Month: February 2017

I really, honestly, am trying to be less political on Facebook.

So I’m going to use this blog to put in writing some things that have been bouncing around in my head.

I spend a lot of time thinking about how differently we perceive things. I’m often getting an idea that I think clearly reveals the difference between the thinking of liberals and conservatives (and Trump supporters, who may not fall into either camp). These ideas change pretty often.

Here are my latest ones, which mostly focus on those who supported Clinton and those who didn’t vote; voted for a third-party candidate; or who voted for and continue to support the current president.

CURRENT THEORY NUMBER ONE: The difference between Clinton supporters and all the others mentioned above is whether or not they believe the U.S. was in better shape at the end of 2016 than it was in January 2009.

From what I understand about Trump supporters and others, they believe that our nation has become a worse place under the Obama administration. Many, as I understand it, also believe that the Republicans have let them down, for different reasons, and that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have the intention or ability to improve things.

If I can take the liberty to sum up the thinking of those of us who supported Clinton (and are frankly horrified by some of the policies coming out of both Congress and the White House today), we think we are in many essential ways better off that we were in 2009. This is in large part owing to the action of the president and efforts taken in the first two years of his administration, when there was a Democratic majority in Congress.

To be fair, I think that some of the actions taken early (bailing out the car industry; certain parts of the stimulus package) had bipartisan support. But I also think that had Obama had a stronger Democratic majority he would have done what many economists urged: created a stronger stimulus package that would have spurred private sector job growth (private construction contractors, engineers, etc. plus secondary jobs like those in retail and quick revenue increases to state and local governments).

I think quick action by Obama and Congress saved the U.S. auto industry; gave investors some confidence that we wouldn’t have a repeat of the banking crisis; and set the country on the path to recovery.

While I know some people’s health insurance costs were negatively affected by the Affordable Care Act, the result still is that millions of people were able to have health insurance for the first time; others saw their premiums drop quite a bit; and the industry feels that after some major price adjustments at the end of 2016, costs were about to even out if the program continued.

Most of us on the left agree, I think, that the additional costs we all may pay immediately as a result of greater environmental regulation are worth saving lives; protecting wildlife; preventing, or at least forestalling, further human-caused climate change; and more. Regulations can be onerous and daunting, but cannot we agree that if they save lives they benefit us all?

I really like the idea of keeping coal dust out of waterways. Sorry if some coal companies feel it’s a burden: maybe they could hire some people to help keep our rivers clean. But, oh yeah, we don’t have to worry about that regulation any more. It just got revoked.

As far as international events: I don’t agree with everything President Obama did — and I think you can find arguments on both sides for greater or less intervention in Syria; use of drones as execution devices; pulling out of Iraq when we did.  

Nonetheless, I think the makings of a mess in the Middle East were sown well before Obama took office. And from what I’m reading, U.S. allies have made major inroads against ISIS. As a result of ISIS losing control of land, they are also losing revenue, which should have a great cyclical effect on that organization’s ability to continue its fight.

And I don’t for a second believe that President Obama exacerbated racial problems or by his actions made the U.S. a more divided nation. He rarely brought up the issue (to much criticism from some Black politicians), and certainly never acted angry, offended or tried to induce guilt in any way around issues of race.

If racism increased during his tenure, it was not because he incited it. He and his whole family behaved with almost unparalleled dignity and decorum during his eight years in office, and we could all do well to emulate his thoughtful, respectful attitude toward all people and all issues.

And if the country is more divided now than it was 10 years ago, can we lay any blame on the Congressional Republicans who announced immediately that their purpose in Congress was to prevent the new president from accomplishing anything? What kind of leadership is that?  

CURRENT THEORY NUMBER TWO: The world can be divided into people who believe some things are no-brainers and those who don’t believe there is such a thing as a no-brainer.

For example, I just was reading a FB argument on Current Theory Number One, resulting from the president’s statement that he was left a mess.

Someone had posted a list of economic indicators in which, by and large, the U.S. was doing better than it had been in 2009. As is the way of good journalism, it was filled with caveats and explanations, because nothing is simple.

One of the anti-liberal people in this discussion, who is usually relatively thoughtful, wrote, “Well, what about all those “buts”?

He wanted (or purported to want) a clear cut, all-or-nothing, “better or worse.”

It will never, ever happen that way.

Yeah, the world isn’t 100 percent better in every way than it was in 2009.  Everything is complicated.  Every action has unintended consequences.  The president has to deal with a Congress which tried to stalemate him.  Things take time. Many, many factors affect any system, be it economic, social or military.

The U.S. economy doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Europe was experiencing great economic uncertainty during this period which may have been affected by the U.S. recession, but which was lengthened and exaggerated by troubles within the E.U.

You can’t just remove environmental regulations and expect the coal industry to come back — unless you somehow convince or coerce the rest of the energy industry to stop pulling natural gas out of the ground and convince mine operators to go back to more labor-intensive ways of extracting coal.

Does anybody really know what to do in the Middle East?  More bombing? Less bombing? Support Assad? Take out Assad? And what the heck are we doing in Yemen?

If anybody really had an idea to thwart Putin; ensure Europe the energy and economic security it needs; solve ethnic problems, etc., somebody would be coming up with a coherent strategy.  No such strategies came through in the Republican debates.  Democrats are as divided as Republicans.

“Obvious solutions” to domestic problems like requiring drug tests for food stamp eligibility; locking people up for non-violent crimes; etc., often don’t work. I’m sure there are as many “no-brainer” examples on the left, too.

So let me say that I’m totally in the “There’s no such thing as a no-brainer” camp.

Despite the current president’s approach (raise tariffs; keep out immigrants; send people without papers back home; repeal the Affordable Care Act) there are no simple, obvious solutions. People who vote for any candidate based on that hope are going to be disappointed and frustrated.

CURRENT SPECULATIVE ASIDE:  OK, this is totally intuitive, but I’m going to say it (and maybe somebody will set me straight. This addresses criticisms that job growth was too slow during the last eight years.

But here’s what this looks like to me:

If the stock market increased steadily over the second half of the Obama administration, that meant businesses were doing well, right?

So, they weren’t suffering under Obama, right?

So, if they weren’t hiring, it wasn’t because they couldn’t afford it, but rather because they preferred to keep their stock prices really high rather than re-investing in their operations, right.  That’s my current theory number two.

I know other things come into play: automation requiring fewer people; the changing nature of businesses, etc., but these, too, are out of the hands of the government.

And unemployment has been under 5 percent, which is really good, right?

So what’s the complaint?

I would love it if people would let me know their reactions to this. There’s a comment section on this blog, for those who would prefer to keep it all off Facebook.