Sarah Palin has proven to be one of the most mercurial of political figures of our day. She burst on the national scene as John McCain's surprise vice presidential pick and proceeded to make numerous friends as well as foes with her brand of conservative populism. A series of political gaffes brought a lot of media attention to her -- perhaps more than was really warranted for a VP pick -- but ultimately I don't think she can be blamed for her ticket's general election failure. The 2008 election was more about Barack Obama and George W. Bush than John McCain...I think any Republican would have had an uphill battle trying to win over a Bush-weary electorate while facing such a skilled campaigner as President Obama. In 2008, I saw no reason Sarah Palin couldn't build on her newfound popularity and be a serious political contender in the future despite her loss. In 2009, I've started to doubt that possibility.
I remember how people accused Fred Thompson of being too lazy to become president in 2008. He didn't like campaigning or doing all the little things that win campaigns, political wonks said. They may well have been right about Fred -- his presidential campaign didn't really get off the ground. He actually seemed to do better before he started running! I suspect Sarah Palin is in the same mold. The fact that she was caught off-guard in interviews seemed to suggest a lack of preparation which at the time I chalked up to nervousness and inexperience. Her decision to resign as Alaska's governor this year, though, is hard to defend politically. You can be a governor and a national figure at the same time -- heck, Mrs. Palin was Alaska's governor WHILE running for vice president! The way she just left office abruptly without serving out her term makes me seriously doubt how much Palin really enjoys the process of governing. Any political heat she felt in Alaska as governor would pale in (no pun intended) comparison to what she'd get in Washington as president. By resigning as governor, she made me wonder about her willingness to stay the course and deal with the nitty gritty of national politics. In fact, I thought at the time she might be quitting politics altogether. However, she's quickly written a new book, Going Rogue, which is largely about the campaign and is currently hitting the news circuit pretty hard. Maybe she's just trying to make her voice heard and make some money at the same time, but my guess is a 2012 Palin presidential run is still quite possible.
Can she win the Republican nomination if she does run? I do think she remains personally popular, and I actually think a voter who likes a politician personally is going to be a more loyal voter for a candidate than one who votes on ideological grounds. For example, the people who voted for Barack Obama because they liked who he was as a man most probably still like him; those who voted for him because he supported universal health care without individual mandates or thought he would rapidly bring the troops home are probably feeling more disenchanted at the moment. I think Palin's going to have a really hard time convincing anyone who doesn't already like her, though. She'll need to work hard and do a lot of preparatory work no matter how against her nature that is -- she'll have to anticipate and plan how to deal with tough questions like, "Since you quit as governor, how do we know you won't quit as president, too?" I definitely wouldn't want to be her going into the campaign, but perhaps she can make things easier for herself by what she does outside of politics over the next couple of years. People do forget, after all, even though we have YouTube to remind us of stuff now. However, if other former governors like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee run in 2012 (and Tim Pawlenty is another possibility), they'll be able to contrast their gubernatorial records with that of Sarah Palin...I think they'll come out well ahead in that comparison. She can brush a lot under the rug, but perhaps not quitting as governor.
Ultimately, polling may be what decides the issue. I wouldn't put much weight on the early early polls that have been conducted this year that have tended to show Palin, Huckabee, and Romney as leading contenders. What will matter is who emerges after the 2010 midterm elections with serious intent to run -- I suspect some shadow names being floated at the moment, like Newt Gingrich, will vanish by then. If an early favorite or two seems disinterested in running and a lesser known figure like Pawlenty remains relatively low profile, I think Palin may very well throw her hat in the ring and see what happens. I don't, however, think she'll win. She might be better off running for Congress in Alaska and trying to rebuild her political career that way...or else just enjoy private life and make the most of her celebrity. I have to give her credit, though, for keeping everyone guessing. That, arguably, is her greatest talent!
Monday, November 16, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Narrowing the Gap vs Raising the Floor
I've noticed that there is a lot of political angst about the rising gap between the rich and the poor, but I've long wondered if that GAP is what is really important. Some political thinkers definitely believe it is. They want to narrow this gap essentially as a matter of principle in the belief that it is immoral for so much of the wealth of a nation to be controlled by so few. They view the social problems in a country, such as unemployment and lack of access to health care, as largely resulting from this gap. However, the way I see it there will always be a large income gap among people in any economic system where people can act more or less freely; the person who saves or invests wisely is going to have more income in the long run on average than the person who spends and consumes wildly. Not everyone even wants to be rich. Sure, most everyone would opt for great wealth if it was as simple to obtain as pressing a button, but many wouldn't sacrifice the time they spend with their families or their hobbies or social commitments just to make a lot more money. Rather than focusing on a gap that naturally arises among people with varying interests, I tend to think the major goal should be to improve the living conditions for the poorest among us so that no one does without necessities. In short, I think we should focus on raising the floor rather than narrowing the gap. Both naturally can happen at the same time, but it's also quite possible to narrow the gap -- any destruction of wealth will do that -- without raising the floor.
Thus, I fundamentally reject the idea that narrowing the gap between rich and poor is inherently a good thing in and of itself. Some progressives would like to see a return to 90% marginal tax rates just to make the rich pay their "fair share." Realistically, I think in practice this would create a huge incentive for tax evasion, a huge disincentive for trying to become rich (which typically involves taking on risk, like starting a business which creates jobs), and an opportunity for other countries to lure wealthy American citizens to greener pastures. It would also give the state a heck of a lot of money to do whatever it wants with; historically, at least, waging war and building ever larger bureaucracies have been two of the state's favorite things...much more so than benefiting the poor. Instead of approaching societal problems from the standpoint of trying to hurt the rich (and fill the state's coffers in the process), we should instead think first about helping those who need help the most in whatever way we can.
To me, that means focusing on necessities first. If basic food, clothing, shelter, education, and health care are ubiquitous and affordable, everyone will have a decent place to launch from. There's more than one way to increase access to necessities, and it can be done by the private sector as easily as the public sector...I don't think the source is as important as the actual solution of the underlying problems. However, we also don't want the cure to cause as many problems as the disease. I wonder, for instance, what allowing the government to force people to buy health insurance will lead to...is it just the start of many more mandated expenses in the future as corporations and the government tag team the citizenry? I think we are definitely trading our freedom for safety which is always a dangerous proposition. Meanwhile, the underlying health care and health insurance bubble hasn't burst, and it's definitely not the only bubble still growing in this economy. Why, for instance, should a person be in debt for the rest of their lives because they want to own a home built decades ago or attend a university their grandparents were able to attend by paying their own way? Some necessities have simply grown too expensive (necessities have by definition inelastic demand...people want them regardless of price), and both the public and private sectors have teamed up to keep prices high. The concept of housing as an investment has been destructive to the concept of housing as shelter, but Fannie Mae's guaranteeing mortgages in the name of increasing access to housing has also artificially kept housing prices high. Even now, the government is actively fighting house price deflation when that is just what should be happening! I'm always interested in hearing new and innovative government solutions to problems, but for now I still think our best hope comes from technology (imagine new, cheaper ways of building homes becoming mainstream...plus robots to build them), free and competitive markets, and vigorous nonprofits if we want to improve access and affordability at the same time. I have no confidence the government won't just end up narrowing a relatively unimportant gap without actually making individual lives better. What's the use of a better Gini index if it doesn't translate into truly better living conditions?
Thus, I fundamentally reject the idea that narrowing the gap between rich and poor is inherently a good thing in and of itself. Some progressives would like to see a return to 90% marginal tax rates just to make the rich pay their "fair share." Realistically, I think in practice this would create a huge incentive for tax evasion, a huge disincentive for trying to become rich (which typically involves taking on risk, like starting a business which creates jobs), and an opportunity for other countries to lure wealthy American citizens to greener pastures. It would also give the state a heck of a lot of money to do whatever it wants with; historically, at least, waging war and building ever larger bureaucracies have been two of the state's favorite things...much more so than benefiting the poor. Instead of approaching societal problems from the standpoint of trying to hurt the rich (and fill the state's coffers in the process), we should instead think first about helping those who need help the most in whatever way we can.
To me, that means focusing on necessities first. If basic food, clothing, shelter, education, and health care are ubiquitous and affordable, everyone will have a decent place to launch from. There's more than one way to increase access to necessities, and it can be done by the private sector as easily as the public sector...I don't think the source is as important as the actual solution of the underlying problems. However, we also don't want the cure to cause as many problems as the disease. I wonder, for instance, what allowing the government to force people to buy health insurance will lead to...is it just the start of many more mandated expenses in the future as corporations and the government tag team the citizenry? I think we are definitely trading our freedom for safety which is always a dangerous proposition. Meanwhile, the underlying health care and health insurance bubble hasn't burst, and it's definitely not the only bubble still growing in this economy. Why, for instance, should a person be in debt for the rest of their lives because they want to own a home built decades ago or attend a university their grandparents were able to attend by paying their own way? Some necessities have simply grown too expensive (necessities have by definition inelastic demand...people want them regardless of price), and both the public and private sectors have teamed up to keep prices high. The concept of housing as an investment has been destructive to the concept of housing as shelter, but Fannie Mae's guaranteeing mortgages in the name of increasing access to housing has also artificially kept housing prices high. Even now, the government is actively fighting house price deflation when that is just what should be happening! I'm always interested in hearing new and innovative government solutions to problems, but for now I still think our best hope comes from technology (imagine new, cheaper ways of building homes becoming mainstream...plus robots to build them), free and competitive markets, and vigorous nonprofits if we want to improve access and affordability at the same time. I have no confidence the government won't just end up narrowing a relatively unimportant gap without actually making individual lives better. What's the use of a better Gini index if it doesn't translate into truly better living conditions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)