kenshi: Observations on the Veep Debate

Terrible Swift Sword (

kenshi) wrote,
@ 2008-10-03 09:53:00

Observations on the Veep Debate
Having just finished watching the Veep debate online, I have one observation and two questions:

Observation: Joe Biden is surprisingly lifelike. I wonder if they got the technical problems on his remote control sorted out just in time for the debate.

Question #1: What the hell was Obama thinking when he picked this lying jackass as his vice presidential running mate?

Question #2: Who is that woman, and what has the McCain campaign done with Sarah Palin?

Did I accidently fall into an alternate universe last night? I don't recognize these people or any of the weird shit they're talking about.

(Post a new comment)

boffo
2008-10-03 05:48 pm UTC (link)

What the hell was Obama thinking when he picked this lying jackass as his vice presidential running mate?

I think he was thinking that the media wouldn't bother calling him on any of the lies or jackassery. Biden invented history out of thin air, talking about what he and Obama advocated during the fictitious event when Hezballah was kicked out of Lebanon. And nobody outside of the intelligent end of the right-blogosphere even noticed. And the odds of the media saying anything about this are smaller than the odds that they'll stop repeating lies about Palin that they already know to be false.

Of course, just because he can get away with lies and jackassery doesn't make Biden a good choice. The downside is less than it should be, but I still don't see any upside. I guess this is yet another example of Obama's "judgment" that we're always hearing about.

To answer your question, I think Obama was thinking "My advisers say this is a good idea." Meanwhile his advisers were thinking, "Hillary will reward me with a position in her cabinet after she wins the 2012 election."

(Reply to this) (Thread)

eruv
2008-10-03 07:49 pm UTC (link)

talking about what he and Obama advocated during the fictitious event when Hezballah was kicked out of Lebanon.

I did miss that! Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Wow.

I just recently realized, with this election, what people mean when they say that politicians lie. They don't just misstate or fudge or make improbable promises -- they make stuff up. They lie.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	indiscipline 2008-10-04 01:01 am UTC (link)
	You never noticed this during Clinton's Presidency? Both he and his wife lived on lies. I guess you're just not as jaded as me. :-) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	eruv 2008-10-04 01:12 am UTC (link)
	I was 4 years old when Clinton took office. Also, I had a crush on him. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	indiscipline 2008-10-04 03:02 am UTC (link)
	Okay, I feel old now. :-) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	radiantsun 2008-10-03 05:54 pm UTC (link)
	Bwa ha ha ha ha ha. We are so screwed. (Reply to this)

	kitchenwitch 2008-10-03 09:56 pm UTC (link)
	Q: Do you think Biden pulled the dead-baby-and-baby-mama card out for effect (i.e., "See? I have a soul!")? I have a sneaking suspicion that he did... (Reply to this) (Thread)

	kenshi 2008-10-03 10:30 pm UTC (link)
	He was at his most vampiric at that moment. It was kinda creepy, actually. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	indiscipline 2008-10-04 12:59 am UTC (link)
	He brought THAT up? I lived in Delaware for 7 years and it seemed he had a pass for life because of that personal tragedy. Now he's milking it on the national stage? Gah. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	malathion 2008-10-04 05:36 am UTC (link)
	I don't recognize these people or any of the weird shit they're talking about. Scour your memory, and you might discover that this is the case most or all of the time. (Reply to this)

	miyu_sakura 2008-10-05 03:44 am UTC (link)
	Dude, I fucking gave up on Palin a long time ago. I'm done. Thanks a lot, Puritans. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	kenshi 2008-10-08 10:56 pm UTC (link)
	Puritans?! That's a category error. There's definitely a philosophical/religious heir to Puritans in this race, but it ain't Palin. Not by a long shot. (Reply to this) (Parent)

On an unrelated note...

nationelectric
2008-10-08 09:46 pm UTC (link)

You seem like a guy who's up to speed on the right-wing blogosphere, and this question might cheer you up:

What apparent influence has Ayers had on Obama? As you know, Palin's been pushing the Ayers button lately. Every time I see the attack deployed, I heard two specific claims: 1.) Obama's association with Ayers reflects poorly on his judgment/ethics/honor, and 2.) Ayers has somehow influenced Obama (Obama is a radical left-wing extremist, Obama is carrying out Ayers' agenda, etc.)

Point #1, I understand. (I don't think it's particularly wise for McCain partisans to bring up, given some of McCain's associations, but I get the argument.) But every time I hear point #2, I never hear any concrete examples of *how* Ayers has influenced Obama. It's always vague "suspicions", it's never any sort of concrete thing like, "look how he voted here" or "look at this policy" or "look at when he mailed a pipebomb to Perot" or anything.

But then, I mainly interact with liberals and moderates, so it's entirely possible that there's a good answer to point #2 that I just haven't heard yet. What've you heard? What's your take?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: On an unrelated note...

kenshi
2008-10-08 10:50 pm UTC (link)

From my observations, I think this accusation has plugged into two different groundswells on the right.

On the one hand, Obama has clear ties to radicals and bad guys of various types, whether militant leftists like Ayers and ACORN, gangsters like Tony Rezko, or identity-balkanizers like Rev. Wright. His response to questions about his relationships with these people seems almost perfectly calculated to create more concern than less. He maintains his relationships with obviously questionable characters until either being called out on it by opponents or catching wind of the possibility that he might be called out on it. At that point, he then drops them and runs away from the them as fast as he can. However, and this is an important point, he never really admits that he might have made a mistake for having been involved with them. He gets defensive about it, and that is a huge warning alarm for people who already have lots of reasons to be wary of militants, radicals, and gangsters. Obama could diffuse the whole Ayers thing in an afternoon if he would simply admit that he had made an error in judgment by ever having anything to do with him, honestly disclose the real details of the relationship, and take steps to clearly repudiate anything that might be associated with him. Similarly, Wright, Rezko, ACORN, et al. The fact that Obama is clearly unwilling to do this is considered highly suspect. The closest he's come was with his dumping of Rev. Wright, but even that was a bit tone-deaf, and his choice to use his speech on the subject to address the broader subject of race relations seemed like a dodge.

I don't necessarily agree with all this, but that's how it comes across. Obama appears to be unrepentant and totally insincere on anything having to do with his history of dealing with some really unsavory people.

On the other hand, Ayers is an especially bad sort of person for Obama to be associated with in the eyes of many on the right. Ayers is an example of the worst excesses of the leftist zeal that flared across the country in the 60s and 70s. Many people still despise anybody who had anything to do with that sort of militant activism, and deep down are still appalled that most of them got away with it scot free (and in fact now have cushy academic sinecures or spots on the boards of major philanthropies where they can continue to preach on the public dime, as if what they did was somehow just youthful over-enthusiasm driven by "noble goals"). That Obama is the most leftist Presidential candidate we've had in...well...maybe ever, makes it doubly alarming when he's known to be friends and associates with someone like Ayers. That Obama gets defensive about being associated with Ayers makes him look like a crypto-trotskyite in the eyes of right wing critics (this is also not helped by all the "Obamaganda" ... posters, videos of children singing, cult-of-personality-like worship ... floating around out there which so clearly echos nazi and leninist propaganda). Obama's platform certainly contains many things that are near and dear to the militant left. How serious can Obama be in his protestations about Ayers when he made apologies for Rev. Wright and has a platform full of redistributionist policy?

To the right, the answer is "obviously, not very." To them, this is not some trumped-up charge or exaggerated coup counting. It's deadly serious, and should not be discounted.

Whether or not it gets any traction with the broader electorate is another question. But the right is not pursuing this out of simple partisan insanity, and it's a mistake to dismiss them on that basis.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: On an unrelated note...

nationelectric
2008-10-09 12:00 am UTC (link)

Thanks. That helps me understand what's going on a bit better.

Maybe you can clear up something else for me: what about Obama's policies (just his policies, not the marketing) causes him to be perceived as a part of, or near, the militant left? There's healthcare, alternative energy, and climate change -- but those are now mainstream issues, as McCain has had to acknowledge. His healthcare plan, by virtue of being voluntary, is arguably less left-wing than Hillary's or (IIRC) Kerry's. He did oppose the Iraq war, but many Americans did and do, and he wants to *widen* the war in Afghanistan. And he's gone along with things like telecom immunity. The only thing I can think of is that he wants to give tax cuts to the poor and middle class, while giving tax hikes to the wealthy.

Honestly, most of the people I know who would qualify as the "far left" see him as a mainstream, establishment figure, conservative in many ways. Closer to them than McCain is, certainly, but still far short of what they would consider a "leftist" candidate.

That's how it looks to me, anyway. I realize there's a huge gulf in perceptions here.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: On an unrelated note...

kenshi
2008-10-09 12:56 am UTC (link)

Healthcare is by far and away the biggest one. All by itself, that's really a deal-killer for even a lot of moderates (something the Democrats and their fellow-travelers can't seem to wrap their heads around). I've heard numerous people identify that as the number one reason they can't support him for President, even though they otherwise like him.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is another, but less broadly contentious (people will believe just about anything these days).

His foreign policy is highly suspect due to his position on Iraq, but he's really all over the place on that one. It's neither here nor there unless you're geopolitical realist like I am...in which case he's a scary son-of-a-gun. His choice of advisers does not bode well on this score either.

When I say that Obama is more to the left than any other candidate I can think of (other than, perhaps, McGovern), I don't personally think he's a leftist ideologue in any committed sense. He's primarily an opportunist, as is clear from his history and record. Because of who he is and where he came up in politics, all the best opportunities for advancement were connected to leftist causes, identity politics, and corrupt political machines. His leftism is a matter of convenience more than anything else, and it's likely that he won't govern to the left all that much (in fact, the state of the economy almost guarantees that he won't be able to...his health care plan is already unviable for that reason). He's very likely to do whatever will serve him best personally, as that's the only consistent pattern in his behavior over the last 40 some-odd years.

For that reason, I actually strongly suspect that an Obama presidency would have a lot more in common with a Harding or Hoover administration than a Carter administration (which is the most commonly-supposed outcome). Corruption is likely to become a very big problem for him, maybe even personally.

On the other hand, his core political support base and the Democratic Congress is highly ideological and partisan right now. There is a non-trivial probability that they'll be able to push him to do some things that will prompt the worst-case scenarios identified in Strauss and Howe's book (highly recommended, if you haven't read it). The Baby Boomers are still young enough and energetic enough that there is a high likelihood of severe partisan/schismatic conflict if they manage to engineer a major crisis before 2016. A weak and corrupt, yet partisan Obama administration combined with a partisan Congress would dramatically increase the odds of that outcome (Strauss and Howe go so far as to predict something akin to civil war if the Baby Boomers get power during a major existential crisis occurring prior to 2016-2020).

Of course, the same could be said of a McCain administration...except that it would have the virtue of not having any Baby Boomers involved at its top tier. McCain is a member of the Silent Generation, which is clearly evidenced in his career of compromise and conciliation (to a fault, really, but typical of members of Artist/Adaptive generations). That can be a strength and a weakness, but its primary advantage in this situation is that it puts the major crisis/confrontation off long enough for the Baby Boomers to get old and mellow the fuck out. Should McCain die in office, Palin's an early Gen-Xer. You can see the difference in generational styles in the way she's governed Alaska: very pragmatic and results-oriented, without much ideology at all (typical of Nomad/Reactive generations). Either generational style would be preferable to the ideological fervors of the Baby Boomers, who have polarized rather than reaching the synthesis that prior Idealist/Prophet generations typically achieved in old age.

Of course, my outlook on all this is not typical of right wingers, since I'm not one. I do follow what they're up to pretty closely, though (as I do the left wingers as well, though probably not as deep). Frankly, I'm very worried about this election. Neither outcome is going to be good, but right now it looks to me like one is definitely worse than the other.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: On an unrelated note... nationelectric 2008-10-09 03:56 pm UTC (link)
	Thanks for taking the time to share this explanation, and analysis. So, let me ask the following: - Why is healthcare a deal-killer? - What do you dislike about Obama's foreign policy and advisers? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Interesting questions (pt. 1)

kenshi
2008-10-09 10:28 pm UTC (link)

The healthcare issue is a big and complex one. I'm not sure I can really do it justice here, but I'll try to distill what I think the core problem is (and, actually, the problem is closely related to the current financial crisis and mortgage lending).

The important thing to keep in mind when looking at systemic economic problems like the mortgage lending bubble or the spiraling costs of healthcare is this: incentives matter. This is really the core observation that drives most supporters of free market policies. Regardless of people's ethical positions, in aggregate their actions are largely driven by pain or gain: consequences.

Government intervention in transactions between people grossly distorts the incentives that motivate their behavior. Sometimes, this is a good thing. For instance, having a justice system which rigorously enforces private property rights and contracts imposes a strong incentive to honor private property and contracts, with the consequences of doing so going beyond a ruined reputation or personal vendetta to jail time.

But, usually, when the government gets involved in economic transactions outside of its role as hegemon and guarantor of security, the incentives get strongly skewed toward bad behavior (i.e. many incentives are created to do bad things). Health care in the US is an excellent example of this.

The US does not have a truly private health care system. The provision of health care in the US is very highly regulated. In particular, when the US government when it offered tax exemptions for employer expenses on employee health insurance plans, a massive incentive was created for employers to provide health plans as part of employee compensation. On the surface, this might sound like a good thing. In reality, it has been the main source of spiraling health care costs in the US. Employer-based health plans, by necessity due to the way they are contracted, separate the insured from any cost consequence of their decision making with regard to their health care. Therefore, the demand curve has detached from cost and supply considerations, giving unlimited incentive for people to demand extensive and often unnecessary health care services while remaining insulated from the direct costs. Although the costs of many current procedures far exceed their benefits, people have been encouraged to believe that cost should not be a consideration in their treatment decision-making due to the skewed incentive structure created by government action in the marketplace. The result is out-of-control growth in health care costs and drastic cost-management strategies by insurers. If you're interested learning more about this, I highly recommend Arnold Kling's book, Crisis of Abundance.

By advocating that government step in to "fix" the problem that government itself created, advocates of single-payer systems are simply arguing to substitute one set of really bad incentives for another set of really bad incentives. There is a long history of government involvement in economic transactions: all of it uniformly bad. The government, due to its sovereign power and ownership of the currency, can only create large moral hazards any time it asserts control in an economic transaction. The decision-making of the American health-care consumer has been skewed in much the same way as the behavior of mortgage lenders was skewed by government guarantees and bailouts. They do stupid, irresponsible things because they are insulated from the negative consequenses, which are in turn socialized and imposed as negative externalities on third parties (all the rest of us).

I could go on and on about this, but that's the gist of it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Interesting questions (pt. 1)

nationelectric
2008-10-12 07:08 pm UTC (link)

Interesting points.

You've said that healthcare is the big deal-killer for a lot of conservatives and some moderates. If so, some may see the issue in these terms, but I'd imagine that many perceive it in emotional or moral terms (as many people tend to do, on both sides of the aisle.) What's their principal issue? Is it about entitlement, or centralized government, or...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Interesting questions (pt. 2)

kenshi
2008-10-09 10:28 pm UTC (link)

Obama's foreign policy problems are much easier for me to describe, though my answer may not entirely satisfy you. If you're interested foreign policy, I strongly recommend you pick up a couple of books by Walter Russell Mead: Special Providence, and Power, Terror, Peace, and War. You can get a taste for some of his ideas here.

My criticism of Obama's foreign policy simply boils down to this: it is much too radically Wilsonian, to the point of fantasy (much as his alternative energy policy appears to depend on unicorn farts to replace fossil fuels). Obama has also chosen poorly when it comes to his foreign policy advisors: Samantha Power, Robert O. Malley, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Anthony Lake, and Susan Rice (an acolyte of Madeline Albright). This has got to be pretty close to the worst set of people who could ever be put in line to have a major guiding influence on American foreign policy (though including Albright herself would indeed make it worse). Power, in particular, is a very troubling choice.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Interesting questions (pt. 2)

nationelectric
2008-10-12 07:24 pm UTC (link)

I don't see what's unrealistic about his energy policy. Granted, it's ambitious, but it seems to rely on investing in the development of relatively promising technologies to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by about 30%. Okay, that's very ambitious. But it's not technically infeasible, and it'll become more and more politically and economically practical as oil prices rise.

What's so Wilsonian about his foreign policy? Granted, he advocates a re-commitment to Afghanistan, and that kinda freaks me out (ghosts of the USSR), but we're already in there. We're just being half-assed about it, and that doesn't look to me like it's accomplishing anything.

I'll read up more on his advisors.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs