What Trent Lott's Retirement Says About U.S. Politics

This is an interesting article from Wednesday’s Washington Post, about Minority Whip Trent Lott’s retirement and the Senate’s fading ability to compromise across party lines.

The piece states, “A major overhaul of the nation's immigration laws went down in flames. Just two of a dozen annual spending bills passed Congress, and one of those was vetoed. Repeated efforts to force a course change in Iraq ended in recrimination and stalemate. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) filed 56 motions to break off filibusters to try to complete legislation, a total that is nearing the record of 61 such "cloture motions" in a two-year Congress.

“Lott's departure from Capitol Hill in the coming weeks after 34 years in Congress -- 16 in the House, 18 in the Senate -- is further evidence that bonhomie and cross-party negotiating are losing their currency, even in the backslapping Senate.”

The truth is, the legislature isn't becoming partisan – it’s been that way for a long time. But it does feel like we’re living in a totally polarized political environment. Perhaps my view is skewed because I live in the East Village, in New York City -- the locus of liberalism on the East Coast.

I once worked next to a copywriter who would have loud daily conversations with his work partner likening Israel to Al-Qaeda, wishing for centralized government, and spewing hateful 9/11 conspiracies about President Bush and Dick Cheney. I'd overheard enough one day and defended some reasonable conservative ideals. I suddenly became branded throughout the company as a right-wing nut. In fact, the Chief Creative Officer, who I was friendly with, came up to me at a work function and said, “I never would have thought you were a Republican … you seemed … so normal.” I keep my name off this blog because it would be bad for my career.

To be fair, I’m sure the same scenario in reverse occurs in Lubbock, Lincoln, and Salt Lake. But it tells me that we’re spreading further apart on issues that used to be considered private or local. Many of today’s key debates were once deemed the domain of individuals, families, towns, and states. They’ve unfortunately become national and are consistently shaped by those on the margins –- left and right. I’m a die hard conservative on fiscal policy, foreign policy, and ideas about government’s role in our lives, but I believe that reasonable people, red and blue, can come to some consensus about topics like immigration, social security, and abortion.

Even better, perhaps our national debates on these hot button issues should be kicked back to the local level and not be national at all. Should we have really been discussing the fate of Terry Schiavo on a national scale? Do we really need federal government dictating appropriate sexual health lessons in schools when needs are different in Vermont, Harlem, and Kansas? Conversely, why can’t I decide what to do with my retirement funds? The dead-on-arrival plan to invest 3% of our own SS money in a private account is not that radical.

This polarization of politics shows me that we shouldn't be leaving everything up to the politicians. I don't want a bunch of backslapping, pork-slopping legislators deciding what the future of healthcare looks like for my generation. The Bridge to Nowhere is not just in Alaska. In the incompetent hands of beaurocrats, it potentially leads to our future as well.

Who Can Make Middle East Peace?

George Bush graces the cover of this week’s Economist with the headline, “Mr. Palestine: The only man who could make it happen.”

This is part of a news cycle that’s about to begin around the upcoming Middle East peace summit. The conference begins tonight in Washington, D.C. and then moves to Annapolis, Maryland. Top American, Israeli and Arab officials including President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and representatives from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries will attend.

My concern about the Economist’s coverline is that it is based on flawed logic. The world loves to blame the Bush administration’s lack of engagement on the Middle Eastern conflict as the major barrier to peace. Roger Cohen of the NY Times, said, “While the Bush administration looked away, Israelis and Palestinians lost sight of each other.” But an understanding of the conflict’s history leads me to believe that no American – specifically, no American President – could mediate peace as did Teddy Roosevelt during the Russo-Japanese War.

American lack of engagement is not responsible for the historical “No” that the Arab world has delivered each time peace was in the balance. In 1937 the Peel Commission report offered a two-state solution. The Jews said yes, the Palestinians said no. In 1947 there was another offer of a contiguous Palestinian state and a non-contiguous Jewish state. Again, the Jews said yes and the Palestinians said no. And in the fall of 2000, with Bill Clinton toiling for peace at Camp David, Israel offered 97% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, a capital in Jerusalem, control of East Jerusalem, control of the Temple Mount, 30 billion dollars in a compensation package, and symbolic return of several thousand refugees. Again, the Palestinians said no and launched wave after wave of suicide attacks. Clinton, perhaps the most engaged president we’ve ever seen on this issue, wrote that after Arafat decided to walk away from the summit and suspend negotiations, the PLO leader paid him the following compliment for his efforts: "You are a great man." Clinton responded, "I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one."

The Economist states that, “Mr. Bush has it in his power to turn Annapolis into a significant step towards peace. All he has to do is pluck up the courage and make the right speech.” The problem here is that the right speech is not going to stop Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Arab world from believing that Israel does not have the right to exist. This is a fundamental chasm that no amount of negotiation can gap.

Palestinian peace negotiator Saeb Erekat said recently that the Palestinians would never formally recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

"Israel can define itself however it sees fit; and if it wishes to call itself a Jewish state, so be it," he said in an interview with the satellite station Al-Arabiya. "But the Palestinians will never acknowledge Israel's Jewish identity."

When this type of sentiment comes from the “moderate” side of the negotiating table, one wonders how peace will ever be possible. In my mind, it can only be possible when the Palestinians and the Arab world decide to make it happen. They must choose: Is this a land dispute or a challenge to Israel’s existence? If the issue is the existence of Israel, no amount of negotiating, bullying, or interim trust-building measures are going to solve the problem.

Of course, in the hope that it is truly a geographic disagreement, Israel and the U.S. need to be willing to negotiate. But let’s understand the issues before setting the Bush Administration up for inevitable failure. In December of 2006, Thomas Friedman wrote an op-ed in the NY Times called Mideast Rules to Live By. The list is an insightful and world-weary take on the Middle East maelstrom and offers the following as its final rule:

Rule 15: Whether it is Arab-Israeli peace or democracy in Iraq, you can’t want it more than they do.

Chuck Norris Hearts Huckabee in the Best Political Ad of All Time

Mike Huckabee, the populist social conservative dark horse from Arkansas, has been stirring up the masses in Iowa recently. Against the odds, he's ascended to the number-two Republican spot in the Hawkeye state just 45 days from the caucus. But when I saw that he was getting ready to release his first television ad there today, starring Chuck Norris, I thought his time might be up. This guy has had a good run, I thought, but he appears to be a half-step away from announcing that David Hasselhoff will be managing his campaign from here on out.

Then I watched the ad. I now believe that this man will be the next president of the United States. It is simply the coolest political ad in the history of political advertising. We have all underestimated this man in a bad, bad way. See for yourself, but an ordained Baptist minister who uses Walker, Texas Ranger in an ad while essentially interviewing for the biggest job of his life has my utter and complete respect.

Now, if only he'd drop his anti-free trade beliefs, populist fiscal policy, and pro-social conservative agenda, he might have my vote as well.

Income Mobility Data Shows that American Dream is Alive and Well

Income inequality clearly exists in this country, but it is less of a problem than populists like John Edwards and Mike Huckabee will have you believe. This chart shows that those on the bottom (i.e. immigrants, the poor, the young) have been able to lift themselves into new income groups by a significant rate. In fact, everyone but the top 5% and top 1% have shown overall upward mobility over the past decade.

John Edwards believes that there are indeed two Americas, with one playing in a "rigged system," but it's the rich that have lost median income. Those at the bottom and the middle have proven that merit and not heavy-handed government redistribution get you closer to the American Dream.

The Supply-Side Election

Supply-side principals like low taxes, minimal regulation, and free-trade simply work. These principals work in the United States, but also in Ireland, Estonia, and around the world. I hope enough people keep this in mind next November as supply-side values are at stake. These are not ideas that will be supported by a Hillary Clinton White House.

NY Times Buries News About American Victory in Baghdad

I found this article about American victory in Baghdad while trolling the deep waters of The NY Times online news links. You'd think such good news would be a featured, front page article. You'd at least think that it would be featured on the "World" news page. It was neither. Rather, it was hidden beneath the fold in the "World" news link depot on the bottom left of the screen.

This is The NY Times editorializing the news at its worst. It's not always what you say, but rather how and where you say it that tilts a story.

Meanwhile, this news is nowhere to be found in today's paper. I guess American victory in Iraq is not a story the Times is interested in telling. The news editors at the Times should save their leftist opinions for the op-ed page and trust its readers to make up our own minds on the war.

Misleading Health Care Numbers

Greg Mankiw wrote a piece in today's NY Times that calls many accepted beliefs on health care into question: Beyond Those Health Care Numbers.

I'm not saying we need to yank coverage away from those who are in desperate need, but I certainly don't think that we'd be better off with a European health care model. Think about what it's like when you go to the DMV. Now think about what it would be like if you had to go to the DMV when you needed care. They can barely take a good polaroid of your face, how well do you think they'll do when they take an MRI of your brain?