Faith in the people

Barack Obama did something significant this week; he changed campaigning for public office as we know it.  

In the weeks before the Indiana and North Carolina primary, John McCain laid out his proposal to eliminate the 18.4 cents per gallon gas tax during the summer months in order to -- what he claims -- help people deal with the high gas prices.  Clinton, unfortunately, jumped on board with this really bad idea thereafter. 

This proposal is a really bad idea for several reasons.  First, despite everyone hating taxes, they do actually pay for stuff, and in the case of the gas taxes pay for road maintenance.  The United States already underfunds road maintenance, and eliminating the gas tax would severely hinder road projects by removing an estimated $9 billion from that dedicated transportation fund.

But Clinton said that she would make the extremely-profitable oil companies pay for that $9 billion shortfall.  This phony and ill-advised argument brings me to my second point: it won't reduce gas prices, and not one economist will tell you otherwise.  The demand for gas is so great that consumers will pay almost any price for it, so putting a tax on the oil companies will only cause them to raise the price of gasoline to make up for it.  Consumers will pay for for it because we have no choice, and we're right back where we started.

But let's just pretend that McCain and Hillary were able to suspend the laws of economics and the plan did work -- under that circumstance, it's still a bad idea.  A sudden spike in demand of gasoline (due to the reduced cost) would cause gasoline shortages across the nation. 

On top of all of those reasons, the unpleasant fact of the matter is that we to raise the gas tax to invest in a nation-wide mass transportation system.  An increase in the gas tax would allow us to invest in new transportation infrastructure, reduce the demand of gasoline, and clean our air.    The future of our economy depends on efficient transportation.  Sadly, we currently do not have the funding nor the will to invest in the infrastructure we need to maintain our economy in the coming decades.  All the while our highways continue to descend into permanent gridlock.

Where does Obama come into this?  Well, I believe he changed American politics by his stance on this issue.  He not only publicly repudiated this idea, he also made it central to his campaign.  This is significant for the main reason that for my entire life, tax cuts have been wrongly pitched as the cure to any of our nation's problems.  

Budget surpluses?  Better cut taxes.  Budget deficits?  Better cut taxes.  Fighting two wars? Better cut taxes. 

Challenging business as usual, Obama ran a 60 second TV ad in Indiana and North Carolina that strayed away from the typical and meaningless campaign commercials to focus on this policy.  And by doing so, Obama put his faith in the voters that they were capable of thinking about public policy -- quite different than McCain and Clinton who were banking on the fact that voters don't know any better.

So how did this change politics?  Because he won and clinched the Democratic nomination.  Anytime a presidential candidate strays from the business as usual method and it works, candidates from there on out adapt to the winning strategy.

A few examples:

William Henry Harrison was the first presidential candidate to travel the country to campaign.  Back in those days (the 1840s), presidential candidates campaigned from their estates.  Harrison won the presidency in a landslide, and his strategy was the new standard.

In the 1988 presidential race, George H.W. Bush's campaign aide, Lee Atwater, changed how campaigns were run with the infamous Willie Horton ad, which played on racial fears and depicted Michael Dukakis as weak on crime.  While the ad was not completely truthful, it helped propel Bush to the White House and set the precedent that misleading TV ads work.

John Kerry and the Swiftboat ad is a descendent of the Willie Horton ad.  The Swiftboat ad features Vietnam vets accusing John Kerry of lying about his record during the war.  A short time later, it was revealed that the ad was completely wrong.  But it did the trick.  It helped push George W. Bush into his 2nd term as president.

Obama's bold move to oppose eliminating the gas tax is much like these examples -- the only difference is that his stance is right, honest, and stands on the ground of good public policy.  

He put his faith in the voters that we would appreciate the honesty.  For this, Obama all but clinched the nomination, and with it -- and I hope with it, the trust of the American people.

Support Barack Obama and change the standard for elections.

Our Attitude Matters

We're stuck in Iraq, the Taliban power is growing in Afghanistan, our national debt is $9.2 trillion, the news gets worse every day about the economy, our infrastructure is crumbing, and we don't trust our government -- these are just a handful of our problems.

Frankly, it's not an easy time to be an American.  These problems cost us more than tax dollars; they also take a heavy toll on our attitudes. I always hear people say, "It doesn't matter who you vote for, all politicians are the same." We have an attitude problem. How can we possibly overcome these enormous challenges with a bad attitude?  I mean, those motivational posters that hung on my high school classroom walls spoke the truth: "Your attitude determines your altitude!" (Or something along those lines).

I've been hesitant for a couple of weeks about posting this story, fearing that it would seem too egotistical.  In general, I seldom volunteer many personal anecdotes.  I figure that if someone is interested, they will ask.  Well, nobody has asked, but I think the following makes an important point -- at least it reflects how I feel about the presidential election.  So, with that said, and at the risk of possibly talking too much about myself, here's my reflection:

As a grow older, I look back at my childhood and realize that despite the ups and downs that face any family, I grew up in a very positive-minded household. The attitude of "you can be anything you want" that my parents established created a culture of possibility and empowerment.  The reality was that there were times in my life when I simply couldn't "be anything" I wanted, but the reassuring words of my parents never wavered.  So in my mind... I could be anything I wanted.

I struggled through elementary and middle school.  By the time I got to high school, my government teacher, of all subjects, held me after class one day to tell me some unnerving news: I might not graduate.  In terms of my education, it appeared to be a rough start, but despite this, my parents instilled in me that I could be anything I wanted.  And I believed them.  

It was during high school, the same troubling years, that I became a the first pilot in my family at the age of 14.  It didn't seem strange at the time, but when I look back at my journal from that time in my life, it's the writing of a child when I write about taking my first solo flight in 1996.  It's astonishing to see it now, but more astonishing that my parents entrusted me with that huge responsibility, and that I could be anything I wanted.

As the years went by, I applied to college and few schools accepted me.  The disappointment and embarrassment weighed heavily on me, but my parents helped me maintain the attitude that I could do anything.  As it turned out, I was reconsidered and accepted by my top choice, St. Edward's.  After graduation from college, I thought law school was my next step.  After an expensive LSAT prep course and burdensome application fees, I was not accepted to any of the five schools I applied to, even the "safety school."  Extremely disappointed, my parents somehow reminded me that I could do anything and that my best days are yet to come.  Once again, I believed them.  One year later, I moved to New York to start graduate school at NYU.

As Americans, we're struggling right now.  The challenges and disappointment are depressing and almost overwhelming.  Why are the people of my generation so excited about Barack Obama?  We've heard the pundits analyze this question.  I believe that because our entire lives, we've seen the government as the enemy.  But now, this leader arrives that not only believes in the fruits of a well-run and responsible government, but also believes in each of us to rise to our potential as citizens.    Our entire lives, we've been told that the government is our enemy.  Instead of becoming a victim of the "big government" era, I believe that my generation is inspired by the "yes we can" era.

We can overcome these enormous challenges that face this country.  But only if we believe in our leader, and he or she believes in us.  Our attitude matters.

Sound bite campaigning

For many months, I was enthusiastically supporting Clinton in the 2008 primaries. Although I do not plan on voting for her on Tuesday, I still think she would make a good president.  However, in the process of the campaign, my concerns about Obama have been calmed at the same time that the Clintons have soured me away.

On January 14, Barack Obama said this:

"The Republican approach has played itself out.  I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.  Now, you've heard it all before.  You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the presidential candidates, it's all tax cuts.  Well, we know, we've done that; we've tried it.  That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example"

In a Democratic debate shortly thereafter, Hillary Clinton said this:

"He has said in the last week that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years, and we can give you the exact quote ... They were ideas like privatizing Social Security, like moving back from a balanced budget and a surplus to deficit and debt."

An unfortunate characteristic about the American political campaigns is that candidates cannot say what they believe.  Candidates cannot take the risk of exploring ideas and engaging with the public about policy because their words can easily be distorted and used against them.  Instead, candidates must "stay on message" with 30 second sound bites.  

In 2004, John Kerry, when answering a question about the $87 billion Iraq spending package, infamously said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."  This is actually an accurate way of describing the technicalities of any American legislative body that has a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd vote before legislation is passed out of that body.  Amendments can be attached to the 3rd reading that wasn't on the 2nd, changing the bill substantially.  Kerry offered a reasonable explanation about what the Bush campaign called a "flip flop."  He originally supported the bill, then it was changed and he could no longer support it.

The Bush campaign responded to Kerry's technical answer by playing that quote over and over in television ads, making John Kerry sound like a bumbling fool.  It's the kind of politics that squashes any possibility of having a true debate.  Clinton's comment about Obama really liking Republican ideas plays that exact game.

Fired Up

I got this from the New York Times Caucus blog.

Ready, Set, GROW!

"Ready, Set, Grow."  That's the slogan for my hometown.  Sadly, what used to be a small, quaint Texas town has succumbed to the all-too-familiar qualities of suburban sprawl.  The very thing that upsets me about my hometown -- unrestricted growth -- is the very thing that the current leaders embrace.

Texans pride ourselves on being just that -- Texans.  I've never really known for sure why, but somehow I've also intuitively known that there's just something special about home.  The people?  The land?  The history?  It's probably a combination of all three.  The reputation stretches beyond its border.  When I moved to New York City, I was pretty impressed that many of the people I met had a fascination with Texas.  I realized that there's a mystique about Texas that I was totally unaware of until I came here.

If we are proud of our home, why then do Texas political leaders and voters stand by as our countryside is paved over with parking lots and big box chain stores?   Why do we stand by as our culture is squandered as small locally-owned businesses close their doors, unable to compete with new corporate businesses?  

I'm afraid that the leaders see the land as serving one purpose -- making money.  Little emphasis is given to preservation.  Little attention is given to limiting growth, or zoning for higher density construction.  In practice, if a land developer wants to build on a piece of land, it's done.  Six months later, the rolling hills are a sea of identical rooftops.  The solution for traffic congestion is more roads.  Too much traffic?  Build roads.  When those roads get congested, build more roads.  It's an endless, expensive, and dangerous cycle.  

Some might say that restricting the booming economy would be a death wish for what's proudly touted as the fastest growing community in the U.S., but I disagree.  When the national economy is booming, the Federal Reserve increases the interest rates for one purpose -- to slow economic growth.  By slowing an unsustainable growth, it can be prolonged and cultivated.  Had leaders done this in the late 1920's, perhaps Black Tuesday and the following economic depression could have been prevented.  

Certainly my hometown aspires to be unique.  It's plastered all over the new water towers: "McKinney. Unique by Nature."  Yet every time I go home, it looks more and more like every other city.  I have trouble understanding how one can be proud of Texas while authorizing the death of everything that makes it special.

"The general rule in history is that a city having reached its highest point of wealth becomes congested, refuses to accept its only remedy, and passes on from congestion to decay."

-Quoted from an article from The Reporter, April 14, 1960

Our National Dialogue

My generation is entrenched in the philosophy that the government is our enemy.  Reagan's legendary words in his inaugural speech in January of 1981 have echoed throughout the decades: "The government is not the solution to our problem.  The government is the problem."  

Reagan's legacy is revered, but what was his legacy?  He certainly changed the course of this nation.  He is credited with ending the Cold War, cutting taxes, and piling up the largest deficit in the history of the United States.  Those are aspects that are well-remembered, but one legacy that he, I guess, inspired, for a lack of a better term, is the long-term loss of national confidence.  

Certainly confidence has swayed throughout the years.  Confidence was probably low in the 1930's when President Hoover proved himself to he incapable of pulling the nation out of a crippling economic depression.  Perhaps confidence was low during the middle of the Civil War when Lincoln's generals were unable to win any major battles against the Confederate Army.  But in times when the citizens of this country have questioned the legitimacy and credibility of the government, the nation rebounded within a few years.  Roosevelt was elected and started the Great Society that reinvigorated the economy and Lincoln won the war and freed the slaves.

What seems different about today is that for 26 years -- my entire life -- this nation has been trying to actually eliminate government.  We have lost all confidence that "the system" is working.  The powerful conservative leader, Grover Norquist, says that he wants "cut government in half in twenty-five years to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."  The notion that government is an agent of bad has become our national dialogue.  It was legitimized and solidified 15 years later when a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, said that the "era of big government is over," in his State of the Union Address. 

Americans haven't always thought of government this way.  Last Fall I went to the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library in Hyde Park, New York, where I saw a campaign poster when FDR was running for Governor.  It's slogan: "Keep Good Government."  I was shocked that despite the inevitable shortcomings of any governmental body, the people wanted to maintain their government.  Interesting considering that "change" is the hot buzz word that every political campaign associates with.

What are the consequences of a negative national dialogue?  For one, I don't see how we can function as a society if we have no confidence in our government.  If we consider our government -- "the system" -- some faceless antagonist, we remove ourselves from engaging in the political process.  It's okay to be dissatisfied with the way business in conducted.  It's okay to be dissatisfied elected officials.  Those are healthy signs of Democracy.  But I don't think it's okay to label the institution of government as the enemy.  After all, WE are the government.  The bottom line is that a disengaged and disinterested population breeds an insufficient government.

In the upcoming presidential administration, we have many crucial improvements to make in our government.  The shortfalls and failures are numerous.  But even with those recent failures in consideration, we cannot deny that our government is working.  Even after seven years of mismanagement, we still have one of the highest standards of living in the history of the world. 

Although Bill Clinton helped to erode the image of government, his words after the Oklahoma City bombing can help transition this country into a positive and empowering national dialogue: "There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending to that you can love your country, but despise your government." 

How would things be different if our national dialogue revolved around liking, or even loving, our government?  Who is the leader that can make that transition for us?