Better Feet Than Brain....

Glenn Reynolds presents a... curious ad hominem attack:

Everybody's angry, to judge from my email, about Paul Krugman’s typo-burdened 9/11 screed. Don’t be angry. Understand it for what it is, an admission of impotence from a sad and irrelevant little man. Things haven’t gone the way he wanted lately, his messiah has feet of clay — hell, forget the “feet” part, the clay goes at least waist-high — and it seems likely he’ll have even less reason to like the coming decade than the last, and he’ll certainly have even less influence than he’s had.

What caused Reynolds to get his knickers in such a twist? Krugman's assertion,

The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

Reynolds could attempt to rehabilitate the reputations of Kerik, Giuliani or G.W., but perhaps that would take too much effort - perhaps he agrees that his heroes have fallen. Whatever his reason, he chooses to sneer, "Your hero fell, as well", painting President Obama as Krugman's messiah with "feet of clay". How many seconds would you have to spend, actually reading Krugman's columns or blog, to recognize the flaw in Reynolds' argument?

I suspect that Reynolds never reads Krugman, and his logic goes something like this:

1. I don't like President Obama.

2. I don't like Paul Krugman.

3. Therefore Paul Krugman must like President Obama.

But for those who read Krugman, who saw him question and challenge Obama during the primary campaign that led to his nomination, and who have seen him challenge the Obama Administration from day one on its economic agenda and legislative compromises, the notion that Krugman worships Obama is beyond ludicrous. It's almost as if Reynolds is trying to embarrass himself.

My prediction: The overwhelming majority of Reynolds' readers won't care. They like his vitriol and, as with Reynolds in his screed against Krugman, don't actually care about facts or accuracy. They, like Reynolds, would rather idolize those who happily exploit a national tragedy than call them out.

Do Sexual Ethics Matter in Politics

I often hear it argued that a politician's private life should remain private, and that infidelity should be considered irrelevant to a politician's public life. This is true to a point - if you know that a particular politician is inclined to have extramarital affairs and you elect him anyway (cough Clinton cough) then you shouldn't pretend its a huge shock or somehow an indictment of his character when he continues to act in character. If you care that Rudy Giuliani occasionally dresses in drag don't vote for him - but it's public information and the voters elected him knowing that he likes to play dress-up (and I have no reason to believe that, in his case, it's anything but a lark).

I heard it argued that the breaking of the story in relation to John Edwards was a public service, as he was hiding a scandal from his supporters and donors that would have devastated his chances of election had he been nominated for the Presidency, and similarly that the disclosure of Anthony Weiner's exploits on Twitter was a public service to the voters of New York who might have supported him in a run for mayor. The implication of that argument is that, absent an election, the behavior of both men is irrelevant to their public lives. I've also heard it argued that if you take Newt Gingrich's infidelity while married to a cancer-stricken wife and combine it with Arnold Schwarzenegger's love child you have John Edwards - but Gingrich is deemed a serious presidential candidate and Schwarzenegger's image is at worst a bit tarnished. Is that fair?

Well... yes. It isn't so much that Edwards suffered a collapse of his public persona because he had an affair that resulted in a child, so much as it is that he was revealed to have a private life completely at odds with the persona he was selling to the public. And when it looked like he was going to be caught, the cover-up was pretty outrageous.

But I think there's something else that the "It's their private lives" crowd is missing. The question of whether you can neatly compartmentalize fidelity - "He cheats on his wife and fakes his religious fervor, but I trust him to be faithful to his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution." Perhaps some compartmentalization is possible. Perhaps Bernie Madoff would never have dreamed of stealing from the collection at his synagogue, even as he happily ripped off his investors.

Perhaps with some relationships the flexibility of the marital vows is part of an explicit understanding between the partners (although that was pretty clearly not the case with Edwards - although that brings us back to the issue of lying to voters and supporters over something that could blow up during an election. Perhaps you can rationalize the deception in those cases - it's society that's being unreasonable in holding that a perfectly qualified individual is "unelectable" if he has an open marriage or is an atheist, and thus he's justified in pretending otherwise in order to obtain and hold office. But it seems to me that most people act pretty consistently across their lives - if they don't steal at work, they don't steal at church. If somebody like Madoff doesn't steal at church it's probably because it's too little money to be bothered with - but if that church were to have a considerable endowment and were to invest with him, "game on".

I personally believe that somebody who is dishonest in relation to the most central personal relationship of their lives is likely to display the same level of dishonesty in other contexts. Liars lie, cheaters cheat, and thieves steal. Some dubious behavior may hint at personality traits that could be beneficial to a political leader - if we're honest, there are times when a psychopath's sang froid, ability to fake emotion, lack of conscience, and ability to lie without the usual outward signs of deception could be useful to a President. That's not to say we want a psychopath in office, but maybe we do want a guy who can have a huge scandal break just before his State of the Union Address, and who will nonetheless proceed to present that speech as if nothing untoward has happened. Both the human psyche and the world are complicated. But if you're electing a thief, liar or cheater, you should have the opportunity to know what you're doing.

Update: In the New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg argues that

[Weinergate] confirms a pet theory of mine: the Clinton Rule, which states that when a married politician appears before cameras and microphones and starts babbling absurd lies about some sexual something, the person he is really trying to lie to is his spouse. The lies that get told to the public and the press are side effects.

and

By itself, the fact that a person has lied about sex tells you nothing about that person’s general propensity to lie.... If the politician is a habitual or characterological liar, the public record will show it and the lying-about-sex is redundant. If the politician is not a habitual or characterological liar, his lying-about-sex is misleading—is itself a lie, in a way.

Hertzberg assumes that the public record will be both available and clear. It may be that it's the lies about infidelity that lead people to look more closely at the rest of a politician's record. But he's also compartmentalizing behaviors, as if you believe that a person's essential character is consistent across the board, somebody who cheats on his spouse is in fact likely to display similar conduct in other contexts. Even if we limit it to "He'll only lie to me if it's necessary to save his political career," and even if I think that a public reaction to his infidelity would be exaggerated and thus sympathize with his desire to keep it secret, I don't see why lying to save his career in this context would not suggest that he will lie to save his career in other contexts. Frankly, if the argument is that the public needs to shift its opinion on infidelity and be less judgmental of politicians' affairs, even if there is an individual price to pay before cultural perceptions shift, politicians would do themselves and their peers a much greater service by being honest.

As if it Weren't Already Obvious.....

MSNBC today shares the startling story, "Bloomberg rules out 2012 presidential bid". Now, I recognize that Bloomberg has been coy while the nation's media has flattered his ego with the notion that he could run a viable campaign, but the fact that he's not planning to run should go without saying given his investment to date of $0 in building a national name or machine that would get him on state ballots and give him any chance of being elected. Yes, Giuliani's narcissism left him believing that he could ride his service as mayor and the happenstance of his serving in that role on 9/11 into the White House, and I'm not sure that Bloomberg thinks any less of himself. But Bloomberg seems smart enough with his money and ego that he's not going to run a disastrous and doomed presidential campaign that is more likely to result in his being compared to Nader or Perot than even to Giuliani.

Meanwhile, having finally admitted the obvious, Bloomberg reveals a level of tact that simply serves to highlight why he would not be the dream candidate that... a handful of people in the mainstream media imagine. If Bloomberg weren't a billionaire, and if he were instead supporting himself on a mayor's salary, lecturing ordinary folks to "suck it up" in relation to a tax cut that could save him tens of millions of dollars would perhaps not be entirely out of place. But he is a billionaire. (I expect that Bloomberg's income is primarily in the form of capital gains, and that between the lower capital gains tax rate and his bevy of tax lawyers and accountants he already pays a much smaller percentage of his income in taxes than the typical critic of the tax deal.)

Sarah Palin for President in 2012?

Should Palin run for President in 2012, I've speculated in the past that it would be as an independent. Her recent comments suggest to me that she probably does want to run, but will only run for the Republican nomination if she's all-but-assured of a victory. Otherwise I continue to expect her to take the easier path of self-coronation; I expect that she has enough followers in any given state to be assured a place on the ballot.

But wait, you say, wouldn't Palin be a spoiler for the Republicans in the election, just as Ross Perot was arguably a spoiler for G.W. Bush? Yes - it's quite likely that as a third party candidate the votes she attracts would otherwise go to the Republican nominee, and that President Obama will be reelected in a walk. But I suspect Palin would argue that it "serves them right". Petty? Vindictive? Well, yeah.

It was not very long ago that Sarah Palin argued that the Republicans should work to bring the Tea Party movement into the fold. Now she's positioning herself, ludicrously, as an outsider - it's Palin and the Tea Party against the GOP.

The Palin-aligned website Conservatives4Palin is using the Politico story [reporting that advisers to top potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates are united in their desire to stop Sarah Palin from winning the presidential nomination] for fundraising, as well as for the opportunity to cast what it calls the GOP establishment as an all-boys club.

"The GOP Establishment deems that nominating Governor Palin in 2012 would spell disaster," writes Whitney Pitcher. "However, for whom would a Palin nomination be a disaster? The GOP Establishment? One of the GOP boys: Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Gingrich, Thune, Barbour, Daniels?"

"If Governor Palin were to win the GOP nomination, the Establishment dies," adds Pitcher.

It was fun and games for the GOP when Palin was a 50' Eyesore that the Dems couldn't stop staring at, but... funny how these things turn out.

I've heard it suggested that, as a Republican nominee, Palin could present a serious challenge to President Obama. Perhaps if the recession takes a second dip, or Obama hires David Broder as an adviser, but otherwise I don't think so. Leaving aside Palin's present unpopularity, it's highly unlikely that she's going to be coronated as the party's nominee in the manner of G.W. Bush. A primary fight will get ugly, and fast. And I would love to see who Palin might pick as VP who wouldn't make her look like a featherweight by comparison. I mean, she could appoint Dick Cheney to find a VP for her and then act surprised when he designates himself, but... that's already been done.

But seriously, note that some of the "best" candidates on the aforementioned list of "GOP boys" have little advantage on Palin in the résumé department. To the extent that some, at least, completed their terms as governor (as I've previously quipped) in their recent experience the only thing they've been running is their mouths. Newt Gingrich, devoid of charisma and a purveyor of fake awards; Mitt Romney, former corporate raider and proponent of healthcare reform that looks very much like the laws the GOP is now sworn to tear down (and was a terrible campaigner in 2008); Mike Huckabee, granter of an unfortunate pardon and resentful of the notion that a presidential candidate should be sufficiently versed in science to pass a test at the eighth grade level.... Rudy Giuliani, not even meriting a mention?

Oh yes, there's Jeb Bush. The GOP could coronate Jeb and, quite possibly, end up trailing Palin in the election returns. (But then, advice to the Republicans from Bob Shrum has to be taken in the same light as advice to the Dems from William Kristol or David Brooks - "Come into my parlor, said the spider to the fly".)

So yes, everybody, keep staring at Sarah Palin. Don't point out how facially absurd it is for somebody who was crushed in the 2008 election to suggest that a vote that doesn't even take you out of office means that you "blew it". Yes, Rupert Murdoch, keep her on the payroll. Get her more reality TV shows. Keep her front, center, and "relevant". Bring her on.

For Heaven's Sake, Don't Treat Us Like Grown-Ups....

Michael Tomasky describes what he believes to be President Obama's "Achilles Heel":

Gail Collins and David Brooks of the Times both agree that they're happy Obama has been strutting around declaiming these past few spillagey weeks. Brooks:

I persist in the belief that unless Barack Obama has a degree in underwater engineering that he's not telling anybody about, there's really not a lot, post-spill, he could be doing. Like you, I'm not a huge fan of presidential grandstanding. The idea that the president is the big national daddy who can take care of all our problems is silly.

It may be silly, but Obama has a habit of letting crises sneak up on him. You have to look like you're doing stuff even when you're not. A very crucial executive skill.

In contrast with Rudy Giuliani, a master in the art of contrivance and beneficiary of obsequious media coverage, Tomasky tells us that Obama is "being too measured, overly judicious, too resistant to rush to judgment. It'll cost him one of these days."

It's a shame we don't have better media and a more responsible political culture. Tomasky makes a point about the reality in which we're immersed - where Giuliani's incompetent choices and personality quirks put him in a position to project leadership after the 9/11 attacks and the media was more than happy to play along. President Obama does have to work within that political reality. But it's a shame that so much energy is devoted by politicians, pundits and talk radio hacks toward getting the public to respond in a knee-jerk, uninformed manner as opposed to encouraging, if not insisting, that we act like adults.

Update: "Where's the President, and why didn't he fix this with his magic wand?"

Update 2:

For the Record

In a microcosm of a weird debate over "taking charge, over at the Volokh Conspiracy a couple of conspirators can't seem to agree as to whether Rudy Giuliani should have been sent down to New Orleans to supervise disaster relief, or if President Bush should take command. I am not into hero worship - even assuming Giuliani wanted the job, I don't think that sort of appointment would do anything to help. What does Giuliani represent to the people of New Orleans? What does he know of them? The context is very different from New York City, and the skill set demanded is also very different. (If the goal, though, is to overshadow news stories about government ineptitude, such an appointment might work for a couple of days.)

I am also not one to think that Bush should be taking charge. Had Bush done his job, he would in fact have quality people at FEMA and DHS who were responding capably and efficiently to the crisis. But even given Bush's lousy choices for appointments, he is the President of the United States - even on this scale, disaster management is a job he should be delegating.

Presidential involvement in this type of disaster has often revolved around carefully orchestrated visits and photo opportunities - something I have personally found distasteful starting many Presidents ago when I first realized the purpose of the appearances. Oh, perhaps I'm being too cynical - a President's appearance can help rally and inspire the people who have been ravaged by a disaster, as well as those who are engaged in the relief effort. But it is my impression that appearances at disasters have turned into events to help advance a President's public image, followed by generous allotments of federal aid to help secure votes in the next election. (Isn't that the stuff Bush is supposed to be good at? Look at his performance after the 2004 hurricanes in Florida, and the record amounts of federal aid provided (sometimes indiscriminately). So the problem here was... what? Not enough Repubicans left treading water?)

In any event, a lot of responsibility for disaster management should fall on state and local government. The federal government has assumed the role of assisting with large-scale disaster relief - in many cases taking the lead role - and with that assumption of power should come the responsibility of competent performance. But disasters should be managed by professionals in disaster management.