Writing in the Kansas City Star, E. Thomas McClanahan explains what Sarah Palin is missing.  I agree. Writes McClanahan:

What I found ran for a mere 13 pages, written in prose that was utterly dead. She believes in America and our free enterprise system. The market should be allowed to work. Our foreign policy should be peace through strength. Energy independence is critical. We need to get federal spending under control.

OK, agreed. But where’s the insight, the persuasive spark that might make a skeptical reader say, “I hadn’t thought of that”? What I read only reinforced the perceptions Palin created with her disastrous Katie Couric interview and the jarringly disjointed speech she gave this year when resigning as Alaska’s governor.

I wrote this e-mail to McClanahan in response to his column:

Good column today on Sarah Palin.

You articulated it well.  I think conservatives like Palin because we don’t have a Reagan, we desperately want one and nobody except for her seems even remotely interested in taking the charge. I think another reason we like her is that she doesn’t give the Left home field advantage by accepting their premise.  Many others make that mistake and end up looking like sell outs to conservatives.  John McCain and even George W Bush come to mind.  She keeps the conversation on her turf and takes a great deal of abuse for it (something Reagan did as well).

I think your key insight in today’s column was that her conservative-speak doesn’t have a spark.  It’s like she’s reading from something she doesn’t quite understand.  To give it that spark, she needs to take it a step further and explain why free markets work, why foreign policy is peace through strength and why Federal spending needs to be controlled.  She also needs to explain why conservatives want limited government. That’s what Reagan could do in a few short, easy sentences that made perfect sense to moderates.

The recent recommendation from the United States Preventive Services Task Force, a government-appointed group, to reduce breast cancer screenings seemed to get a few people thinking about whether government health care is such a good idea.

While the Left trips over itself to keep us from sliding down the slippery slope with editorials like this one in the NY Times (amazing that they can’t seem to so the same calming, let’s look at the facts and think about this demeanor with stuff from the Right), they may have trained the consumers of their propaganda media to well to react to headlines and ignore facts. 

For many people, the words that register are “government appointed group” and “scale back on breast cancer screenings” and they’re off to the races imagining a world where the government rations necessary treatments because of what appears to be b.s. opinions from so-called experts, a world where it’ll be the people vs. the government.

Turns out it worked in the 80s too.  Thanks to Raoul Lufberry for the link.  Obama: The Woody Boyd Candidate

Fraser masterminds Woody’s campaign as a social experiment: He is convinced that anyone, even a bumpkin, can get elected, simply by spouting vague cliches. His advice to Woody? Don’t be specific on the campaign trail – just repeat empty slogans like “change.”

When I saw this, I burst out laughing – perhaps this is where Axelrod & Co. received their inspiration for Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign theme, I surmised.

But to Fraser, Indiana-born Woody was clearly an idiot. Fraser, being a Harvard educated, Eastern seaboard-dwelling intellectual, naturally shared the prejudices of his breed; that anyone from fly-over country must be mentally deficient.

For my own part, if we had a Woody Boyd for president, I would sleep soundly. It is men like Fraser Crane, with their smug airs of moral and intellectual superiority, who think they know all and think they especially know what is best for others, who frighten me. It is rulers like that who bring ruin and call it “reform.”

Here’s a YouTube clip from the episode.

I listened to some sports talk radio while stuck in a traffic jam this evening.  The topic of discussion was the University of Kansas head football coach Mark Mangino and the complaints from his players about some comments he made.

Disclosure: I have no clue how Mangino treats his players.  I don’t care much.  He might have said some really bad things.  I don’t know.  But, the quotes I’ve heard so far don’t warrant the attention this is getting.

The show hosts were up-in-arms as they repeated the quotes on the air.  One rule of thumb I have is that if the quotes are repeatable under FCC rules, then it might not be terribly offensive.

Two callers in a row agreed with me.  The callers’ advice to the college football players – toughen up and get over it.  The show hosts thought the callers were way off base.  I tend to agree with the callers.   I strive to treat others with respect.  I think it’s a worthwhile goal.  I don’t see the upside to meanness.

However, I’ve also had a lot of rotten things said to me in my life.  My Mom taught me a very valuable lesson.  Sticks and stones.

The toughest part is that many times, buried in those rotten things was some truth.  That’s when it hurts the most, especially if you are not prepared to hear the truth.  But, I needed to hear it.  I benefited from listening.

The point the callers were trying to make is that with all of the attention given to the sensitivity of how someone says something, we forget that what they are saying might be right.   And sometimes, missing that truth in the message can be costly.

First, from Walter Williams, A Minority View: Excused Horrors.

Nazis were responsible for the deaths of 20 million of their own people and those in nations they conquered. Between 1917 and 1983, Stalin and his successors murdered, or were otherwise responsible for the deaths of, 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, Mao Tsetung and his successors were responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese.

For decades after World War II, people have hunted down and sought punishment for Nazi murderers. How much hunting down and seeking punishment for Stalinist and Maoist murderers?

…the reason why the world’s leftists give the world’s most horrible murderers a pass is because they sympathize with their socioeconomic goals, which include government ownership and/or control over the means of production. In the U.S., the call is for government control, through regulations, as opposed to ownership. Unfortunately, it matters little whether there is a Democratically or Republican-controlled Congress and White House; the march toward greater government control continues. It just happens at a quicker pace with Democrats in charge.

In Worse Than Taxes, John Stossel makes the point that while taxes are bad enough, what’s worse – and gets little attention – is government spending.

[California and New York] would have big surpluses had they just grown their governments in pace with inflation. But of course they didn’t. Now the politicians act like their current deficits are something imposed on them by the recession.

Had the government of New York state grown at the rate of population and inflation over the past 10 years, it would have a $14 billion surplus today. Instead, spending grew at twice the rate of inflation (http://tinyurl.com/yguvfpm). So New York has a $3 billion deficit.

Stossel quotes Walter Williams:

It reminds me of Walter Williams’ riff: “Politicians are worse than thieves. At least when thieves take your money, they don’t expect you to thank them for it.”

And Milton Friedman:

The true burden of government, the late Milton Friedman said, is the spending level. Taxation is just one way government gets money. The other ways — borrowing and inflation — are equally burdens on the people. (State governments can’t inflate, but they sure can borrow.)

]]> http://mindchangers.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/weekly-roundup/feed/ 0 Seth http://mindchangers.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/are-you-qualified-for-that-position/ http://mindchangers.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/are-you-qualified-for-that-position/#comments Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:22:31 +0000 Seth http://mindchangers.wordpress.com/?p=737 ]]>

During the 2008 elections, friends thought I was crazy when I told them that I was disappointed in both tickets.  I said the most qualified person for the job of President is the vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, because she was the only one with organizational/political leadership experience.  But, I would also say that I thought that she was still not qualified.  I would want her to have more than a few years of leadership experience before promoting her to POTUS.  Give me at least one full term as Governor, maybe two.

I’d typically hear responses like: But McCain or Biden have been Senators for so long.  Or, Barack headed up an well-run campaign.  Thanks for proving my point on McCain and Biden.  Showing up and voting on stuff isn’t organizational leadership experience.  I’ll consider some of their being in the national public eye for so many years, but I’d still rather see them go run something else.  If you want to be POTUS, go run your state for a term or two, or go run a business, military unit or some Federal department.

As for Obama, the ‘well-run campaign’ defense is a joke.  A well-run campaign?  Go manage political campaigns.

What was a bigger joke was that people thought I was crazy.

I’ll go back to the NFL head coach test.  You own a team.  You want that team to do well, make fans happy and make money.  Who are you going to hire to run it?

You’re going to look for proven experience.   You’re not going to promote the guy that’s been working in the PR department for two years (and rarely shows up to work to boot) to run your team or the other guy who has been your team’s radio announcer for 20 years.  You’re going to look for proven talent within the college ranks and professional coordinators that have a fair amount of proven, concrete experience.  Guys who can usually provide a concrete list of results and achievements such as, “led offense to highest scoring ranking for 3 out of 5 years.”

Most of us would be more discerning about our choice of head coach than we were about our choice for POTUS.  One party chose glitz (a good speech giver) that provided a historic moment in the history of the country, tempered with a less historic vice-president just-in-case (“Stand Up Chuck!  Let the People See You. What Am I Talking About?”).  The other party chose the guy who had been around for awhile and they thought was well enough liked by the other side to pull some of their votes.

When did the idea that you should have to work hard to prove yourself die in this country?  Oh yeah.  I forgot.  We’re the country that can’t really figure out if a teacher is good quality or not (so we keep them all) and we don’t want to keep score in little leagues anymore.  We graduate illiterate troublemakers so we don’t have to do the hard work of enforcing discipline.

This post at Cafe Hayek reminded me of one my key rules: 

Assume all politicians are narcissist. 

Even the one’s I vote for.   I do not trust them.  I will not spend much energy defending them.  That’s why I love the design of checks and balances in our government.  It’s tough to get a bunch of narcissists to agree with eachother.

Same goes for most people in the entertainment biz. 

The only exception is when I hear a blatant misrepresentation.  For example, my two word defense to people who call Rush Limbaugh racist is “prove it”.  He may be.  I don’t know.  I can’t get into his mind to see what he really thinks.  But, to make that judgement I need evidence.

If I catch myself falling for one of these guys (Sarah Palin), I remind myself of my key rule.  Sarah wrote a book with a big picture of her on the cover.  I’m sure I’ll read it.  Good for her.  I’m sure she wrote really good things.  But, there’s a big picture of her on the cover.  She’s a narcissist.   

 Now, I can already hear some asking, “aren’t you a hypocrite?  You tell others to prove Rush is racist, but you assume all politicians are racist.” 

For that, I’d give you some credit.  However, I’d point out that my rule is, first and foremost, a defense mechanism meant to keep me from getting too disappointed when humans turn out to be humans. 

Second, I can believe someone is a narcissist, but still hear them out on their beliefs about how the world works and decide whether I agree or not.  It would not be easy to do that with someone who I believe is a racist, which is the exact reason why people call Rush racist.  Those people don’t want you to listen to what he has to say.

Andrew Hienze wins my most recent Critical Thinker Award for writing, What Health Reform Will Do to My Insurance, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on November 13.

In the article, Hienze, “a registered Democrat living in New York City,” explores what will happen to his health insurance if the current House bill is signed into law. 

I award Hienze the Critical Thinker Award for taking an honest look of the real consequences of the good intentions of the health care reform.  I contrast that with others who write only about the good intentions of the bill.  Good intentions are fine, but intentions often do not match results.

Hienze uses real world experience.  He lives in New York, which already prohibits insurers from denying coverage due to a pre-existing medical condition.  He writes,

The result is that HMO plans in the state are now very expensive. The price of Empire’s basic, least expensive HMO plan is more than $13,000 a year for an individual, more than $26,000 a year for a married couple, and more than $39,000 a year for a family with children.

The result is that Hienze cannot afford full health coverage in New York.  He buys a hospitalization plan that covers hospital expenses in the event of injury or illness.  It does not cover the cost of physicians that are not hospital employees.  Under the currently proposed health care reform bill, his hospitalization plan would not be considered a qualified plan, so he would have to pay a fine that is about the same amount that he currently pays for his hospitalization plan – $2,000 per year.

It’s benefit enrollment time at work.  High deductible insurance policies coupled with a health savings account is all the rage. 

Incentives matter.  They matter a lot.  I can’t tell you the number of people who don’t believe that.  They don’t see it.  They don’t seem to understand just how much incentives matter and yet many of the decisions they make are driven by the incentives they face, and yet they don’t realize it.

The company has been changing the incentives on its health plans over the last few years to make the high deductible policies more attractive.  It’s a cube by cube battle to show the explicit benefits.  Homemade Excel models are being shared, people are giving impromptu lessons on the merits of the plan. 

In the end, seeing that a high deductible plan leaves you with more money in your pocket at every level of projected medical expenses and allows you to save up some health funds that you can own and take with is a big mind changer.  I love things that can sell themselves.

The implicit benefits for everyone aren’t as well understood.  As more of the medical payments are shifted back to first parties (that is, the person who uses the service writes the check for it) under the high deductible plans, we’ll all experience better and cheaper health care. 

Unfortunately, we may not get that chance to see these benefits before the tide shifts back toward third party payments based on health care reform being considered in DC.

I heard a very impressive man on a local radio show, Live with Darla Jaye, this evening.  Apostle Claver.  He claims that minorities live by conservative values, but don’t necessarily translate those values to the voting booth because they tend to vote with people in their ethnic group than for the candidates that best match up with their values.  He said to change the minds of minorities, Republicans and conservatives should focus on their values so the minorities can see that their values line up.

He actually said it much better than I what wrote, but I wanted to try to capture the essense. 

I run into similar views.  I have friends and family who live by conservative principles, but tend to vote Democrat for various reasons other than a lining up of values – they’ve always tended to vote that way, it’s cool, they’ve bought into the negative image of conservative parties and that the Democrats are for the little guys.  Sometimes they just like the guy or gal.  Likewise, I have conservative friends and relatives that are conservative more for the social benefits rather than a fundamental belief in the principles.

I recall the difficulty I had identifying all the flavors of political spectrum as I tried to figure out where I fell.  I’m still learning.  I’ve come a long way.  Unfortunately, I there are a lot of powers out there that would rather you not figure out where you fall on the political spectrum based on your values, rather take their word for it.  Believe what they want you to believe. 

Don’t take their word for it. Figue it out for yourself.  Focusing on values is very good advice.