I don’t see “economic justice” in the Constitution

Despite all his promises, I don’t trust John McCain will pick judges that practice “judicial restraint.” But it’s incredibly disturbing that the Obama campaign can’t even mention the Constitution as it panders on potential Supreme Court appointees.

“The Straight Talk Express took another sharp right turn today as John McCain promised his conservative base four more years of out-of-touch judges that would threaten a woman’s right to choose, gut the campaign finance reform that bears his own name, and trample the rights and interests of the American people. Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.”

Throw us a bone and pretend the Supreme Court is still around to uphold the Constitution before using collectivist-laden phrases like “economic justice” – which I can assure you scares the holy crap out of tons of Republicans and Independents.

Your fair share

What the candidates are inadvertently saying on taxes in my column today.

Watership Down

I watched Watership Down with my daughter today. I can’t think of any modern animated movie that is as well made or engrossing. Nor can I think of a movie I enjoyed as much as an adult as I did a child. If you can get your hands on a copy, I would recommend it — or better yet, read the book.

Reading about a newish theatrical version staged in London not long ago, I came across this quote that sums of the feel of the story:

The closest humans come to feeling like rabbits is under war conditions. Imagine what it would be like if every time we stepped out on the street, we know we could be picked off by a sniper. We’ve tried to capture that anxiety in the way the rabbits speak -lots of short, jerky sentences.”

This is the conservative soul?

Andrew Sullivan writes that Ron Paul “seems a little more comfortable with a president Obama than a president McCain” based on, among other things, Obama’s “integrity of the Constitution” (except on the Second Amendment – on the rest, we lack any evidence of reliability) and “walking back the doctrines of pre-emptive war.” *

In reality, we never know what a president will do. That’s why trust is such an important election issue. But Sullivan’s hyper-fawning over Obama has never been about policy, it’s about the power of personality and perception. And his take bears no resemblance to the political philosophy of skepticism he wrote about in his book.

“I don’t think you have to agree with Obama on many things to want him to succeed,” writes Sullivan, echoing his past writing on the topic. Well, why in hell not? In the end it should be about policy, shouldn’t it? Obama, outside of foreign policy, believes in the expansion of government control: higher taxation, attack on profit, draconian controls on energy, socialized health care, etc … why would a conservative of any flavor want Obama to succeed? (The best a classic liberal or libertarian can hope for in this election, in my humble opinion, is gridlock government.)

In any event, I thought those thick-headed Americans who voted for candidates they could envision themselves having a beer with exposed a deeply unsophisticated electorate. That’s how we got Bush. After 9/11, we listened to Dear Leader, because we trusted him, and found ourselves on our present disastrous course– or so the story goes.

Supporting Obama based solely on his messianic allure is just as simplistic. Obama’s (untapped and unproven) transformational power to bring folks together hasn’t panned out, anyway. Fact is, as it stands now, Obama can’t even bring his own party together. He doesn’t deserve such adoration. No politician does.

On this topic, everyone would benefit from Gene Healy’s superb “Cult of the Presidency.” This kind of veneration for a candidate, Bush or Obama or anyone else, just doesn’t strike me as something from the “conservative soul.”

—————————
* … unless, it makes sense for Obama.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.

I realize this Obama quote is from last year, but a unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation which has fallen short of our expectations in the War on Terror seems as adventurous and irresponsible as anything in the Bush Doctrine. Surely Saddam’s sins were as dreadful as Musharraf’s? Is harboring terrorists enough of reason for an invasion? Or only certain terrorists? What about the unforeseen consequences of such an invasion? Imagine all the anger it will generate on the Muslim street? A new tool for terrorist recruitment and so on … Why don’t these issues apply? We may believe bin Laden is holed up in Pakistan but, for all I know, he’s in Somalia or Sudan or Sacramento.

Old news, I know. But, looking back at it now, I think it illustrates the problem with the perception of Obama vs. the reality of Obama — and the complexity of the world. He’d be just another president who would have to deal with the Middle East. It’s going to be ugly. It always is.

“The chronic goad of fear”

This outstanding quote — I’d never heard before — leads a Slate review of the new Iron Man flick: iHero — Why Iron Man is like Steve Jobs.

“Capitalism is based on self-interest and self-esteem; it holds integrity and trustworthiness as cardinal virtues and makes them pay off in the marketplace, thus demanding that men survive by means of virtue, not vices. It is this superlatively moral system that the welfare statists propose to improve upon by means of preventative law, snooping bureaucrats, and the chronic goad of fear.”—Alan Greenspan

Self-perpetuating orgy of negativity

The top corner of Drudge looks like this today:

GLOOM LIFTING? Employers cut fewer jobs in April, jobless rate falls…
Sense of Optimism Begins to Ease Onto Wall St…
Dow crosses 13,000; Dollar UP…
GUSHER: CHEVRON profit rises 9.5%…

My column today begins: “A self-perpetuating orgy of negativity regarding the economy begins with the media, which collect every morsel of daunting economic news and jump to a logical conclusion — which is to say, Armageddon.”

Hopefully we’ve turned a corner. Both in terms of a slow economy and in how the slow economy is covered.

Just wondering

So there will be no global warming for the next ten years … and there has been none the past ten years. Are we knuckle-dragging flat-Earthers allowed to be skeptical yet?

Employing the “F” word properly

Christopher Hitchens writes on John McCain’s temper problems today (and claims that former Sen. Bob Smith “combines the body of an ox with the brains of a gnat.”) I wonder if McCain’s temper tantrums are anything like Lee Elia’s – who conducted the greatest post-game press conference of all time 25 years ago today. (Unquestionably not work friendly):

And here’s another pretty good one:

64 K of pure power

With all the talk of rising gas and food prices, it was interesting to run across this Commodore 64 commercial from 1982, 26 years ago. The beloved computer was going for $595. It reportedly sold 30 million units; the best-selling personal computer ever — though no one has yet figured out what exactly they were supposed to do with it after playing games.

Today, a consumers still have numerous desktops they can purchase at around the same price — or a little more. And certainly, these computers will enrich their in countless ways a Commodore 64 never could.

It’s not the product …

Glenn Reynolds, I think, gets it exactly right on ethanol.

The problem with ethanol is a government-subsidy problem, and a trade-barrier problem. It’s not a problem with ethanol itself. Make it out of something other than food, and lower the barrier to Brazilian ethanol imports, and it would help our current situation a lot.

From what I can tell, there is nothing uniquely terrible about ethanol (then again, there is nothing exceptionally wonderful about corn-based ethanol, either). There is, however, something potentially destructive in the false economy we’ve created. In today’s column, I write “that government, on both the local and national level, has mandated and subsidized ethanol, creating an artificial market that incentivizes production of a wasteful energy.”

I also write: “Not only are presidential candidates promoting dangerous fallacies about energy but, last I checked, they weren’t crisscrossing the nation in chariots hitched to teams of flying unicorns.”

That second bit was just gratuitous. I wanted to get flying unicorns into a column. But the fact is, nationally, we’re forsaking market-driven energy solutions out of frustration. We want a cure now. If we happen to have ethanol and wind farms, well that must be the answer. Innovation and technology, especially when it comes to an issue as vast and complicated as energy, is going to take a long time. With any luck, because of this fiasco, the nation has learned a valuable lesson about the unintended consequences of government subsidies, the importance of consumer choice and our unhelpful tendency to hastily fall in line behind any idea, just as long some bureaucrat puts the word “green” in the promotional material.

Who am I kidding?

One of the best reads on this, and related topics, is Robert Bryce’s superb Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence. Bryce predicted much of the ethanol fiasco years ago.

” … maybe Cindy should be on the ticket.”

James Ledbetter, writing in Slate, deconstructs McCain’s personal economic experience. Or, rather, lack of it. When McCain tells us he’s lived his life “not for profit, but for patriotism” believe him. It’s his wife who has lived a life for profit, for both of them, God bless her.

McCain’s financial inexperience may explain why his attempts to discuss economics—such as his rapid flip-flop on the need for bailing out homeowners, his pandering suggestion to suspend the gasoline tax, or his happy talk on balancing the budget—sound so tin-eared.

It’s hard — for me, at least — not to view McCain’s admission of economic illiteracy (at a time when Republicans need a candidate who can, at the very least, feign such proficiency) an admission of having absolutely no guiding economic principles. His voting record sure doesn’t produce a tangible fiscal philosophy, only a haphazard collection of pandering and expediency. And with McCain’s recent populist assault on “profit,” I can imagine many Republicans are wondering what exactly they’ve gotten themselves into.

How to make a lefty movie right

I’m not embarrassed. I’ve been a fan of David O. Russell films. Spanking the Monkey, Three Kings, Flirting with Disaster were all worthwhile. In small doses, I even enjoyed the existential (or so I’m told) I Heart Huckabees – though I found his legendary meltdown during the filming vastly more entertaining than the movie itself.

His next one, though, sounds particularly brilliant.

Nailed is the story of a waitress (played by Jessica Biel) who is shot in the head with a nail gun. From there, she goes on a bender of irresponsible behavior and wild sexual conquests while battling Washington for better health-care.

With many progressive “message” movies failing to put people in the seats, Russell has come up with an inspired solution. Preaching in favor of government-provided health care is one thing. Working yourself into a self-righteous frenzy over callous Washington capitalists and watching Jessica Biel engaged in irresponsible behavior and wild sexual conquests is quite another.

Oh, and cast Tracy Morgan from 30 Rock.

Now, we’re talking message flick.

Are you kidding? We love negativity

The New York Times edit board claims:

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

Are voters really getting “tired of it”? How would the NYT editorial board know? Common sense and cable ratings tell us (though they may not admit it) voters love a mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled political race. I’ve never spoken to as many civilians about politics as I have since this race began to get nasty. Though I wouldn’t call the contest exceptionally “mean.” It’s just unusual. And the negativity — or “distractions,” as Obama likes to call them — are quite often a handy way to learn useful tidbits about a candidate which would otherwise be ignored. Those things may seem “vacuous” to some. To other, clingy types, those negative revelations could be a deal breaker.

Politically, “negativity” is a winner. Hillary just took Pennsylvania – and Ohio and Texas. Her so-called negativity has done nothing but help her survive in this race, if only for a couple of more weeks.

The NYT board is grousing because this thing is dragging on and has the potential to hurt the Democrats in the general election. That concern is overblown. But “demeaning”? A genuine primary race only enhances the political process, it doesn’t demean it. And when the combatants have so little to quarrel about on policy matters, what else are they going to do?

Peace and free trade

A wonderful post from one of my favorite economists, Don Boudreaux. (What kind of geek has “favorite” economists? Don’t ask.):

On this Earth Day, I celebrate capitalism — the institution that, far more than any other, has made human lives clean, safe, dignified, and culturally rich. Capitalism is also responsible for giving people the wealth and leisure to permit them to mis-perceive nature as loving and bountiful, and to enjoy nature in a way that few of our pre-industrial ancestors could ever have enjoyed it.

McCain-Trotsky

“And if Republicans can forgive McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Kennedy — and probably McCain-Trotsky — surely Democrats will get over a little bickering.” Or, at least, that’s the theory I forward in today’s column.

It’s difficult to believe residual outrage over the nominating process will bleed into the general election. For one, I don’t believe the average voter is paying much attention yet. Clearly, though, perception matters and Obama’s halo has been knocked around a bit. As Ross Douthat reminds us despite the Democratic infighting, McCain still struggles.

Yet even with all this going for him, McCain’s poll numbers are bumping up against the same 45 percent ceiling that they’ve been hitting since December. If the election were held today - a pretty good day for McCain, all things considered - he’d probably lose to Obama, and might lose to Clinton as well.

Would he “probably lose to Obama, and might lose to Clinton as well”? Sure, McCain has a lot of work to do. Sure, despising Republicans is now a national pastime. But the election isn’t about national poll numbers, it’s about Ohio, Florida (maybe), Colorado, New Mexico, etc … McCain polls well with independents in many of those states.

The Flag

Via Hit & Run, a sometimes humorous collection of potential flags for the coming nanny state from FARK.

Dropout rate “catastrophe”

“According to a new study by America’s Promise Alliance, 17 of the nation’s 50 largest cities had high school graduation rates lower than 50 percent. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, whose wife, Alma, chairs the alliance, calls it a “catastrophe.”

To fix the mess, education leaders have sprung into action. Yep, they’re going to have meetings. Fifty state “summits,” where local experts — you know, the ones who have reliably failed before — can chew the fat. And rest assured, teachers unions, the chief obstruction to progress, will seldom be mentioned by participants.”

Rest.

Is McCain now a Lieberman Democrat? Or is Lieberman a McCain Republican?

… Or, is there any difference? We all know, of course, that Lieberman and McCain are on the same page when it comes to Iraq. And we know many Democrats are in high spirits now that Joe has completely bolted for the Dark Side. But Republicans might be wise to ask themselves: Do you want him? After all, Lieberman’s recent I-didn’t-leave-them-they-left-me speech was a strike at the entire Democratic Party rather than a shot at some weak-kneed foreign policy position. Does Lieberman’s broadside mean he feels more comfortable in the GOP now. And if so, what does that say about the GOP?

“Well, I say that the Democratic Party changed,” Lieberman told ABC’s “This Week” this past Sunday. “The Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000. It’s not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government. It’s been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist . . . and very, very hyperpartisan.”

Some observations:

–Partisanship only seems “very very hyper” when the rabble is focusing on you. Partisanship is the natural byproduct of joining a party. And if you’re a member of the party why not be hyper about it? If God wanted bipartisanship he wouldn’t have created Lee Atwater or Ragin’ Cajun.

–The Democratic Party has indeed moved left over the past decade, but it certainly hasn’t been hijacked by a “small group”. It’s a huge group. Such a huge group that they can no longer even be considered hijackers.

–Though Lieberman hasn’t been Eugene V. Debs, he’s not been an “internationalist” (whatever that means) or a free-trader or pro-reform, either. On a whole host of issues, he’s been solidly mainstream left. Sidling up to McCain won’t change that history, though it may remind conservatives that the Maverick has reworked his image these past few months … or, actually, his whole life.

From the “Constitution itself”

“Should the World Court be imbued with the authority to determine how Texans run their justice system? Does the president have the authority to impose an international court ruling on a state? Would such a notification have altered the outcome of the trial?”

Not really.

Sex, lies and corrupt politicians

“Are we too puritanical when it comes to sex? Europeans, we are told, will often have a great laugh at our squeamish expense. Why do Americans, they wonder, worry about the sexual antics of elected officials? Who cares?

How prudish are we, really? Read the news lately and you will have fodder for a riveting three-act porno screenplay. Our recent political scandals are completely filthy, and if they were only about the sex, we’d all be laughing. (OK, some of us are laughing anyway.) ”

Rest of the column.