Social Security Sleight of Hand

It’s been said that there are two sides to every story. Nowhere is that more true than when trying to determine the future of Social Security. One side says Social Security is in pretty solid shape. And they’re right. The other side says Social Security is in tremendous peril. And they, too, are right.

Is it any wonder we can’t agree on what to do about it?

Understanding Social Security itself is pretty straightforward. Today’s workers pay for today’s benefits. What’s left over – and today there’s lots left over - goes into the Social Security Trust Fund, which is like a savings account that can be drawn upon when the day comes that there aren’t enough workers to pay for that day’s benefits. Simple enough.

What happens with that trust fund is where the problems arise. That’s because the trust fund isn’t put into a bank. Instead, it’s loaned to the federal government, which uses it to pay the current bills. In other words, we are spending tomorrow’s Social Security benefits to fund today’s military, highways, welfare and such.

Now, those who say Social Security is on solid ground point out that the trust fund is invested in U.S. Treasury notes and bonds, among the most secure investments around. True enough. And as long as the government makes good on it’s debts, which it always has, Social Security can probably survive another seventy-five years with just some minor tinkering. But that’s a mighty big if.

That’s because come 2018 – a mere thirteen years from now – we’ll need to start drawing from that trust fund to pay social security benefits. At that point, the federal government won’t have the trust fund to borrow from anymore. Instead, they’ll have to start paying it back. And with our government currently spending fifty percent more than it takes in, that’s like expecting a drunken sailor to pay back the twenty bucks you lent him just before shore leave.

Which begs the question – is it Social Security that needs fixing, or the federal government? Seems pretty obvious that it’s not Social Security that’s acting like the drunken sailor. So why are we focusing on it as the culprit, feeling an immediate need to partially privatize it?

For one, it’s the old sleight-of-hand trick, where the magician diverts attention elsewhere so no one notices what’s going on under the audience’s nose. In this case, they want us looking at Social Security so we don’t focus on the fiscal irresponsibility going on today.

For another, it’s like the family that keeps borrowing from their 401k to fund today’s expenses. Instead of fixing today’s budget that makes such borrowing necessary, they seek higher returns on what remains in the 401k to make up the difference. But as any investment professional will tell you, higher returns always come with higher risk.

None of this means that there isn’t a place for private investment as a component of the Social Security program. Yet as I’ve argued before, it should be as a supplement to, not a replacement for, today’s program. Such an approach will create the ownership society that the president envisions, while reducing our reliance upon Social Security.

But for now, we must be ready to bite the bullet in order to get our fiscal house in order. After all, it’s government of the people, by the people, and therefore, it’s time that we the people take responsibility for the mess we’ve allowed on our watch.

Kelly's Choice

Kelly O. must make a decision every morning about how to get to school. As a student within Lakota’s new “no bus zone,” she can opt for the longer mile-plus walk along busy side streets, dodging the early-morning commuters preoccupied with radios, cell phones, coffee and makeup. Or she can take the shorter, quieter route past the home of a registered sex offender.

Kelly is six.

A first-grader with big blue eyes, Kelly doesn’t understand why the bus doesn’t take her to school anymore. She doesn’t know why the grown-ups around her believe they have better things to spend their money on. I wish I could explain what is so important that we make her walk that road.

Kelly is an innocent victim of an electorate understandably tired of higher taxes, but one that is lashing out at the wrong target. Unfortunately, she and all the district’s other children get caught in the crosshairs as voters take aim at schools they see as wasteful.

It’s too bad, because Lakota has been extremely responsible with their finances (and anyone who reads this column knows I’d be the first to holler if I thought otherwise). But don’t take my word for it, consider the facts.

For one, Lakota’s cost per student is well below the state average. For all the talk of overpaid administrators, Lakota not only has fewer administrators per student, but pays them less on average than comparably-sized districts. The same holds true for teachers. Yet it consistently receives an “Excellent” rating from the state for it’s educational performance. That’s not wasteful, that’s called getting your money’s worth.

Regarding schools that have been called too extravagant, the newest ones – VanGorden Elementary and Lakota Plains Junior – were built for twenty-five and thirty-five percent less per student respectively than the state average. The cost per square foot – which is the best way to gauge wasteful spending – was a combined twenty-two percent below average. That’s performance to be applauded, not derided.

And for those who think the district should downsize just as a business would, they already have. Long before the first levy failure, they approved more than $3 million in cuts when they froze hiring and administrative pay, reduced overtime and outsourced services. Then came the levy defeats and another $4 million in cuts. Cuts that go to the heart of our school system – reduced bus service, fewer advanced placement courses, increased class sizes, reductions in textbook purchases.

But there is a limit to how much the schools can follow a business restructuring model since schools struggle due to growing enrollment rather than a declining customer base. Whereas struggling businesses can close unneeded plants and cut excess capacity, struggling schools must instead add capacity.

This is not a game of chicken, where we wait for one side to blink. The need is real. Each month, nearly two classrooms worth of students are added to our already overcrowded schools. We cannot wait for a state that is $4 billion in the red to come to our rescue. Instead, we must take responsibility ourselves.

I hate taxes. But this levy will cost me about a dollar a day. If that’s what I have to sacrifice to put Kelly and her classmates back on the bus, I can find the money. For we’ll not only put them back on the bus, but on the road to a brighter future.

Why We Take It Out On the Schools

The search is on in Cincinnati to explain why eight of the ten local area school levies failed last week. Some are claiming the schools are spending unwisely, others say they have enough money already. But I would argue that there is another factor at work – one that has its roots in consumer behavior.

A recent book entitled Trading Up explains seemingly contradictory spending patterns that have given rise to the success of retailers as varied as Wal-Mart and Williams-Sonoma. At first glance, logic would assume that one caters to lower-income people, while the other to the better off. But that’s not necessarily the case.

The authors point out that one complements the other. People of all demographics have traded down in some areas, choosing to buy low-cost staples at discount stores, in order to reward themselves with selected luxury items from higher-end retailers.

It’s really quite simple. They save money where they can so they can spend more where they want.

That, I believe, is what is going on with the school levy defeats. Consumers, a.k.a. taxpayers, are choosing to save money on taxes so they can spend their money elsewhere. Rarely do they get a chance to vote directly on taxes, but when they do, they are increasingly saying no. Unfortunately, it’s our schools that take the hit, since they’re the ones who have to go directly to the taxpayer.

It’s not that voters are opposed to schools, but they are opposed to taxes. Which is why I argue so often that every government must remember they do not operate in a vacuum. Any dollar they spend is a dollar taken from somewhere else.

And it’s not just taken from one department and given to another. It crosses jurisdictional lines, both public and private. That’s because government is competing with everyone else for the public’s money.

So when the state, county, city or township spends a dollar on roads or police or parks, that is a dollar not available to be spent on schools or libraries or cars or clothes or travel or whatever else the taxpayer might have chosen to spend it on. And once the consumer feels their budget line-item marked “taxes” has reached its limit, they’ll simply shut off the spigot when given the chance – no matter what the money would go for.

That’s why I believe if government officials at every level – local, county, state and federal – truly cared about education, they would be ever so judicious in spending the public’s tax dollars.

It may not be right, but the voter will look at wasteful spending – say an expensive new state government office building – and lash out by saying no to the schools. Politicians can argue that’s irrational, but then again, Philadelphia fans once booed Santa Claus at halftime because the Eagles were playing badly. Likewise, voters take out their frustrations on whatever target is available.

They have plenty of reasons to feel frustrated. We have the federal government running record deficits, the state of Ohio raised the sales tax by 20 percent last year and local governments are spending revenue raised through creative financing schemes. The taxpayer is not amused. So they trade down the only chance they get – when the schools ask for money. And the real spenders continue happily on their way, oblivious to the carnage they leave in their wake.

A Mother's Lesson: Joanne L. Szydlowski, July 30, 1932 - December 18, 2002

Please excuse my self-indulgence, but I think there’s a nice lesson here.

It begins with a story my mom often tried to tell, but couldn’t because she’d choke up in laughter. It was about the time she swore she saw a UFO around 2 a.m. then decided she had to call the newspaper and break the news. Calling the number in her Rolodex for the Detroit Free Press, she breathlessly told her story, only to be rebuffed by a grumpy voice on the other end.

“Gee, lady, that’s great.” Click. End of conversation.

She couldn’t understand the paper’s utter disinterest until my dad checked the number. “Honey,” he said grinning, “you just woke up the paperboy.”

That was my mom, always finding herself in some sort of Lucy Ricardo-style misadventure. And laughing uncontrollably about it afterward. No matter how bad the situation, she always figured it would make a good story someday. Which was fortunate, because life gave her lots of opportunities for good stories.

As the youngest of five from a broken home, she was shuffled from one Detroit foster home to another during the Great Depression. Along the way, she witnessed the death of a crying infant at the hands of one physically abusive foster mother, was sent packing by a second foster family when, despite her prayers, they chose to adopt another child instead of her and spent one winter making the long, cold walk across the Ambassador Bridge from Canada to Detroit to get to school. This all before she finished second grade.

Eventually, she was hired out as a live-in mother’s helper for another family. Her first Christmas there she got up excitedly in the middle of the night to look at the presents under the tree. Discovering that none were for her, she quietly opened and looked at each gift, then carefully rewrapped them and went back to bed. She was ten years-old.

But she never complained. Instead she found the humor. Car troubles, sledding mishaps, ill-advised K-Mart Blue Light Special purchases – all brought on tear-inducing laughter. Ask anyone who knew her and they’ll remember two things – her ready willingness to laugh at herself and her ability to make anyone and everyone feel special.

It was a wonderful gift all too rare in this age of talk show psychotherapy, where every childhood slight is an excuse for adult angst. And it was a gift she readily shared.

We buried my mom two years ago today. Among the hundreds of friends and family at the funeral was one quiet young man no one had seen before. He was keeping to himself at the luncheon following the service. Curious, my dad asked him what had brought him there.

It turned out that mom had spotted him sitting alone at another church function several years earlier. She had come over and spent about an hour chatting and laughing. In that short time, she had made him feel so welcome that when he heard she had died, he just had to pay his last respects.

As my dad related this to us, choking up he said, “That was your mom.”

Yes it was. A simple woman with a simple gift, doing her small part to spread joy and goodwill. And the lesson? Life really is what you choose to make it. Choose well.

The Myth of Pat Tilman

George Washington chopped down his father’s cherry tree, then fessed up – fact or myth?

Babe Ruth “called his shot” for a sick child – fact or myth?

The North fought the Civil War to free the slaves – fact or myth?

All these truths from our childhood are now in question, and so is a more recent icon of American folklore. Reports surfaced last week that former NFL star Pat Tilman did not die under quite the heroic circumstances as first reported. Apparently the squad he was leading wasn’t as large as we were led to believe, while botched communications and bad decisions had much to do with the deadly friendly-fire incident that cost him his life in Afghanistan.

But does this news diminish in any way the sacrifice that Pat Tilman made in service to his country? Absolutely not. Here was a man who turned down a multi-million dollar NFL contract so he could join the Army in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Less than three years later he was killed during combat in Afghanistan. The circumstances of his death, murky as they may be, should not detract from his heroism.

Yet the media reports it as though it should. It’s as though they relish depriving us of our heroes and legends. They do so under the guise of truth, but in the process they deprive us of our heart and soul.

The real truth is that whether any of these tales are fact or “myth” is not as important as the values those tales support – that George Washington was a man of honor, that ending slavery was a principle this country was willing to fight for, that defending freedom is more important than football glory. All draw upon events from our past to create stories that reinforce that which we want to believe about ourselves.

That we choose to perpetuate myths that demonstrate the best in human nature is healthy. It is the sign of a vibrant, optimistic society. Let the historians and scholars argue the facts. But let us enjoy our belief in all that is good and right in our world. There is no harm in that.

For proof, watch over the next week as newspapers across the country reprint the famed New York Sun editorial, “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus.” Arguably the best-known editorial in American history, it achieved that status despite the fact that it argued a point we know to be patently false. It didn’t even aim to change a single mind, save for perhaps a few barely old enough to read it.

Yet it resonates to this day – not for the myth it perpetuated, but for the values underpinning that myth. The Sun understood what much of today’s media does not – that the spirit of a legend often holds more truth than the hard facts might reveal.

We need to believe that certain ideals still exist in our hearts. Pat Tilman and the countless others who have died in service to our nation show that they do. How or where or under what circumstances they died is not important. It is in the spirit of their sacrifice that we find true meaning. And if we can avoid what the Sun called the “skepticism of a skeptical age,” their stories will become part of American folklore and thus inspire the best in all of us.

Sorry, ESPN, A Real Man Would Have Walked Away

I would have laughed, had I not been so irritated listening to the ESPN commentators wondering how the ugly scene that took place between fans and the Indiana Pacers at an NBA game in Detroit could have been prevented. Laughed, because the answer was so obvious. Irritated, because the same men asking the question were condoning the behavior responsible.

In case you missed it – I’m not sure how you could have – a brawl involving players and fans broke out when Indiana’s Ron Artest attacked a fan after being hit with a beverage thrown from the stands. Now, certainly the fan who threw the cup initiated the brouhaha. But it was Ron Artest’s response that escalated it into perhaps the ugliest scene in sports memory.

In sorting it out afterward, the ESPN crew – John Saunders, Greg Anthony, Stephen A. Smith and Tim Legler – to a man defended Artest’s decision to go into the stands, saying that anyone would have done the same thing under the circumstances. John Saunders went so far as to say a similar response would be justified if it took place in Times Square.

That’s when I got irritated. The underlying theme was a testosterone-driven attitude that no self-respecting man would ever walk away from a challenge to their honor. I am sorry, but they have it 180 degrees wrong.

A self-respecting man does not feel the need to defend his honor at the drop of a hat. A self-respecting man doesn’t care about the slights of others. And a self-respecting man doesn’t care if others view him as weak for walking away from a fight, because he knows in his own heart that the real sign of strength is in the ability to walk away.

Too bad the ESPN crew didn’t see it that way. They missed a golden opportunity to convey to a largely male audience that there is no dishonor in walking away. Instead, they fell into the same misguided mindset that caused Artest to retaliate. And in the process gave an excuse to the next clown who overreacts.

Think I’m wrong, and the ESPN guys were right? Well, let’s look at it. What if, instead of running wildly into the stands, Artest had simply walked to the center of the court and took a few deep breaths. Instead of being viewed today as the troubled problem child of the NBA, he’d have been heralded for his maturity and restraint.

It’s ironic that some would view the need to retaliate as a matter of self-respect, when that behavior is both a manifestation and a cause of low self-esteem. Yet the news is constantly filled with stories of altercations that arise because one party feels disrespected. In just the past month, we’ve had the NBA brawl, another between the Clemson and South Carolina football teams and one at the Vibe Awards show in Santa Monica, not to mention the six killed in Wisconsin in a dispute over a deer stand. Over and over we hear how one party "dissed" another.

So what do we do about it? Well, no public policy can instill self-respect. Instead, we as a society need to value restraint. We need to applaud those who walk away from the fray, letting it be known that doing nothing is not a sign of weakness, but of strength. Too bad our friends at ESPN missed their chance to do just that.

A Sucker's Bet

I had to laugh when I read that Las Vegas tycoon Steve Wynn plans to build a $2.4 billion mega-resort on the site of the recently imploded Desert Inn. Laugh, because the resort isn’t being built by Steve Wynn, it’s being built by losers.

Let’s face it, all that glitz and glamour we see in Las Vegas and other gambling destinations around the country isn’t paid for with the profits from cheesy entertainment and early-bird prime rib specials. If it were, I’d open a Karaoke Cafeteria. But it’s not. Those glistening neon nightmares are built upon a sucker's bet.

Unfortunately, gamblers aren’t the only ones to fall for the seductive lure of a quick and easy buck. Local governments are just as gullible. The City of Monroe is the latest to fall under the spell of easy gambling money, as they consider a casino proposed by the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma in an effort to dig the city out of a state declared fiscal emergency.

Let’s hope they don’t fall for it. While the increased tax revenues, promised development and new jobs are all enticing, they do not come without a price. For a city like Monroe, which is geographically primed for development as growth travels north on I-75, that price is not one worth paying.

To be sure, for most people gambling is little more than another entertainment option. We can choose to blow fifty or a hundred bucks on dinner and a movie or a night at the ballpark, and come home with nothing more to show for it than the memory of a night out. Or we can blow that money at a casino. No big deal.

On the other hand, how often do you hear of people spending their rent money on a ticket to see the Reds? Or the grocery money to see a movie? Perhaps never. But we see it with casinos more often than the gaming industry would like to admit. Do we really need a local gambling fix so badly that we’re willing to risk ruining lives in order to fill government coffers?

The worst thing about it is that gambling is hardest on those who can least afford it. Far too often low-income gamblers are not playing for fun, but to change their lives. Yet lives rarely change for the better in a casino, no matter what the ads may say. I find it ironic that so many are willing to embrace what essentially amounts to taxing the poor so a few might become wealthy.

The biggest challenge facing those who live in poverty is understanding that escaping it is a long-term prospect. It takes time, effort and discipline. Gambling’s promise of a quick fix undermines that premise. So not only does it make the personal financial situation worse, it also destroys the values that would make a better life possible. Is this really the way Monroe wants to fix its own financial mess?

Monroe is the next exit up I-75 from the booming West Chester/Liberty Township area. A little patience and they’ll begin to reap the same financial rewards as their neighbors to the south. But jump on the gambling bandwagon and suddenly Exit 29 becomes the vice-and-crime gateway, what with Bristol’s, Hustler, a casino and a prison all within sight of each other. That may be a full house, but it’s hardly a winning hand.

Society's Role In Changing Undesirable Behavior

Now that the election’s over, it’s time to get back to the fun stuff. My recent piece on the two women who worked for me drew quite a response. The negative focused primarily on two matters. Namely, who are we to judge the misfortune of the unwed mother, and how can we possibly blame government for her predicament?

I’ll start with the second complaint because it provides the foundation for the answer to the first.

Let me clarify that I do not believe that people have babies just to get more government assistance. But I do believe that the availability of a safety net leads to riskier behavior. It is the Catch-22 of social programs. Assistance to ease the burden of difficult situations, by design, makes such situations less painful. As a result, there is less incentive to avoid those circumstances.

This is known in economic circles as Risk Compensation. As the cost of a particular action decreases, the frequency of that action increases. This was first demonstrated in the early 1970’s by University of Chicago economics professor Sam Peltzman, who found that the advent of seatbelts as required standard equipment in automobiles did not reduce the number of deaths per mile driven. While accidents were less likely to be fatal, there were far more accidents, with the result that fatalities stayed almost identical. In this case, when the cost of reckless driving decreased, the frequency of reckless driving increased.

Regarding government assistance, we see this in the person who chooses not to save for retirement in the belief social security will provide for them. For the young woman whose biggest fear of an unwanted child is the financial burden, the availability of government assistance just might be enough to subconsciously eliminate that concern from the equation.

So why doesn’t everyone behave recklessly? Dr. Gerald Wilde, psychology professor at Canada’s Queens University provides an answer. He argues that we each tolerate a unique level of risk, and we tailor our behavior accordingly. When risk declines, we compensate by taking riskier actions. The only way to prevent an increase in undesirable behavior when risk is reduced is to change the individual's target risk level, which requires a fundamental change in personal values.

This is where society’s judgment has its place. For it’s not only economic or physical costs that impact behavior. Dr. Wilde points out that social costs also play a role. For example, peer pressure can convince a teenager not to wear a seatbelt for fear of being considered a wimp. But peer pressure can also work to reduce undesirable behavior, as can be seen by the decline in cigarette smoking among teens. While education programs may have provided the initial spark, it is the social ostracization that now often accompanies smoking that is driving the real change.

We pride ourselves on our society’s tolerance. Yet, in being non-judgmental we make a value statement that certain behavior is acceptable. Moreover, government programs often codify that acceptance. But we pay a price for our tolerance because we remove a powerful cost that would deter the behavior.

Fortunately, many of our children are instilled with values that make having babies out-of-wedlock undesirable. But far too many are not. We are now into second and third generations of children who have never been part of traditional family units. These kids – both boys and girls – are far less likely to learn the values to break this cycle in the home. If not at home, then where?

From us. Passing judgment is society’s way of expressing its values. If we increase the social cost of unwanted pregnancies so that it outweighs other considerations, we can begin to break the cycle of poverty that has entrapped far too many people.

=========

Follow up:

A 2022 New York Times story on dramatic declines in teen births suggested the following reasons:

"The reasons teen births have fallen are only partly understood. Contraceptive use has grown and shifted to more reliable methods, and adolescent sex has declined. Civic campaigns, welfare restrictions and messaging from popular culture may have played roles."

Democrats Are Victims of Their Own Success

I’m going to suggest a reason for the Democratic Party’s fall from grace that I have yet to see mentioned and that a great many people won’t want to admit. Namely, that they are a victim of their own success.

The Democratic party of the twentieth century was one built upon movements – labor, civil rights, feminism, the environment, the war on poverty. Each of those battles brought to the party a sizable and passionate constituency that propelled it to political dominance for nearly sixty years.

Today, however, an ever-increasing number of voters view many of those battles as fought and won.

Consider that little more than a generation ago blacks were prohibited from using the same drinking fountains as whites and polluted rivers were catching fire. Such atrocities were rallying points that spurred the nation to action. That action brought real change.

But today, when the heads of American Express, Time Warner, Pontiac/GMC and other large corporations are African-American, when our lawyers, doctors, professors, senior government officials and most importantly, our friends and neighbors are often black, it is difficult to rally people to the cause of racial fairness.

The same with the environment. A generation ago eagles were dying and our rivers were burning. Today, with deer running through our yards, bald eagles no longer endangered and Great Lakes boaters able to see the bottom in twenty feet of crystal clear water, environmentalists lack the powerful symbolic images necessary to spur real movement on the environment.

Thus Democrats find themselves catering to an ever-shrinking coalition of activists and followers whose causes lack the emotional wallop of days gone by. And hence the rise in the importance of undefined “moral values”, which exit polls showed to be voters’ number one issue. With the declining urgency of traditional Democratic causes, values rise in relation to them. It’s like rehabbing a house – once you’ve repaired the roof and broken windows, the squeaky hinge becomes priority number one. It does so only because the bigger problems aren’t as urgent.

But that doesn’t mean it will remain priority number one. Therein lies a lesson the Republicans would be wise to learn.

For the Republicans are now on a path similar to the one the Democrats followed to political dominance. Their coalition is even more diverse - divided would be a better term - than the Democrats. You’ve got limited-government libertarians who want government out of their life consorting with the religious right, who don’t mind government as long as it’s keeping others from doing things they don’t like. It’s a coalition that often has only one goal in common – to elect Republicans to office.

If the Republicans move too far in any one direction, they risk alienating key parts of their constituency. And if they do not act decisively and successfully on a few key issues, especially healthcare, the deficit and social security, they’ll find themselves up against an inflamed electorate that the Democrats will be only too happy to oblige.

Movements occur when a critical mass is reached in the number of people willing to fight for a cause. If Republicans control the cost of healthcare, reduce the number of uninsured, restrain spending and successfully reform social security, they will ensure their continued political dominance by preventing that critical mass from moving in the Democrats’ direction.

But if they fail, “moral values” won’t mean a thing. And the pundits will be searching for answers to the end of Republican dominance. Unlike the Democrats, however, it will not be due to their success, but their failure.

[Addendum: In a July 13, 2025 NY Times piece, some 21 years after this was written, conservative Christian columnist David French wrote "The G.O.P. coalition contains pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine factions, internationalists and isolationists, normie Republicans and wild conspiracy theorists." As I said above, the GOP coalition is even more diverse than the Democrats - a real irony in an era where the GOP is trying to kill DEI initiatives.]

Random Thoughts on the '04 Election

Democrats and Religion

In the wake of polling data showing that white evangelical Christians favored George Bush over John Kerry nearly four-to-one, the Democrats have decided that they need to get religion. Watching them wrestle with that just might be more fun than watching the president wrestle with the English language.

That’s because the Democrats cannot appeal to the core values of those who vote their religion without alienating the party’s already shrinking base. To appeal to the religious right, Democrats would have to become pro-life, anti-gay and pro-prayer in public schools. There goes the feminist, homosexual and ACLU vote. I’m not sure they can afford that trade.

The problem they face is that it’s not enough to quote the bible and talk about days spent as an altar boy. You’re expected to live the creed you profess. For some time now, the left has struggled to justify the conflicts between their faith and their actions. To many of the deeply religious, faith means following the teachings of one’s church however difficult that may be. It’s not a matter of picking and choosing those teachings one wishes to obey. Until the Democrats understand that, or at least nominate someone who does, they’ll continue to lose the evangelical vote.

The Electoral College

Dick Cheney’s last minute trip to Hawaii is the best evidence yet of why we should embrace the electoral college. There is no way he’d have traveled to Hawaii if we elected the president by popular vote. The potential to swing a few votes in a direct election would not justify a trip to Hawaii, but the chance to swing a few to win the state and earn four electoral votes did.

That same dynamic holds true in the everyday governing of the country. Without the electoral college, our politics would be driven even more than they already are by special interests, with politicians pandering to those groups that could deliver the most votes. But the electoral college adds a geographic variable to the equation that forces attention on voters who would otherwise be ignored. That is a very good thing.

Red State / Blue State

The pundits once again had a field day with the electoral map, pointing out the division in the country through the use of colorful graphics. And once again, there was an elitist air to their musings. Time and again I heard of George Bush’s ability, or John Kerry’s inability, to connect with middle America. Too often it was said as though we in the red states are all a bunch of Bud-drinking, NASCAR-loving, Toby Keith fans.

In reality, there’s not that big a gulf between the red and blue states. In the states the president won, his margin was about 57 to 43 percent. John Kerry’s margin in the blue states was 55 to 45 percent. That represents a switch of little more than one vote in ten. It’s enough to decide an election, but it’s not enough to paint the electorate with the broad brush strokes those colorful maps suggest.

A truly accurate map would show subtle shades of purple, much more representative of the melting pot we’ve always so proudly claimed to be.