More on education

Thanks for your responses, guys. To address your points:

Few countries can match America on its diversity and acceptance of diversity, which is a national strength for us I think. But it carries a cost as you alluded to - accommodating so many diverse people. Though of course the government has no obligation to do that beyond the mandates of law, which can be open to interpretation. Maybe there is such thing as "diversity overkill"? I really don't see why objective subjects like math and science shouldn't be taught near-identically across the nation for the 90% of students who fit the "normal" category. I know state's rights and all that, but name me one state that wouldn't like to save on education costs. And even primary-level language, PE, and history studies don't really need to be customized. But instead, we have different districts buying different textbooks and preparing students for different standardized tests at the end of the year, which contributes to waste. And that waste is not due to America's size vs. Finland, but a bureaucratic choice.

Surely we need to tailor teaching to special-needs or non-English speaking kids, but those are a minority in most communities. Shouldn't it be like group health insurance? The majority healthy people pay a little into the program and are mostly left alone, so more resources can be devoted to the sick. But as A said, the poverty issue does the exact opposite. The healthy get more care while the sick are left to get sicker. In Finland, it seems common that higher-performing students finish their in-class assignments faster, and then offer or are instructed to help their struggling peers. Maybe we could see more of that in America, instead of the "every person for him/herself" mentality. The wealth gap here is much larger, but there are still poor people in Finland and Japan. Maybe they have a hard time going to college too, but clearly they have a better chance at a decently comfortable, productive life than poor, marginalized Americans.

A, are you sure that Asian nations filter out poorly-performing schools when they make their national test performance measurements? The WSJ study data was collected by OECD, a 30-nation consortium and Paris-based think tank promoting democracy and free markets. As far as I can see online, there have been no criticisms of the PISA test and data collection methods, apart from wealthy Luxembourg, which complained that the relatively low scores by its students were the result of the test not being administered in that nation's most popular language, Luxembourgish. If Asian states or others are skewing their results, shouldn't the other countries and OECD leadership have an interest in calling them out on it? But I suspect that the top students in all the OECD nations score similarly, as well as the worst students. As Jared Diamond said in Guns, Germs, and Steel, geniuses pop up at a relatively similar frequency across ethnicities, but it takes a good social system to recognize them and allow them to maximize their potential. But you can see the strengths and weaknesses of the education system by removing the outliers and looking at the average students. And clearly the average Yank under-performs. Poverty and education system both play a role, but I agree that poverty is a stronger factor.

Yes as M said, it's not like every European works 10 hrs/wk less than every Yank. Companies and job titles make a difference. But in general, the European commute is shorter, Europeans busy themselves with fewer "activities" for their kids, Europeans have more vacation time (6-8 wks vs. 2-4 here), watch less TV, and probably do spend less time in the office on average. They also don't have to worry as much about making extra money to pay for health care, child day care, college, and retirement, since much of that is state-provided (a fair trade for 10-20% higher income taxes?). Growth rates in the big EU states have generally been lower than America's, and their unemployment is higher. They're not keeping up with us, but they're not so far behind either. And look at the price we pay in stress and time to get that extra 2% ahead of Europe. But it's not like Europe is Utopia; they are in recession too (maybe their banks are in worse trouble than ours) and they face the same problems that we do (immigration, aging population, rising costs of services/energy). But if both of our cultures are unsustainable and eventually go broke, at least the Europeans reinvested their money on improving quality of life for citizens for as long as they could, while we spent it on foreign wars and corporate profits.

-------

Well, the main thing isn't that Asians purposefully weed out stupid kids from taking the test. The key difference is that Asian kids that have special needs (developmentally disabled, kids who don't speak the local language at home, etc) aren't accommodated at schools. Call it culture, whatever, but Asian societies generally aren't very sympathetic or accommodating to kids that have some form of a disability that prevents them from learning (even stuff like dyslexia). These kids, obviously, tend to do terrible on tests, but in the US we test these types of students as well 'normal' students.

So it's not like they are trying to rig the test results, but the kinds of kids that the US goes out of our way to include in our educational system (even, to be a bit un-PC, crack babies and the like) just don't show up in their Asian equivalents. I'm not real sure how it works in Europe, but you'd have to look at to whom they give the test (do they exclude those outside of normal schooling or not?).

And of course it doesn't take into account the fact that American schools, compared to their Asian equivalents, tend to be much better at developing critical thinking skills. Most Asian educational systems emphasize rote memorization. Not that we're all that great at it, but Asian schools are notorious for being all about memorizing mathematical formulas and passages out of literature without critically assessing what they are learning.

So I'm hardly saying that the US is an educational paradise - I'm in complete agreement about standardization; it's really stupid to have all of this reduplicated effort to develop basic curriculum (and of course gives the fundies a chance to put in their nonsense), and schools in areas with endemic poverty that are underfunded are in really bad shape.

But it isn't clear that these tests that are given out are really that comparable across systems nor does it account for tests of how well it preps you for later success, which is one of the main criticisms of No Child Left Behind; that we are gunning for Asian-like increases in test scores, but what are we really gaining to get there? On the other hand, I think we do have to introduce some accountability into the classrooms; I think the majority of teachers are probably pulling their weight, but we've got to have some way of punishing those that are deadweight. I've read some literature that has suggested that maybe we should use evaluations by principals, but that brings in all of the political and petty bullshit drama that goes on in the workplace, so it's not a clear win either. Maybe some combo? It's a tough issue...

--------

That's very descriptive, and I agree with your points.

I think it's unfortunate that some Asian and other families consider learning disabilities to be "shameful". They might prefer to hide it and make the kid "tough it out", rather than seek out special assistance. Or maybe the state doesn't have much to provide in those areas. But on the flipside, learning disabilities are grossly overdiagnosed and overmedicated in the US, maybe other places too. Now there's a syndrome for everything. It's never the fault of parenting of course. My little angel is sick and has special needs! It's almost a badge of honor to claim to have some learning challenge (Bush with dyslexia). Surely some drug companies, doctors, and DTC advertising are partly to blame for this. Sorry to be un-PC also, but there is such a thing as lazy, stupid, unmotivated, and unfocused (both parents and students). Some cases are real of course, and some steps can be taken to give the kid a better chance at success. 30 years ago, there was no such thing as ADHD, and now the APA estimates that up to 15% of young people may be receiving some sort of treatment for it. Give me a break; maybe that figure should be at 5% at most. Kids are usually excitable, but that doesn't mean they're disabled. They have to be TAUGHT to behave and concentrate. Yet with all the added awareness and treatments now, have nationwide test scores changed much? In fact, an investigation in AUS showed that autism was being overdiagnosed among students in order to gain more education funding. Sad. All these drugs just keep kids SEDATED so they are more easily controlled by irresponsible adults, but the side-effects can be catastrophic (suicides among Prozac and Paxil-taking youth, etc.). And who knows what the long-term effects will be? We need more time to collect the data, but by then these kids will have grown up in an environment that tolerates or promotes substance abuse as first response to "fix" problems.

http://psycport.com/stories/krdigital_2004_06_08_eng-krdigital_eng-krdigital_065551_6431782967861404803.xml.html
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24643013-5003426,00.html
http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/mentalhealth/a/psymeds_suicide.htm

I see what you mean about critical thinking. "Critical thinking" is subjective though, and probably only the best 10% of US schools/teachers even start to cultivate that, but it's still better than "conform and work hard like robots" Asian schools. I do appreciate that some US schools push for creative outlets like senior project, fiction writing, internships/research, group entrepreneurial contests, etc. that other nations might not. However, creativity and self-expression are less useful if a student doesn't have solid fundamentals first. I'd rather have a robot who knows his/her stuff decently but will never be a visionary, rather than an empowered, opinionated "free thinker" who might come up with interesting ideas that are unfortunately based on ignorant assumptions and superficiality (a.k.a. a bullshitter). We have enough of those in America. Plus for many companies and nations in history, creative visionary people are only 10% of the labor force at most, and the rest are robot-like workers. I can't argue if that is a good or bad model, but it's the prevalent model so far for humanty. I think the world and America might benefit more from a surge in comprehension than a surge in creativity.

However, that is probably a factor why East Asians are one of the most educated and highest-earning groups in the US, yet probably the least represented in politics and top-level corporate management. Jerry Yang just bit the dust, but at least South Asians have a governor in LA and a CEO of Citi, to name a few. So even though US-born Asians didn't attend Asian schools, somehow those cultural traditions persist? Well, no point in conducting an exercise in stereotypes.

But as you said, standardized test scores in school are limited data, and not very predictive of future career success. However, they do open doors for higher education, which of course is correlated with career earning power. More teacher accountability would help a lot as you said, though the unions and bureaucracy are tough negotiating partners. Today in France many teachers are on strike due to proposed head count reductions. It has been a political pissing match for decades. Conservative Sarkozy spoke badly of teachers he didn't think were pulling their weight, though 54% of France supported the strike. And Obama is also in a pickle between teacher unions and education administrators over how to balance reforms/accountability, merit-based pay, tenure, firings, smarter testing, and whatnot. But that is another can of worms.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/145843/output/print

Comparing Finnish and US students

Sent from my Finnish colleague:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120425355065601997.html

It's a telling comparison between two cultures with different parenting/teaching philosophies. Maybe Americans are "watering down" school with distractions like organized sports, clubs, dances, etc., when really the students should just be focusing on learning, and then they can go home unfettered for leisure and family time. I find it amazing that Finns have less than 1 h of homework per night, versus 4-5 h for some Asians and Americans (I'll abbreviate as AA for now, no pun intended). I cannot believe that some of my young cousins say they do HW until 1 AM most nights, when we probably went to bed at 10 in our day. Maybe they also lose a lot of time with test prep, piano lessons, volunteering (worthwhile if they do it for love and not just resume building), part-time job (I doubt many Euro teens work), dance practice, sports practice, whatever practice. Does all that crap make well-rounded kids or overwhelmed, spread-too-thin kids? Not to mention all the other distractions like the Internet, video games, chat, cellular, TV, movies, shopping, gossiping, loitering, etc. I am sure Finns do some of that too, but AFTER they've finished their studies and chores.

And it's not like the Finns are total study-holic geeks without personality; maybe they're more socially adjusted than the average materialistic and electronics-addicted US teen! Yet our kids are not learning as much as Finns on average, so what is all the extra time and stress for? We're not getting bang for our buck. Asians study like hell too, but at least they actually learn the material and score well vs. other nations. Is school just a surrogate babysitter in America to keep the kids "occupied" why parents work and shop? But then the highly ambitious or parent/culture-pressured AA's get burnt out and sometimes suicidal when they don't get a good grade on a critical placement exam or don't get accepted at Harvard (this has been reported much too often from India to Korea to the Ivy League).

Which brings me to my next point, the "ambition gap". Since college is mostly free to Finns and other non-Americans, and the discrepancies between the colleges are smaller, they have less pressure on them to get into the "right" school and take the "right" courses. They can actually enjoy college life and learn on their terms (my friend says it's not uncommon for Finns to take 7 years to graduate, but then their degree is more like a MS). Finns and other Europeans seem to let their kids be kids, and let them learn self-reliance. Of course this doesn't apply for all cases. On the other hand, Americans have to ace standardized tests, do all the extra-curricular crap to distinguish themselves, take out massive student loans, pick a "marketable" major, and hurry to graduate ASAP to join the workforce (to start paying off those loans!) or maybe professional school. And then more rounds of costly test prep, apps, and loans. It's a crazy process that makes "adulthood" start at about 15 for some Americans. So overzealous parents, self-conscious and competitive with neighboring families, pull strings to get their kids into the best HS, stressfully shuttle them from activity to activity, and pay for more gadgets and more classes. They fuss over and micromanage their kids so much, by college they don't even know how to run a laundry, and expect Daddy to bail them out every time there's trouble. They think it's love - sacrificing to give their kids the best chance at the best life. Maybe it is, but it comes at a cost. Then for the "blue collar" types who don't have the resources and opportunities to do all that stuff, it's "Would you like fries with that?" until they die. Sorry for the melodrama.

It's shocking to me that America's HS drop out rate is 25%; I had no idea it was so high. At least after 1 year of HS in Finland, kids can decide (or be forced) into vocational or college-bound programs. So they can still excel in areas that they are most interested in. Well, also in Finland there is less salary gap between a miner and physician. Maybe that's too socialistic for us? Yet here we divide up students as well: the "gifted" who take Advanced Placement courses, and the "clods" who take Home Ec and Auto Shop. The income gap is the big problem - weathy areas have well-funded schools, and their students can afford many advantages (laptop, test prep, tutoring, internships with Daddy's company, etc.). Whereas poor students in poor areas don't have any of that, plus their bellies may be hungry (studies have show that makes learning near-impossible), crime may be around them, and their households may lack stability and good role models. It's an old story that we know from Kozol and others. Hopefully the Obama admin. can do something about it beyond "No Child Left Behind".

Well, as the article said, Finland, like the high-performing Asian nations, enjoys smaller population, more homogeneous student bodies, and less language challenges. They spend about the same on each student and pay teachers similarly, but what about the bloated school bureaucracy waste in the US? So maybe less money actually reaches American students to make a difference. It seems that Finnish teachers are better trained and supported at least. I am sure that every school in Finland teaches 95% the same curriculum, while in America each school district has the right to modify whatever they please under the Constitution. It's confusing and wasteful for our kids.

I guess all this may also mirror the workplace? Europeans have the 35-40 h work week and get basically the same amount done as Americans/Asians working 50-60 h. So we're just not using our time/resources efficiently? Like for example, me emailing this instead of working on my lab projects!

Would love to hear your thoughts.

--------

I have to say that it is hard to rule out the size of the country and the diversity of the population. For instance…many restaurants are able to create delicious meals thousands of times every year. But those same restaurants may be ill equipped to feed thousands of people in one sitting. And if those thousands all eat chicken, life is easy. If there are vegetarians, kosher eaters, peanut allergies, etc, the job is just that much more difficult. I wonder if a worthwhile comparison can even be made under those circumstances. Is there another nation with the cultural diversity and size of America with the same problems? Is there another nation that ranks higher in the happiness index or on the education rankings of similar description?

And the other objection I want to make is that I don’t believe that Europeans “get the same amount done” in their 35-40 hours vs 50-60 hours for asian/American workers. And I also don’t believe that all or even most workers at American corporations work those hours. There are always some, and I’m sure that goes for Euro nations as well, but at least in America I find it hard to call that the norm for most businesses.

All that being said, clearly America has a ways to go in the area of education and resource allocation and a large list of other things. And changing the institutions may not be enough to change the culture. If you suddenly mixed Harvard professors and UC riverside professors in some homogeneous mixture, would parents be less incentivized to send their kids to Harvard? Would the name Harvard immediately disappear into obscurity? Lots of “prestigious” colleges are terrible places to send an undergraduate student and yet the prestige of the name carries weight in and of itself. There is the alumni factor as well. And the culture of America is to be bigger, better, and badder than your competition. And the education game is a competition for your dollars. Equality in the rankings of schools would, under our current socio-cultural pressures, lead to just another differentiator.

--------

I think Mark touches on an important problem in comparing these measurements cross-country. One is that in Asian countries typically school tests are only administered at 'good' schools, while thanks to American fetishes for tests we give them at every school. I'm not sure how it works for Europe, but it may be the same.

The other is, of course, that America has deep pockets of endemic poverty (the ghettos, but also some rural areas). Typically these areas do way worse than average on tests and have a large number of special-needs children. So saying that it's the educational system's fault that kids in these areas aren't as smart as the Finns is looking at the wrong culprit.

I think the bigger problem in the US isn't so much the educational system, but rather that the US has allowed pockets of endemic poverty to exist and managed to not find a way to deal with them. It's certainly a big problem for the US and I think requires even more radical action than modifying the school systems...

Complaints from inside talk radio

I know you used to listen to a lot of talk radio T, so I thought you might be interested in this. It's about as cynical as you might expect, but the account actually comes from a guy that worked in a talk radio station...

http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/currentIssue/full_feature_story.asp?NewMessageID=24046&pf=yes

Conservative talk show hosts would receive daily talking points e-mails from the Bush White House, the Republican National Committee and, during election years, GOP campaign operations. They’re not called talking points, but that’s what they are. I know, because I received them, too. During my time at WTMJ, Charlie would generally mine the e-mails, then couch the daily message in his own words. Midday talker Jeff Wagner would be more likely to rely on them verbatim. But neither used them in their entirety, or every single day.

Charlie and Jeff would also check what other conservative talk show hosts around the country were saying. Rush Limbaugh’s Web site was checked at least once daily. Atlanta-based nationally syndicated talker Neal Boortz was another popular choice. Select conservative blogs were also perused.

A smart talk show host will, from time to time, disagree publicly with a Republican president, the Republican Party, or some conservative doctrine. (President Bush’s disastrous choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court was one such example.) But these disagreements are strategically chosen to prove the host is an independent thinker, without appreciably harming the president or party. This is not to suggest that hosts don’t genuinely disagree with the conservative line at times. They do, more often than you might think. But they usually keep it to themselves.

......
Hosts are most dangerous when someone they’ve targeted for criticism tries to return the fire. It is foolish to enter into a dispute with someone who has a 50,000-watt radio transmitter at his or her disposal and feels cornered. Oh, and calling a host names – “right-winger,” “fascist,” “radio squawker,” etc. – merely plays into his or her hands. This allows a host like Sykes to portray himself as a victim of the “left-wing spin machine,” and will leave his listeners, who also feel victimized, dying to support him. In essence, the host will mount a Hillary Rodham Clinton “vast right-wing conspiracy” attack in reverse.

A conservative emulating Hillary? Yep. A great talk show host is like a great college debater, capable of arguing either side of any issue in a logical, thorough and convincing manner. This skill ensures their continuing success regardless of which political party is in power. For example:

• In the talk show world, the line-item veto was the most effective way to control government spending when Ronald Reagan was president; it was a violation of the separation of powers after President Clinton took office.

• Perjury was a heinous crime when Clinton was accused of lying under oath about his extramarital activities. But when Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s top aide, was charged with lying under oath, it was the prosecutor who had committed an egregious act by charging Libby with perjury.

• "Activist judges" are the scourge of the earth when they rule it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the rights heterosexuals receive. But judicial activism is needed to stop the husband of a woman in a persistent vegetative state – say Terri Schiavo – from removing her feeding tube to end her suffering.

-------

Thanks, A - very interesting. I wish the author could have commented on the talk radio industry in general, instead of focusing on the specific habits of Sykes, which may or may not be representative. He said that wealthy, educated people also listen to that kind of radio, so I was curious if he had any demographics data. But just so people don't get the wrong idea about me; I do not and never did enjoy talk radio. It was my landlady who was an avid right-wing talk radio listener (KSFO 560 AM Bay Area), and I just rented a room in her house during grad school, so therefore I was subjected to it during dinnertime.

Yeah, it reminds me a lot of the "Outfoxed" documentary about FNC by Robert Greenwald. It's pure Goebbels stuff, and yeah it works. That's why it really dismays me when liberals try to replicate the recipe on their side of the ideological spectrum (Olberman, Al Franken, etc.) because they think it will help their cause. It's not about truth, it's about winning. And it makes them sound dumb, partisan, and sometimes hateful. Electing Obama (who had quite a bit of conservative and independent support) was maybe a referrendum on that type of poisonous politics. How about "common sense" radio instead, with multiple viewpoints and complexities? I mean, in principle the Capitol Gang or Hannity & Colmes is a good idea, if the rhetoric and guests actually had fair representation. Maybe America can't handle complex? Well, I'd prefer that the media confuse rather than manipulate. A lot of the problems out there are confusing, and maybe it's better to admit that we don't know instead of deceiving yourself and others that you have it all figured out? This applies doubly for politicians. As we've seen during the Bush years, ignorant confidence (spun as "decisive") can be much more damaging than hesistance or flip-flopping.

But I think many Americans are tired of these guy/gals who just get ANGRY about every little thing and spout off OPINIONS all day, with very little data or perspective to support their arguments. It's especially hypocritical for moral-religious arguments, since many of their personal lives are a wreck. I mean, I guess I do that too in this email discussion group (of which I am unfortunately 90% of the total activity), but at least I try to acknowledge other views, and inject a graph or statistic every now and then. :) Those radio hosts tick me off because they think they're right all the time, and display extreme complacent ignorance. So what they admit they don't understand, they ridicule as unimportant, pansy crap. It's almost a quality to be unsophisticated about certain matters, like pronouncing Iraq correctly (much less Ahmadinejad). Maybe this is part of the culture war? So how can anyone have sociopolitics all figured out and neatly wrapped in a conservative world-view bow? Especially when half of them have very weak journalistic credentials, narrow backgrounds, and no public policy experience. If the world was really that simple and obvious, we wouldn't need them to tell us. Or is it the liberal media that are filling our heads with lies? And as you said, clearly their views are malleable if judicial activism and line-item vetos can morph from bad to good depending on which party is in power. And that is precisely my point: things can be both "bad" and "good" depending on the circumstances. There are times when Kim Jong Il was a good leader (very few times I'm sure) and times when the US was the biggest war criminal on the planet. There are times when Democrats started un-necessary wars and hooked up big business, while Republicans risked their careers for the environment, diplomacy, and civil rights.

It's also hilarious when those radio hosts have feuds with each other. I mean, they are big egomaniacs competing for attention from the same audience, right? I can't find any web examples now, but I do remember Rush dissing O'Reilly's program and whatnot, circa 2004. So if they are in competition, they gain an advantage by shocking the most people and getting the most buzz. That's why Ann Coulter is such a genius (and a bitch of course). It doesn't matter how offensive and evil she gets; some people will eat it up and ultimately it will benefit her more than the commentator who was less controversial.

I do know what the author meant about caller screening. If they did allow a disagreeing or liberal person on KSFO talk shows, they picked such an incoherent wacko that he or she made the host's point for them. You know, the kind of people who think that Bush orchestrated 9/11 and the oil companies are running our Mideast wars (well, that one might be semi-true!). And how can you have a respectable debate with someone if you have the power to cut them off whenever you want, and deliver your rebuttal unopposed thereafter? Plus you have your army of lackeys to dig around the web, and formulate a great counterpunch to burn your opponent, airing on tomorrow's program.

It is strange how these radio hosts can reel in so many sympathetic listeners just by making them feel like victims. The peak of my KSFO listening came during the nasty illegal immigration debates. As you would expect, illegals were blamed for everything but the kitchen sink leaking (in fact, they are the ones who fix your leaky sink). There are plenty of things to criticize about illegal immigration, so why go overboard and get personal? How many Americans have been directly negatively affected by illegal immigration? And how many of those are talk radio listeners? It must be less than 5%. The wealthy doctors and businessmen - why are they victims of anything? Sure it sucks to pay a lot of income tax, but it's better than applying for food stamps. There is like this total lack of empathy for others and a victim complex for oneself, which is one of the things I detest most about "the American mentality". Some people are never thankful of what they have (especially compared to the less fortunate), yet always want to blame others for the things they think they don't have, but deserve. They maybe make the world out to be a zero-sum game where they're the only honest chaps left, and everyone else freeloads or steal sfrom them. Well, I could go off here on xenophobia and egocentrism, but I better not.

Knowing some elderly conservatives, I do understand how they feel that the mythologized "perfect America" of the Greatest Generation is "under attack" now and eroding before their eyes. Ironically, progressives say the same thing, though blame different causes of course. They love America, it's theirs, and they don't want it to lose its luster. That makes sense, but how do you go about that daunting task? Some things that made America great 50 years ago are still here, but others may not be available for many of us in the 21st Century. The world is changing and we are too, somewhat for the better and somewhat for the worse. That is nothing new for any state. I guess fundamentally, conservatism is about clinging to the traditional. I am not against that view (and in fact share it sometimes on certain issues like family and consumption), but we have to leave some wiggle room. All traditions started out as a new practice, and survival means change. France has had at least 5 revolutions since ours, while Mugabe keeps extending his presidency. China has adopted a market economy, while the Soviets degenerated into Third World status.

Treasury not buying up troubled assets and the auto bailout

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20081113/pl_bloomberg/apwpjfpf6mgu_1

``This is a flip-flop, but on the other hand, when they first proposed the thing, they didn't really know what they were doing,'' said Bill Fleckenstein, president of Fleckenstein Capital Inc. in Seattle and author of the book ``Greenspan's Bubbles.'' [Treasury Secretary Henry] Paulson has pushed some ``cockamamie schemes,'' he said. ``So one has to ask, does he have any clue?'' -Bloomberg.com

In September, Bush and Paulson sold the rescue package to Congress and the public as such: taking the toxic mortgage-backed securities off Wall Street's books would help restore recently lost confidence and unclog the financial sector. Uncle Sam would hold onto these investments until the economy rebounds and they turn profitable, maybe even making a pretty penny for the taxpayers. After initial resistance, Congress signed on, and up to $700B was available for Paulson to buy up whatever he felt would help the economy.

Yet two months later, how many securities has the government purchased? Yep, a big fat zero. This is partly because of the credit crisis taking priority and stocks tanking. Lending dried up, the economy was grinding to a halt, and banks requested cash infusions and lowered interest rates to try to right the ship. Like in Europe and Asia, our government also wanted to buy up shares of troubled companies to stanch the bleeding. So what about the bundled mortgages? Washington hasn't moved on those toxic securities because even the experts have no friggin' clue what those assets are worth (if anything), and who really owns them. It's too darn difficult to research and ascertain the value of those securities to decide what to buy. So instead, they just take the easy approach: pump more money in the credit markets, keep interest rates low (will the Fed rate even fall to 0%?), and hope for the best.

Paulson generally received praise for his swift, decisive handling of the financial crisis this fall (but decisiveness is only commendable when you're making good decisions). Now he said that he won't apologize for changing his approach as the facts change. That is fair, and much better than clinging to an outdated, flawed strategy. But maybe he could have handled his PR a little more delicately. The Wall Street bailout was already very controversial in Congress and more so on struggling Main Street. Some Americans still feel very outraged, and anti-fat-cat backlash is the strongest its been in decades. The taxpayers have given unprecedented authority and a gargantuan loan to Bush/Paulson to fix the economy. If the custodians of our cash appear wavering, maybe people will start to feel jerked around. It also sends mixed signals and uncertainty to the markets, which responded as expected (Dow and Nikkei lost 4-5% on Wednesday). So they don't have to pick one plan and stick with it no matter what, but at least speak plainly with us (something Paulson is not known for). Is this bailout about restructuring mortgages, increasing lending, buying up stakes in troubled companies that are "too big to fail", or taking toxic paper off private sector books? I am sure we need to do all those things, so let's have a cohesive, comprehensive plan of attack already. It's been two months, and more people's lives are being shattered each day longer that Washington flounders.

----------

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12601932

"Bailing out Detroit would be a bad use of public money." -The Economist

Also, what do you guys think about Obama/Pelosi pushing for an auto industry bailout? As J and I noted in September, the Big 3 already got $25B in "loans" from a rushed spending bill in Congress, to help them modernize and get more efficient (things they promised to do years ago, but kept making SUVs instead). Now Obama is calling for another $50B in a move that would resemble Chrysler's rescue in 1979. But America and Detroit were very different back then. Auto was and still is huge, but to give you a sense of scale, UPS has more employees than the Big 3 combined. Manufacturing was a much larger sector of our economy back then, Wall Street was relatively healthier, and Chrysler had the very effective and innovative Lee Iacocca at the helm (he axed many bad car concepts, rolled out the first American minivan, and laid the groundwork for the Jeep Cherokee). I don't think the current bozo CEOs would measure up. US auto sales are way down across the board (even for Toyota), and the Big 3 are hemorrhaging money to keep their expensive operations going while their lots are chock full of unsold vehicles. They have announced new rounds of layoffs, factory closures, and reduced hours/production. But this is nothing new - Detroit has been contracting for a decade or longer ("Roger and Me"). Maybe they would have failed earlier if not for all the lobbying in Washington for huge tax breaks and other government assistance.

The rescue might sound outrageously huge, but to be fair, the entire proposed auto bailout is just 42% of what one company already got from Paulson ($120B to AIG). Though AIG had its tentacles in most of the big players in global finance, so its failure would make Detroit's vast problems look like a piece of cake. Rescuing auto will add to the bad precedent of the Wall Street bailout: companies can screw up as much as they like, and Uncle Sam will clean up the mess (as long as they demonstrate that they are "vital to the economy"). But the Big 3 are not, at least not as much as banks/credit. For years, Detroit kept saying they are this close to finishing their restructuring for modern competitiveness, and just need one last push to get over the hump. Maybe this bailout is that last push, or maybe they are willing to say anything for a handout. Sure in a perfect world we would want to help Detroit. But lending and resources are very tight now. Imagine all the good that $50B could do for expanding green industries and critical infrastructure projects (things Obama promised during the campaign), which also creates jobs and commerce. Instead of a bailout, the Big 3 can file for Chapter 11 as the airlines successfully did after 9/11. If it wasn't for the spike in jet fuel, many of our airlines might be healthy and profitable now. Auto can continue to pay their workers and maintain some operations during the bankruptcy negotiations, and it won't cost taxpayers nearly as much. Then in a few years after this recession has abated, they can emerge as leaner, stronger companies ready to compete it the new hot markets (developing nations, not saturated Western countries).

Though of course the auto industry has sentimental and symbolic value to America, and its labor unions have much political influence. But does that mean we have to use our dime to keep those screw-ups on life support? In a market economy, companies are free to fail. Yes it's true that the ripple effects will be huge (losing the Big 3 would also kill thousands of dealerships, parts suppliers, mechanics, etc.). But they are not the only show in town; foreign auto makers also have dozens of huge plants in the US and employ almost as many Americans as the Big 3. We don't have to build or buy American cars if we can't do it well. Or will auto become another taxpayer-subsidized unprofitable industry like agriculture? Already our domestic electronics and textile sectors are all but gone due to globalization - why not let auto go if the costs of supporting them are too great? It will be painful, but auto is not the only industry in deep trouble. The gambling entertainment industry (which employs more Americans than the Big 3, and generates billions in tax revenues) is also on the rocks due to restricted leisure spending in this economic downturn (I guess it's not recession-proof after all). The major casino corporations have seen their stocks drop over 50% in the last 12 months. The airlines are desperate too: Delta-Northwest merged out of survival, and even though oil dropped from $140 to $55/barrel this year, the industry will still report billions in losses. The big carriers' stocks all lost over 20% yesterday on news that Americans would be predictably curbing their travel habits next year. Who deserves a bailout and who doesn't? Who is more vital to our economy?

And what about the housing sector? Isn't that the root of many of our problems? Millions of households are still at risk of foreclosure in the next year. What about their rescue? The mortgage and housing sectors employ many more people and are a much larger chunk of our GDP than auto.

---------

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/

Some interesting interviews on these issues:

First, though, Henry Paulson. We've told you over the past couple of weeks that there isn't any buying up of troubled assets going on. Today, Hank Paulson made it official.
Our Washington bureau chief John Dimsdale starts us off.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dimsdale: Secretary Paulson was unapologetic about the change in plans. He said the purchase of bad assets would have been too slow to help banks, while the new strategy of injecting government capital will shore up banks and attract private investments.

Tape of Henry Paulson: As the situation worsened, the facts change. The thing I'm grateful for is we were prescient enough, Congress was, that we got a wide array of authorities and tools under this legislation. And I will never apologize for changing an approach or strategy when the facts change.

Paulson said he might use some of what's left in the bailout to encourage broader lending to consumers, now that credit card, student and car loans are drying up. The Department is reportedly thinking of requiring that lenders match future government payments with money they raise on their own. And John Dearie at the Financial Services Forum says forcing lenders to come up with their own capital eases the perception that the government is choosing winners and losers with its money.

John Dearie: The extent to which you can minimize government involvement by trying to leverage the government's involvement by bringing in or encouraging private capital, I think that's wise on Secretary Paulson's part.

Paulson is also under pressure to use bailout money to help homeowners facing foreclosure. He praised Fannie and Freddie's plans to set voluntary standards for banks to ease mortgage terms, but stopped short of endorsing an FDIC-backed plan to buy distressed mortgages. He said that crosses the line into a government spending program.

----------


RYSSDAL: I wanted to pick up on a couple of themes that John Dimsdale just laid out for us. First of all, why? Why didn't the original plan to buy up those toxic assets work?

PETROU: Well, they've never tried it. But, in part, it didn't work because it was always going to be hard. And not anticipating how hard it was going to be, Treasury was sideswiped when it figured that out and then had to quickly construct Plan B.

RYSSDAL: Was it the thing that we heard about as that plan was being floated -- that you couldn't figure out how to price these assets? You didn't know what they were worth?

PETROU: Bingo. The assets are complicated. They're hard to price. They're held by thousands of investors around the world. This isn't e-Bay here. This is tricky.

RYSSDAL: All right. Well, then, why is bank recapitalization better?

PETROU: In the long run I'm not sure it is. It's just easier. I think in time in poses significant issues, most notably the question of combining troubled banks into huge, bigger troubled banks. Or handing problems that ought better to be resolved by the FDIC over to big banks that then get weaker. But it was easier. It was quicker to corral those nine big banks, put them in a room and force the capital on them than it turned out to be to run the asset disposition and purchase process.

RYSSDAL: Here we are, two months into this bailout program and still the secretary of the Treasury said this morning that he is worried about systemic failure in the economy. Did that catch your ear at all?

PETROU: Anytime he says that, it sure does. It's pretty scary out there still.

RYSSDAL: Why?

PETROU: I think it is because we've taken the financial markets from a liquidity problem, which was where we were starting in August of 2007, and a very delayed recognition by the federal regulators and Treasury about how serious that was. Then we moved into a rapid collapse of the housing market, particularly prices and the residential market freezing up. Now we're looking at a recessionary scenario -- one thing building on the next, with a sharp drop-off in retail sales and the unemployment issues. So, that's a lot of scary reality built on top of the liquidity and market-confidence issues. And that's the problem Treasury Secretary Paulson was referencing this morning.

RYSSDAL: Let me ask you sort of a strategic question. It seems now the government's attacking this problem two ways: One, sort of top-down with the Treasury and the bailout money, and also, especially, yesterday with some mortgage relief. How did that come to pass and is one better than the other?

PETROU: I think we need all of them. We need more mortgage relief. And the plan announced yesterday with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is a piece of the problem. As you all know, the FDIC is looking at another program that would involve guarantees. We're going to need still more in the mortgage sector. But we've got problems throughout the financial sector -- autos coming immediately to mind, commercial mortages. There are different tracks for each one of these asset sectors.

RYSSDAL: Where do the tracks all lead, then, Karen?

PETROU: Ah, to you and me and the rest of us as taxpayers! I hate to say it but that's where, right now, all the tracks are coming into each one of our houses.

RYSSDAL: Karen Shaw Petrou is a managing partner at Federal Financial Analytics in Washington. Karen, thanks a lot.

--------

Yeah, the problem with bailing out the Big 3 is tough. I'm sure the US Gov't will demand their requisite pound of flesh for bailing them out (equity, limitation on executive pay, etc). The problem this time comes from the high possibility that you create zombie firms; sure, this time they only ask for $25 billion, but what about when they keep losing money and have to come asking again? Are we going to say no then?

On the other side, there is the fact that if just GM went out of business, 100,000 people lose their jobs, with a multiplier effect of maybe up to 500,000 people losing their jobs (supplier companies, etc.). If all 3 went out of business, we'd be talking about well over 1 million people. In the middle of perhaps one of the worst recessions in the last 50 years. It's a pretty steep price for creative destruction; it would no doubt further sink the economy and prolong the recession.

So ideally you'd want a company to come in and buy up GM or Ford's productive assets (like the bank bailouts); lay some percentage of the people off, but basically keep the plants and whatnot running as going concerns. But who wants to buy these turds of a company now?

It's a really tough nut to crack. I guess I'd probably come down on the side of bailout, but hardly enthusiastic about it. I'd probably bail them out but only under the agreement that they work on parting themselves out as quickly as possible...

---------

Well, I agree that we shouldn't "punish" the Big 3 and ancillary employees for their industry's mismanagement. But let's not be alarmist - it's not like 100% of those jobs will be lost and they'll all go on welfare. And where do you draw the line then? How do you justify saving some and not others? We have seen how the markets responded to the ambiguity of saving Bear but not Lehman. We can't possibly save them all, unless we want our future economy to be semi-private. How many other troubled industries will come crying to Washington for rescue? Just today Citi announced over 50,000 layoffs - that is half of GM. Sure that company is still solvent, and probably the move is meant to downsize from their bloated status during the financial bubble. But why should Washington care more about auto workers than those workers, or the 1.2M+ Americans (according to CNN) who have lost their jobs in the last 12 months for a variety of reasons?

Plus, we're not talking about the Big 3 disappearing. Maybe Chrysler is beyond salvation, and will be carved up and sold on the open market no matter what. But the other two will be around, just maybe in diminished form or merged, even during Chapter 11. Unlike Chrysler's rescue in 1979, the Big 3's current problems have less to do with finances. They just have a screwed-up business model and produce the wrong products for the 21st Century. Ford and GM are successful in overseas developing markets (often because they enjoy near exclusive trade rights), but other makers are catching up. They have had almost a decade to reconfigure their facilities and change their production to match demand. But they haven't yet. I know it's a pain in the ass to negotiate with the UAW, shareholders, and change is like molasses for some companies. But what is it... like Japan needs 2 years to get a car from blackboard to showroom, yet Detroit needs 8? Will another $25B in loans be able to fix that? Their problems extend far beyond executive pay.

Whatever we do, it's going to be painful no doubt, and some lives will be ruined. But it boils down to choice. Will those billions be best spent by our government on an auto bailout, or maybe other public works and economic stimulation programs that could deliver more widespread impact? Let's be honest; Michigan, Ohio, and much of the Midwest rust belt are dying economies, even if the auto industry was more robust. And auto bailout just postpones the inevitable. And even if the Big 3 have to lay off 100,000's, I really doubt that the Obama administration would just cut them loose. Already there are plans for job retraining and other assistance programs, right? And a lot of those supply chain logistics jobs can translate into many other industries. We bailed out the banks because we didn't have a choice. I don't think that is the case with the Big 3. But as you say, there is quite a strong argument to still do it. Maybe the pros outweigh the cons. We just won't be happy about it.

Gay marriage cont'd

Yeah I totally agree with your last point. One of my really good friends at work here is gay and she is (was, I guess now...) planning on getting married to her long time partner. On Wednesday afternoon, a lot of people in our office were scanning the polls to see if Prop 8 had passed or not. Finally late in the day it looked like 8 was going pass. My friend got teary and said "I can't believe that so many people in California hate me." To me, it's like what the F...how can people who have gay friends or relatives look them in the eye and basically think "No, I don't want you to have the same rights as me." I just don't get it.


Anyway, I'd rather spend $50,000 on a Lex or a Benz than a political campaign! At least mortgage your children's future for something tangible, preferably with lots of bling. Arrgggg...

--------

The no on prop 8 ad that was talking about how other races used to not be able to marry and such was Samuel L. Jackson, so I assume they were appealing to blacks with that one.

And I also have a hard time understanding, maybe the better word is believing, someone when they say they are not against gays but only against gay marriage.

I have debated, recently, a lot of religious folks, non religious but first generation Americans (i.e. strong traditional values from their country of origin), “normal folks” etc. And at this point I haven’t talked with a single one whose argument doesn’t boil down to negative reactions to homosexuality. Either they don’t want their children to turn gay, they think being gay is immoral intrinsically, it varies, but the jist is homosexuality = bad.

And of those that I have debated, in general the black folks are either insulted or just disagree with the position that gay marriage is the same thing as black civil rights. Homosexuality is a choice, it’s a lifestyle, its unnatural, and the arguments go on. But until African Americans at large can associate homosexual acceptance with civil rights, they won’t be changing their minds any time soon.

Someone else brought up the fact that in contrast to blacks or Chinese or whoever not being able to intermarry, gays CAN marry, they just can’t marry other gay folks. That is almost like the opposite of laws that existed in times gone by where interracial marriage was the taboo and black marrying blacks was no problem.

But to my main point, I reject the idea that you can be anti gay marriage and for gay rights, or the homosexual lifestyle or say that you are tolerant of their lifestyle. And all my experience to this point has proven this out.

As to abortion, I can at least accept the idea that there is ambiguity on when life begins. I can intellectually understand how two reasonable people can look at the same evidence and disagree in their final decision. No religion, intolerance, etc required. Gay marriage seems to require something extra to reject, intolerance or hate or prejudice whatever the case may be.

--------

Thx M's for the comments, and props to G for even getting to the last point on one of my long-winded emails! Regarding your coworker - I can understand why she's upset. But of course it's not like the "Yes on 8" people "hate" her specifically, or gays in general. Unfortunately we live in a very competitive, adversarial, fragmented society. Giving concessions or benefits to one group may be perceived by others as doing so at their expense. They would rather "protect what's theirs" than give gays something that seems to diminish what they already have, regardless of the hurt it causes to gays. For lack of a better metaphor, maybe it's like rich people lobbying Congress to cut their taxes by reducing welfare benefits to the poor? So it's not like the rich hate the poor and want to punish them (well, not all rich people at least), but they want what they think is rightfully theirs, and are willing to take from another group to do so.

But I heard a very sage comment from one gay woman interviewed by KQED. She said that she was planning to marry her longtime partner as well, but despite this unfortunate voting result, she knows that no one can attack the love they share - and that's more important than any official title like marriage or whatnot. If everyone was so humble, then we wouldn't even have this conflict. Not to say that gays should just accept it, but non-gays also could also say, "Gays may be marrying, but nothing that anyone else does can take away from the sanctity of my bond with my spouse, so it doesn't matter." Separation of church and state? Certainly, but let's also remember separation of public and private life. America is a great land because our private practices are no business of others or the state (within reason). But that freedom carries the responsibility that we must also respect others' wishes, even if we don't agree with them.

Yes I agree with M's comments and also think it's strange for some people to say they oppose gay marriage, but are not homophobic. Obviously people are more bigoted than they admit, and homosexuality is not well accepted worldwide (if CA gays feel bad now, maybe they could visit Tehran for a week and see how good they have it actually). So immigrants will bring those sentiments with them here. I know gays may never be able to change some minds, but better PR from them fostering better public perceptions would really help their cause. But maybe the fundamental difference is that homosexuality doesn't really affect non-gays, because in general they don't have to see it publicly. But for gay marriage, just to know that it's legally equivalent to hetero marriage, and worry that their kids will be confused in school or other stereotypes, makes them oppose it? I heard one voter say, "I am not even against gay marriage, but just I don't want my kids being taught those things." Even though most of those fears are unwarranted, how can you get through to people who think like that, especially with the anti-gay-marriage side stirs up their paranoia?

I also find it funny that interracial or inter-religious unions used to be discouraged or even illegal, yet homosexual marriage is now under fire. But the rationale seems to be similar. "Traditionalists" and narrow-minded people didn't want their faith or race polluted by lesser humans, and don't want gay marriage to take away from hetero marriage's status. It's an ideology I guess. However, I do disagree with those who want to equate their situation with the black Civil Rights struggle. As recently as the 1960s, blacks couldn't even be in the same restaurant as whites, were assaulted rather than protected by the police, and their disenfranchisement was tolerated. Gays have it much, much better, and I think it may insult or at least turn off some blacks if they try to draw parallels with their people's past suffering. Plus, it's not like blacks have totally overcome as the old song said. All the statistics suggest that blacks are still doing much worse in America than gays, even if our next president is half black. But that is mostly symbolic, and the fact that Obama won will not in itself do much to improve the lives of millions of American blacks still marginalized or burdened by the legacies of racism.

And the stakes have raised...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081108/ap_on_re_us/mormon_backlash_boycott

I would expect this type of response from the pro-gay movement, but it is counter-productive and hypocritical. Not all Christians are against them, and probably not all Mormons either. No matter how they may look down on or dislike Mormons on a personal level, it's not right for people who promote (or even demand) tolerance to behave so intolerantly to their political opponents. If that happens, then they lose their moral high ground. They say that Mormons have gone from persecuted to persecutor, but obviously that is quite a stretch (the latter part). Gays are not "second class citizens" in CA or most of America. They are protected under the same rights that we all are, the same rights as Mormons or the KKK (no relation). It's not like they are stoned in the streets, barred from owning businesses, or forced to wear rainbow armbands. Exaggeration won't help their cause, and in fact suggests a victim's complex. "Persecuted" is not a term that should be used lightly, lest it lose its power to describe real instances of high injustice (Darfur, Palestine, etc.), which numbs people from feeling outrage and taking action.

It's not right to deface Mormon temples or defame an entire faith just because they don't agree with you. Collective punishment is ignorant, often bigoted, and even prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but few people pay heed. Mormons were one of many groups supporting "Yes on 8"; so why just single them out? Would they dare do the same thing to black churches who were also against them? And Utah is about 70% Mormon; if they boycott tourism and commerce there (ski industry, Sundance Festival, etc.), it will hurt thousands of innocent people who don't care about Prop 8 or may even support gay marriage. Similarly, it's ludicrous for conservative extremists to call for boycotts of "gay friendly" companies, just because they may donate to some gay rights groups. It's not like Microsoft or Ford are designing gayness into their products to brainwash non-gay users. But that demonstrates how hard it will be to bridge the gulf between the activists on each side of the debate (if you can call it that).

Bob Malone, CEO and president of the Park City Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau, said it is unfair to try to punish certain industries or parts of the state over an issue it had nothing to do with.

"It's really not a Park City thing, and I don't see it as a state thing. That was more of a religious issue," he said. "To sweep people in who really have nothing to do with that issue and have no influence over religious issues — it's sad that people kind of think that and say, 'We're going to bury you.' It's sad to hear people talk like that."

More on gay marriage

In my opinion, spending your life savings to back a proposition of any sorts is completely and utterly irresponsible. I know that it's their right to spend the money however they see fit, but with five kids and a California economy that is sinking, that is just plain stupid.

The 69% vote from African Americans for Prop 8 is kind of shocking. IMO, it's also hypocritical of African Americans to vote for it after decades of their own fight against inequality. I'll just leave it to the California Supreme Court's own words from their May decision to allow same-sex marriage:

"An individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

And as usual, Jon Stewart expertly highlights the hypocrisy of the Mormon Church's fight against same-sex marriage:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=189782&title=i-now-denounce-you-chucklarry


Why can't people just let people live? If you don't approve of gay marriage, then don't get one and SHUT THE F*** UP.

--------

Well now you see why I prefer to discuss foreign policy issues. Sadly, the conflicts in the Middle East and Africa seem easier to comprehend than the bitter, emotional deadlocks we face on such social issues like gay marriage and abortion! But I appreciate your input M, and generally agree.

I too feel bad about the black voter reaction to gay marriage and whatnot. But despite being majority Democrat, most Christian blacks follow a fairly socially conservative version of the faith. There were a lot of "No on 8" radio ads narrated by an obviously black voice in order to maybe change their opinions, but to no avail. History seems to show that previously persecuted groups will generally not stick their necks out to assist other persecuted groups (especially when it could return them to persecuted status). And sadly, once persecuted groups obtain power, they may return the favor by persecuting their former abusers or others (Iraqi Shia being a recent example). That is probably what some xenophobes and white supremacist Americans fear about empowered blacks and the new Obama administration. But there were some positive examples, such as Northern Jews risking their lives to help Southern blacks in the Civil Rights struggle, and the Mandela-led reconciliation in South Africa. But unfortunately, it seems that persecution may just make minority groups more self-protective, even at the expense of others. Not to say that is happening with American blacks, but it's clear that many of them are not going out of their way to speak out for gays/immigrants/Muslims, but no more or less than other races I guess. It just depends on who become the new n*****s in our society: blacks, Indians, Poles, Irish, Italians, Chinese, Latinos, gays, Muslims. And unfortunately, the previous n*****s (after the mainstream decides to include them) often join the bandwagon to give the new n*****s a hard time.

Even with Obama, check out this link:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/20729974.html?location_refer=Nation

I guess it's more the fault of his campaign handlers than Obama himself, but he's the chief. They are so paranoid of the Arab-Muslim "slur" (so are "Baptist" and "British" slurs now too?), that they have gone to ludicrous lengths to "protect" Obama. Of all the hundreds of speeches he gave, he never ONCE said that Americans shouldn't be like that. He dissed McCain for not using email, but never said that it's ok to be Muslim, even if he isn't. But Obama just wanted to win, and had to neutralize this potential weakness, even if it meant failing to take a stand for what's right and insulting a subset of his supporters (Muslim Americans are heavily anti-GOP for obvious reasons). It does disappoint me and other liberals who believe that Obama could have shown more courage and inclusion, especially since he has criticized Bush for straining relations with the Muslim world and inciting backlash. As you said, isn't that hypocritical of a black man with a law degree, who should know a lot about injustice? But sorry to digress...

Funny Daily Show clip, thanks. Well, for the record only a few fringe Mormons practice polygamy, and I guess it's not totally mysogenistic - during their trek to Utah, many men died and the survivors felt obligated to care for the widows/orphans. Supposedly it's the same principle behind Muslim polygamy (many men died in wars and left their women in a bind, so other men picked up the slack). Not to say that I agree with it, but just a take on the history. There was an interesting documentary on Mormonism on PBS that my wife and I saw last month. I guess it went a few steps beyond the South Park parody haha. I couldn't really get my head around the concept that they believe we're all "celestial beings", and families were predestined to find each other on Earth, and then be together for eterninty in the celestial realm. Man, that must be truly hell if you have to live with your family forever! Maybe that partially explains why many Mormons take family very seriously and therefore feel strongly about perceived attacks on their "divine" family model.

Yes I agree with you about that family's spending. I didn't mention it to praise them, but rather to demonstrate how extreme some people's reaction to gay marriage can be. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and hope they weren't manipulated into that decision by their church or "Yes on 8" minions. Those parents love their kids as much as the next family, and I guess they just felt that their savings, which could have been used to improve their kids' lives in many ways, was better spent as political influence. I guess to help shape a world where there are laws that better preserve their value system. I'm not saying it's sound thinking, but it's not like they're just jerks who want to pick on gays. Though I would question "activist religions" that would rather speak with their pocketbooks/lobbyists than humble deeds of love and charity. Thankfully we live in a "civil society" versus Congo or Iraq, where they settle their differences with bloodshed. But here we sometimes inflict sociopolitical violence on one another instead, which can be almost as hurtful.

Maybe pro-tolerance groups can't reach some people who have gone off the deep end, but it shouldn't have gotten to this point. Now pro-gay groups are protesting outside Mormon temples and such, which won't help anything. Shouldn't they know that some religious people crave nothing more than feeling righteously persecuted? Remember how bad it got with the Tom DeLay Congress and Terry Schiavo? Animosity just makes both sides want to circle the wagons and be less receptive to the other's views. Some people are truly homophobic, but others do mostly practice live and let live. However, those people's beliefs may compel them to want to "protect marriage" or other social standards. It's not good enough to them to go about their lives knowing that gay marriage is happening around them. I mean, would we sit idly by if we knew our next-door neighbor beat his wife and kids? I know it's not the same thing (and gay marriage is not a crime), but to the "Yes on 8" people, I guess they feel that it is their moral duty to take action and not just passively accept it, especially if people like Newsome keep flaunting it all over.

Same thing with abortion; they feel that a high crime is being committed and their conscience won't let them just tolerate it. Though the pro-life side may never accept anything less than "life begins at conception". At least with gay marriage, maybe in time the proponents can demonstrate that gay couples just want to mind their business, be happy, and don't have an agenda of spreading gayness. In fact, many preachers have said gay marriage is a good thing, because any sort of increase in monogamous commitment between two people in love strengthens family values and sends a good message in the community. Divorce and promiscuity are bigger threats to marriage than gay marriage is! So if traditionalists eventually lower their guard and feel comfortable that gays don't threaten heterosexual marriage, and don't want to brainwash their kids, then there's no problem, right? But that would require the pro-gay movement to maybe tone it down a notch, and not upset conservative sensibilities with flamboyant pride parades and such. That accentuates their differences, when really they should be striving to demonstrate humility, commonalities, and shared values.

Maybe living in CA we have a skewed sense of gay acceptance, since we are definitely on the more tolerant end of the spectrum (Prop 8 aside). Of course it's not like gays are getting lynched (at least not as often as blacks), but let's remember that public acceptance of homosexuality is not a given in America. Over half the states ban any sort of gay unions (like all of the South and Midwest). And "progressive" states like MI, WI, and OR also ban gay marriage. Only CT and MA have legal gay marriage, which is like 5% of America. Gays live pretty well in CA (not 100% equal, but who is?). I know they always have the right to ask for more, but let's be reasonable. Getting a black president elected was already a big step in 2008 - and blacks have been here from the start! Change is slow (especially social acceptance) and America might need more time with gay marriage.

But people often forget that it's a two-way street. If gays want more acceptance and equality, they need to do a much better job with PR and outreach to non-gays. Like half of Obama's campaign was about convincing America that he was one of us. Obama campaigners across the country "embedded" themselves in communities that might not have been very receptive to a black Democrat with a funny name. The locals came to like them, so they figured, "Well this guy is alright, and if he is so gung ho for Obama, maybe Obama is ok too." It's unfortunate that he had to go to such lengths, but at least he succeeded. Nothing breeds support for gay rights than non-gays having gay friends (or at least gays trying to reach out to non-gays and make a good impression).

Gay marriage

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081106/us_time/whygaymarriagewasdefeatedincalifornia

Currently, only MA and CT legalize gay marriage, but many other states offer same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships that cover most of what marriage is in the legal definition. After 18,000 gay marriages performed in CA this year, its status is now uncertain (but it will be argued in the courts for years). I guess after the slim passing of CA's Prop 8, gay rights groups are wondering WTF happened and if they are still living in "liberal CA" (just last week it looked like the prop would fail 44-49, but it passed 52-48). And in Florida (Miami has another large gay community), a similar measure passed by a whopping 62-38. In 2004, 11 states passed bans (some going further, banning any sort of same-sex legal union, not just marriage), even blue states like MI and OR. Arizona, not the most gay-friendly state, rejected a constitutional ban on gay marriage just 2 years ago, but this week changed its mind and passed one. Actually, AZ is the only state on record to have ever rejected a gay marriage ban by vote, so such initiatives have at least a 93% success rate in recent history.

I guess with a potentially larger black voter turnout for Obama (this has been debated in the press), it might have been tougher for gay marriage to pass, since blacks are the most anti-gay-rights voting group in America, and 70% voted pro-8. Obama, the most popular and visible politician in years, didn't really address gay rights in his campaign (maybe fearful of the backlash Kerry incurred, and opposed to gay marriage from his religious beliefs), which was dissapointing to gays. Confusingly, he has publicly opposed both gay marriage and Prop. 8. Maybe he doesn't believe in gay marriage, but doesn't think that constitutional amendments are the proper way of addressing the issue? Gov. Arnold also opposed it, while McCain supported it.

Maybe a lot of the "silent majority" living in rural or suburban areas, who may have been overlooked or avoided participating in the polls, also favored bans. Well, their loss in CA can't be chalked up to money, since the "No on 8" side spent almost double what the pro side did ($44M to $25M). It was the most expensive campaign ever for a social issue. While the "No on 8" side got huge donations from Hollywood and other gay/liberal elites, the "Yes" side was funded by religious groups and families concerned (justifiably or not) that legalized gay marriage would erode the traditional family model and confuse their children. Some also consider it an abomination. The Sacramento Bee reported on a blue-collar Mormon family in CA that gave its entire savings ($50,000, and amidst a bad economy) to the "Yes on 8" campaign, after much agonizing and prayer. That is half the amount that rich Brad Pitt gave to the other side. The Mormon and Catholic churches, as well as Dr. James Dobson's "Focus on the Family", were large donors too, and many Christian preachers discussed it in their sermons (either for or against).

Legally, pro-gay groups are challenging if it's fair to have popular votes decide whether to amend state constitutions to block a minority group from having various benefits/rights such as marriage. Because obviously a minority group doesn't have the numbers to represent itself in a vote. A positive facet of American democracy is protection of minority rights, but not at the expense of the majority's "greater good" of course. It's a tough balance that we have and will struggle with for decades, but it's much better than Saudi Arabia or Russia. The CA constitution and others prohibit any sort of discrimination based identity characteristics, so is this discrimination? I'm not going to debate whether marriage is a right, a religious institution, or whatever, but obviously it's a sensitive, divisive, and challenging issue.

Some gays feel especially persecuted in America, and think that they are much less accepted than other minority groups (even illegal immigrants). I find that bizarre and maybe inaccurate, since the majority of hate crimes reported by the FBI are still against blacks and Jews (only 15% against gays). Obviously some discrimination does occur, but are they victims any more than other groups? There have been some very high-profile sucides and murders involving gays which may affect perceptions. But there are also several gay mayors and other politicians starting with Harvey Milk in the 1970s (unfortunately assassinated), and most recently the first gay man elected to Congress. Gays have been successful in the entertainment industry (as well as most other industries besides sport and military), and gay media is everywhere and similarly prevalent versus women's, black, or Latino media. There is no obvious education gap with gays (no stats on this, just my feeling), and a smaller income disparity between gays and straights (12% less, according to a recent study in Canada), versus whites and blacks (40% less) and men and women (20% less). We're not the most tolerant society, but we are very gay-friendly compared to other nations. Of course this varies by state and community. Religion obviously confounds the situation, since many faiths oppose homosexuality to various degrees (since it's generally viewed as a sin), while others have gone out of their way to be accepting, even at their own peril. This has caused a major rift in the American Episcopal Church (that allows gay preachers and elected a gay bishop). Some members have threatened to leave the church and join the International Anglican Communion instead (who prohibit gay preachers and marriages).

What also makes the matter more politically complex and high-stakes in America is the vast amounts of cash infused by a new elite gay lobby (see link below). I guess they recognize that money = power in politics, and they can't go about their struggle in the old grassroots ways that MLK and Cesar Chavez did (marches, sit-ins, etc.). Or maybe money achieves results more expediently than those other methods? I guess it worked for the Right, so why not? They've injected millions into gay groups and political races across the nation, namely in NY where they hope to expand Dem representation in their legislature to legalize gay marriage.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1854884,00.html

From Time:
The Cabinet [a small, secretive, wealthy group of pro-gay advocates and political donors] is emblematic of a larger shift on the left since 2004 in the direction of big-money politics, a shift most clearly seen in Barack Obama's refusal of public financing for his campaign. The Cabinet is only one of several flush, members-only liberal groups that have formed since 2004, the most famous (and richest) being the Democracy Alliance, whose sponsors include billionaires George Soros, Peter Lewis (father of Cabinet member Jonathan) and Pat Stryker (sister of Cabinet member Jon).

That raises questions: What does a civil rights movement look like in an era of massive wealth? Can you still inspire a grass-roots movement when all the street troops know that the billionaires can just write bigger checks? And is it possible that the left has become a movement as coldly obsessed with money as it always assumed the right was?

But I am not sure if this "big money shadow movement" is the best way to gain more gay acceptance in the US. I think it may make some average people more suspicious and hostile to them, even if it does get more pro-gay people elected. Like some perceptions of Jews, I don't think it benefits gays if some believe that gay puppet masters are pulling the strings of their leaders to advance a "gay agenda". People will be less likely to accept gays if they feel that gays only care about their own community needs. If you only care about yourself and your kind, you may find that no one else will either. If gays want non-gays to treat them better and give them more equality, I think they have to be sensitive and considerate of non-gay sensibilities too, and many are - if not for decency then for survival. I know it's frustrating that gays may have to placate and bend over backwards to accommodate non-gays, but that is the curse of minority status. Plus the alternative is much worse. Instead of just proclaiming that gay marriage is their right and no one should stop them, they could demonstrate to others that gay marriage really isn't a threat to non-gay values, live and let live, etc. Then everyone gets what they want, right? It shouldn't be about "I can do this because it's legal, so too bad for you", because obviously people can change the laws to stop you. So why not send the lawyers home and instead focus on a social movement for coexistence and understanding? It won't be easy, but it's better than our current standoff. After the results in 2004 and this year, I just hope it's not too late for both sides to work together.

It's easier to make friends of enemies than fight enemies (not that gays and straights are enemies, but just as a metaphor). Sometimes you have to fight for your rights, and fight to the death, but hopefully things haven't gotten that desperate for gays. You can fight injustice by sitting down and talking too, and sometimes you have to give a little to get a lot. Obama succeeded where the "angry black man" failed, and I think the same has to be done in the gay community. Defiance and militant pride may accomplish some goals, but also do harm. You have to reach out, and empathy for others breeds empathy for oneself. I am not sure if gay advocacy groups are doing that with their opponents, or just preaching to the choir. The sobering result in CA should make them rethink their approach. I think minorities have success and get more of what they want when they attempt to integrate with the mainstream and merge their interests, while hopefully not losing their heritage and unique identity in the process. So then, it's not "us-versus-them", but "what's good for you is good for me too". This applies to illegal immigration, La Raza, and whatnot.

Like that famous anti-gay marriage commercial in CA where SF Mayor Gavin Newsome said, "[Gay marriage] is going to happen, whether you like it or not!" I think that turns off a lot of centrist or previously ambivalent people. Some people may not like gay marriage at first, but at least they are willing to talk about it and may be open to change. But if you approach a sensitive issue so dominantly and egocentrically, it may harden your audience's hearts and make them less receptive to compromise/understanding. Then you just shot yourself in the foot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kKn5LNhNto

Breaking down the election

Some interesting remarks from a political scientist specializing in research on voter behavior - to keep in mind when watching the brainless pundits.

He's one of the political scientists that made the prediction that a generic Democrat, given the state of they economy in the last year and Bush's approval ratings should win by about 4-8%. Furthermore, those two pieces of data pretty well predict every presidential election result going back to the 1940s. So all of the daily campaign noise, from a political science perspective, is mostly pointless (shocker - Joe the Plumber didn't actually matter!); polls almost invariably collapse around the "fundamentals" (i.e. economic performance and incumbent approval rating) around October, which happened in this case as well. At any rate, this theory won me some serious cash on intrade last night, so I'm pretty happy with it.

But I still think Obama had a higher hurdle to overcome because of his foreignness, especially to older people. And he pulled that off remarkably well. A victory for the ages, for sure...

----------

http://redbluerichpoor.com/blog/?p=206

Election 2008: what really happened
November 5th, 2008

After a quick look at the election results and exit polls (from www.cnn.com), some thoughts:

1. The election was pretty close. Obama won by about 5% of the vote, consistent with the latest polls and consistent with his forecast vote based on forecasts based on the economy.

2. As with previous Republican candidates, McCain did better among the rich than the poor:



But the pattern has changed among the highest-income categories:



3. The gap between young and old has increased–a lot:



But there was no massive turnout among young voters. According to the exit polls, 18% of the voters this time were under 30, as compared to 17% of voters in 2004. (By comparison, 22% of voting-age Americans are under 30.)

4. By ethnicity: Barack Obama won 96% of African Americans, 68% of Latinos, 64% of Asians, and 44% of whites. In 2004, Kerry won 89% of African Americans, 55% of Latinos, 56% of Asians, and 41% of whites. So Obama gained the most among ethnic minorities.

5. The red/blue map was not redrawn; it was more of a national partisan swing. See this state-by-state scatterplot of Obama vote in 2008 vs. Kerry vote in 2004:



The standard deviation of the state swings (excluding D.C. and the unusual case of Hawaii) was 3.3%. That is, after accounting for the national swing in Obama’s favor, most of the states were within 3% of where they were, compared to their relative positions in 2004.

By comparison, here’s the 2000/2004 graph:



The standard deviation of these state swings was 2.4%. This was even less variation–2004 was basically a replay of 2000–still, the relative state swings of 3.3% in 2008 were not large by historical standards.

Again, Obama didn’t redraw the map; he shifted the map over in his favor. (Or, to put it more precisely, the economy shifted the map over in the Democrats’ favor and Obama took advantage of this.)

Here’s the map showing where Obama and McCain did better or worse than expected based on 2004:



6. Finally, how did the pre-election polls do? Unsurprisingly, they pretty much nailed the national vote. And what about the relative positions of the states? The pre-election polls did well there too, at least using Nate Silver’s aggregations. Here’s the scatterplot:



Pretty damn good. The standard deviation of the discrepancies, again excluding D.C. and Hawaii, is 2.5%, which is a big improvement on the 3.3% using Kerry04 alone.

I see some systematic patterns: Obama underperformed where the polls had him way down, and he outperformed where the polls had him up. We should go back and look at these patterns from earlier elections and see if this is consistent. If so, it suggests a way to improve forecasts for next time.

P.S. Age graph fixed from first posting; thanks to Andy Guess for pointing out the error.


To follow that up, some more interesting analysis from the same website. It turns out that if you also control for incumbent's approval ratings (in addition to economic data), the predictions get very accurate.

-------------------

The 3rd quarter data posted by the BEA yesterday are so dire that I [Hibbs] changed my tune and generated a new forecast based on the latest data.

October 31, 2008 update of Presidential Vote Forecast: Preliminary estimates of 2008q3 national income data released on October 30 by the BEA indicate that the economy has weakened so much that I have updated my 2008 election forecast: The Bread and Peace model now predicts a 2-party vote share for McCain of 46.25%, implying Obama will win by a margin of 7.5 percentage points.

Just as a reminder, here’s the graph of Hibbs’s model applied to earlier elections:

As you can see, the incumbent party sometimes loses but they never have gotten really slaughtered. In periods of low economic growth, the incumbent party can lose, but a 53-47 margin would be typical; you wouldn’t expect the challenger to get much more than that. Such things can happen (see, for example, Eisenhower’s performance against Stevenson in 1952) but it wouldn’t be expected.

---------

Thanks for the data, A. What a wonderful world we live in where a political scientist living overseas can make money on the Internet betting on his country's election results! Heck, Obama was definitely a safer bet than the Dallas Cowboys.

Heh, if it's true that fundamentals mostly dictate election results, why can't we dispense with the 2 years of campaigning nonsense? $1B spent on robo-calls, ads, conventions, private jets flying across the country, junk mail, rallies, etc. The two things that a campaign can't control for in an open-seat election, the incumbent and the economy, seem to matter the most, so can't the voters just decide on their own without being so harassed and bombarded at every turn? Well I guess that's why the world makes more sense in academia, but in practice it's chaos out there.

But still, the "human element" (campaign message, personality, celebrity, etc.) must matter, though it could be difficult to quantify in a model. An "un-named Dem" was projected to beat McCain, but if the Dem nominee was John Edwards or Al Sharpton, and controlling for all other variables, do you think they would be victorious today? Or if it was revealed that Obama had an affair, or terrorists attacked a major US city in October - do they factor in those "bombshells" on Intrade too?

I'm surprised that there was no "massive turnout among young voters". What was all that talk about energizing the youth and getting so many people to vote for the first time? What about the Dems registering 100,000's more new voters than the GOP? And the AP said that black voting wasn't higher than usual. So what was the Obama effect? Obviously he earned 7% more of the black vote than Kerry, but that demographic already swings so heavily for the Dems. He did seem to win >10% more of the under-30 vote than Kerry, but nationwide that only accounts for a roughly 1.5-2% gain in the popular vote.

Well, I guess we can be sure that scholars will be pouring over the nuts and bolts of this historic election for years to come. I wonder what lessons future campaigns will take away from 2008 and what new trends have begun. I guess besides TV, the Web is the key battleground for 21st Century politicians, so get used to seeing more campaign ads when you play Madden and such!

--------

Yeah, I sort of feel that as an academic, armed with these theories, if I'm not willing to put my money where my mouth is there isn't a lot of point. If these theories aren't right at least 51% of the time, might as well pack it in.

I suspect the answer to why we waste all this money on campaigns if the results are already more or less determined by fundamental factors is that:

1) spending probably matters on the margins. The general range of possible outcomes is already prefigured by the economic situation and incumbent popularity. But an extra million organizing the GOTV in South Florida in 2000 would have make a pretty big difference on the outcome.

2) You probably have to appear to be trying; if your opponent is going all out and you're being half-hearted in campaigning, then I doubt voters will take well to that. So it's a prisoner's dilemma; both candidates would be better off if they didn't have to raise so much money, but given that one of them starts raising it, the other has to appear to be putting in the effort too. That's why public financing of campaigns is probably a good idea; the coordination problem of credibly agreeing to not raise funds is solved by the government.

With regard to the human element, it's hard to say. I tend to think that people that follow politics closely do it like sports fans; you and I are pretty unlikely to change our opinions about which side to support (i.e. Raiders fans pretty much stay Raiders fans, unless Al Davis dies). In that vein, there's a block of people (say about 40ish%) that are going to pull the D lever pretty much no matter what, and a likewise percentage for the Republicans. That is, unless either side were to run a joke candidate (last time that really happened was Goldwater in 1964; it's unlikely today with the primary system that it would ever happen again - as much as I love Al Sharpton, he's never going to win the Democratic primary).

So what you are left with is maybe 15% of the population that is up for grabs each time. These people generally tend to be low-information voters (if they were high-information they would have already picked a favorite team, so to speak), and in surveys it has shown that low information voters use retrospective voting (i.e. am I better off today than I was four years ago?) conditioned on economic performance. Even if they give other reasons, often what has happened is that they blame or reward the party that has been in power during the last cycle and then rationalize it by citing other reasons (i.e. McCain's unserious, etc.)

Now, I suspect you're quite right that personality is not irrelevant; it probably accounts for some of the noise 1-2% either way (remember, that's a significant amount of the truly undecided) and in some elections that's enough to swing it. But given how bad the fundamentals were this year for Republicans, I think any of the top three Democratic contenders would have walked away with it.

That's not to take anything away from Obama and his team. He of course avoided the obvious trap of doing something stupid like get caught with a prostitute or whatever; they essentially ran a perfect campaign and had sure-handed and almost boringly on target operation. And he overcame fears about his race in a very skillful way; McCain and their campaign never found an angle against him that they could make stick. You can't really argue that there was much he could have done differently for the better.

-------

That's interesting, thanks. Yes as you said, I guess those LBJ and Nixon days of landslide victories (where the loser nets less than 100 electoral votes) are over. America is not as "united" as the candidates say, and 80% of us are firmly entrenched in our party affiliations. Despite all that Bush and Obama talk about "mandates" and "movements", the electoral map hasn't changed much since 2000, and the parts that changed usually swung less than 10% (which adds up to only a few million votes nationwide). And this change was apparently due to fundamentals, not "once in a generation" candidates or shifting ideologies. And as you said, it's kind of scary that national elections seem to be won or lost by the generally poorly-informed 15% of undecideds, who may just vote based on their pocketbook, last-minute feelings, or other visceral factors. I know those matters are legitimate voter concerns, but focusing on them might drown out other important information to consider (i.e. so many people voted for Bush just because they thought he would lower their taxes, and maybe others rejected Obama because they fear he will raise them).

I agree with you that public perceptions of giving full effort in this Puritan culture are important, or you end up like Fred Thompson. Maybe I'm just naive, but why is fundraising the measure of that effort to win? Shouldn't it be based on the merit of their proposals and rhetoric? Quality, not quantity. I think we'd all rather pick the quiet candidate who says smarter things and has a better track record versus the blowhard campaign-aholic with a better fundraising and marketing machine. And the success of that infrastructure is more attributed to the campaign team and political party, not necessarily the candidate's personal work ethic and cleverness.

On NPR last night, a funny vignette from a Montana voter: he said he was on the fence, but the Obama camp kept calling his home at dinnertime, so he voted for McCain instead. "Too much effort" can be bad as well. Remember that McCain beat out Romney, even though Mitt way outraised and outspent him in the early primaries. I think some voters do get suspicious, saturated, and turned off by "overzealous" candidates, and may favor a more pragmatic, tempered approach. Both McCain and Obama have accused each other of saying whatever it takes to get elected, and I guess that's nothing new. I know that campaigns by nature are all about excess and exaggeration. But there has to be some common sense and moderation too (values embodied by voters in states like NH and MN).

I agree that Obama ran a near-flawless campaign, but he had a lot of advantages to work with - especially Hillary messing up, money, volunteers, world events, and Bush. Not to say that he didn't earn it - he energized his supporters and reached more communities more than the GOP was able to. Biden was a solid pick and did his job (or at least didn't hurt him). His economic team was much better. I guess as you said, a "boring" campaign usually means a successful one without any gotchas. Message control, repetition, etc. It's strange that a "change" candidate also has to prove that he's really not that different. It's too bad that he had to go to such lengths to try to convince America that he is just like us, and played it so safe during the debates that we really didn't get a glimpse into his deeper political psyche. Apart from his great race speech (probably not even written by him, and only in response to the Wright scandal), he didn't really touch on ugly social injustice or other controversial, divisive matters like immigration. Of course he spoke of economic injustice, but that was an easy sell with rising health care costs, layoffs, and Wall Street acting like assholes. Team Obama was very innovative with fundraising, and harnessed technology much better than their rivals. Their Houdini software was able to identify the most receptive potential voters, like fishermen who use sonar I guess. They monopolized the change message that played out well for Americans frustrated from the Bush years, and didn't get too negative (well, front-runners don't really have to).

Though I don't know if some of their campaigning successes should be celebrated. From the BBC: "Everyone who visited the Obama website was asked to sign up to get more information. Everyone who did so was asked to contribute, or volunteer. If they did, they received several follow-up calls and messages asking for more money, or more assistance." Enough was never enough for them, and that's why they won. But is that what it takes to win these days? I know the GOP does it too, but it's out of control.

However, I will argue that the McCain could have done a lot better. Some commentators say that no Republican could have won in 2008. I know hindsight is 20/20, but of course he should have really evaluated Palin a lot more before picking her, to make sure she could handle the national stage and scrutiny of her personal life. I think Huckabee could have worked for him too, as more blue-collar and unconventional, yet a religious conservative with executive experience. McCain was badly hurt because he appeared (or is) out of touch with the economy and middle class needs. It's clear that both of them are not economics experts, but he didn't do a good job addressing that weakness. He came off as unstable and impulsive during the credit crisis, while Obama was always calm and reassuring. McCain was pro- and anti-regulation at the same time, though he did have good ideas for direct gov't restructuring of bad mortgages and not forcing retirees to withdraw from their 401(k)'s while stocks are down. Obama will probably adopt those measures.

McCain is old and Obama is hip; there's nothing the GOP can do about that, or the Obama fan worship. But at least he could have worked that difference to his advantage instead of just joking about it on Letterman. He can't "out-change" Obama, but he should have built on the steady experience argument that Hillary nearly won. He should have tried to make stick that Obama means well and gives uplifting speeches, but leadership takes more than that. Though more and more it appeared that McCain was actually the risky pick. During the debates, the tables were turned: it was McCain who looked childish, unpolished, and desperate with his attacks, while Obama was very collected and communicated clearly (well, he's just a better orator). McCain should have been the calm, sage Mondale lecturing the naive little boy Quayle on governance, but I guess that doesn't really jive with his personality. He has been around, he knows how Washington works and how to fix it, and Obama is over his head. I think he relied on his POW story too much when many undecideds don't care about distant Vietnam and feel detached from the current wars. He went overboard on offshore drilling (which in part cost him pro-environment voters at an 8-to-1 margin) and belligerence with Iran, especially considering his previous centrist record that independents used to like. He could have stressed his relationships with Lieberman, Feingold, and other Dems to get things done in Congress, which Obama couldn't match after just 3 years in Senate.

Handling Bush was a tough one. I still think that sitting presidents can be a major campaign help, even someone as unpopular as Bush. Gore rejected Clinton to his peril. Of course McCain could have politely demonstrated where he deviates from Bush (deficit spending, environment, Gitmo, stem cells, etc.). But he should have also celebrated where Bush and the GOP did well (no domestic attacks since 9/11, AIDS help to Africa, trade deals, conservative judges, more money for the military). He tried to bank on the Surge, but tunnel-vision voters only cared about the economy. Though he's not a Religious Right ideologue, maybe he could have done more on social issues where the GOP has success (or had Palin do it). Don't let the election boil down to one issue.

And finally there was race - it was such a slippery slope for the GOP to attack Obama for not being American enough, and created mixed-signals and problems like the crazy "Obama is an Arab" woman at his rally. I almost feel sorry for McCain to be thrust into such an awkward pickle. Surely he wants to capitalize on being more like the "guys on the dollar bills" than Obama, but also knows that he can't stoop too low (yet he has to rein in his supporters who do, Palin included). McCain has issues, but he's not a total jerk like Rove/Cheney, and never directly questioned Obama's American-ness. He tried to bring up Ayers, but not Wright. Why? Commedians and journalists alike have said that they were more cautious with Obama critiques, so as to not incur sensitive racial backlash, hence more negative media on McCain overall (well to be fair, he gave the media much more material than Obama). So in that sense, maybe racism (or the fear of being entangled in it) actually helped Obama. Also, McCain was the victim of personal lies in 2000, and I don't think he wanted to do the same and get so nasty about Wright, when that isn't really Obama's fault and doesn't reflect on his patriotism.

I agree with you about public financing (I'll abbreviate it as PF from now on to save keystrokes); it's a good way to restore more public control in campaigns. To explain his change of mind and refusal of PF, Obama said that public financing was "broken", and he needed larger sums of money to counter the GOP attack machine. But do he and the Dem Congress plan to fix PF now? I sure hope so. Actually I think PF is a bigger issue with Congressional races, where there are larger money disparities and huge incumbent notoriety advantages vs. presidential races. The system must be improved so it's at least decently competitive with private fundraising, or only the desperate would take it. I am not sure if you saw this link I forwarded a while ago, but what do you think?

http://www.clcblog.org/blog_item-57.html