A Modest Proposal

As someone who grew up in a region that strongly supported the right of the people to keep and bear arms I’m probably a bit biased when it comes to interpreting the 2^nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  I’ll be blunt – I think it allows citizen’s to own guns.  Not just a militia, not just a police force – any ordinary person has the right to purchase and keep a firearm.  That said – I don’t hear anyone advocating that it allows citizens to own and keep bazookas – so there are limits on what rights are enshrined in the constitution. 

But the whole idea of a constitutional right is to grant it to the extent that maximizes its effect without infringing on other rights or other people’s exercise of those rights.  You should not set out to limit a right – the goal should always be to expand it to its reasonable limit.  So, with this in mind I believe that any measures taken to cut down on gun violence should only be done in a manner that preserves the gun ownership rights of the American populace.

Then again, I’m also against loonies shooting children.  Always have been.  Never once have I, or any of the people I know who support the 2^nd amendment come out and said “Ya know, there aren’t enough kids being shot recently”.  Neither has anyone gone “Dammit, it’s been a while since someone who thought he was The Joker managed to arm himself to the teeth and take out a cinema complex”.  So gun control advocates need to get real when caricaturing the typical gun owner.  Not one supports this and, while a particularly offensive lobbying group has been laying the groundwork for a major backlash against gun owners (looking at you NRA), I think that a majority of gun owners would, if approached rationally, support equally rational attempts to limit gun violence.

And, from this point on, I’m going to get in trouble with my gun owning friends because I’m going to talk about changes to the law that will limit, not gun ownership, but gun operation. I understand this response but would urge gun owners to avoid falling prey to the NRA’s scorched earth strategy and approach what I’m saying here with an open mind.

When the shootings in Newtown Connecticut took place it quickly became known that the perpetrator had used his mother’s guns to carry out both her murder and the massacre in the elementary school.  In other words – he wasn’t the owner of the guns involved – they were someone else’s but, let’s face it, a gun doesn’t know whether it is being wielded by the rightful owner or a passerby.  My proposal would be to take a limited first step towards enhancing gun safety by making it possible for guns to “know” this information from henceforth.

When you sat down at your computer to read this blog you may have signed in using a PIN number.  You certainly use such an ID code when you access your ATM account.  We have, or could have, the technology to make such a personal code attachable to every gun manufactured and sold in the United States within a very short period of time.  A device could be fitted to guns that would require a three or four digit code to be implemented before a trigger guard would be released rendering the gun active.  If such a code had been in place, and Nancy Lanza had kept it to herself, it is quite possible neither she nor any school children or staff would have been shot by her nutjob son, Adam.

There will be a knee jerk response against this proposal from the NRA and some gun owners but, remembering that I support ownership rights, please keep in mind that this proposal would not prevent a single person who is lawfully authorised from buying, owning or operating a gun.  All it does is make a gun a more personally responsible item.  This is what I believe gun owners have always been taught anyway.  When you buy a gun – it is your gun.  It belongs to you.  If you treat it well, it will treat you well.  If you serve its needs responsibly it will serve you responsibly.  If you are negligent, unthinking or foolish then those are the characteristics that your gun will reflect.  The use of this enhanced technology will simply make these statements truer, will simply make your gun more definitively yours.

But, you may be saying, there are lots of guns out there already and, if you’re like me, you’re not too keen on passing laws that force people to do things – that’s government interference in an area that, for the most part, government should stay out of.  I understand both the worry about existing guns and new legislation.  I think I have a reasonable way to deal with both, but it’s going to require me to get a bit “legal” on you.

First, a bit of explanation on where I live.  I’m currently located in Dublin, Ireland and work as a lawyer here (after having been originally trained in the States).  I am constantly bombarded with European lawyers who criticize the U.S. as being too litigious.  “Everyone sues everyone over there”, I hear, “how do you ever get anything done?”.  At first I agreed with this ongoing barrage.  Then I got bored with it.  Finally, while I don’t support all aspects of the U.S. approach, I have come around to believing that America has a better system than the Euroweenies, and here is why.

After having lived here for years I began to understand that the reason Europeans have no asbestos in their buildings, have seatbelts and airbags in their cars, have knowledge about the dangers of smoking or the hazards of the workplace is because those dangers were first made apparent in the crucible of American litigation.  We do all the work, they sit back and get all the benefits.  Europeans wander like sheep waiting for Americans to battle about what standards of behavior should apply and then passively bleat “baa, baa” while their governments legislate the rules Americans hammered out in the marketplace of ideas.  I’m speaking in an exaggerated manner but my fundamental point is that over here change comes about passively (and late) while in the States change is usually more dynamic and proactive.

Let’s use that dynamism to incent changes in gun behaviour rather than wait for laws to be passed requiring it.  First, let’s simply tweak the rules surrounding litigation to institute “presumed strict liability” for a gun manufacturer who sells a weapon built after 2014 in the market without personal trigger guards when that weapon is used by someone to commit a crime, or wrongfully injure another.  They can rebut this presumption only by showing the weapon is older than 2014 or that they didn’t manufacture it.  Otherwise, build and sell an unprotected gun like this in the U.S. and pay when it is used criminally or negligently.  That payment won’t come in the form of a government imposed fine – it will come by way of a lawsuit directly instituted by the injured party or their surviving family.  Want to change manufacturers' behaviour?  Make them understand that if they don’t follow this best practice when making their product they’re going to have every law firm in the land lining up to sue them. 

The second solution (on what to do about guns manufactured pre-2014) is a bit tougher but I think it should run in a somewhat similar way.  If you own or sell a gun post 2014 (regardless of year of manufacture), and said gun  doesn’t have a personal trigger deactivation device – you will face a presumption of strict liability when someone else uses that gun and causes injury, death or damage.  So let’s say Nancy Lanza wasn’t shot by her son in 2012 – instead crazy Adam was around in 2015 and tries to pull the same stunt.  If he took those guns from his mother (or a neighbour, or a shop) and they were not protectively equipped that owner would face the presumption of negligence in allowing an injury, damage or death to occur.  As a result they would be strictly liable for resulting damages and would face the threat of loss of their house, business or bank accounts.  This debt would, like a personal injury claim, be non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.  It wouldn't matter if they said "I thought it was locked away safely" or "my house was broken into and it was stolen" - no coded device, no defense.  This is a strong incentive to make your weapon truly your weapon and people will flock to the shops to have their guns fitted with the device.

I want to be sure I differentiate what I am talking about from what is currently on a gun.  All (or most) guns have safeties.  But a safety is there to prevent the holder from inadvertently discharging the firearm.  A personal trigger deactivation device is designed to prevent anyone other than the owner (or the person they entrust with the code) from firing the gun.  It is designed to keep guns from being fired without the owner’s permission – not to keep the gun from being fired by mistake. The technology required to build this device exists, is relatively inexpensive and does provide a means of enhancing gun safety without limiting the right to own a gun.  It won’t solve all problems, prevent all crimes or make everyone happy.  But in an environment where people are asking that something be done – this is something, and it is real, not imaginary.  It requires compromise on the part of gun owners.  It also will require them to ignore the industry driven objections of the NRA – a tasteless advocacy group that is increasingly reflective of the needs of greedy business interests and not its individual members.  For anti-gun groups it will require you to at last face up and admit the reality of what the second amendment means – a U.S. citizen has, and should have, the right to own a gun. 

But it will be a gun that is truly theirs – their protection and their responsibility.

Filling a Gap

When I was a kid one of the things I wanted most when I grew up was a room of my own filled on all sides with loads of books.  (I was a weird kid).  But now, lo and behold, I’ve pretty much got exactly that.  It’s not a huge room, and it’s not just "mine", but its full of books and I can go in there and read any time I want other than workdays, weekends when I’m doing something with the kids, most evenings and while I’m asleep.  So I get a couple of hours a week.  That’s cool.

But this post isn’t about the room so much as its contents, and that’s because this week one of the most highly anticipated books ever has been published and is, at long last, available to the public.  I’ve been waiting (along with lots of others) for this particular work to come out for years.  The story behind the book is fascinating – and is, in and of itself probably fit for a screenplay.  It concerns the biography of one of the greatest figures of the last century, has had everyone wondering for years if it would even appear, includes the fulfillment of an author's wishes from beyond the grave and it is still uncertain as to whether it will even work.  But it’s here – and for now that’s enough.

For those of you who don’t already know what I'm talking about the book in question is “The Last Lion – Winston Spencer Churchill – Defender of the Realm” by William Manchester and Paul Reid.  This is the third volume of Manchester’s majestic biography – the first two – (Visions of Glory 1874 – 1932 and Alone 1932 – 1940) are considered masterpieces – cited by both historians and everyday readers as two of the greatest biographies ever written.  (For example – Ernie Adams, the mysterious “football researcher” who works with Bill Belichick and the Patriots revealed to David Halberstam that the two volumes were his favorite books).  For me – I can’t even tell you how much I enjoyed these books.  They are incredible – combining extensive research and knowledge of the subject with just the right amount of personal investment.  A good biography informs you and makes you care about the subject.  A great biography informs you and makes you care about the subject and his times.  A transcendent biography informs you and makes you care about the subject, his times and the biographer.  Guess where I put Manchester’s work?

Visions of Glory was, upon its appearance in 1983, an immediate sensation – it described Churchill’s formative years, his capture and escape during the Boer War, his prescience and fall from grace during World War I – and then his career up to the time he first became alarmed at the growth of fascism in Germany.  It made all of this come to life – it was an ideal (though not, as some carped, an idealized) account of Churchill’s life.  This was particularly true for Americans, who would not have been as well versed in some of the vagaries of British society (such as the relative hell of boarding school) as those in Britain. After the first book came out it seemed like an interminable wait until the next volume (but it really wasn’t that long).  The second book (published in 1988) started in 1932 and left off just as Churchill was achieving his long time goal of becoming Prime Minister (after bucking the establishment in Britain by being the only politician of note to warn continually of the dangers of Hitler’s rise).  But, having achieved his goal after standing alone for so long personally, he inherits a country that now stands alone – with Germany having conquered all of Europe and bombers anticipated in the air any moment.  The next book would tell the story of this supreme battle.  The reading public awaited eagerly.

And then – silence.  Nothing was published for 5, 10 then 15 years.  Rumors and pronouncements about Manchester’s health began to filter in – he had had strokes, was unable to work, was writing via Dictaphone, the book would never happen, no- wait – the book was due out next year. 

Sadly, in 2004, William Manchester died.  It seemed that the third volume – the final part of one of the greatest biographies in American literature – would remain unfinished.  But it gradually became known that in the months before his death Manchester had passed the task of completing the book off to Paul Reid, a newspaperman from Florida.  Manchester had actually resisted this for a long time – but finally asked Reid to come up and complete an “audition” chapter to see if he could actually handle the assignment.  It seems he passed – and Manchester bequeathed his research materials to Reid.

That was some bequest.  Manchester was one of the great researchers – meticulously organising his materials into bound 100 page legal pads he called “clumps”.  Unfortunately many of these clumps were annotated with Manchester’s handwritten notes, in a manner that only he could fully decipher, like Leonardo’s notebooks.  Reid was given 100 of these “clumps”, plus about 130 pages of manuscript, and was left (ironically “alone”) to finish the book.  He went to work.

Years passed – if you searched the internet whole websites were dedicated to speculating on whether the book would ever be finished.  The task seemed impossible – and Reid was very close mouthed about the whole thing.

And now – here it is.  It’s out.  The book lists both Manchester and Reid as co-authors, one dead for eight years, the other charged with bringing him (as well as Churchill) back to life.  I’m awaiting delivery as we speak, but in a few days I anticipate filling one of the most gaping holes in that room full of books – the spot for Volume 3.

(Now if Robert Caro would finish up the LBJ series, the other hole can be filled).

In honor of this momentous occasion I’m reviving the list of the month (and making it the primary post) to go through all of the Manchester books I have in the library.  Not ranking them (they’re all good) – just setting them out there if anyone wants to chase them down.  Obviously, I recommend doing just that.

1.       The Glory and the Dream

Manchester’s history of the United States for the years 1932-1972 seeks to explain the changes to American life and politics brought about by the New Deal in the post-depression era.  From a practical standpoint, if you are looking to understand where the current liberal/conservative split in American politics comes from, there is probably no better source.  This was my first encounter with Manchester’s works, and from a reader’s perspective I can tell you that the writing about the details – the small, forgotten events – is what makes this book special.  As an example, Manchester’s description of the great New England hurrican of 1938 (which dwarfed Sandy) is one of the greatest chapters about the power of weather you’ll ever read.

2.       Goodbye Darkness

William Manchester served as a Marine in the Pacific theatre during WWII.  His time there included participation in some of the most horrific battles in the entire war, (such as Okinawa), a close friendship with his fellow Marines who had fought in even more of those battles and a Purple Heart for serious wounds. This account personally and searingly recounts what happened during his time there and what it did to him for the years afterward.

3.       A World Lit Only By Fire

Manchester's reconstruction of life in the Middle Ages is not his best work, but it does serve to enlighten a reader as to what was “dark” about the dark ages and what wasn’t renewed by the renaissance.  It is also an interesting counterpoint to a book by another favorite historian, Barbara Tuchman’s “A Distant Mirror”.

4.       Death of a President

Commissioned (and then disowned) by Jacqueline Kennedy, this controversial book remains the standard by which events up to and following the assassination (but not the act itself) are measured.  It is the primary source for any discussion of these events.  What other people say about these things (what the presidential party and Oswald did up to the point of the motorcade, what happened on Air Force One on the way back to Washington, etc.) starts here and then either agrees or disagrees with Manchester’s account.  For the record, Jackie Kennedy never disputed the accuracy of this book – she simply felt it too sensitive a matter to reveal some of the truths it contains.  As much a part of history as a history itself.

5.       American Caesar

When Manchester served in the Pacific it was Douglas MacArthur he served under.  When he talks about the way his fellow combatants felt towards their commander he knows what he’s talking about.  For the avoidance of doubt “Dugout Doug” was not well liked by his men.  They thought him cruel, disconnected and questioned his courage.  When he began his biography of MacArthur Manchester uncovered an incredibly complex figure – perhaps as detestable as those men believed him to be – but for entirely the opposite reasons. 

6.       The Last Lion – Winston Spencer Churchill (Visions of Glory 1874-1932)

7.       The Last Lion – Winston Spencer Churchill (Alone 1932-1940)

See above.

I haven’t read The Arms of Krupp, Manchester's investigation of the German munitions manufacturer – but it’s a book I will get to and I consider it money in the bank.  First up though is Defender of the Realm – I can’t wait.  Oh – Manchester is from Springfield, Massachusetts – very much a product of Western Mass.

No Party Like a Third Party

The election just passed has been exhaustively analysed and hashed over during the past week and, without doubt, will continue to be chopped up, deciphered, re-ciphered, interpreted, neglected, detected and inspected for the coming months.  We’ve been told that this isn’t as dominant a win for the Democrats as it seems (true), that it is a dire warning for the Republicans (also true) and that it signals a decisive turning point for the (choose one) (a) makeup of the electorate; (b) future of the country; (c) accepted view of what constitutes “normal”; or, (d) all of the above.  (Hint – go with “d”).  Of course, you can, with equal certainty, say the same thing about every presidential election ever held.  I’ve heard people compare this to the 1948 election (and they are right), to the 1800 election battle between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson (they’re right again) and to the 1912 barn burner between Woodrow Wilson and Charles Evans Hughes (they’re right on this one too) – and every person making the comparison points to their particular past contest of choice as definitive – and, yes, every point they make is absolutely correct.

You see – when you are talking about a country as large and important as the United States every such election is definitive.  They are all equally important (in that they define the mood of the country at a given point in time), but, just like Animal Farm says – some are “more equal than others”. So when you read the analyst who trumpets that the Republicans either have to adjust their focus to include Latinos (or gays, or a graduated tax system, or health care reform, yadda, yadda, yadda) they’re talking complete sense.  And trust me, you are going to get loads of people talking complete sense to you in the coming months.  If you’re a political junkie (the author, at this point, is looking sheepish and raising his hand) this is the stuff you complain about (“Jesus – not another person telling me what this was all about”) - and still you read it.

But often, in the rush to explain what was really important, a couple of things will get overlooked.  Those are the things I like to examine.  Leave the big issues to someone else – I like to look at the fringes. This is how I justify having majored in Political Science.  So, out of these outliers scenarios I’ve picked a couple that aren’t getting looked at very closely but might possibly end up being the big take-aways from the election  just held if things happen to fall  -   just – exactly  --- into  --- the --- right ---place.  Here’s the first one:

The Real Republican Achilles Heel

Look – if you are a Republican I feel for you this week – I really do.  You must be like the fighter who gets knocked out by a lucky punch – everyone acts like you got absolutely creamed, but you feel just fine – so why is the doctor standing over you and your trainer throwing water in your face?  What the hell just happened – waddya mean I lost?  Get those smelling salts away – I’m fine dammit!

And then you try and stand up – your legs feel a bit wobbly.  And your head hurts a bit.  That’s all – you’ll get ‘em next time. 

And maybe you will – but – to strain the analogy a bit further – you gotta learn to keep your left up.  Your left arm that is – something the Republicans aren’t really known for having.  They better get one.  The Republicans only started to get back in to the race when Romney started to moderate his views.  And everyone from Mario Rubio to Fox News itself is telling them they better start to address the “Latino” problem.  In this case you really should read “Latino” as meaning “everyone who isn’t white, male, straight and rooting for a team inside the Southeast Conference”.  But the election was only lost by a few percentage points and this is, after all, the party of the aforementioned Rubio, of Condoleeza Rice, of Herman Cain, of – well, a bunch of others whose names escape me at the moment – but my point is – this is a fixable problem.

Which is true – there is no reason why the various gaps plaguing the Republican party can’t be plugged without compromising the basic conservatism at the party's core.  I’m not a huge fan of that philosophy but I do think it is vitally important that it be represented within the political arena.  If you were to poll the party membership I bet you could find a 70-30 margin in favor of compromising on something like immigration, for example.  Hell – both of the Republican nominees before Romney were big proponents of immigration reform.

And that’s where things get dicey.  Look at that second number. That 30% isn’t going to necessarily go along with your plan.  In fact – it wouldn’t be surprising if a third party candidacy would be spawned out of that “base”.  Just this year, for example, Michelle Bachman, Ron Paul and Donald Trump all flirted with a third party candidacy.  And this was in a year when the Republican nominee didn’t move leftward at all.  He ran as far right as he could.  He chose a right wing VP nominee.  He disavowed the very health care reform that he invented!  He attacked Big Bird for crying out loud!

Move left on immigration, birth control, gay rights - and you are flirting with a third party candidate arising.  History shows this is what happens when parties try to shift away from a long time base.  Ask an old time Democrat who George Wallace was.  Ask an even older one who Strom Thurmond was.  And this Republican party, right now, would be utterly destroyed by a third party candidate that springs from its right wing.

The vulnerability to a 3^rd party candidacy is reflected in the numbers surrounding the various states that could be considered “in play”. These would include not just the states that the Republicans won by a narrow (within 10 point) margin, but the states that they lost within that margin as well. This is because once a state leaves the “competitive” column it no longer commands the single most important resource associated with elections – money. So, let’s take a look at the states that qualify for such treatment:

Narrow Republican Wins:

N.C. – 51-48% (3%)

GA – 53-45% (8%)

Ariz – 54-44% (10%)

MO – 54 – 44% (10%)

SC – 55 – 45% (10%)

Narrow Democratic Wins:

FL – 50-49 – (1%)

OH - 50 -48 – (2%)

VA - 51-48 – (3%)

Colo – 51 -47 (4%)

IA – 52 – 47 (5%)

PA – 52-47 (5%)

Wis - 53-48 (5%)

NH - 52-46 (6%)

Nev – 52-46 (6%)

MN - 53-45 (8%)

Mich – 54-45 (9%)

NM - 53-43 (10%)

Some people would look at this and say “there are more states that were close for the Democrats than for the Republicans – the Republicans only have to win a few of those” – and they’d be right.  But look what happens when we introduce a right wing third party candidate.  Just for arguments sake let’s say that this candidate only does about 25% as well as the last truly viable third party candidate – Ross Perot, who got about 20% of the vote.  So we’ll give our imaginary candidate 5% of the vote and take it from the Republican totals – then we get this:

3^rd Party Revisions For Close States:

Republican Wins      

N.C. – 46-48%*

GA – 48-45% (3%)

Ariz – 49-44% (5%)

MO – 49 – 44% (5%)

SC – 50 – 45% (5%)

* (Becomes Democrat Win)

Democratic Wins:

FL – 50-44 – (6%)

OH - 50 -43 – (7%)

VA - 51-43 – (8%)

Colo – 51 -42 (9%)

IA – 52 – 42 (10%)

PA – 52-42 (10%)

Wis - 53-43 (10%)

NH - 52-41 (11%)**

Nev – 52-41 (11%)**

MN - 53-40 (13%)**

Mich – 54-40(14%)**

NM - 53-38 (15%)**

** (Becomes “Comfortable” State)

This does two things. First, it adds a state to the Democrats that they won in 2008 and just barely lost this time.  That’s bad enough news for the Republicans.  But what it also does is free up all the money that was spent on the five now comfortable states to be used in the now extremely competitive states.  And here is where the math kicks in – when calculating what the 3^rd party candidate subtracts from the Republican percentages all you do is take the amount from their vote and lower it by five.  The Democrat doesn’t benefit directly.  But when that money starts flowing into states like Georgia, and South Carolina – you don’t just subtract from the Republican vote – you add to the Democrat.  So let’s say those extra resources only shift a measly three percent of the vote from the R to the D column.  Just 3%.  Well, here’s what happens:

3^rd Party Revisions For Close States:

 Republican Wins      

N.C. – 43-51% (8%)*

GA – 45-48% (3%)*

Ariz – 46-47% (1%)*

MO – 46 – 47% (1%)*

SC – 47 – 48% (1%)*

* (Becomes Democrat Win)

Democratic Wins:

FL – 50-44 – (6%)

OH - 50 -43 – (7%)

VA - 51-43 – (8%)

Colo – 51 -42 (9%)

IA – 52 – 42 (10%)

PA – 52-42 (10%)

Wis - 53-43 (10%)

NH - 52-41 (11%)**

Nev – 52-41 (11%)**

MN - 53-40 (13%)**

Mich – 54-40(14%)**

NM - 53-38 (15%)**

Republicans would be left with one state - Texas - in the top dozen of electoral vote prizes. If this happens we’re in 400+ electoral vote territory – that’s a meltdown. 

“But” – you say -  “you’re not taking in to account that the new Republican nominee would be taking some of those moderate votes, and Latino votes and closeted gay Republican votes back from the Dems”.  Maybe I’m not.  But you’re also forgetting that the Democrats won’t be running a black guy who is coming off a four year recession in 2016.  It’s likely that they could be either (i) running a woman (what’ll that do to the gender gap?), or, (ii) running a southerner in the Bill Clinton mold (think you’ll hold on to Georgia then?).  Or both.  If this happens and there is a third party candidacy out of the Republican right wing – and there is historic precedent for this when a party adjusts – you could be looking at Republican Armageddon.

(Actually – I’m going to copyright “Republigeddon ©” right now).

An Open Letter from an American Living Abroad

An Open Letter from an American Living Abroad

When it comes to politics I don’t like posting loads of pictures, one line slogans or outraged rants on Facebook – usually followed by rows of exclamation points.  (“!!!!!!!!!!!!!”).  I think it’s better to just take the time to write down your own thoughts, skip the pictures that show a set of horns and pointy little tail drawn on the guy you don’t like, and then let people either read it or not, forward it or not, accept it or not, depending on their own preference.   So, after looking at the issues soberly, here is my take on the upcoming election - do with it what you will.

In an age when everything seems to appear on the internet seconds after it takes place, whether by way of a blog, a YouTube clip or a Twitter/Facebook posting, it’s often hard to organize your thoughts in a way that becomes something better than a bumper sticker slogan. Anyone who turns on their computer is bombarded with an unending stream of images – usually not entirely coherent - but always with a point of view.  It becomes overwhelming (to say the least).  But if the number of times I’ve seen “You’re Fired” or “Get out of the People’s House” photos posted on-line have done anything they’ve at least made me consider the election in terms of a job performance review.  I approach the election now as if it were the following question – “has Barack Obama performed well enough to keep his job or has he underachieved to the level that calls for his removal”?  Despite the efforts of both sides to make this a “character” election, this is really what the election is about.  If you were a boss, (and, in a democracy, you are), would you be entitled to call employee Barack Obama on the carpet and fire him for his performance?  This is the question I asked myself, and, after looking at the matter honestly, these are the answers I came up with.

The Biggest Question – The Economy

First I looked at what is clearly, to most people, the most important issue in the election – the economy.  The world (not just the USA) is currently enveloped in an economic crisis of long-term duration and extreme gravity.  As an American citizen living abroad (Ireland) I can attest to this fact – and I believe I can provide some perspective for people back in the States.  First a bit of recent history – Barack Obama and the Democratic party have attempted to deflect criticism from themselves by pointing to the Bush administration for much of the blame involved in leading the world (not just the U.S.) into this difficulty. I asked myself if this approach is justified.  In all honesty, while there are roots that go back well beyond George Bush, it does appear that there is merit in this accusation.

On at least five separate occasions during the Bush administration the economy suffered through major economic “events” that would have been, by themselves alone, considered sufficiently serious to indicate that some “pass through” effect would have been visited on following presidents.  These include 1) The WorldCom/Enron meltdowns, which had enormous corporate governance implications and seem to have led to no meaningful reform; 2) the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac meltdown, which should have triggered immediate concerns in the housing market; 3) the Bear Stearns collapse which could have been used as an early warning in advance of events that followed (since it, in and of itself, nearly led to economic meltdown a year before the Lehman collapse); 4) the collapse of the American automobile industry which left the country’s manufacturing heartland highly vulnerable and, finally, 5) the global financial meltdown which accompanied the Lehman collapse and led directly to the current extended recession and ongoing crisis.  As I said, even one such event would have led to at least some difficulty for future administrations.  Five events of this magnitude are unprecedented.  While “blame” shouldn’t in and of itself decide how people vote in this particular election there is no reason for anyone to pretend to be shocked or outraged if Obama points a finger at the prior administration in economic matters.  Any analyst, if they are being honest, would have to conclude that he’s entitled to do so.

But it needs to be understood that what really should be looked at is whether the response of the Obama administration to the economic crisis has been effective, not just whether someone else is to blame for it.  Towards this end the major effort undertaken by the current administration was the economic stimulus package, which was (believe it or not) enacted with some crucial Republican support.  The argument over this Act is largely what this election revolves around (though different “catch phrases” are used by each side to describe their core issues).  To some this is “socialism” to others “big government run wild”.  A close reading shows it is neither.

The clear fact is that the stimulus has worked – if not spectacularly then at least in a highly effective manner.  It is also demonstrably less “government centric” than similar, past efforts.  All this is borne out by statistics in the recent book “The New New Deal” by Michael Grunwald, a relatively objective writer.  Grunwald points out that the stimulus package is directly responsible for the creation or saving of 2.5 million jobs and that the unemployment rate, while hovering at around 8%, is significantly better than the 12-13% that would have arisen without its enactment.  As I write this I sit in a country with 15% unemployment and essentially no monetary control.  In Spain that rate is 25%.  Let’s not even talk about Greece.  The difference between the U.S. approach and these countries is that when the crisis hit there was a government in place in America that was willing to act to fill the banking vacuum that the financial crisis had created.  Yes this means deficits – but it also means that an even more catastrophic collapse was averted – giving the country the ability to rebound.  America was strong enough to overcome the stupidity of its financial industry and past governments – it would have been nearly criminally negligent not to flex its muscles to save its own people – and Obama should not be punished for having the fortitude to take this action in the very early days of his administration (when most presidents are still learning how to use the White House phone system).

Still – if this effort had been a step on the slippery road to socialism I could not bring myself to support it.  After all, the reason many of the European countries couldn’t react similarly was because they are so ridiculously invested in their own public sector edifices.  If there weren’t some checks built into the stimulus package to keep it from creating irreversible government dependency – and if they hadn’t worked effectively – then it wouldn’t have been worth it even if it did provide stability.  However, there were such checks built in – and they did work.

When the Act was first voted in the Obama administration looked at whether to invest in enormous projects that had been at the center of the “old” New Deal (like the Boulder Dam or Tennessee Valley Authority).  They quickly realized that projects like these (each of which employed upwards of 5,000 workers just by itself in the 1930’s) would, in the current times, only employ about 5% of that figure due to increased mechanisation and computer driven labor savings.  So instead of opting for this type of ginormous federally run project the stimulus monies have largely been parcelled out pursuant to a closely monitored fund.  The wastage rate as a result of this has been remarkably low (auditors have found losses of only $7.2 million – or .001%) and there is no way to characterize an approach of this type as “big government” in the classic sense.  In point of fact most politicians would never have allowed this type of methodology.  Big projects (rather than the small controlled type) mean big votes.  New airports in Ohio, dams in Colorado, port reconstructions in New Hampshire – those would have been headline makers.  President Obama should not be penalized for refusing to do what most “big government” pols would have loved to do – use that big pool of money to create large vote grabbing photo opportunities for himself.  Instead the mechanism for the stimulus was used in the manner that primarily targeted smaller, less “sexy”, projects.  You can get a description of it what was done here:  http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2012/08/the_new_new_deal_a_book_argues_that_president_obama_s_stimulus_has_been_an_astonishing_success.html,  but the main point of this is – the stimulus package worked – and is still working.  Believe me – I live in a place where the economic approach didn’t work – and isn’t working – and you in America could be a hell of a lot worse off.  You can’t fire a guy for being successful – it’s not fair. 

Still – the economy isn’t the only reason to vote one way or the other.  You can find the views of the other side to be so brilliant that you can’t resist them.  You could also have one issue that makes one of the candidates so repulsive you can’t bring yourself to vote for them.  Or you could see the combined weight of all the other issues as so compelling one way or the other you have to vote that way.  Let’s look at those options one by one.

Republican brilliance – Look – as far as I can tell Mitt Romney is not a stupid person, but no one is comparing him to Thomas Jefferson in terms of political philosophy either.  His own campaign brought up the “etch-a-sketch” analogy back during the primaries and he seems to be living up to it in every way.  He is “against” the limited amnesty for illegal aliens granted by President Obama – but he “wouldn’t revoke it” either.  He is “against” the bailout of the auto industry but promises to continue that policy every time he travels the Midwest.  He opposes the regulations imposed on the financial industry – but doesn’t specify which ones will be reversed.  I see very little evidence of a true political philosophy there – Mitt Romney doesn’t want to be your leader – he wants to be your pal.  He wants to be everybody’s buddy – except the “professional victims” who conveniently seem to disappear whenever he walks into a room.  I tend to not like people who want to tell you only what you want to hear.  I’m telling the people reading this what I feel – not what they want to hear – and I’m sure I’ll hear back from plenty of them.  Good – I can take it.  I’m not sure Mr. Romney ever could.  Barack Obama has made a few enemies (understatement) but I’m OK with that to.  I feel I know where he stands – and while I don’t agree with everything he does, I admire his convictions and respect his intentions.  That’s not the way I feel about Mitt.  If Mitt Romney won the first debate (and he did) it was because he made himself into a completely different Mitt position-wise than the one who ran in the Republican primaries.  He was Mitt the chameleon – etch-a-Mitt – Mitt Zelig.  I don’t like or trust that.

There is a person on the Republican side however who does have a clear philosophy.  Paul Ryan cannot be accused of waffling.  However –the role model he cites for his approach to life (Ayn Rand) is perhaps the worst possible example of where I personally would want the country to go.  Rand’s way of thinking is best summed up in a passage from Atlas Shrugged, whose protagonist says "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."  That eliminates just about every Christian tenet in the world – and this from a party that is supposed to revere Christianity.  If Paul Ryan is where the true Republican philosophy can be found it should be rejected – both because your second in command shouldn’t be your leader but mostly because it’s wrong.

Candidate Repulsion – I’ve been told I’m supposed to reject Barack Obama because he is 1) Not a native born American (untrue); 2) A Muslim (untrue and immaterial); 3) In favor of infanticide (untrue and a disgusting accusation that came straight from Mike Huckabee during the Republican Convention);  4) A socialist (untrue – as anyone who has ever run up against a true socialist would know) and – most recently – 5) because I wouldn’t have like his mother (I couldn’t believe this but look here – http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/09/28/obama_conspiracy_theory_movie_dead_mother_s_sex_life_is_target_in_dreams_from_my_real_father_.html someone actually spent the money to send out one million videos of this garbage).  I have now officially reached the point where I am so sick of this approach that even if I had my doubts about the first couple of things I’ve talked about – I’d still vote for Obama.  The level that this has gone to is insane.  Donald Trump (someone who does repulse me) spent a year chasing down the bogus “birth certificate” story – until he was publicly shamed.  You would expect him to be shunned for this – instead he has been rewarded with “chief fund raiser” status.  I don’t know Barack Obama personally – but what I’ve seen I like.  I like the way he treats his wife and kids.  I like that he can sit down and have a discussion about sports that seems pretty rational http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgUYDRvvLp4 .  I like the fact that he seems to think that sitting down and just having a beer with someone you disagreed with is a good way to clear the air: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83sPsoyt-8Q.  In short - he seems like an OK guy.  Why is there this insistence on demonizing him?  This, again, is unfair – and the American people usually are, at the end of the day, fair.  You don’t fire somebody because the bullies are ganging up on him. 

Finally – one word about Mitt Romney’s “47%” comment.  The only way you can get to that number – the only way – is if you include seniors on a fixed income in the mix.  My mother is a cancer survivor who has retired.  I don’t know what she pays in federal income tax but it’s probably pretty low now.  She gets a pension, my Dad’s pension and some social security – and she does pretty well getting by.  But here’s the point – she spent years and years of her life working, raising a family and paying her taxes.  To have someone lump her into a group and label her “dependent” now – after all those years – makes me sick.  And it’s not just her – in that 47% are wounded or elderly veterans, mentally or physically disabled people who still work a job at Mickey D’s because they love to get out and work and people with legitimate problems – none of whom should be tarred with this brush. If there is any one thing that a candidate for President has said in this campaign that does repulse me it’s that “47%” bullshit.  You can tell a lot about a person by what he says when he thinks no one but his buddies are listening.

All the Other Issues Considered – Sure, it’s the economy, stupid – but it’s also everything else. So if Barack Obama was in the wrong about the vast majority of the remaining issues I would vote against him.  However – he’s not.  I’ll pull two big ones out of the fire. 

First “ObamaCare” - I don’t expect everyone to like this piece of legislation – hell, if I was writing it this wouldn’t be the solution I’d draft.  But here’s the thing – we couldn’t continue to do nothing in the area of healthcare – we just couldn’t.  This particular approach – the personal mandate – is the one method which has proven acceptable to both sides albeit not in a way that pleases all, or even most.  Deep down we all know this – but more important is how we know this.  We know it because when this same experiment was tried in a smaller laboratory (Massachusetts) the net result of the political process was almost exactly the same.  And the leader of that first experiment in compromise (which is at the core of effective politics)?  Yup, Mitt Romney.  ObamaCare is RomneyCare – and vice versa.  Again – it is unfair to fire one person from a job and replace him with another when they have shown that given the same set of circumstances they would do exactly the same thing.

Next, gun control.  I support, and support strongly, the right to keep and bear arms.  I keep reading about how anti-gun Obama is – but here is a quote from the Washington Post:

Obama kept his promises to gun owners but not to gun control advocates who have been frustrated by the White House's lack of interest.

The president signed bills allowing guns in national parks and on Amtrak.  He has not pushed for the reinstement of the assualt weapons ban - and Attorney General Eric Holder was reportedly chastised for suggesting he would.  Nor has he moved toward closing the gun-show loophole.           

Doesn’t really sound like someone who is that anti-gun to me.  I also remember the last election cycle – when, after the Supreme Court decision overturning the Washington D.C. ban on handguns reporters flocked to Obama, expecting him to criticize the decision of the conservative court.  Only one problem – they found out that he supported the decision – on constitutional grounds.  It is not fair to throw someone out of their job for disagreeing with you on the issues when they don’t really disagree with you at all.  

This seems to be true with a lot of the people who are foaming at the mouth about the Obama administration on a number of issues.  For instance, I keep seeing how “America’s standing abroad is dropping” – look, I live abroad – and take my word for it – everyone here loves the guy.  Even if you don’t take my word for it – look here:  https://ip-journal.dgap.org/en/ip-journal/topics/discreet-charm-barack-obama .  And this is even when he refuses to play some of the typical diplomatic games with these foreign leaders.  America’s approval ratings abroad are up in every world region bar one.  Up in Asia, up in Europe, up in the emerging African sphere, up in Latin America.  The only place they are down? – yup, the Middle East – the same Middle East that is supposed to be so supportive of the President (because, you know, he’s Muslim and all). So if you’re worried about America’s standing in the world – and America’s standing is just fine, thank you – what are you worried about?

So here is where I’m coming from.  I’ve been an employee, a small business owner and an executive.  I’ve been on both sides of the desk for performance evaluation and I know this much – if you are going to remove someone from their job – take away the thing that is very much a part of who they are – you better be damn sure they deserve it.  I cannot see how anyone, other than the most extreme party zealots, can argue persuasively that a firing is called for here.  And look - I know many of the policies we're talking about don't feel successful. There are a lot of people hurting out there, the world still seems a dangerous place, it seems that the turnaround is taking a long time.  But when you look at what could have happened and how four years in the course of history is actually a very short amount of time, the President's record is a good one.  So Obama gets my vote – not because I’m following any blind party line – but because he’s the best candidate and he deserves four more years.  It’s the only fair choice.