Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who will face voters next month in a recall election recently assessed his fate by suggesting that political courage would suffer defeat if he were to lose. Nice spin governor, but the position Walker finds himself in was the result of his own political extremism, not courageous leadership.
In deciding to pass a law to strip most public employee unions of their collective bargaining rights as a means curb the rising cost of pensions and other benefits for public employees, Walker and fellow Republicans chose the most controversial course of action. As a result, they provoked the ire of voters who believe they went too far. Ohio voters recently rebelled against a similar anti-union law passed by a GOP governor by overwhelmingly repealing it at the ballot box.
Of course, in both cases, there were other less extreme solutions available, such as trimming benefits and requiring public employees to pay a higher percentage of their healthcare and pension costs, concessions many public unions had already agreed to make.
So why weren’t these more sensible and modest solutions seized upon by Republicans? Well, to answer the question you have to examine conservative political philosophy, which too often tends to see issues in black and white as opposed to shades of gray. Conservatives seem to perceive moderation as weakness, and strive to define themselves in a way that’s unquestionably distinct from their Democratic counterparts. Essentially, the GOP has become politically invested in always trying to position itself at polar opposites to Democratic or more liberal positions on similar issues. Whatever the Democrats favor, Republicans reactively have to oppose.
When political parties become too entrenched in a partisan “our way or the highway” approach to governing, it can invariably lead to extreme positions on issues that eschew more common sense solutions to problems. In such instances, holding the party line for partisan political reasons trump sensible compromise. Fortunately, when voters feel such political overreach is afoot, they rightly revolt against the extremist tactics, forcing politicians to re-examine their positions. That’s the reality that humbled Ohio Gov. John Kasich when he acknowledged the following after voters repealed that state‘s collective bargaining law:
“It's clear the people have spoken. I heard their voices. I understand their decision. And frankly, I respect what the people have to say in an effort like this. And as a result of that, it requires me to take a deep breath and to spend some time to reflect on what happened here.”
Such is the predicament Walker now find himself in as possible eviction from office looms next month. Walker wants to portray himself as a principled political hero who stood up to organized labor to make tough fiscal choices for his state. That distortion of reality might have an ounce of credibility had he not acted in his political party’s self-interest by blatantly excluding police and firefighter unions from the collective bargaining law restrictions. Both union groups tend to support Republicans candidates.
If Walker really wanted to demonstrate political courage, he should have resisted his party’s partisan lurch to the extreme right and charted a more sensible moderate course with the unions. So despite Walker’s claims to the contrary, the cause of political courage will more than survive if he is recalled from office, so long as other leaders have the courage to not follow his bad example.
Showing posts with label Election 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election 2012. Show all posts
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Obama's Not So Courageous Gay Marriage Stand
The gay community is justly ecstatic about President Obama’s recent decision, after years of straddling the fence, to fully endorse same-sex marriage. Some have even called the president’s decision courageous. Well, while the president deserves credit for finally “evolving” on the issue, I would hold off on awarding him any gold stars for political courage.
In ultimately reaching the conclusion to support same-sex marriage, the president essentially followed public opinion, which had been increasingly trending in favor of gay marriage since the mid ‘90s. According to a recent Gallup Poll, support now stands at 50 percent, which is up from less than 30 percent in 1996. Among young adults (18 - 34) support for gay marriage today is as high as 70 percent.
In the face of such a tectonic shift in public attitudes, the president was presented with a more auspicious environment in which to now take a firm stand on a controversial issue at minimum political risk. That’s hardly an act of bold political courage. In essence, the public led on the issue, and Obama tentatively followed safely behind.
Yes, same-sex marriage has been a hard fought and emotionally charged social issue that was fraught with great political peril, so taking an affirmative stand was far from easy. But championing a cause with civil rights, social equality and constitutional equal protection implications requires strong leadership, whatever the risks. Besides, when has demonstrating leadership on polarizing issues ever been easy?
Politicians display real political courage when they are willing to stake a position on unpopular issues, in spite of the apparent political risks, something too few have the guts to do in today’s poll-driven environment.
That said, we can still applaud Obama for the watershed moment in history his decision on same-sex marriage represents. While his endorsement has no direct effect on laws currently banning gay marriage in many states, it does offer an unambiguous federal government position should the issue come before the U.S. Supreme Court.
So yes, laud Obama’s affirmative evolution on marriage equality for gay Americans; but let’s not pretend political courage got him there.
In ultimately reaching the conclusion to support same-sex marriage, the president essentially followed public opinion, which had been increasingly trending in favor of gay marriage since the mid ‘90s. According to a recent Gallup Poll, support now stands at 50 percent, which is up from less than 30 percent in 1996. Among young adults (18 - 34) support for gay marriage today is as high as 70 percent.
In the face of such a tectonic shift in public attitudes, the president was presented with a more auspicious environment in which to now take a firm stand on a controversial issue at minimum political risk. That’s hardly an act of bold political courage. In essence, the public led on the issue, and Obama tentatively followed safely behind.
Yes, same-sex marriage has been a hard fought and emotionally charged social issue that was fraught with great political peril, so taking an affirmative stand was far from easy. But championing a cause with civil rights, social equality and constitutional equal protection implications requires strong leadership, whatever the risks. Besides, when has demonstrating leadership on polarizing issues ever been easy?
Politicians display real political courage when they are willing to stake a position on unpopular issues, in spite of the apparent political risks, something too few have the guts to do in today’s poll-driven environment.
That said, we can still applaud Obama for the watershed moment in history his decision on same-sex marriage represents. While his endorsement has no direct effect on laws currently banning gay marriage in many states, it does offer an unambiguous federal government position should the issue come before the U.S. Supreme Court.
So yes, laud Obama’s affirmative evolution on marriage equality for gay Americans; but let’s not pretend political courage got him there.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Partisan “Team” Mentality Undermines Responsible Governance
Rick Santorum’s comment during the recent GOP debate in Arizona in which he said, “sometimes you take one for the team,” in defense of his support for the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind legislation, which he now regrets, was both surprisingly honest and troubling.
Santorum, a supposed advocate of locally controlled education, even admitted that his support for the law went against his own principles. Of course Santorum is not alone in demonstrating such hypocritical political behavior; he was simply honest or foolish enough to express it verbally.
Politicians in both political parties willingly endorse initiatives advanced by the president when he’s a member their party even if they don‘t agree with the measure. I have no doubt that had a Democratic president proposed No Child Left Behind, Santorum would have had no difficulty finding reasons to vociferously condemn and demonize it, thereby avoiding any cognitive dissonance between his political beliefs and legislative actions.
His actions and those of many others in Washington reflect a childish “team mentality” that pervades our politics. Instead of objectively questioning or debating the merits of proposed laws, politicians mindlessly line up along partisan lines out of some misplaced ideological loyalty to prop up the president and their party.
Newsflash, the US Congress isn‘t a team sport. While leaders clearly represent distinct regional interests, they still have to work collectively for the common good of the nation as a whole. But partisan cheerleading, which too frequently guides decision making in Washington, undermines this core responsibility of national leadership.
Santorum’s honest gaffe, may have cost him his chance to grab the GOP presidential nomination from the presumptive nominee Mitt Romney, but it offered insight voters need to be mindful of in choosing who to support for president. Do they want a partisan team player or a leader who understands our collective national interest?
Santorum, a supposed advocate of locally controlled education, even admitted that his support for the law went against his own principles. Of course Santorum is not alone in demonstrating such hypocritical political behavior; he was simply honest or foolish enough to express it verbally.
Politicians in both political parties willingly endorse initiatives advanced by the president when he’s a member their party even if they don‘t agree with the measure. I have no doubt that had a Democratic president proposed No Child Left Behind, Santorum would have had no difficulty finding reasons to vociferously condemn and demonize it, thereby avoiding any cognitive dissonance between his political beliefs and legislative actions.
His actions and those of many others in Washington reflect a childish “team mentality” that pervades our politics. Instead of objectively questioning or debating the merits of proposed laws, politicians mindlessly line up along partisan lines out of some misplaced ideological loyalty to prop up the president and their party.
Newsflash, the US Congress isn‘t a team sport. While leaders clearly represent distinct regional interests, they still have to work collectively for the common good of the nation as a whole. But partisan cheerleading, which too frequently guides decision making in Washington, undermines this core responsibility of national leadership.
Santorum’s honest gaffe, may have cost him his chance to grab the GOP presidential nomination from the presumptive nominee Mitt Romney, but it offered insight voters need to be mindful of in choosing who to support for president. Do they want a partisan team player or a leader who understands our collective national interest?
Monday, February 20, 2012
On Gay Marriage, GOP Must Distinguish Personal Beliefs from Civil Freedoms
In the wake of the recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down Proposition 8 (the California same-sex marriage ban) as unconstitutional, conservatives are once again making claims of “judicial activism.“ Such hollow claims have become a familiar refrain from conservatives in response to major court rulings on which they disagree. They seem to believe that the role of the judiciary is to simply rubber stamp whatever the majority wants, whether it runs afoul of constitutional principles or not. Keep in mind that it took a major court ruling in 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education) that struck down racial segregation, an immoral apartheid system in which the majority found perfectly acceptable.
The GOP, most notably its Christian conservative base, holds to the moralistic claim that preventing same-sex marriage is about protecting the institution of marriage, which has been historically defined as a union between man and woman. Christian conservatives also view homosexuality as a sin and want no part, as they see it, in advancing a homosexual agenda.
In fairness, one can reasonably respect that people may hold differing views on matters of morality, homosexuality in particular. But the greater issue isn’t about divergent views on the morality of homosexuality; it’s about a seeming lack of understanding for the distinction between personal moral views and civil freedoms. In a pluralistic society where citizens are afforded great democratic liberties and freedoms, individuals have the right to make choices that may not conform to the strongly held personal or religious beliefs of some. For example, heterosexuals who engage in pre-marital sex or indulge in pornography are behaviors people of faith would clearly deem unacceptable, and some have made condemnatory public pronouncements to that effect.
But voicing strong disapproval of adult behavior is one thing; attempting to pass laws to prevent them from doing it is another. The simple reality is that we live in a free society where people must often tolerate behavioral choices they may find objectionable. Moral disapproval, even if voiced by a majority of citizens, doesn’t trump the virtue of free choice. Republicans, too busy pandering to the narrow interest of the Christian Right for electoral support, either don’t get this fundamental concept, or they choose to willfully disregard it. Either position is disturbing and unacceptable, especially for a party that is seldom shy about proclaiming the virtues of the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it embodies.
Sadly, the GOP’s anti-gay rhetoric frequently contradicts those virtues. One of the most offensive examples comes from South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, a prominent Christian conservative who openly espouses the belief that gay individuals shouldn’t be allowed to be teachers. Not only are such views abhorrent, but to be held by someone in a position of leadership in the 21st Century is truly disgraceful. Unfortunately, his extreme views and other like them too often find comfortable refuge in a political party that in 2012 still deems it acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Issues of equality and equal protection under the law aren’t matters that need to be polled to gauge public sentiment. Our collective duty to treat people with deserved respect, fairness and dignity -- regardless of skin color, gender or sexual orientation -- isn’t a matter that should ever be subject to political calculation or electoral strategy. It’s about doing what is morally right and Constitutionally just, whether one personally agrees with it or not.
The GOP, most notably its Christian conservative base, holds to the moralistic claim that preventing same-sex marriage is about protecting the institution of marriage, which has been historically defined as a union between man and woman. Christian conservatives also view homosexuality as a sin and want no part, as they see it, in advancing a homosexual agenda.
In fairness, one can reasonably respect that people may hold differing views on matters of morality, homosexuality in particular. But the greater issue isn’t about divergent views on the morality of homosexuality; it’s about a seeming lack of understanding for the distinction between personal moral views and civil freedoms. In a pluralistic society where citizens are afforded great democratic liberties and freedoms, individuals have the right to make choices that may not conform to the strongly held personal or religious beliefs of some. For example, heterosexuals who engage in pre-marital sex or indulge in pornography are behaviors people of faith would clearly deem unacceptable, and some have made condemnatory public pronouncements to that effect.
But voicing strong disapproval of adult behavior is one thing; attempting to pass laws to prevent them from doing it is another. The simple reality is that we live in a free society where people must often tolerate behavioral choices they may find objectionable. Moral disapproval, even if voiced by a majority of citizens, doesn’t trump the virtue of free choice. Republicans, too busy pandering to the narrow interest of the Christian Right for electoral support, either don’t get this fundamental concept, or they choose to willfully disregard it. Either position is disturbing and unacceptable, especially for a party that is seldom shy about proclaiming the virtues of the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it embodies.
Sadly, the GOP’s anti-gay rhetoric frequently contradicts those virtues. One of the most offensive examples comes from South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, a prominent Christian conservative who openly espouses the belief that gay individuals shouldn’t be allowed to be teachers. Not only are such views abhorrent, but to be held by someone in a position of leadership in the 21st Century is truly disgraceful. Unfortunately, his extreme views and other like them too often find comfortable refuge in a political party that in 2012 still deems it acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Issues of equality and equal protection under the law aren’t matters that need to be polled to gauge public sentiment. Our collective duty to treat people with deserved respect, fairness and dignity -- regardless of skin color, gender or sexual orientation -- isn’t a matter that should ever be subject to political calculation or electoral strategy. It’s about doing what is morally right and Constitutionally just, whether one personally agrees with it or not.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Blame the Public for our Partisan Politics
A look at our political climate in Washington over the past three years and few would refute that we have a polarized governing body. Blame is usually directed at the two major political parties for their increasing ideological rigidity. Perhaps, but a more basic reason is at the heart of this entrenched partisan divide, as Gallup Poll statistics examining historical presidential approval ratings show.
Presidential approval rating averages from President Ronald Regan to President Barack Obama present a clear partisan divide in how Democrats and Republicans polled judge a president’s performance: Not surprisingly, each group showered favorable praise on the president when he’s a member of their party and voiced strong disapproval of the leader if he isn’t. Yes, there is a certain measure of political logic that voters’ reaction to a president would be skewed by their own party identity, but the fact that the divide is so stark and consistent across presidents regardless of party is indeed troubling. The data suggest that average American voters lack the ability or willingness to fairly assess presidential performance due to the influence of their own political party bias.
It’s understandable that voters might take exception to certain policy positions espoused by a president who’s a member of an opposing party, and would therefore be inclined to offer a less favorable critique. However, the polarization in approval ratings over time suggests neither political group is willing to give the opposition party's president fair credit -- even when, one assumes -- they may like what he’s doing. In other words, political ideology likely trumps fair judgment.
And this leads us back to our polarized political climate. It follows that the extreme partisan politics we see playing out in Congress is simply a reflection of the political divide shown in the views of voters throughout the country. If like-minded voters of their respective political parties can’t be fair and reasonable in their views of the president, why should the public expect elected leaders to behave any differently?
But there’s a huge contradiction in all this: Voters frequently express frustration and anguish at the inability of Democrats and Republicans to work together to get things done for the good of the country, which is a sensible and reasonable expectation. But what those same voters need to first acknowledge is that their own partisan political attitudes make it highly unlikely for that to happen because politicians ultimately take their cues from the voters they represent. So, if voters truly desire less partisan politics, they might try being less partisan.
Presidential approval rating averages from President Ronald Regan to President Barack Obama present a clear partisan divide in how Democrats and Republicans polled judge a president’s performance: Not surprisingly, each group showered favorable praise on the president when he’s a member of their party and voiced strong disapproval of the leader if he isn’t. Yes, there is a certain measure of political logic that voters’ reaction to a president would be skewed by their own party identity, but the fact that the divide is so stark and consistent across presidents regardless of party is indeed troubling. The data suggest that average American voters lack the ability or willingness to fairly assess presidential performance due to the influence of their own political party bias.
It’s understandable that voters might take exception to certain policy positions espoused by a president who’s a member of an opposing party, and would therefore be inclined to offer a less favorable critique. However, the polarization in approval ratings over time suggests neither political group is willing to give the opposition party's president fair credit -- even when, one assumes -- they may like what he’s doing. In other words, political ideology likely trumps fair judgment.
And this leads us back to our polarized political climate. It follows that the extreme partisan politics we see playing out in Congress is simply a reflection of the political divide shown in the views of voters throughout the country. If like-minded voters of their respective political parties can’t be fair and reasonable in their views of the president, why should the public expect elected leaders to behave any differently?
But there’s a huge contradiction in all this: Voters frequently express frustration and anguish at the inability of Democrats and Republicans to work together to get things done for the good of the country, which is a sensible and reasonable expectation. But what those same voters need to first acknowledge is that their own partisan political attitudes make it highly unlikely for that to happen because politicians ultimately take their cues from the voters they represent. So, if voters truly desire less partisan politics, they might try being less partisan.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Donald Trump’s Anti-Obama Tirade Lacks Credibility
While I never disliked business mogul Donald Trump, I also never quite considered myself a fan either, even as I readily admit to having watched “The Apprentice” on occasion. However, his highly questionable crusade against President Barack Obama has completely soured my opinion of him.
Ever since his clownish and unserious flirtation with becoming a candidate for the Republican nomination, Trump can‘t seem to resist the opportunity to scorn Obama at every opportunity, maligning his presidency as a “disaster” for the U.S. economy. Of course his so-called outrage would have an ounce of credibility had he made similar charges or expressed concern when President George Bush was in office when the economy tanked.
Perhaps Trump was too busy with the important business of filming another frivolous “Celebrity Apprentice” to notice that three years ago, the U.S. economy was on the precipice of collapse. Banks and major Wall Street financial institutions were failing one after the other. Obama’s decision to bail out the banks to stem the tide of financial disaster clearly worked. While his actions are not so popular with the fickle masses today, the markets stabilized and the threat of a full-scale economic calamity was averted.
So the obvious question is, where was Trump’s outrage when the financial sector meltdown was occurring on Bush’s watch? Where was his unrelenting crusade against Bush as in incompetent leader whose policies were a disaster for the economy?
Perhaps Trump, who has made a fortune in New York real estate and other investments dislikes Obama because of the president's tough financial regulatory reforms. Or maybe he dislikes the president’s tough on Wall Street posture. Whatever the reason, his anti-Obama tirades seem quite suspect. Even during Trump’s fortunately brief moment in the political headwinds when polls among Republican primary voters indicated some support for his candidacy were he to jump in, he chose to discuss few, if any, issues of political or economic substance. He decided instead to become a vocal advocate of the wacky “birther” nonsense, something that even many mainstream Republicans rejected as foolish. And if that wasn’t shameless enough, Trump then had the audacity to question Obama’s intelligence and academic credentials to be president.
The motivation driving his inexplicably odd actions make little sense, so much so, that I am inclined to suspect racial animus might have been a factor. But what does make sense is Trump’s penchant for being an ego-centric publicity hound. Perhaps he should consult with a better publicist because this is one publicity stunt he will ultimately come to regret. I believe his foolish antics have damaged his image and his celebrity business man brand, making him an irrelevant political joke.
Of course Obama has already had the last laugh on Trump, having masterfully mocked and denigrated him during last year’s White House Correspondences' Dinner. Trump’s buffoonish action’s should provide plenty of material for another well-deserved roasting at the next dinner.
Ever since his clownish and unserious flirtation with becoming a candidate for the Republican nomination, Trump can‘t seem to resist the opportunity to scorn Obama at every opportunity, maligning his presidency as a “disaster” for the U.S. economy. Of course his so-called outrage would have an ounce of credibility had he made similar charges or expressed concern when President George Bush was in office when the economy tanked.
Perhaps Trump was too busy with the important business of filming another frivolous “Celebrity Apprentice” to notice that three years ago, the U.S. economy was on the precipice of collapse. Banks and major Wall Street financial institutions were failing one after the other. Obama’s decision to bail out the banks to stem the tide of financial disaster clearly worked. While his actions are not so popular with the fickle masses today, the markets stabilized and the threat of a full-scale economic calamity was averted.
So the obvious question is, where was Trump’s outrage when the financial sector meltdown was occurring on Bush’s watch? Where was his unrelenting crusade against Bush as in incompetent leader whose policies were a disaster for the economy?
Perhaps Trump, who has made a fortune in New York real estate and other investments dislikes Obama because of the president's tough financial regulatory reforms. Or maybe he dislikes the president’s tough on Wall Street posture. Whatever the reason, his anti-Obama tirades seem quite suspect. Even during Trump’s fortunately brief moment in the political headwinds when polls among Republican primary voters indicated some support for his candidacy were he to jump in, he chose to discuss few, if any, issues of political or economic substance. He decided instead to become a vocal advocate of the wacky “birther” nonsense, something that even many mainstream Republicans rejected as foolish. And if that wasn’t shameless enough, Trump then had the audacity to question Obama’s intelligence and academic credentials to be president.
The motivation driving his inexplicably odd actions make little sense, so much so, that I am inclined to suspect racial animus might have been a factor. But what does make sense is Trump’s penchant for being an ego-centric publicity hound. Perhaps he should consult with a better publicist because this is one publicity stunt he will ultimately come to regret. I believe his foolish antics have damaged his image and his celebrity business man brand, making him an irrelevant political joke.
Of course Obama has already had the last laugh on Trump, having masterfully mocked and denigrated him during last year’s White House Correspondences' Dinner. Trump’s buffoonish action’s should provide plenty of material for another well-deserved roasting at the next dinner.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Herman Cain Ends an Embarrassing Campaign Spectacle
In the face of recent allegations of an extra-marital affair, Herman Cain has finally, albeit defiantly, ended his campaign to become the GOP nominee for president. Some suggest the combined fallout from sexual harassment and extra-marital affair charges made it impossible for him to stay in the race. But in reality, Cain had no business being in the race in the first place.
The Cain candidacy was not only an extreme long shot, at best; it was a political side show. Cain repeatedly showed himself to be ill-prepared, uniformed and woefully unqualified to seek high office, let alone the presidency. On numerous occasions, he displayed an astounding lack of knowledge on the most basic of political issues, e.g., not knowing that China has possessed nuclear weapons for decades or being unable to articulate a coherent response to a simple question about U.S. policy in Libya.
Cain’s ineptitude was not only an embarrassment to himself, it was also an embarrassment for the Republican Party. The process involved in selecting candidates for our highest and most important elected office position is indeed a serious endeavor not to be taken lightly. So for the Republican electorate to elevate and validate the candidacy of such a obviously unqualified and unserious candidate was inexcusable. Their continued support for his substantively deficient campaign made a mockery of the presidential nominating process.
I appreciate voters’ thirst for outsider candidates who haven’t been tarnished or corrupted by Washington politics, which is what supposedly made Cain appealing to many. However, that’s no excuse for backing someone who conservative columnist George Will characterized on “This Week with Christiane Amanpour” as an “entrepreneurial charlatan,” for essentially using his candidacy as a book tour.
The task of selecting presidential candidates is serious business. It’s not enough for contenders to be likable and passionate; they need to also be knowledgeable and well-informed on the issues, and demonstrate an understanding of the significant level of responsibility required for high office leadership - something Cain clearly did not.
The suspension of his candidacy may be a disappointment to those who choose to support him, but the decision brought a needed end to his delusion that he could ever become president. And shame on GOP voters for ever allowing such an unserious and unqualified individual to think he could.
The Cain candidacy was not only an extreme long shot, at best; it was a political side show. Cain repeatedly showed himself to be ill-prepared, uniformed and woefully unqualified to seek high office, let alone the presidency. On numerous occasions, he displayed an astounding lack of knowledge on the most basic of political issues, e.g., not knowing that China has possessed nuclear weapons for decades or being unable to articulate a coherent response to a simple question about U.S. policy in Libya.
Cain’s ineptitude was not only an embarrassment to himself, it was also an embarrassment for the Republican Party. The process involved in selecting candidates for our highest and most important elected office position is indeed a serious endeavor not to be taken lightly. So for the Republican electorate to elevate and validate the candidacy of such a obviously unqualified and unserious candidate was inexcusable. Their continued support for his substantively deficient campaign made a mockery of the presidential nominating process.
I appreciate voters’ thirst for outsider candidates who haven’t been tarnished or corrupted by Washington politics, which is what supposedly made Cain appealing to many. However, that’s no excuse for backing someone who conservative columnist George Will characterized on “This Week with Christiane Amanpour” as an “entrepreneurial charlatan,” for essentially using his candidacy as a book tour.
The task of selecting presidential candidates is serious business. It’s not enough for contenders to be likable and passionate; they need to also be knowledgeable and well-informed on the issues, and demonstrate an understanding of the significant level of responsibility required for high office leadership - something Cain clearly did not.
The suspension of his candidacy may be a disappointment to those who choose to support him, but the decision brought a needed end to his delusion that he could ever become president. And shame on GOP voters for ever allowing such an unserious and unqualified individual to think he could.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Mitt Romney is a Political Phony GOP Should Reject
According to conventional Republican Party political wisdom, Gov. Mitt Romney, who competed to become the Republican nominee for president in 2008, should be outpacing his rivals this time around by leaps and bounds. Historically, Republicans tend to reward repeat nomination contenders with unbridled party support. But polls that show him garnering only about 23 to 25 percent support, even while being praised as the most plausible candidate in the field to challenge President Obama in 2012, suggest that GOP voters are not yet convinced. They seem intent to finding a more appealing alternative to Romney; and they are wise to keep looking.
Romney represents one of the worst kind of politicians: a political phony. That’s a politician who will do and say anything that he believes will help get him elected. Essentially, such individuals are more likely to rely on poll results over any principle as a compass for what position to take on issues. And in Romney’s case, there is ample evidence of such behavior. Across a wide swath of issues from abortion and gay marriage to climate change and health care, Romney has shifted or completely changed his position when he found it politically advantageous to do so. He’s betting that morphing into a fake ultra conservative -- as opposed to being true to the more moderate conservative he’s been in the past -- will enhance his chances of getting the nomination. But so far, skeptical conservatives aren’t buying his political chameleon act.
George Will, a widely respected conservative columnist, described Romney in a recent column as a “recidivist reviser of his principles.”
In response to a question about whether Romney’s frequent flip-flops hurt him, Brit Hume, a conservative commentator on Fox News, offered the following take: “You are only allowed a certain number of flips before people begin doubting your character, and I think Romney exhausted his quota sometime back.”
When fellow members of one’s own party aren’t even willing to try and rationalize a candidate’s obvious character shortcomings, it suggests a major problem that can‘t be overlooked. The modern characterization for Romney’s position shifts is referred to as flip-flops, an almost euphemistic phrase that doesn’t quite reflect the offense. More aptly described, Romney’s flip-flops are essentially examples of calculated political deception. The tactic assumes, or hopes, voters will simply ignore what’s already been clearly stated on record as long as the altered position is more favorable to theirs.
GOP voters should reject Romney and his deceptive politics, which show him to be leader who can‘t be trusted to stand up for what he believes or be willing to take an unpopular position on difficult issues. Neither are the kind of character shortcomings we want in a leader, especially a president.
What’s really unfortunate is that, on paper, Romney has a fairly impressive resume for the office he aspires to: a former governor with a respectable record, notable successes as a businessman, not to mention being articulate and well-versed on the issues. But of course all of his appealing attributes are undermined by the highly undesirable candidate he has chosen to turn himself into for a shot at the presidency.
Good leaders must always be mindful and respectful of the views of their constituency, but they must also have the fortitude and principled conviction to make tough decisions as a duly elected representative of the people. Taking into account the viewed expressed in polls in one thing; using them as the basis for governing is another. Romney has clearly shown he would do the latter. The Republican Party and GOP voters can do better in choosing a candidate to represent them, and they should keep looking until they find one.
Romney represents one of the worst kind of politicians: a political phony. That’s a politician who will do and say anything that he believes will help get him elected. Essentially, such individuals are more likely to rely on poll results over any principle as a compass for what position to take on issues. And in Romney’s case, there is ample evidence of such behavior. Across a wide swath of issues from abortion and gay marriage to climate change and health care, Romney has shifted or completely changed his position when he found it politically advantageous to do so. He’s betting that morphing into a fake ultra conservative -- as opposed to being true to the more moderate conservative he’s been in the past -- will enhance his chances of getting the nomination. But so far, skeptical conservatives aren’t buying his political chameleon act.
George Will, a widely respected conservative columnist, described Romney in a recent column as a “recidivist reviser of his principles.”
In response to a question about whether Romney’s frequent flip-flops hurt him, Brit Hume, a conservative commentator on Fox News, offered the following take: “You are only allowed a certain number of flips before people begin doubting your character, and I think Romney exhausted his quota sometime back.”
When fellow members of one’s own party aren’t even willing to try and rationalize a candidate’s obvious character shortcomings, it suggests a major problem that can‘t be overlooked. The modern characterization for Romney’s position shifts is referred to as flip-flops, an almost euphemistic phrase that doesn’t quite reflect the offense. More aptly described, Romney’s flip-flops are essentially examples of calculated political deception. The tactic assumes, or hopes, voters will simply ignore what’s already been clearly stated on record as long as the altered position is more favorable to theirs.
GOP voters should reject Romney and his deceptive politics, which show him to be leader who can‘t be trusted to stand up for what he believes or be willing to take an unpopular position on difficult issues. Neither are the kind of character shortcomings we want in a leader, especially a president.
What’s really unfortunate is that, on paper, Romney has a fairly impressive resume for the office he aspires to: a former governor with a respectable record, notable successes as a businessman, not to mention being articulate and well-versed on the issues. But of course all of his appealing attributes are undermined by the highly undesirable candidate he has chosen to turn himself into for a shot at the presidency.
Good leaders must always be mindful and respectful of the views of their constituency, but they must also have the fortitude and principled conviction to make tough decisions as a duly elected representative of the people. Taking into account the viewed expressed in polls in one thing; using them as the basis for governing is another. Romney has clearly shown he would do the latter. The Republican Party and GOP voters can do better in choosing a candidate to represent them, and they should keep looking until they find one.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Myth of Electing a “Non-Politician”
A recent NBC / Wall Street Journal poll shows candidate Herman Cain pulling ahead of the other challengers in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Cain was the preferred choice among 27 percent of GOP primary voters. Behind Cain was Gov. Mitt Romney at 23 percent and Gov. Rick Perry at 16 percent.
Follow-up interviews revealed that one of the reasons behind Cain’s unexpected rise in the polls was his lack of political experience. Poll respondents said they liked that he was not politician and comes across as direct and “real.” Such sentiments are common from voters who often get fed up with the current political class and start hungering for a “non-politician” to emerge as a panacea for fixing what’s wrong in Washington. Fortunately, voters' ill-advised flirtation with this fantasy usually fades and they that rightly end up supporting a candidate with some measure of political experience.
While the anti-politician fervor is understandable -- particularly given the state of our current political climate -- the rationale for the “elect a non-politician” mindset is actually inherently illogical. The thinking goes like this: Voters don’t like how the current “experienced” political leaders have run government, so they conclude that the answer is to elect much less experienced individuals to do the job. In other words, voters are inclined to believe that someone with no political experience will be able to somehow do what they believe experienced politicians could not. Does that make sense? Clearly it doesn’t, and the following two political realities explain why:
Reality 1: The political environment is a unique animal, which requires a considerable degree of skill and know-how to successfully navigate its often treacherous waters. A president has to have a keen understanding of the legislative process in order to successfully get things done. That includes working with a fractious Congress comprised of individuals with disparate regional interests; having the skills to build the necessary political consensus to advance important legislation; dealing with a relentless conflict-driven media; and trying to constantly appease the demands of an often fickle and uniformed public. Even the most skilled and politically adept politicians find managing these tasks daunting. So, why would voters naively expect individuals with no knowledge of the political process to do better?
While the idea behind electing non-politicians lacks merit on it face, there are also actual political examples where this has already been tried and failed. Former Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Jesse Ventura of Minnesota both won election as anti-establishment “non-politicians” who lacked political experience but supposedly possessed the right skills to rid the system of partisan gridlock and make government work for the people. But despite their best efforts, both leaders left office viewed largely as failed leaders who were unable to deliver on their promise to fix the system.
Reality 2: Leaders have to understand a system before they can have any hope of reforming it, which is something political novices lack. Sure, non-politicians may have ample civic-minded enthusiasm and can successfully appeal to popular sentiment about needed changes, but without an in-depth understanding of the intricacies of the process and the system, they are doomed to failure.
So, let’s stop entertaining this fantasy that non-politicians can be saviors for the ills of our broken government. Real world business experience, as Cain possesses, can certainly be as asset in government leadership, but it is by no means a substitute for the knowledge and understanding of the political process and governing that can only be gained from actual elected office training.
At a time when our country is confronting historic economic challenges, the last thing we need is some inexperienced populist without a clue about how to navigate within the current political system. Voters may not like the way our government works, but successfully changing it will always require electing someone who understands how it operates. Cain, who has zero elected office experience, is not the candidate for the job.
Follow-up interviews revealed that one of the reasons behind Cain’s unexpected rise in the polls was his lack of political experience. Poll respondents said they liked that he was not politician and comes across as direct and “real.” Such sentiments are common from voters who often get fed up with the current political class and start hungering for a “non-politician” to emerge as a panacea for fixing what’s wrong in Washington. Fortunately, voters' ill-advised flirtation with this fantasy usually fades and they that rightly end up supporting a candidate with some measure of political experience.
While the anti-politician fervor is understandable -- particularly given the state of our current political climate -- the rationale for the “elect a non-politician” mindset is actually inherently illogical. The thinking goes like this: Voters don’t like how the current “experienced” political leaders have run government, so they conclude that the answer is to elect much less experienced individuals to do the job. In other words, voters are inclined to believe that someone with no political experience will be able to somehow do what they believe experienced politicians could not. Does that make sense? Clearly it doesn’t, and the following two political realities explain why:
Reality 1: The political environment is a unique animal, which requires a considerable degree of skill and know-how to successfully navigate its often treacherous waters. A president has to have a keen understanding of the legislative process in order to successfully get things done. That includes working with a fractious Congress comprised of individuals with disparate regional interests; having the skills to build the necessary political consensus to advance important legislation; dealing with a relentless conflict-driven media; and trying to constantly appease the demands of an often fickle and uniformed public. Even the most skilled and politically adept politicians find managing these tasks daunting. So, why would voters naively expect individuals with no knowledge of the political process to do better?
While the idea behind electing non-politicians lacks merit on it face, there are also actual political examples where this has already been tried and failed. Former Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Jesse Ventura of Minnesota both won election as anti-establishment “non-politicians” who lacked political experience but supposedly possessed the right skills to rid the system of partisan gridlock and make government work for the people. But despite their best efforts, both leaders left office viewed largely as failed leaders who were unable to deliver on their promise to fix the system.
Reality 2: Leaders have to understand a system before they can have any hope of reforming it, which is something political novices lack. Sure, non-politicians may have ample civic-minded enthusiasm and can successfully appeal to popular sentiment about needed changes, but without an in-depth understanding of the intricacies of the process and the system, they are doomed to failure.
So, let’s stop entertaining this fantasy that non-politicians can be saviors for the ills of our broken government. Real world business experience, as Cain possesses, can certainly be as asset in government leadership, but it is by no means a substitute for the knowledge and understanding of the political process and governing that can only be gained from actual elected office training.
At a time when our country is confronting historic economic challenges, the last thing we need is some inexperienced populist without a clue about how to navigate within the current political system. Voters may not like the way our government works, but successfully changing it will always require electing someone who understands how it operates. Cain, who has zero elected office experience, is not the candidate for the job.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Pundits should stop making premature election predictions
In late August, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote a piece practically anointing Gov. Rick Perry as “possibly our next president.“ In his argument, he makes reference to the “slew of polls showing Gov. Rick Perry of Texas surging to double-digit national leads.” He went on to analyze why Perry’s brand of politics was more appealing to today’s Republican Party, citing electoral trends and shifts in voter attitudes that make him a credible contender in 2012.
The problem with his analysis -- just one month later -- is that it was extremely premature. Perry’s uneven performances in Republican debates, his uncompromisingly blunt views on issues such as Social Security -- which he maligns as a ponzi scheme, and climate change, which he suggests is a scientific hoax -- have weakened his so-called front-runner status. Some Republicans are now even questioning his electability, a point that was made all the more clear with candidate Herman Cain’s runaway victory in the recent Florida straw poll. Cain garnered 37.1% support to Perry’s 15.4%. So much for Perry being dubbed the anointed one.
So why did Brooks, one the most thoughtful op-ed writers around today, make such premature claims about a candidate untested on the national stage? Well, he did what too many members of today’s chattering class tend to do: fail to appreciate the uncertain and ever-changing nature of politics. If we know anything about polls, we know that they can change in an instant, especially this far out from an election. But pundits often ignore that reality, offering short-sighted “perspectives of the moment” as if political conditions and events remain constant.
Now that Perry appears more like a political liability than an asset for the Republican Party, Brooks would have been wise to include a few caveats in his article trumpeting Perry's presidential election potential. After all, it wasn’t long ago that Donald Trump soared to the top of the polls among the Republican presidential contenders, only to see his standing and appeal quickly fade once voters got a chance to hear what he had to say. This lesson was certainly recent enough to serve as a cautionary tale for rushing to judgment too quickly. Also, a look back at the 2008 Republican primary, which was rife with erroneous predictions about presumed frontrunners and likely nominees, should be enough to chasten any pundit from speaking with certainty about the likely primary outcome.
Perry’s recent fall from grace by no means suggests he’s out of the running for the Republican nomination. His political fortunes could just as easily rise again should he alter his message and tone to appeal to those primary voters who now view him with skepticism. At least I am willing to wisely hedge on the outcome, acknowledging the possibility for a Perry rebound. Brooks could have avoided having egg on his face had he offered a perspective on Perry that did the same.
The problem with his analysis -- just one month later -- is that it was extremely premature. Perry’s uneven performances in Republican debates, his uncompromisingly blunt views on issues such as Social Security -- which he maligns as a ponzi scheme, and climate change, which he suggests is a scientific hoax -- have weakened his so-called front-runner status. Some Republicans are now even questioning his electability, a point that was made all the more clear with candidate Herman Cain’s runaway victory in the recent Florida straw poll. Cain garnered 37.1% support to Perry’s 15.4%. So much for Perry being dubbed the anointed one.
So why did Brooks, one the most thoughtful op-ed writers around today, make such premature claims about a candidate untested on the national stage? Well, he did what too many members of today’s chattering class tend to do: fail to appreciate the uncertain and ever-changing nature of politics. If we know anything about polls, we know that they can change in an instant, especially this far out from an election. But pundits often ignore that reality, offering short-sighted “perspectives of the moment” as if political conditions and events remain constant.
Now that Perry appears more like a political liability than an asset for the Republican Party, Brooks would have been wise to include a few caveats in his article trumpeting Perry's presidential election potential. After all, it wasn’t long ago that Donald Trump soared to the top of the polls among the Republican presidential contenders, only to see his standing and appeal quickly fade once voters got a chance to hear what he had to say. This lesson was certainly recent enough to serve as a cautionary tale for rushing to judgment too quickly. Also, a look back at the 2008 Republican primary, which was rife with erroneous predictions about presumed frontrunners and likely nominees, should be enough to chasten any pundit from speaking with certainty about the likely primary outcome.
Perry’s recent fall from grace by no means suggests he’s out of the running for the Republican nomination. His political fortunes could just as easily rise again should he alter his message and tone to appeal to those primary voters who now view him with skepticism. At least I am willing to wisely hedge on the outcome, acknowledging the possibility for a Perry rebound. Brooks could have avoided having egg on his face had he offered a perspective on Perry that did the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)