Driven by high fuel costs, many of us are moving from the suburbs back to urban centers, sparking a period of urban renewal that billions of dollars in public funding and decades of urban planning failed to accomplish. In essence, many of us are driving less and living more. Telecommuting and shorter workweeks are also evolving trends. Recently, some local municipal governments have started giving employees the option of working a four-day week to help them reduce fuel costs. Suffolk County, N.Y., approved a measure recently to allow workers to adopt a flextime four-day workweek or take furloughs to cut down on commuting.
Finding ways to do more with less not only makes economic sense, it could help ease our dependence on foreign oil, and reduce the harmful environmental consequences of hydrocarbon pollution. Because we feel we need their oil, we lack the real leverage to encourage countries like Saudi Arabia from spreading radical Islam, a direct sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East. With oil prices sky high, at least some of the windfall profits these nations are making go directly to funding terrorists. Moreover, most of us, whether or not we call ourselves conservationists, agree that global warming is a real thing. Any measures that we can take to reduce our consumption and waste will make our planet a more livable place, and may prevent catastrophic changes in the environment.
During times of struggle, whether individually or collectively, we would do well to look within and prepare ourselves for the road ahead. We should not get so consumed by our hardships that we fail to see the good that can come of them, or rather what we can become by learning from them. This is not the time to curb our enthusiasm, but rather to unfetter it. This is a call for rational exuberance — the optimism that stems from knowing that tough times make us stronger.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Advice to McCain: Try a Little Tenderness
Among John McCain's heralded achievements in this campaign is his endorsement of the troop surge in Iraq, which, from all indications, has been successful in helping to quell both al Qaeda and domestic sectarian violence in Iraq. However, with a recent Washington Post poll showing ambivalence about Republicans' prescriptions for the economy among working-class and poor Americans, he needs a surge of empathy to demonstrate he is concerned with the plight of everyday Americans.
The Post's poll also revealed, surprisingly, that Obama enjoys a 10-point advantage among poor working-class whites, a fact that underscores the pressing economic issues faced by many Americans. While many have expressed skepticism about Obama's elitism and distance from the pulse of the heartland, as well as his stance on energy exploration, they nonetheless feel that he is the more empathetic candidate when it comes to the everyday economic problems we all face.
Thus far, McCain has offered expanding domestic production of oil as a salve to soothe the wounds created by escalating energy prices. But the supply-side improvements may seem to some to offer only indirect solutions to the problem. People want something that they feel is directed at them, and not a trickle-down solution that might end up lining Big Oil's already overflowing coffers.
In other words, McCain has got to start demonstrating that he cares about people and not just profits. The question comes down to one of perspective. What's more important: the amount of money people have to spend on their wants and needs, or setting the preconditions for spending by investing in profit-making enterprises? Certainly, as entrepreneurs and investors, one sees the immense potential that investing in business can have in the future. But the fact of the matter is that most of America has pressing, immediate needs and may not be able to see that far down the road.
While McCain may have a road map for ultimate success in improving domestic economic conditions, he should be aware that the map is not the territory. The situation on the ground is pressing — some might even say depressing. So despite the fact that there might be rough seas on the horizon, McCain would do well to offer sympathetic words and symbols to show that he is in the same boat, that he feels the pain as well. A people weary with war and economic displacement need at least a bit of sentiment from their leaders. It is time to try a little tenderness.
The Post's poll also revealed, surprisingly, that Obama enjoys a 10-point advantage among poor working-class whites, a fact that underscores the pressing economic issues faced by many Americans. While many have expressed skepticism about Obama's elitism and distance from the pulse of the heartland, as well as his stance on energy exploration, they nonetheless feel that he is the more empathetic candidate when it comes to the everyday economic problems we all face.
Thus far, McCain has offered expanding domestic production of oil as a salve to soothe the wounds created by escalating energy prices. But the supply-side improvements may seem to some to offer only indirect solutions to the problem. People want something that they feel is directed at them, and not a trickle-down solution that might end up lining Big Oil's already overflowing coffers.
In other words, McCain has got to start demonstrating that he cares about people and not just profits. The question comes down to one of perspective. What's more important: the amount of money people have to spend on their wants and needs, or setting the preconditions for spending by investing in profit-making enterprises? Certainly, as entrepreneurs and investors, one sees the immense potential that investing in business can have in the future. But the fact of the matter is that most of America has pressing, immediate needs and may not be able to see that far down the road.
While McCain may have a road map for ultimate success in improving domestic economic conditions, he should be aware that the map is not the territory. The situation on the ground is pressing — some might even say depressing. So despite the fact that there might be rough seas on the horizon, McCain would do well to offer sympathetic words and symbols to show that he is in the same boat, that he feels the pain as well. A people weary with war and economic displacement need at least a bit of sentiment from their leaders. It is time to try a little tenderness.
Protesting Your Way to the White House
The standard advice from career counselors is that complaining about one’s salary is the wrong way for an employee to go about getting a promotion or a raise. While in the short run, management might seem to give in, hoping to quiet a squeaky wheel, in the long run the strategy usually backfires. The bosses merely wait for some opportune moment down the line to can the rabble-rouser. Candidates for president of the United States should heed this advice as well.
Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) supporters in the media have reacted pretty loudly to widespread criticism that he is acting arrogantly. Some have complained that the criticism stems from a racially motivated desire to put him in his place.
This is preposterous. Despite — some say because of — his race, Obama has a serious chance of winning the White House this fall. The last thing anyone with any degree of intelligence cares about at this point is race. The central question is: Which candidate can convince Americans that he will govern more responsibly?
Candidate Obama has already passed the personality test. Now he needs to pass the sobriety test. Furthermore, his supporters would do well to remind Sen. Obama that winning the presidency is a privilege, not a right, and that protesting the vetting process will not get him there.
If Mr. Obama is sincere about leading this country to a better future, and not just trying to put another notch in his belt, he needs to seriously tone down the triumphant atmosphere a bit and listen to the people whose votes are necessary for him to succeed.
Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) supporters in the media have reacted pretty loudly to widespread criticism that he is acting arrogantly. Some have complained that the criticism stems from a racially motivated desire to put him in his place.
This is preposterous. Despite — some say because of — his race, Obama has a serious chance of winning the White House this fall. The last thing anyone with any degree of intelligence cares about at this point is race. The central question is: Which candidate can convince Americans that he will govern more responsibly?
Candidate Obama has already passed the personality test. Now he needs to pass the sobriety test. Furthermore, his supporters would do well to remind Sen. Obama that winning the presidency is a privilege, not a right, and that protesting the vetting process will not get him there.
If Mr. Obama is sincere about leading this country to a better future, and not just trying to put another notch in his belt, he needs to seriously tone down the triumphant atmosphere a bit and listen to the people whose votes are necessary for him to succeed.
The New Racists?
Theorists who conjecture about racial relations in America posit that racism, an institutional practice, differs from prejudice, a personal flaw, in that racism requires power. It has therefore been argued that while both whites and blacks exhibit prejudice, only white people can be racists.
This conclusion is predicated upon the assumption that an elite class of white people have always possessed more institutional power than has any black person. In the past, this has been largely true — privileged whites controlled the electoral system before the Voting Rights Act was passed; they controlled hiring and promotions in the workplace before anti-discrimination laws were passed; and they controlled law enforcement in many places, using their authority to unfairly target and punish blacks.
But one wonders whether blacks, as they have gained more access to institutional power in recent times (they can now be found in greater ranks in government, business and the media), can also be practitioners of racism. Certainly, many whites have felt discrimination in the form of being passed over in favor of less-qualified minority candidates who were promoted to fill government-mandated quotas. And whites often feel victimized by the fact that they cannot voice perspectives that are critical of certain issues without being called "racist."
In fact, unfairly calling someone a racist may itself be viewed as a form of racism — because it uses prejudice (judging the person without knowing his or her intentions) and implies a threat of power, in this case the threat of social shaming, economic boycott or legal retaliation. Moreover, one wonders whether black elites exhibit the same degree of responsibility for avoiding racism as society requires of white elites. Some would say there’s a double standard at work here: that black elites can get away with being openly prejudiced, while whites cannot.
This conclusion is predicated upon the assumption that an elite class of white people have always possessed more institutional power than has any black person. In the past, this has been largely true — privileged whites controlled the electoral system before the Voting Rights Act was passed; they controlled hiring and promotions in the workplace before anti-discrimination laws were passed; and they controlled law enforcement in many places, using their authority to unfairly target and punish blacks.
But one wonders whether blacks, as they have gained more access to institutional power in recent times (they can now be found in greater ranks in government, business and the media), can also be practitioners of racism. Certainly, many whites have felt discrimination in the form of being passed over in favor of less-qualified minority candidates who were promoted to fill government-mandated quotas. And whites often feel victimized by the fact that they cannot voice perspectives that are critical of certain issues without being called "racist."
In fact, unfairly calling someone a racist may itself be viewed as a form of racism — because it uses prejudice (judging the person without knowing his or her intentions) and implies a threat of power, in this case the threat of social shaming, economic boycott or legal retaliation. Moreover, one wonders whether black elites exhibit the same degree of responsibility for avoiding racism as society requires of white elites. Some would say there’s a double standard at work here: that black elites can get away with being openly prejudiced, while whites cannot.
Obama's Tightrope
While Robert Novak's column last week questioning Sen. Barack Obama's failure to close the deal among white Americans, despite his overwhelming personal and organizational advantages, may have struck some as a bluntly crafted attack, it nonetheless reflects a fundamental problem with his campaign at this point.
For some reason, even whites who might be open to voting for Democrats in this election are apparently reluctant to vote for a black candidate. That's why Obama's (D-Ill.) strategy to try and mobilize the black vote in swing states is especially problematic.
Traditionally, Democrats have used fear of racism to whip a largely apathetic black electorate into a frenzy. This cynical equation will not, however, work for Obama. Not only has he campaigned on a message of change and hope, a message that would lose potency were he to resort to the old scare tactics, but he would risk a backlash among the voters he needs to alienate the least. Not only would Obama lose any chance of winning the white working-class vote — he might actually end up mobilizing them to come out in large numbers against him.
Given the relative difference in numbers between the white working class and black voters in general, this would be a deathly blow to the Obama campaign. So it remains to be seen how Obama will be able to get his core constituency to come out in large numbers, while remaining open and inclusive of all Americans. One thing’s for sure; if he’s successful, it will have been the tightrope walk of the century.
For some reason, even whites who might be open to voting for Democrats in this election are apparently reluctant to vote for a black candidate. That's why Obama's (D-Ill.) strategy to try and mobilize the black vote in swing states is especially problematic.
Traditionally, Democrats have used fear of racism to whip a largely apathetic black electorate into a frenzy. This cynical equation will not, however, work for Obama. Not only has he campaigned on a message of change and hope, a message that would lose potency were he to resort to the old scare tactics, but he would risk a backlash among the voters he needs to alienate the least. Not only would Obama lose any chance of winning the white working-class vote — he might actually end up mobilizing them to come out in large numbers against him.
Given the relative difference in numbers between the white working class and black voters in general, this would be a deathly blow to the Obama campaign. So it remains to be seen how Obama will be able to get his core constituency to come out in large numbers, while remaining open and inclusive of all Americans. One thing’s for sure; if he’s successful, it will have been the tightrope walk of the century.
The Obama Debriefing
He drew crowds of hundreds of thousands. He made the newspaper’s top fold almost daily. World leaders flocked to his side for photo shoots. If you read the front page last week, you would think both America and the world elected Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as their 43rd president. But if you stop and read the speeches and statements he made, you’d recognize that his foreign policy positions are quite inconsistent, something that should concern American voters. After all, it’s not the Germans he’s trying to court, but red-blooded Yanks. My debriefing would read something like this:
July 19
The Democratic nominee began his tour in Afghanistan, visiting troops and speaking with leaders. Great photo-op. But why would any potential commander in chief state his position on Afghanistan (or any country, for that matter) and then travel there to somehow affirm his preconceived beliefs? I know he’s good, but is he now invoking the gift of prophecy? Let’s not forget this is the same sitting legislator who presides over a committee in the Congress charged with the affairs of Afghanistan, yet he held not one hearing on the matter, deferring instead to the “full committee.” Not exactly what I’d call a profile in leadership. The moral of that trip? Nice place to visit, but only if your opponent dares you to …
July 21
The next stop on his trip landed him in Iraq, where he met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (more feel-good footage), who concurred with the senator that America should withdraw her troops by 2010. Although the catalyst for withdrawal was due largely to President Bush’s troop surge, Sen. Obama repeatedly refused to acquiesce that minor detail. How does he possibly square that circle? Even the nation’s leading newspapers (Obamacons, all) acknowledge that it is the surge that lets the senator’s 16-month redeployment look even remotely plausible.
July 23
From Iraq, the now experienced world traveler moved into Israel. In order to appease Israeli leadership, he reverted from his previous statements that he would meet with antagonistic leaders in his first year as president. In my estimation, Sen. Obama’s back-and-forth on Jerusalem and this “final status” issue was his single largest misstep of this trip. He doesn’t think there’s a problem with his waffling, but there is, and it will continue to haunt him with the Jewish vote here in the States.
For Obama’s campaign, a lot of things went right on this trip optically. But for American diplomacy, there were some significant stumbles and gaffes. When voters are debriefed, they deserve the whole story — balanced and unvarnished.
July 19
The Democratic nominee began his tour in Afghanistan, visiting troops and speaking with leaders. Great photo-op. But why would any potential commander in chief state his position on Afghanistan (or any country, for that matter) and then travel there to somehow affirm his preconceived beliefs? I know he’s good, but is he now invoking the gift of prophecy? Let’s not forget this is the same sitting legislator who presides over a committee in the Congress charged with the affairs of Afghanistan, yet he held not one hearing on the matter, deferring instead to the “full committee.” Not exactly what I’d call a profile in leadership. The moral of that trip? Nice place to visit, but only if your opponent dares you to …
July 21
The next stop on his trip landed him in Iraq, where he met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (more feel-good footage), who concurred with the senator that America should withdraw her troops by 2010. Although the catalyst for withdrawal was due largely to President Bush’s troop surge, Sen. Obama repeatedly refused to acquiesce that minor detail. How does he possibly square that circle? Even the nation’s leading newspapers (Obamacons, all) acknowledge that it is the surge that lets the senator’s 16-month redeployment look even remotely plausible.
July 23
From Iraq, the now experienced world traveler moved into Israel. In order to appease Israeli leadership, he reverted from his previous statements that he would meet with antagonistic leaders in his first year as president. In my estimation, Sen. Obama’s back-and-forth on Jerusalem and this “final status” issue was his single largest misstep of this trip. He doesn’t think there’s a problem with his waffling, but there is, and it will continue to haunt him with the Jewish vote here in the States.
For Obama’s campaign, a lot of things went right on this trip optically. But for American diplomacy, there were some significant stumbles and gaffes. When voters are debriefed, they deserve the whole story — balanced and unvarnished.
Time to Get Serious
The Germans are already calling him “President Obama,” while the king of Jordan is driving him around in his Mercedes. Even the senator’s own staff is swallowing the Kool-Aid as fast as they can stir it by invoking “White House protocol” on what are clearly campaign stops.
I realize it’s difficult not to savor the limelight on the other side of the Atlantic, particularly when the current Oval Office occupant is so despised by the Middle East and Europe. At some point, however, Obama needs to honor the office he seeks to hold by respecting the man who currently serves as America’s chief diplomat, and the policies this administration has established. David Gergen — adviser to four presidents, mind you — said it best when he stated, “I cannot remember a campaign in which a rival seeking the presidency has been in a position negotiating a war that’s under way with another party outside the country.” That’s dangerous, on so many levels.
Yet Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) continues to enjoy this sense of empowerment; and he feeds off the media more than any candidate I’ve seen in the past decade. The American people see this for what it is. A Rasmussen poll out today found that 49 percent of Americans think the media is totally biased toward Sen. Obama. Just 14 percent feel that way toward Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and the coverage he’s garnering.
We’ve moved beyond the measured, balanced stories of the Fourth Estate that examine both candidates equally, to a no-holds-barred cage match where the press is chasing stories that are not fit to print, but rather fit to sell. It’s time to get serious in this campaign season and re-calibrate all of our attentions — the attention of the media, the public and the candidates themselves.
I realize it’s difficult not to savor the limelight on the other side of the Atlantic, particularly when the current Oval Office occupant is so despised by the Middle East and Europe. At some point, however, Obama needs to honor the office he seeks to hold by respecting the man who currently serves as America’s chief diplomat, and the policies this administration has established. David Gergen — adviser to four presidents, mind you — said it best when he stated, “I cannot remember a campaign in which a rival seeking the presidency has been in a position negotiating a war that’s under way with another party outside the country.” That’s dangerous, on so many levels.
Yet Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) continues to enjoy this sense of empowerment; and he feeds off the media more than any candidate I’ve seen in the past decade. The American people see this for what it is. A Rasmussen poll out today found that 49 percent of Americans think the media is totally biased toward Sen. Obama. Just 14 percent feel that way toward Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and the coverage he’s garnering.
We’ve moved beyond the measured, balanced stories of the Fourth Estate that examine both candidates equally, to a no-holds-barred cage match where the press is chasing stories that are not fit to print, but rather fit to sell. It’s time to get serious in this campaign season and re-calibrate all of our attentions — the attention of the media, the public and the candidates themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
