Election loss and an unpopular explanation

This post by a Rabbi in Teaneck, NJ is a stark reminder why America is in trouble and how polarized we've become as a nation.  Rabbi Pruzansky obviously feels the frustration many of us feel about this election outcome.  I've added blue italics for emphasis of key passages. By Rabbi Steven Pruzansky   "The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo - for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility.  And fewer people voted.     But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle. Romney lost because he didn't get enough votes to win.  That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues - the traditional American virtues – of  liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness - no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.  The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff. Every businessman knows this; that is why the "loss leader" or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama's America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who - courtesy of Obama - receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote.  The lure of free stuff is irresistible. The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which "47% of the people" start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money - "free stuff" - from the government. Almost half of the population has no skin in the game - they don't care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese. They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else's expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future. It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.     That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters - the clear majority – are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich.     Obama could get away with saying that "Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules" - without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the "rich should pay their fair share" - without ever defining what a "fair share" is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to "fend for themselves" - without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending. Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions - in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone.     Obama also knows that the electorate has changed - that whites will soon be a minority in America (they're already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America. Obama is part of that different America, knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won. Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his "negative ads" were simple facts, never personal abuse - facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil's bargain of making unsustainable promises. It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan - people of substance, depth and ideas - to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents.  Obama mastered the politics of envy – of class warfare - never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups. If an Obama could not be defeated - with his record and his vision of America, in which free stuff seduces voters - it is hard to envision any change in the future. The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy - those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe - is paved.       Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations.. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come.  The "Occupy" riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead - years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.     If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back." (Image above from Microsoft Clip Art)

The yoke of two Americas

It became clearer after President Obama’s re-election that we're two Americas.  Has our country been this divided since the Vietnam War, or perhaps the Civil War?  Mr. Obama captured just fifty-one percent of the popular vote.  

Last November, I anticipated more reaction from voters in the Center, due in part to the now infamous, “You didn’t build that” quip.  I believed it validated concerns held by many Americans that President Obama remains anti-business and anti-free market.  I also believed there was no way to take such a gaffe out of context (as claimed by the President and his defenders) and that the ripple effect would devastate the President's campaign.  I was obviously wrong about the fallout as far fewer swing voters in the Center cared about the issue than I'd imagined.  Setting aside the unpredictable American Center, the two Americas of Blue and Red remain far apart in their belief systems.

Icon by Flat-icons-com at freepik

Much of Blue America believes that since car tires rolled on public pavement while building businesses, or since career success came after attending public universities --- government funding enabled positive economic outcomes.   

Red America concedes that of course, some large scale public works projects and excellent public universities influenced America's growth and as our population grew, a corresponding increase in the size of federal government was necessary.  

However, Red America doesn't believe our nation flourished exclusively, or even principally, for these reasons.  Red America believes, it was limited government, free markets and personal freedom that enabled growth and prosperity in the first place coupled with initiative, smart risk-taking and hard work. Red America points to history that suggests the inevitable outcome of unchecked deficit-spending and taxation courts disaster and that we're already witnessing our decline.

Red America remains convinced that one of the most perilous problems faced by our nation today is federal spending and that added taxation, by any other name or game, is more of an enabler to the fiscal problem, than a cure.  For this view, Red America is often labeled by Blue as extremists.

Leaders of Blue America welcome new tax increases like the 2% payroll hike on all taxable wages up to $113,700 (which Blue dismisses as end of a tax "holiday") and the new Medicare adder of 0.9%.  

Class warfare and the politics of envy are often used to justify tax increases.  This historically has been Blue America's mantra to increase taxes.  Paying one's "fair share" is whatever they want it to mean.

And on the spending side, a reduction in the rate of increase to any budget item, is still decried as a spending cut by Blue America.  By contrast, Red America welcomes the prospect of a nominal $85 billion spending reduction from a government that spent over $3.5 trillion last year. 

Sadly, the yoke of two Americas remains firmly in place.

White House Fiscal Adviser?
Wikimedia Commons

The historical cycle that rings true today

A friend* trying to console me after Mr. Obama's re-election, shared a timeless quote:

"Again and again after freedom has brought opportunity and some degree of plenty, the competent become selfish, luxury-loving and complacent, the incompetent and the unfortunate grow envious and covetous, and all three groups turn aside from the hard road of freedom to worship the Golden Calf of economic security.  The historical cycle seems to be: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more."

Icon by Arfianta at freepik

Those prophetic words came from the leader of a Pennsylvania manufacturing company during a speech on March 18, 1943.  The speech was delivered by Mr. Henning Prentis and his words ring true today. 
 *Thanks, Kevin.

Defending Paul Ryan in the NY Times

Excerpts from my letter to the editors at the New York Times Magazine concerning a cover story on Paul Ryan in the October 21 issue published online November 1.  


Illustration by Jaime Hernandez

The excerpts also appear in today's print edition of the New York Times Magazine.  My apologies for the blurry, tiny font.

 



Ben Stein speaks about hypocrisy

I saw Mr. Stein speak in San Diego last June.  An interesting figure: part lawyer, part economist, part actor -- and he's also quite funny at the stump.  Some of his latest wisdom on health care and immigration policy follows...


Ben Stein - SodaHead image

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government
that requires every citizen to prove they
are insured. . . but not everyone must
prove they are a citizen."
   
Now add this, "Many of those who refuse,
or are unable, to prove they are citizens
will receive free insurance paid for by
those who are forced to buy insurance
because they are citizens."

Don't sulk, resist.

In his piece from the current issue of Fortune magazine, Geoff Colvin says the current environment is a "...nasty, insidious force that's undermining the native optimism that buoys up business people everywhere" and then he admonishes readers with one word -- "Resist!"  

I appreciated another article in this issue by Ms. Mina Kimes who wrote about a manager for the MFS International Value Fund -- Mr. Barnaby Wiener.  Like a lot of people; I largely stick to index funds, but Mr. Wiener's actively-managed fund according to Fortune, is one of the best in its class having outperformed 99% of its peers since 2002. 

Mr. Wiener says "It's much more important to avoid losing money than it is to make money" and he adds, "If you avoid the big losses, you make money almost by default."  Those statements seem consistent with Warren Buffet's well-known view, "The first rule of investing is don't lose money; the second rule is don't forget Rule No. 1."  What's the third rule?  

Anyway, on to the election...

1. The presidential election is only 50 days away.

2.  It's the most important election of my conscious lifetime (in other words, since I was 24).

3.  We need a CEO more than a Community Organizer with velvety speeches.

4.  Please encourage anyone still on the fence to get out and vote for Mitt & Paul.

Image by storyset on Freepik



Maddente.com raison d'être

Raison d'être -- is French for "reason for existence" -- which is a heady concept.  I'll define this blog's raison d'être for my five six readers, with this post. Many of my posts center on fiscal responsibility, living within one's means.

Fotosearch Image

So when I see a column I agree with as I did today in WSJ by Steven Malanga ("State Politicians and the Public Pension Cookie Jar") -- I share it and talk about it.  I hope in a small way, I'll add attention to the generational burden-shifting taking place.

Mr. Malanga focuses on one part of a multi-faceted national spending problem -- defined benefit programs for public employees -- better known as public pensions.  I didn't understand how costly they are until some six years ago, when a retired pediatric dentist of all people, began to educate me.

I also have misgivings about pension plans in the private sector, but shareholders of those pension-granting organizations choose where to invest their money.  Put differently, if a majority of company shareholders wish to tolerate expensive employee retirement and health care plans -- that's their business.  Investors can and do vote with their feet.  But taxpayers can't sell their shares, or wage a proxy fight. So, public pension reform is my topic du jour (OK, that's it for the French -- I promise). 

Fortunately, voters are beginning to wake up and support leaders like Governor Scott Walker and the fiscal reforms they sponsor to curb these budget busters in the public domain.

Someone asked me why I haven't been posting much lately.  The answer is I've been busy working and like most working Americans -- trying to add to my defined contribution plan.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Governor Scott Walker / Wikipedia Image

Finally, I'll share another column also found in today's WSJ  by Peggy Noonan about Governor Scott Walker's resounding win this week, called "What's Changed After Wisconsin". 

Mr. Walker, whom I hope you'll remember -- not recall -- is the first recipient of the Maddente MVP Award for public adherence to fiscal responsibility.