R.J. Samuelson: Still My Hero

I don't know of another columnist who selects more relevant and important topics or so effectively analyzes the core issues of those topics without ever revealing partisanship. This week he takes on the state of global trade.

Look At the Numbers

Robert Samuelson has an excellent piece in the Washington Post analyzing both numbers and the press coverage of the Bush social security plan. He finds them both lacking, and draws parallels to coverage of the medicare drug plan and the subsequent shock at its high costs.

re: Spending Addicts

By the way, Ryan, nice to have you back! Robert Samuelson has a Washington Post column discussing the possibility of precipitous drop in the dollar. He absurdly dismisses the impact of budget deficits, and focuses purely on the $665b trade deficit (he still ends up with a scenario not so different from those theorized on at Boys' Weekends). When you consider that somewhere around half the $500b budget deficit is being financed by foreign investors (not to mention commercial and private debts), we're dumping nearly a trillion dollars (10% of GDP) onto the global markets each year. That is just unbelievable. Meanwhile, Bush claims he is going to fight for a strong dollar, not surprisingly the currency markets think he's full of shit.

Moving Past the Fluff: Health Care

The Washington Post has another column from Robert Samuelson, part of what appears to be a series, shedding non-partisan light on the bullshit campaign rhetoric of our presidential candidates. Up this time: health care policy. Samuelson has, through these columns, done better than anyone else I've seen in covering the election the way it ought to be covered.

Jobs For Everybody

On a related topic, RJ Samuelson continues his crusade against bogus and meaningless campaign issues in a Washington Post column today that tackles the job loss/creation debate. Samuelson points out that the candidates spend endless amounts of time decrying one another's jobs policies and demonstrating the value of their own jobs plans. The reality of the situation is that neither one is likely to overcome the impact of market cycles, technological changes, and other factors beyond their control. The president simply does not have that degree of control over the economy. Ironic then that the economy is the single most consistent and important issue from one election to another.

Campaigns and Money

In view of the Swift Boats Vets and 527 group controversies there is clearly an immediate need to reopen discussions about campaign finance and reform. It was, after all, the McCain-Feingold bill that has created the current environment for political advertising. President Bush has started to make some noise about filing a suit against the FEC and supporting further legislation, both in the interest of regulating the 527 groups. This seems a laudable objective, although the details aren't yet clear, and Bush's lofty rhetoric often belies less than lofty actions. There are a couple of noteworthy columns I've read recently on this issue. The first is a Washington Post column by R.J. Samuelson asserting that in general, campaign reform laws are a First Amendment breach, and that in particular, the current regulations are broken and silly in addition to restricting free speech. The second is a column in the Christian Science Monitor by reformer Derek Cressman arguing that there is a difference between free speech and paid speech. Of the two, I come down more nearly on the side of Cressman.

I think it is important on this issue to fall back to fundamentals and intents. Primarily, what is the purpose of free speech and why is it so prominently enshrined in our government's structure? There is the potential for a sticky conflict between those who hold rights such as free speech to be moral imperatives and pragmatists who see it as a critical element of a functional deliberative democracy. For the latter group, of whom I would count myself one, the issues are more straightforward. For the former it's complicated, but my intuition is that you end up in the same place eventually.

It seems clear to me that any meaningful right to free speech has to extend beyond the simple definition of being able to make noise without restriction. If we put five people in a small room to discuss an issue, but one of them has a bullhorn and shouts into it incessantly, the free speech of the others is not being restricted, but nor is it doing them any good. If free speech is intended to produce healthy discourse and deliberation, this approach to it, which as Samuelson accurately points out seems to be in keeping with the First Amendment such as it's written, fails to meet its objective.

In our campaign environment big money advertising is the bullhorn. People, candidates, and organizations with piles of money effectively can shout out those without. Interpreting free speech to mean that no regulation whatsoever should effect parties' speech does not seem to me to be accomplishing the desired effect. Further complicating the issue is the connection of the flow of this money with access and influence, creating the "appearance of corruption" remarked on by the Supreme Court in their McCain-Feingold ruling. Not only does money in politics act in a manner that negatively impacts on democratic deliberation, but it does so in the interest of giving disproportional political influence to those people who foot the bill. It's a double-whammy that I think clearly demands action from the government.

Regulation on this issue is clearly difficult and problematic. It is unlikely that we can create (and certainly questionable whether it would be desirable to create) a situation where everyone's voice is heard in exactly equal proportions. In many ways allowing people to aggregate their opinions through political parties and organizations is desirable, and clearly this implies that these parties and organizations will, or ought to, have a greater voice than individuals. This does not seem necessarily undemocratic or against the ideals of free speech. The current situation, however, gives the power of influence to these parties and organizations not in proportion to the number of people who support them, but rather by how much money those people have to contribute. That is problematic. This suggests some basic guidelines (ie that people ought to be more important than money), but still leaves the issue difficult to formulate. In some regards regulations will have to be somewhat arbitrary, and no doubt will give rise to certain situations that strike people as odd, as Samuelson protests in his column. I think it should be noted that these things will happen, but that they don't invalidate the importance of the cause nor indicate that we shouldn't make our best effort to address the problem.

Before closing, I want to raise one other angle from which this issue should be considered. That is marketing, TV marketing in particular. Marketing has developed into a science, a soft science to be sure, but it is a huge industry with reams of research data, including no small amount of psychological and behavioral study. The entire point of the exercise is to translate money into actions taken by people who would not have otherwise taken those actions. And they are very good at it. Good enough that the US annual ad revenue is in the neighborhood of $200 billion. Furthermore, while I haven't the time nor data on hand to make this case, I am willing to assert that much of their success comes not from logically reasoning with their audience, but through manipulation of emotional responses. This does not represent, to me, a good means through which to hold democratic deliberations. Inasmuch as campaign regulation is regulating television advertising, I think the bar ought to be lowered as to what is allowed in terms of regulating speech.

In essence, not all speech is equal in terms of its value in promoting discussion and a thoughful exchange of ideas and positions. Some speech, in fact, runs counter to those objectives. If this type of speech becomes the dominant form of political discourse, it stands to reason that it poses a threat to a form of government that relies upon healthy discussion, and presents a danger which must be addressed. In a conflict between a strictly literal interpretation of free speech and democratic principles, I find myself on the democratic side. It stands to reason that if democracy collapses, free speech will follow not far behind, and in fighting for the purist free speech position, you stand to lose both speech and democracy. It has already been demonstrated that free speech can be regulated for the purposes of public safety and the promotion of artistic and scientific interests without complete abridgement of speech rights, and I don't see why an equitable system cannot be worked out to also promote the social goal of healthy democratic discourse.

Oil Prices, Another Important Issue Trivialized

David Ignatius has a good column in the Washington Post about rapidly increasing prices of oil. He discusses the fact that most experts expect the prices rises to continue to increase and don't anticipate them dropping anytime soon. He goes on to discuss how silly the handling of the issues has been by the Kerry and Bush campaigns. He concludes with a paragraph strikingly similar to things I and RJ Samuelson have written previously:

"The non-debate over energy illustrates what's depressing about this campaign. The country is in serious trouble -- with record-high oil prices and the threat of a new energy crisis just one example of our global problems. But rather than the serious debate the country needs, we're hearing platitudes. George Bush and John Kerry evidently would rather play it safe and avoid politically controversial proposals, which in today's world is downright dangerous."

A Failure of the Press

Howard Kurtz's Media Notes for Friday the 23rd (link goes to the current day, you may need to scroll down) is a nice tie-in to Ted Turner's excellent column on media consolidation (as well as RJ Samuelson's July 14th column). Kurtz picks up on a little-noted comment from Tom Kean that there had only been one reference to terrorism in the 2000 presidential campaign. From this Kurtz concludes that in additions to failures on behalf of the Clinton and Bush administrations and various government agencies, the press also dropped the ball on terrorism. He finds one short article on this topic, but most of the major press does not appear to be covering it (which should be no surprise given Turner's comments). This drives home the seriousness of the issues brought up in Samuelson's critique of campaign news coverage. By allowing the candidates themselves to define the issues of the campaign, by not shooting down the obvious bullshit shoveled out by the campaign HQ's, by covering the election as a horse-race rather than an opportunity for political discourse, the press allows important issues to fall through the cracks. I recall that well prior to the 9/11 attacks a congressional investigation found that terrorism was clearly the greatest threat to American security in the post-Cold War era. How do we get through a presidential election without anyone asking the candidates about the most dire security threat facing our country? It is again worth noting that the media is not just another industry to be played for competitive advantage and profit margin. It plays a vital role in the healthy functioning of our system of government. Failures of the press can be just as costly as failures at the CIA.

Where's the Beef?

Washington Post columnist Robert J. Samuelson is usually good for injecting a shot of reality into popular political rhetoric. He has a column today taking issue with the preposterous statements of our presidential candidates which ignore reality, but are treated by pundits at "respectable statements that ought to be analyzed and debated". He points out campaign discussions of job creation, fiscal policy, and medical plans as particularly egregious. He also notes that other critical issues are being completely ignored by the candidates and that the press pays no heed to these omissions. I've blogged similar columns on this topic from Samuelson before, as well as written a few diatribes of my own noting this problem. It can make the presidential race difficult to stomach at times.

Deceit On the Campaign Trail

Two recent Washington Post columns Robert J. Samuelson addressed points I raised in my presidential candidates tirade regarding the complete lack of honesty in campaign discussions of budget policy and the economy.

Neither Bush nor Kerry intend to balance the budget by 2009, and both of their plans for not balancing the budget lack any grounding in reality. Take Kerry's plan as an example. He plans to undo the part of Bush's tax cut that applies to the highest tax bracket. As Samuelson points out, the CBO believes the tax cutting only accounts for about 30% of our current deficit. Ok, so let's say he's fixed 20% of the deficit, how about the other 80%? Kerry proposes massive increases in spending for college education, homeland security, $50b to provide economic assistance to states, a bank-breaking health care policy, all topped off by additional middle class tax cuts. This is supposed to reduce the deficit by 50%? Bullshit. Not a snowball's chance in hell. Bush's plan is no better. I believe this is one of the most critical issues in the election, and not only does neither candidate plan to fix it, neither of them can even be bothered to tell the truth about it.

Meanwhile I continue to believe that the state of the economy will be one of the most critical deciding factors in the November election, despite the fact that, as Samuelson rightly notes, there's really not much connection between the president and the economy. So here is a non-issue that due to the amount of bogus posturing and proclaiming coming from each camp (and the press) becomes a critical deciding issue.

I commend Samuelson for at least attempting to hold these guys to account. Too bad the rest of his colleagues are too busy worrying about the horse-race to bother worrying about the issues. If they did, who knows, we might even have a serious discussion of substantive issues during a presidential election. Imagine that..

Thanking OPEC

This is a pretty random topic, but I was browsing through a Newsweek and thought this was an interesting take on a global trade topic rarely dealt with. Washington Post regular, RJ Samuelson (who I've been coming to like more and more) wrote a short piece on the stabilizing influence of OPEC on the oil trade.