign policy, I am rightfully called liberal. I don’t reject the label, even though I prefer “passionate moderate.”

    But there are plenty of liberals running around who don’t deserve the title. When “liberal” spells handing all the power to government, and none to the people, then it isn’t “liberal.” With the same passion that I want to make sure that someone accused of a crime receives due process and eventually receives justice, I also want to make sure that a trader on Wall Street who has broken no law should not be deprived of his lawful earnings. If they are undeserved (and these bonuses are) there are proper ways of dealing with it.

    The Republicans have been accused of having contempt for people who are from cities, or are part of the intellectual elites, or various other folks who are’t from the “real America.” The Democrats have been accused of despising small town America, gun owners, church-goers and so forth.

    Unfortunately, it appears to me that both accusations are absolutely right. To some on the liberal side of the spectrum the guy who does his ordinary job for an ordinary work week, and spends the weekend in a hunting blind with his rifle or his shotgun, then heads off to church on Sunday moring just isn’t real. To some of the folks on the right–and now on the left as well, if you work in investment instead of digging a ditch or being a university professor, you aren’t quite real and your rights don’t matter.

    It may be stupid for a company to give bonuses to those who produced catastrophe, but there is a proper forum for action on such things, and that is the shareholders’ meeting. What about the public money? If we didn’t want it used in that way, we should have specified that in the law, just as a lender might when making a loan.

    Now we have representatives and senators who presumably meant it when they swore to uphold the constitution, voting for a special law to tax certain people’s specific earnings. It’s ridiculous. They know better. They’re using the legislative process to make people believe they’re truly outraged, but in doing so they’re expressing contempt for the constitution they chose to uphold. (To those who are going to say “What did you expect of Keith Olbermann?” I will call attention to the actual lawmakers who seem to be singing from the same hymnal.)

    After my criticisms of Republicans over the years there have been some who wondered why I will not in turn register as a Democrat. Well, you can see it in action right now. My problem, a problem I intend to keep, is that I care about the rights of rich people and poor, ditch diggers and Wall Street investors, college professors, builders, waitresses–everyone who tries to produce at all.

    I believe they should have the opportunity to carry out their business under a rational set of laws. If the law isn’t rational, you need to blame the people who wrote it and pretended it was something different, not the people who did their best to work under it.

    But even more importantly, I believe that people must have the opportunity to seek their own sources of information, even if they choose Fox News, or newspapers of which Keith Olbermann doesn’t approve. You do not diversity the flow of information by limiting it.

    I try to accept it when I’m called a liberal, because it’s usually the result of beliefs I hold very dear. I think the fear of the label is silly. But when you call for regulating banks “to within an inch of their existences” or when you want the government to make sure the media is “fair” then either you’re not a liberal or I’m not.

    I won’t fight over the label. I’ll just call the ideas stupid and destructive.

  • On Publishing a Conservative Book

    First, let me alert all my readers that this is about my business even though this is a personal blog. Second, for those who read my business blog, it will be, to a certain extent, repetitively redundant.

    Several months ago I decided that I would expand my publication efforts into the area of politics, though I continue to look for a faith overlap in what I publish. This is simply a new category; nothing so dramatic as a new imprint. In doing so, of course, the new political book would be from some perspective or another. If it had been a liberal book, I would want to write a post on publishing a liberal book, and even if it were a moderate book, this might be titled on publishing a moderate book.

    What I have found before, and has inevitably come up again, is that people assume that I started publishing in order to publish books with which I agree. I have probably helped nurture this idea by publishing my own books through my company. That is something I will just have to live with, because the sales of those books have been an essential part of growing this business in a very competitive market. None of my books are massively popular, but all of them have helped the bottom line.

    Thus I was led to write a post on publishing books with which I disagree a couple of months ago, and now I’m writing this one. The first instance of this problem came up when I responded to a post suggesting that Christian publishers needed to publish “the truth”. This goes way back to 2006, but I find that the posts are still there so one can examine the discussion at the time.

    I do, in fact, regard my business as a ministry, or to put it in secular terms, a service. I have specific goals and a specific audience I hope to reach. My interest is in broadening Christian education for what I call the “broad Christian center” and especially in mainline protestant churches. Education doesn’t involve hearing just one set of ideas, and neither does my publishing effort.

    In order to accomplish that, I’m seeking to publish books that are both challenging and dialogue-seeking. What I mean by that is that they express their viewpoint well from within their particular perspective and also reach out to communicate with those from other perspectives. I’m not seeking the literature of compromise, i.e. people who water down what they actually believe in order to build dialogue. I posted a view on this, which can be found here.

    In connection with this new book on politics, this issue has come up in two ways, first by people who assume that since I’m publishing and marketing it, I must agree on all points. While I don’t feel the call to fight with my own authors, I have no need to agree with everything they say. Second, I hear it from people who question why I would publish a book with which I don’t agree fully.

    That leads back to the question of publishing “truth.” Should I limit my publications to those that express precisely the view that I hold on each and every topic? If I did, I would have to remove books of my own from the market each and every time I change my mind on a detail. What about a broader level of truth? No, not so much. What I look for in manuscripts–and trust me, getting good manuscripts that fit my goals isn’t easy–is a point of view that is worth hearing expressed in a way that it can be heard.

    If my company were not individually owned I would have less trouble with this. Large companies are expected to produce a variety of ideas. But as it is, many people are surprised each time I publish a book that doesn’t entirely agree with what I have said or written.

    So what is this conservative book that I’m publishing? It’s Preserving Democracy, and it’s by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. I’ve published two books and two study guides by Elgin dealing with Christian apologetics (Evidence for the Bible and Christianity and Secularism. I like Preserving Democracy, because Elgin has done thorough research, referenced the book extensively, and has argued his points well, in my view.

    No, I don’t agree with everything in this book, but that is really not the relevant point. I think this is a book that expresses ideas that should be considered. If you don’t agree, you should know why, and be able to support your position.

    It’s possible this sounds like damning the book with faint praise. Not true! I’m extremely delighted to have it as the first Energion Publications title in the Politics category. I hope it will challenge people, start debate, and create action. One course of action might be proposals or manuscripts. (Are you interested in the approach I’m taking? Do you have a manuscript or an idea for one? Contact me.)

    But I’m also using it to establish my brand identity, so you may hear me talk a bit about my ideas here from time to time. Conversation between people expressing clear, uncompromised ideas can be a powerful force.

    Elgin expressed this in his book:

    A good healthy democracy depends on a healthy debate that includes both pros, cons, and ramifications of each side and their proposals. But when debate exists primarily in slogans, bumper stickers, and thirty second TV spots, true honest discussion and debate is impossible.

    Furthermore, with so many outlets for information, groups are increasingly becoming more insular. Democrats talk primarily to Democrats, Republicans to Republicans, and Libertarians to Libertarians. Each group looks to its sources and insulates itself from others, effectively becoming self-reinforcing, feeding on their own rhetoric rather than on reality. (pages 165-166 in advance copies)

    I think he is absolutely right. I believe his book is a step in the right direction. Many more are needed, but you can’t take a second step until you have taken the first. It’s my first step toward strengthening the political debate as a publisher.

    Note: If you are interested in reading an advance copy, and you are a blogger, involved with other social media including Twitter, or a political leader, please e-mail me at pubs@energion.com. There are still a few advance copies available, and I’d be delighted to send you one while they last.

  • What He Said

    Troy Britain has it absolutely right on freedom of speech, with the added bonus that I get to agree with Christopher Hitchens at the same time, which doesn’t happen nearly as often.

  • Moving Bright Kids Forward

    The U. S. News Blog reports that schools in some states, including my home state of Florida, are making it possible for Middle School students to take advanced courses that might normally only be available in High School.

    My reaction to this is positive. Anything that improves education is a good thing. As I remember my own education at that age I know I was frequently bored and would have enjoyed some advanced placement. The one objection I would see as reasonable is one of balance. Parents need to make sure their children have a balance of activities and that they are not pursuing such advanced placements when they are really not the best thing for them at that point. But that is a matter for involved parents and observant teachers.

    On the other hand, those who object to this type of program have another reason: Minority children might be left behind. Quoting the article: “But some education experts are concerned that this trend in Florida and in other states is leaving minority students behind.” ()

    Huh? I really question the “educational” expertise of someone who can make such a claim. This is the type of thinking that will permanently prevent minorities–and majorities–from achievement. These are educators who think that because not everyone goes through the door of opportunity, there must be some discrimination going on. Check out the numbers in the article. Certainly, white students are taking more advantage of these programs, but note also that white students are the minority at some of these schools.

    Someone certainly should look into whether there are qualified students who are not pursuing such courses (and the numbers suggest there probably are) and why that should be. They should look into how one would get such students to invest their time and effort in the courses that will prepare them for the future. They should NOT look into ways of holding back the children who are taking advantage of them.

    Closing the door will absolutely help nobody. There may be an argument that money is being spent to help the bright kids at the expense of the not-so-bright. Apart from disliking the idea of making that sort of judgment except through actual performance, I think that is a bogus argument.

    Many of us don’t seem to realize it, but the world is becoming less and less friendly to those with limited education. We may glorify the people of the soil, construction workers, and manufacturing workers as the sort of salt of the earth. Unfortunately, on the other hand, the educated sometimes to look down at such people as ignorant or stupid. That is not the case. They are rather properly trained and educated for the job they perform. But those jobs are becoming less and less possible without a good education. Simply living in the world is going to require more education as time goes on.

    If schools don’t move to provide the opportunity to learn anything for any child who is capable of doing so, then everyone, including those who might be rated as “less bright” is going to pay the cost. I can’t even begin to do the work of someone like Dr. Stephen Hawking, but I am immeasurably enriched by what he has done. I’m certainly not diminished because he demonstrates how much smarter he is than I am.

    There’s a nasty tendency today to see education and opportunity as a sort of zero-sum game. If one person has more of it, the next person must necessarily have less. But the fact is that those who have some extra spark increase the opportunities available rather than taking opportunity from others.

    I’m an advocate of public education, at least in some form. But I must also advocate private schooling and home schooling. I had some of each. I would not have made it to where I am now without the opportunities provided by teachers who didn’t think that pushing one child ahead was dangerous to other children. I benefited greatly from parents who didn’t say, “We’ll just send him to the nearest school and let him do whatever they think he should.”

    Keep the existing doors of opportunity open. Open many more. Holding children back isn’t going to help anyone.

  • I Don’t Understand This

    From CBS News:

    Eighty percent of speech watchers approve of President Obama’s plans for dealing with the economic crisis. Before the speech, 63 percent approved.

    Fifty-one percent of speech watchers think the president’s economic plans will help them personally. Thirty-six thought so before the speech.

    I have mixed emotions about President Obama’s economic policies, and I had mixed emotions about President Bush’s. My point is that this isn’t about criticizing or supporting the policies.

    President Obama gives a good speech. In this case there was even some content in the speech. But it wasn’t an explanation of his policies. It didn’t tell us anything new about why such policies were necessary, or why they would help particular people. I listened to the whole thing and was impressed, but it didn’t convince me of anything I didn’t already believe and I don’t see what element in the speech would be expected to change my mind.

    So what in the speech would change enough minds to cause a 17 point jump in the percentage who approve of the president’s handling of the economy? What produced a 15 point jump in those who think the plans will benefit them personally? Presumably those numbers will drop with time, but those are still some rather hefty gains.

    I truly don’t see how this works.

  • Rewarding Incompetence

    There was quite a stir recently over a rant by Rick Santelli of CNBC on the mortgage plan produced by the Obama administration. One of the claims made was that this plan was “rewarding incompetence.”

    Now without regard to context, I wouldn’t have a problem with that. Where I do have a problem is with those who would cheer these words, and yet support bailing out banks and the auto industry. If you support ideas like “saving an industry as a whole,” then it is quite easy to see the mortgage plan as a means of trying to save a particular industry, rather than as a program to save those who may have made bad decisions.

    On the other hand, if one objects to saving people who have made bad decisions, then surely the executives of financial institutions and of our major auto companies qualify. What better measure of failure could one have than that the company led by a particular management team fails spectacularly and requires a government bailout. Yet even the idea of limiting compensation for those responsible meets resistance.

    As general policy, I don’t think limiting compensation is nearly adequate, nor is it good policy for the government to be trying to directly set compensation. But somewhere there is a major failure when companies are crashing, and the executives managing them are not only not fired, they find defenders who think $500,000 per year is too little pay for such failures.

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I’ll be happy to run companies into the ground for much less than $500,000 per year.

    And it appears it’s not even a real limit. Ed Brayton today on Dispatches points out that this limitation has considerable loopholes.

    So if we’re rewarding bad decisions when we bail out homeowners, some of whom might have had excellent jobs when they signed their mortgages, but have since lost them, we are even more guilty of rewarding bad decisions in finance and in industry. I would also point out that bankruptcy is one of those risks that a lender takes, as well as a borrower. Lenders who make bad loans end up losing their money when the borrower goes bankrupt. There are two sides when a bad loan is made: A borrower and a lender. If fraud is not a question, it is not just the borrower who made a bad decision.

    I don’t see much consistency in these debates. It seems that the standards change depending on who is getting the money.

    Having said that, I know that I’ve written several notes in which I might not have been fully clear. So let me put it in a few words. I don’t believe in rewarding incompetence, not anybody’s incompetence. In fact, I don’t believe in the government “rewarding” at all. I do believe in economic stimulus, but the portion of stimulus that I support involves government spending more on things that ought to be done anyhow. Unfortunately this has become a minor portion of our spending, especially with all the hidden money going into the banking system.

    What I mean by spending money on things government ought to do anyhow? Essentially if one looked forward at the infrastructure needs of the country over say 25-50 years, and then during an economic downturn borrows and builds several years worth of projects much faster, I would consider that a valid stimulus. If you pay money out for ordinary expenses, then all you have done is paid those expenses. If you build a bridge, you have a bridge. You do, of course, have to make sure it’s not a bridge to nowhere.

    Bridges, roads, communications infrastructure, needed government buildings, military research, and many other things are valid things on which to spend. They are things that must be done sometime, and most of them will produce income into the future. If a project is a bad idea under normal circumstances, it’s a bad idea in terms of stimulus.

    The problem, of course, is to bring the government off of a deficit spending spree and back to something that should be “normal.” Governments like to spend money. It’s the stopping that’s hard.

  • Dan Wallace is Angry

    … about the New York Post “chimp” cartoon. While he and I wouldn’t see eye to eye on many things (though his Greek Grammar beyond the Basics is brilliant!) I particularly appreciate this coming from him.

    I don’t regard printing this cartoon as responsible, but I want to make sure to note that I think newspapers have the right to be irresponsible, just as the rest of us have the right (and one might say duty) to call them on it.

  • The Value and Danger of Forensics

    The value, of course, is that they provide us with more objective views than eyewitness testimony, for example. There’s a bit of a forensics craze running the country with shows like CSI making the idea of forensic evidence popular and fun.

    But such shows tend to distort the picture in various ways. To make an hour’s show, tests must come back more quickly than they would in real life. Again, in real life there would be many more frustrations on a daily basis, and equivocal evidence would be much more common.

    Radley Balko has a story about manufactured evidence (HT: his Agitator blog), and a particularly blatant one. His story comes as the National Academy of Science has released a report (link to press release, report is linked from release on problems with various types of forensic evidence as used in our court system.

    The danger of forensic evidence? It is studied and presented by people, and sometimes people are incompetent or dishonest. The NAS report suggests a number of necessary remedies.

    I would hope that this would not discredit the ideas involved in the mind of the public. Rather, I would hope we would be prepared to support those who do their jobs well, but hold accountable those who don’t.

  • Obama Administration Opposes Fairness Doctrine

    … or so a spokesman told Fox News (HT: Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire). This is good news considering the number of people who are inclined to revive it. (The Fox News report even includes the claim that Congressman Henry Waxman is interested in an internet fairness doctrine, for which idea he is being quite justifiably ridiculed. But then the story is by Fox News reporting on an American Spectator story, so …)

    I belive the fairness doctrine is an obvious infringement of free speech and liberals should be embarrassed to support such an idea while claiming to be in favor of civil liberties.

    (Personal note: Blame two book deadlines and a few days of flu for the low level of posting here for the last week or so.)