by on

It’s making me uneasy how much “social issues”–lousy term, by the way–keep coming up in this campaign. I had hoped that would stop after Santorum got out, but it hasn’t.

In my opinion, this is exactly the formula for an economic disaster: voters so busy worrying about this stuff that they forget the major economic problems the country’s facing. Even if we finally do recover from the recession, as we appear to be, it will be only to revert to the major economic problem of summer, 2008: high gas prices and stagflation. While I feel they are important, I nonetheless believe that a problem like a major stagflation epidemic dwarfs issues like government-subsidized birth control or whether gays can marry.

Although at least those actually are issues. What’s worst of all is how much attention is devoted to what Mitt Romney did 45 years ago in high-school, or what Obama had for breakfast as a kid in Indonesia.

by on

It’s amazing how President Obama’s stance on gay marriage has “evolved”. Was there ever any doubt what his position was; and that the “evolving” line was a smokescreen to aid him at the ballot box? There wasn’t, at least, not until yesterday.

Most pundits are saying he did it to energize his liberal base. Well, speaking as a member of that base, I don’t feel particularly energized. I already knew where he stood on the issue, and understood that he simply wasn’t saying it explicitly for political reasons. Unfortunate, perhaps, but an understandable move given that gay marriage faces heavy opposition in many swing states.

The whole thing reminds me of the long-form birth certificate incident last year. Everything made sense: Obama wasn’t releasing the long-form birth certificate because that wasn’t what the State of Hawaii gives a person who requests a birth-certificate. The short-form is good enough for everyone else, so why should  it not be good enough for the President of the United States? To go to the trouble of getting the long-form would be to capitulate to conspiracy theorists.

And then he went and released the long-form birth certificate. This muddied the waters, and suddenly what had been a perfectly logical stance on his part became somewhat mystifying. It is much the same thing here: the original plan was quite understandable and rational. Then the sudden, seemingly impulsive change at the strangest possible time. I really don’t know what to think.

It may be Obama has decided to simply “draw a line in the sand”, as they say, and make clear the differences between him and the Republicans. Not an unreasonable idea, though again an odd change of strategy for someone who has typically been a moderate, non-standoffish type.

The thing is, most opponents of gay-marriage had simply taken for granted that Obama supported it. This is because most opponents of gay-marriage are people who will not hesitate in ascribing all manner of things they consider “evil” to the President. By all appearances, they have simply assumed that he is a Marxist, Muslim Kenyan usurper who means to destroy both the economic and moral fabric of the country, and anything he says or does to contradict such claims they assume to be lies or deception. This may indicate to him and his advisers that whatever he may say about gay marriage–or really, anything–is irrelevant to how the public perceives him.

I think Obama is a great President, but sometimes he does have an odd way of timing things. In the end, though, I don’t think this will change anything about the election. I think the fact that he did this suggests he is very confident.

by on

The big story of the day is that the Obama administration has been using executive power to act unilaterally without the approval of Congress. It’s based on this New York Times story by Charlie Savage:

As a senator and presidential candidate, [Obama] had criticized George W. Bush for  flouting the role of Congress. And during his first two years in the White House, when Democrats controlled Congress, Mr. Obama largely worked through the legislative process to achieve his domestic policy goals.

But increasingly in recent months, the administration has been seeking ways to act without Congress.

The first several paragraphs of the article all portray Obama as making something of a reversal; of now doing what he accused Bush of doing. Eventually, in the ninth paragraph, we get the details:

[F]or the most part, Mr. Obama’s increased unilateralism in domestic policy has relied on a different form of executive power than the sort that had led to heated debates during his predecessor’s administration: Mr. Bush’s frequent assertion of a right to override statutes on matters like surveillance and torture.

“Obama’s not saying he has the right to defy a Congressional statute,” said Richard H. Pildes, a New York University law professor. “But if the legislative path is blocked and he otherwise has the legal authority to issue an executive order on an issue, they are clearly much more willing to do that now than two years ago.”

That’s sort of a major difference. It’s one thing to use the Executive’s legally-granted powers aggressively, it’s another to go around the laws of the Legislative branch–“through the dark side”, as the fellow once said. But that’s not really the impression the casual reader, or the reader of headlines, is likely to get.

by on

Mitt Romney has acquired something of a reputation for trying to be “all things to all people”, that he will say absolutely whatever it takes to get elected. The “Etch-a-Sketch” comment only reinforced this notion. As Andrew Sullivan put it:

It sums up every single worry about Romney in one metaphor: that he is a machine, that he can say or stand for anything, and that, from time to time, depending on which segment of the population he is appealing to, he will simply become something completely different.

It does remind me of another quote by a politician:

I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.

The politician in question was one Barack Obama, in his book The Audacity of Hope.

Republicans are probably thinking that this just goes to prove the existence of the “liberal media”. They would be wrong. What it goes to prove is the power of charisma. Obama’s statement is entirely accurate and, what is more, it is true without any effort on Obama’s part. Whereas Romney has to twist in the political winds, Obama gets stuff projected onto him effortlessly. This is one of the differences between a charismatic politician and an un-charismatic one.

by on

Yesterday, President Obama said: “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”. He also apparently added that the Supreme Court is “unelected”.

Republican writers have been attacking him for this, laughing at how stupid this statement is. After all, Supreme Court Justice is by design an unelected position, and to complain about this is to complain about the whole system. More to the point, it is not in the least unprecedented for the Court to overturn a law passed by Congress. That’s what it’s there for.

So, why did Obama say that? Republicans would have you believe it’s because he’s an idiot, and a sham Constitutional lawyer. But they are, of course, wrong.

This statement of Obama’s is calculated for the ears of low-information voter. The people who don’t pay much attention to politics, or have much knowledge of the system. The statement is calibrated to inflame animosity among this demographic towards the Supreme Court. (Which, by the by, indicates he’s concerned they’re going to overturn it.)

Now, a cynic would say the President is lying to stupid people to win their votes. But this is an unduly bleak way of putting it. As I have said, merely because a person is not well-informed about the political system does not mean that person is stupid. And both sides try to court the low-information vote. Indeed, when any part of the political system is not presently working to the advantage of one party, that party will demonize that part of the system, and the other will praise it. Yet, when circumstances change, and the party that had benefited now suffers from this part of the system, the situation will be reversed. This happens frequently with the filibuster.

In other words, this is a non-story, Obama is not an idiot, and you Republicans will just have to think of something else. Just another day in politics.