I've been trying to trace my disillusionment with conservative media, because I know it's been going on a while. Tellingly, it probably began when I started writing a weekly column for our local paper back in 2003, much of which is the basis for what can be found here. Early on, it's easy to note the typical conservative talking points. But after being called out for factual errors a few times, I began researching for myself, rather than relying upon received wisdom from the media gods. I soon learned what was delivered as "fact" wasn't always so. Eye-opener #1.
Jump ahead to 2008, when a local talk show host named Bill "Willie" Cunningham gained national notoriety for being among the first and most visible to use Barack Obama's middle name while introducing John McCain at a rally. This took place the day after William F. Buckley died and Cunningham's feigned shock at the uproar showed he was all about attention rather than principle. Eye-opener #2.
In 2011, after we had taken out Osama bin Laden, I had some surprising disagreements with fellow conservatives who felt we shouldn't trust our president on the matter (I was told to be wary of something sinister in the President's act). Ok, partisan whack jobs, maybe. But then I heard similar questions being raised on talk radio. That was probably the Eureka! moment when I realized these guys were driven by ratings and therefore dependent upon maintaining a riled up audience. Eye-opener #3 (and channel changer).
Finally, the echo chamber that is conservative media became crystal clear just last month, following the Khizr Khan speech at the DNC. I saw the interviews with the Khans and with Trump where he questioned why the mother remained silent and suggested his sacrifice running a business was somehow similar to the Khan's loss of their son. The next day I had a six hour drive and heard Rush, Hannity and especially, Michael Savage accuse the father of being an immigration lawyer, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and of using the U.S. Constitution as a cheap prop, while the mother was accused of having appeared in western garb at a Clinton gala years before - indicating the hijab she wore during the speech was an effect and that they were in the Clinton's pocket from the start.
Except that none of it was true. The woman in the photo was someone else with the same last name, the father had nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood, worked as a commercial attorney specializing in electronic discovery, and was known to keep copies of the Constitution at his home, which he handed out to military cadets who visited.
But that's not what was all over social media the next day. Instead, Facebook and Twitter were full of the misinformation spewed by conservative media. I found trying to correct it like trying to stop a flood with a fishing net. Frustrating and futile. But we must find a way to stop it, for we are seeing the damage that can be done to our democracy when a few selfish folks put personal profit ahead of principle and sway a nation with lies. An ignorant, ill-informed electorate is fertile ground for despots and demagogues.
9/16/2016
Hillary, Trump & the Deplorables
Much has been made of Hillary's basket of deplorables comment regarding Trump supporters. I immediately thought of Mitt Romney's 47% comment in 2012 - one of those things that probably shouldn't have been said, regardless that there is more than a hint of truth behind both statements.
Regarding Hillary's, there is little doubt that Trump has been appealing to an ugly underbelly, but the size of that underbelly is surely not half of his support. However, if one makes one small change to Hillary's statement, exchanging the term "one group" where the word "half" appears, it becomes far harder to take issue with. Here is her entire statement with the proposed change in place. Read it and decide for yourself if it might have been more representative of what's going on than has been reported:
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could puthalf one group of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.
“But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”
Note that she points out they are a small, but thanks to Trump, growing part of the American electorate. Note that she qualifies that she is being "grossly generalistic," indicating the statement is not meant to be considered precise. She also points out these deplorables are not reflective of America. She then goes on to empathize with the core of Trump's support in a way that I doubt even Trump could, explaining their concerns, fears and anxieties. This is hardly the damning statement it's been made out to be - just as Mitt Romney's shouldn't have been four years ago.
Regarding Hillary's, there is little doubt that Trump has been appealing to an ugly underbelly, but the size of that underbelly is surely not half of his support. However, if one makes one small change to Hillary's statement, exchanging the term "one group" where the word "half" appears, it becomes far harder to take issue with. Here is her entire statement with the proposed change in place. Read it and decide for yourself if it might have been more representative of what's going on than has been reported:
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put
“But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”
Note that she points out they are a small, but thanks to Trump, growing part of the American electorate. Note that she qualifies that she is being "grossly generalistic," indicating the statement is not meant to be considered precise. She also points out these deplorables are not reflective of America. She then goes on to empathize with the core of Trump's support in a way that I doubt even Trump could, explaining their concerns, fears and anxieties. This is hardly the damning statement it's been made out to be - just as Mitt Romney's shouldn't have been four years ago.
9/14/2016
The Ugly Underbelly and the Right Side of History
Every society and every segment within a society has its ugly underbelly, Fortunately, most remain rightfully alienated and ostracized. But occasionally some, like the Nazis in 1930's Germany or radical Islamists in recent years, gain ascendancy. They don't arise fully formed, they gain legitimacy slowly. There is nothing genetic that makes any one group or society more immune or more susceptible to their allure. We, as Americans, have no special protection. They are there, we know they are there and we are rightfully repulsed - not just at the thought of their gaining ascendancy, but by the insult that we could somehow be associated with them.
But occasionally, circumstances raise our current anger to a point where it blends with such groups’ constant anger. Lines blur, ideas cross. Along comes someone who stirs the pot in order to exploit that anger. The vast majority still reject the ideals of the ugly underside, but their ugly fight is now somewhat aligned with our righteous fight. The reason for my opposition to immigration may be different from their reason for opposition to immigration, the reason for my opposition to racial preferences may be different from their reason for opposition to racial preferences, but…is it more important that I reject their alliance or is it more important that my side win? Sound a little bit familiar?
For me, it is an easy question to answer. Someone must stand up and say, "No! Enough!" It is why I say this is a “right side of history” election. Donald Trump has given tacit approval to the underbelly. Rather than clearly rejecting them, as Bob Dole did when he said the arena exits were clearly marked for anyone who did not ascribe to the ideals of the party of Lincoln during his 1996 GOP acceptance speech, Donald Trump has been unable or unwilling to be so clear. Whether that’s because he agrees with those ugly elements, doesn’t understand the threat they present, doesn’t care that they exist or doesn’t realize it’s happening doesn’t matter. It is happening on his watch and he is both responsible for and representative of the problem. And with the hiring of Steve Bannon as his campaign CEO, he is providing them a possible conduit to the most powerful office on earth.
I, for one, reject it. Proudly. Loudly.
But occasionally, circumstances raise our current anger to a point where it blends with such groups’ constant anger. Lines blur, ideas cross. Along comes someone who stirs the pot in order to exploit that anger. The vast majority still reject the ideals of the ugly underside, but their ugly fight is now somewhat aligned with our righteous fight. The reason for my opposition to immigration may be different from their reason for opposition to immigration, the reason for my opposition to racial preferences may be different from their reason for opposition to racial preferences, but…is it more important that I reject their alliance or is it more important that my side win? Sound a little bit familiar?
For me, it is an easy question to answer. Someone must stand up and say, "No! Enough!" It is why I say this is a “right side of history” election. Donald Trump has given tacit approval to the underbelly. Rather than clearly rejecting them, as Bob Dole did when he said the arena exits were clearly marked for anyone who did not ascribe to the ideals of the party of Lincoln during his 1996 GOP acceptance speech, Donald Trump has been unable or unwilling to be so clear. Whether that’s because he agrees with those ugly elements, doesn’t understand the threat they present, doesn’t care that they exist or doesn’t realize it’s happening doesn’t matter. It is happening on his watch and he is both responsible for and representative of the problem. And with the hiring of Steve Bannon as his campaign CEO, he is providing them a possible conduit to the most powerful office on earth.
I, for one, reject it. Proudly. Loudly.
===========
This video suggests what can happen when we let our personal standards slowly slip.
6/14/2016
Republicans and Conservatives on Trump
This is a repository of what people of Trump's own party are saying about him. Every comment is by a Republican party member, Republican officeholder or conservative commentator. The resounding question is, why do they feel this way?
Brian Walsh (veteran Republican strategist): “When you look at how he’s conducting every aspect of the campaign it seems entirely fair to ask if he’s purposefully trying to lose because the only alternative answer is complete arrogance and incompetence. And I’m not ruling out complete arrogance and incompetence.”
Robert Gates (Defense Secretary under George. W. Bush and Former CIA Director): Mr. Trump is also willfully ignorant about the rest of the world, about our military and its capabilities, and about government itself. He disdains expertise and experience while touting his own...on national security, I believe Mr. Trump is beyond repair. He is stubbornly uninformed about the world and how to lead our country and government, and temperamentally unsuited to lead our men and women in uniform. He is unqualified and unfit to be commander-in-chief. (Wall Street Journal 9/16/16)
Brett Stephens (Wall Street Journal deputy editorial page editor): "Hillary Clinton’s record in office is dreadful. Her ideas are dreadful. They will make us less safe, but there is no way I’m going to vote for a guy who is just totally uninformed, un-presidential as Donald Trump is. I think that for the United States, Hillary Clinton, as awful as I find her, is a survivable event. I’m not so sure about Donald Trump." See whole interview
George Schultz (Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, on the prospect of a Trump Presidency): “God help us.”
Rick Wilson: (GOP media strategist): "You could be living on a diet of lead paint, cheap vodka and Real Housewives and still know more than Trump does about, well, everything."
George Will: “[T]his is a time for prudence, which demands the prevention of a Trump presidency. Were he to be nominated, conservatives would have two tasks. One would be to help him lose 50 states...Second, conservatives can try to save from the anti-Trump undertow as many senators, representatives, governors and state legislators as possible.”
David Brooks: “Donald Trump is epically unprepared to be president. He has no realistic policies, no advisers, no capacity to learn. His vast narcissism makes him a closed fortress. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and he’s uninterested in finding out. He insults the office Abraham Lincoln once occupied by running for it with less preparation than most of us would undertake to buy a sofa.”
Charles Krauthammer: “I sympathize with the dilemma of Republican leaders reluctant to affirm. Many are as appalled as I am by Trump, but they don’t have the freedom I do to say, as I have publicly, that I cannot imagine ever voting for him.”
Jeb Bush: "Donald Trump has not demonstrated that temperament or strength of character. He has not displayed a respect for the Constitution. And, he is not a consistent conservative. These are all reasons why I cannot support his candidacy."
Lindsey O. Graham: “[I] cannot in good conscience support Donald Trump because I do not believe he is a reliable Republican conservative nor has he displayed the judgment and temperament to serve as commander in chief.”
Kathleen Parker: I find Trump so uninformed, thin-skinned, volatile and divisive that opposing him has become for me a moral imperative. I sincerely believe he’s a threat to our security and our nation’s equilibrium, which has been dangling by a thread since 9/11. (entire column)
Kevin Madden (veteran GOP operative: “For many Republicans, Trump is more than just a political choice. It’s a litmus test for character. I’m prepared to write somebody in so that I have a clear conscience.”
Mike Murphy (GOP Strategist): He fails my commander-in-chief test. I think he is a stunning ignoramus on foreign policy issues and national security, which are the issues I care most about. And he’s said one stupid, reckless thing after another, and he’s shown absolutely no temperament to try to learn the things that he doesn’t know, and he doesn’t know just about everything. …The guy has a chimpanzee-level understanding of national security policy.
Scott Rigell (representative of Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District): “Trump is a bully, unworthy of our nomination. My love for our country eclipses my loyalty to our party, and to live with a clear conscience I will not support a nominee so lacking in the judgment, temperament and character needed to be our nation’s commander-in-chief. Accordingly, if left with no alternative, I will not support Trump in the general election should he become our Republican nominee.”
Ben Sasse (senator from Nebraska): “A presidential candidate who boasts about what he’ll do during his ‘reign’ and refuses to condemn the KKK cannot lead a conservative movement in America. If Trump becomes the Republican nominee my expectation is that I’ll look for some 3rd candidate – a conservative option, a Constitutionalist.”
Reid J. Ribble (representative from Wisconsin’s 8th Congressional District): “I am not obligated to support a bad candidate from any party. I will not support Donald Trump for president of the United States, no matter what the circumstances.”
Christine Todd Whitman (former governor of New Jersey) when asked on Bloomberg Politics if she would support Trump: “No, I won’t. I can’t.”
Eliot Cohen (served in the George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations), tweeted a list of reasons to not vote for Trump: “Short list: demagoguery, torture, bigotry, misogyny, isolationism, violence. Not the Party of Lincoln & not me.”
J.C. Watts (former Oklahoma congressman): “It’s going to be a tremendous setback for the party if he wins.”
Mel Martinez (former senator from Florida): “I would not vote for Trump, clearly, If there is any, any, any other choice, a living, breathing person with a pulse, I would be there.”
Carlos Curbelo (congressional representative from Florida’s 26th district): "This man does things and says things that I teach my 6- and 3-year-olds not to say. I could never look them in the eye and tell them that I support someone so crass and insulting and offensive to lead the greatest nation in the world.”
Robert Kagan (conservative think tank member and speechwriter for Reagan Secretary of State George Schultz): "His ultimately self-destructive tendencies would play out on the biggest stage in the world, with consequences at home and abroad that one can barely begin to imagine. It would make him the closest thing the United States has ever had to a dictator, but a dictator with a dangerously unstable temperament that neither he nor anyone else can control."
Charles Krauthammer: "I used to think Trump was an 11-year-old, an undeveloped schoolyard bully. I was off by about 10 years. His needs are more primitive, an infantile hunger for approval and praise, a craving that can never be satisfied."
Thomas Sowell: “At this late date, there is no point itemizing the many things that demonstrate Trump’s gross inadequacies for being president of the United States. Trump himself has demonstrated those gross inadequacies repeatedly, at least weekly and sometimes daily.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434521/donald-trump-conservatives-shouldnt-be-obama-supporters?target=author&tid=900925
Thomas Sowell: “The political damage of Donald Trump to the Republican party is completely overshadowed by the damage he can do to the country and to the world with his unending reckless and irresponsible statements. What was once feared most by the Republican establishment — a third party candidate for president — may represent the only slim chance for saving this country from a catastrophic administration in an age of proliferating nuclear weapons.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435051/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-american-disaster?target=author&tid=900925
Thomas Sowell: "A man in his 60s, who is still acting like a spoiled adolescent, is not going to grow up in the next four years. And, as President, he would have the lives of us all, and our loved ones, in his hands, as well as the fate of this great nation at a fateful time."
P.J O'Rourke: O'Rourke said his endorsement of Clinton includes "her lies and all her empty promises. It's the second worst thing that can happen to this country. But she’s way behind in second place. I mean, she’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.” Referring to Donald Trump, he remarked, “I mean, this man just can’t be president. They’ve got this button, you know, in the briefcase. He’s going to find it.” http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/pj-orourke-endorses-hillary-clinton-222954#ixzz4BYFfw2oT
Mitch McConnell: “He needs someone highly experienced and very knowledgeable because it’s pretty obvious he doesn’t know a lot about the issues.”
Michael Gerson: “Is Trump himself a racist? Who the bloody hell cares? There is no difference in public influence between a politician who is a racist and one who appeals to racist sentiments with racist arguments. The harm to the country — measured in division and fear — is the same, whatever the inner workings of Trump’s heart.”
Kathleen Parker: "Democracy, freedom, civilization — it all hangs by a thread. America was always just an idea, a dream founded in the faith that men were capable of great good. It was a belief made real by an implausible convention of brilliant minds and the enduring courage of generations who fought and died. For what? Surely, not this."
Rick Wilson (Republican strategist): “Man up. Show courage. Say what’s in your hearts; he’s insane. He’s poison. He’s doomed. He’s killing the party.”
Henry Paulson, Jr. (Former U.S. Treasury Secretary): "The GOP, in putting Trump at the top of the ticket, is endorsing a brand of populism rooted in ignorance, prejudice, fear and isolationism. This troubles me deeply as a Republican, but it troubles me even more as an American. Enough is enough. It’s time to put country before party and say it together: Never Trump."
Mark Salter (former top staffer and biographer for Sen. John McCain, on Clinton vs. Trump): “Basically, I think she’s the more conservative choice and the least reckless one.”
Tim Miller (Republican strategist): “I do think that there’s something dark about Trump’s view of the world. When a person running for president continually compliments brutal, undemocratic dictators and their methods, I think it’s fair to have some concerns that those are methods that they might be interested in deploying if necessary.”
Stephen Hess (Government scholar who served in the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations, advised President Ford): “It’s incredibly depressing. He’s the most profoundly ignorant man I’ve ever seen at this level in terms of understanding the American presidency, and, even more troubling, he makes no effort to learn anything.”
Open letter from 121 junior GOP National Security leaders: "Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office." (Full letter here)
Open letter from 50 senior GOP National Security leaders: "None of us will vote for Donald Trump. From a foreign policy perspective, Donald Trump is not qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief. Indeed, we are convinced that he would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being. Most fundamentally, Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President." (Full letter here)
Against Trump:
Peter Wehner (advisor and speechwriter in the Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations): “Mr. Trump’s virulent combination of ignorance, emotional instability, demagogy, solipsism and vindictiveness would do more than result in a failed presidency; it could very well lead to national catastrophe. The prospect of Donald Trump as commander in chief should send a chill down the spine of every American.”Brian Walsh (veteran Republican strategist): “When you look at how he’s conducting every aspect of the campaign it seems entirely fair to ask if he’s purposefully trying to lose because the only alternative answer is complete arrogance and incompetence. And I’m not ruling out complete arrogance and incompetence.”
Robert Gates (Defense Secretary under George. W. Bush and Former CIA Director): Mr. Trump is also willfully ignorant about the rest of the world, about our military and its capabilities, and about government itself. He disdains expertise and experience while touting his own...on national security, I believe Mr. Trump is beyond repair. He is stubbornly uninformed about the world and how to lead our country and government, and temperamentally unsuited to lead our men and women in uniform. He is unqualified and unfit to be commander-in-chief. (Wall Street Journal 9/16/16)
Brett Stephens (Wall Street Journal deputy editorial page editor): "Hillary Clinton’s record in office is dreadful. Her ideas are dreadful. They will make us less safe, but there is no way I’m going to vote for a guy who is just totally uninformed, un-presidential as Donald Trump is. I think that for the United States, Hillary Clinton, as awful as I find her, is a survivable event. I’m not so sure about Donald Trump." See whole interview
George Schultz (Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, on the prospect of a Trump Presidency): “God help us.”
Rick Wilson: (GOP media strategist): "You could be living on a diet of lead paint, cheap vodka and Real Housewives and still know more than Trump does about, well, everything."
George Will: “[T]his is a time for prudence, which demands the prevention of a Trump presidency. Were he to be nominated, conservatives would have two tasks. One would be to help him lose 50 states...Second, conservatives can try to save from the anti-Trump undertow as many senators, representatives, governors and state legislators as possible.”
David Brooks: “Donald Trump is epically unprepared to be president. He has no realistic policies, no advisers, no capacity to learn. His vast narcissism makes him a closed fortress. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and he’s uninterested in finding out. He insults the office Abraham Lincoln once occupied by running for it with less preparation than most of us would undertake to buy a sofa.”
Charles Krauthammer: “I sympathize with the dilemma of Republican leaders reluctant to affirm. Many are as appalled as I am by Trump, but they don’t have the freedom I do to say, as I have publicly, that I cannot imagine ever voting for him.”
Jeb Bush: "Donald Trump has not demonstrated that temperament or strength of character. He has not displayed a respect for the Constitution. And, he is not a consistent conservative. These are all reasons why I cannot support his candidacy."
Lindsey O. Graham: “[I] cannot in good conscience support Donald Trump because I do not believe he is a reliable Republican conservative nor has he displayed the judgment and temperament to serve as commander in chief.”
Kathleen Parker: I find Trump so uninformed, thin-skinned, volatile and divisive that opposing him has become for me a moral imperative. I sincerely believe he’s a threat to our security and our nation’s equilibrium, which has been dangling by a thread since 9/11. (entire column)
Kevin Madden (veteran GOP operative: “For many Republicans, Trump is more than just a political choice. It’s a litmus test for character. I’m prepared to write somebody in so that I have a clear conscience.”
Mike Murphy (GOP Strategist): He fails my commander-in-chief test. I think he is a stunning ignoramus on foreign policy issues and national security, which are the issues I care most about. And he’s said one stupid, reckless thing after another, and he’s shown absolutely no temperament to try to learn the things that he doesn’t know, and he doesn’t know just about everything. …The guy has a chimpanzee-level understanding of national security policy.
Scott Rigell (representative of Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District): “Trump is a bully, unworthy of our nomination. My love for our country eclipses my loyalty to our party, and to live with a clear conscience I will not support a nominee so lacking in the judgment, temperament and character needed to be our nation’s commander-in-chief. Accordingly, if left with no alternative, I will not support Trump in the general election should he become our Republican nominee.”
Ben Sasse (senator from Nebraska): “A presidential candidate who boasts about what he’ll do during his ‘reign’ and refuses to condemn the KKK cannot lead a conservative movement in America. If Trump becomes the Republican nominee my expectation is that I’ll look for some 3rd candidate – a conservative option, a Constitutionalist.”
Reid J. Ribble (representative from Wisconsin’s 8th Congressional District): “I am not obligated to support a bad candidate from any party. I will not support Donald Trump for president of the United States, no matter what the circumstances.”
Christine Todd Whitman (former governor of New Jersey) when asked on Bloomberg Politics if she would support Trump: “No, I won’t. I can’t.”
Eliot Cohen (served in the George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations), tweeted a list of reasons to not vote for Trump: “Short list: demagoguery, torture, bigotry, misogyny, isolationism, violence. Not the Party of Lincoln & not me.”
J.C. Watts (former Oklahoma congressman): “It’s going to be a tremendous setback for the party if he wins.”
Mel Martinez (former senator from Florida): “I would not vote for Trump, clearly, If there is any, any, any other choice, a living, breathing person with a pulse, I would be there.”
Carlos Curbelo (congressional representative from Florida’s 26th district): "This man does things and says things that I teach my 6- and 3-year-olds not to say. I could never look them in the eye and tell them that I support someone so crass and insulting and offensive to lead the greatest nation in the world.”
Robert Kagan (conservative think tank member and speechwriter for Reagan Secretary of State George Schultz): "His ultimately self-destructive tendencies would play out on the biggest stage in the world, with consequences at home and abroad that one can barely begin to imagine. It would make him the closest thing the United States has ever had to a dictator, but a dictator with a dangerously unstable temperament that neither he nor anyone else can control."
Charles Krauthammer: "I used to think Trump was an 11-year-old, an undeveloped schoolyard bully. I was off by about 10 years. His needs are more primitive, an infantile hunger for approval and praise, a craving that can never be satisfied."
Thomas Sowell: “At this late date, there is no point itemizing the many things that demonstrate Trump’s gross inadequacies for being president of the United States. Trump himself has demonstrated those gross inadequacies repeatedly, at least weekly and sometimes daily.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434521/donald-trump-conservatives-shouldnt-be-obama-supporters?target=author&tid=900925
Thomas Sowell: “The political damage of Donald Trump to the Republican party is completely overshadowed by the damage he can do to the country and to the world with his unending reckless and irresponsible statements. What was once feared most by the Republican establishment — a third party candidate for president — may represent the only slim chance for saving this country from a catastrophic administration in an age of proliferating nuclear weapons.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435051/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-american-disaster?target=author&tid=900925
Thomas Sowell: "A man in his 60s, who is still acting like a spoiled adolescent, is not going to grow up in the next four years. And, as President, he would have the lives of us all, and our loved ones, in his hands, as well as the fate of this great nation at a fateful time."
P.J O'Rourke: O'Rourke said his endorsement of Clinton includes "her lies and all her empty promises. It's the second worst thing that can happen to this country. But she’s way behind in second place. I mean, she’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.” Referring to Donald Trump, he remarked, “I mean, this man just can’t be president. They’ve got this button, you know, in the briefcase. He’s going to find it.” http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/pj-orourke-endorses-hillary-clinton-222954#ixzz4BYFfw2oT
Mitch McConnell: “He needs someone highly experienced and very knowledgeable because it’s pretty obvious he doesn’t know a lot about the issues.”
Michael Gerson: “Is Trump himself a racist? Who the bloody hell cares? There is no difference in public influence between a politician who is a racist and one who appeals to racist sentiments with racist arguments. The harm to the country — measured in division and fear — is the same, whatever the inner workings of Trump’s heart.”
Kathleen Parker: "Democracy, freedom, civilization — it all hangs by a thread. America was always just an idea, a dream founded in the faith that men were capable of great good. It was a belief made real by an implausible convention of brilliant minds and the enduring courage of generations who fought and died. For what? Surely, not this."
Rick Wilson (Republican strategist): “Man up. Show courage. Say what’s in your hearts; he’s insane. He’s poison. He’s doomed. He’s killing the party.”
Henry Paulson, Jr. (Former U.S. Treasury Secretary): "The GOP, in putting Trump at the top of the ticket, is endorsing a brand of populism rooted in ignorance, prejudice, fear and isolationism. This troubles me deeply as a Republican, but it troubles me even more as an American. Enough is enough. It’s time to put country before party and say it together: Never Trump."
Mark Salter (former top staffer and biographer for Sen. John McCain, on Clinton vs. Trump): “Basically, I think she’s the more conservative choice and the least reckless one.”
Tim Miller (Republican strategist): “I do think that there’s something dark about Trump’s view of the world. When a person running for president continually compliments brutal, undemocratic dictators and their methods, I think it’s fair to have some concerns that those are methods that they might be interested in deploying if necessary.”
Stephen Hess (Government scholar who served in the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations, advised President Ford): “It’s incredibly depressing. He’s the most profoundly ignorant man I’ve ever seen at this level in terms of understanding the American presidency, and, even more troubling, he makes no effort to learn anything.”
Open letter from 121 junior GOP National Security leaders: "Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office." (Full letter here)
Open letter from 50 senior GOP National Security leaders: "None of us will vote for Donald Trump. From a foreign policy perspective, Donald Trump is not qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief. Indeed, we are convinced that he would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being. Most fundamentally, Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President." (Full letter here)
Michael Gerson: "It has been said that when you choose your community, you choose your character. Strangely, evangelicals have broadly chosen the company of Trump supporters who deny any role for character in politics and define any useful villainy as virtue." September 1, 2022 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/01/michael-gerson-evangelical-christian-maga-democracy/)
12/16/2010
When The Shepherds Are The Sheep
What would happen if a preacher stopped preaching to the choir? Well, if the story of Carlton Pearson is any indication, the choir stops listening.
If you’re not familiar with Carlton Pearson, he was once an evangelical superstar. A jet-setting friend of U.S. presidents, a familiar face on TV, a preacher to thousands every Sunday at his Tulsa mega-church. A church with annual offerings in the millions of dollars. Until he wondered aloud whether God might not be as vengeful as we’ve been taught to believe and that there may be no Hell. That little departure from the orthodoxy sent his flock running, leaving him with but handful of stragglers.
As Mr. Pearson explained it, “People don’t follow preachers as much as they follow popularity. I always knew that. And as soon as I quit preaching what was popular, the people were gone.”
More simply put, fear of Satan can pack a church. No fear, no following.
So why do I bring this up? Because we have a cadre of preachers dispensing unbending orthodoxy to true believers, pointing to devils lurking around every bend.
The preachers are Limbaugh, Olberman, Hannity, Maddow. Their devils are Obama and Boehner, bankers and immigrants, liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. We may think they are teaching us the truth, when in reality they are feeding us what we want to hear – and the minute they stop, they know we’ll go running. So they keep feeding it to us. And we continue to not only lap it up, but regurgitate it as gospel. Worse, we dismiss any dissenting opinion as blasphemy.
The day will come when one of two things will happen - we decide the shepherds are selling us a bill of goods and turn them off, or we end up buying that bill of goods, in which case we will discover that hell is not only real, but well deserved.
If you’re not familiar with Carlton Pearson, he was once an evangelical superstar. A jet-setting friend of U.S. presidents, a familiar face on TV, a preacher to thousands every Sunday at his Tulsa mega-church. A church with annual offerings in the millions of dollars. Until he wondered aloud whether God might not be as vengeful as we’ve been taught to believe and that there may be no Hell. That little departure from the orthodoxy sent his flock running, leaving him with but handful of stragglers.
As Mr. Pearson explained it, “People don’t follow preachers as much as they follow popularity. I always knew that. And as soon as I quit preaching what was popular, the people were gone.”
More simply put, fear of Satan can pack a church. No fear, no following.
So why do I bring this up? Because we have a cadre of preachers dispensing unbending orthodoxy to true believers, pointing to devils lurking around every bend.
The preachers are Limbaugh, Olberman, Hannity, Maddow. Their devils are Obama and Boehner, bankers and immigrants, liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. We may think they are teaching us the truth, when in reality they are feeding us what we want to hear – and the minute they stop, they know we’ll go running. So they keep feeding it to us. And we continue to not only lap it up, but regurgitate it as gospel. Worse, we dismiss any dissenting opinion as blasphemy.
The day will come when one of two things will happen - we decide the shepherds are selling us a bill of goods and turn them off, or we end up buying that bill of goods, in which case we will discover that hell is not only real, but well deserved.
11/12/2010
Time to Stop Passing the Buck on Deficits
Come on, America, we’re better than this. After taking time out Thursday to honor veterans for their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice, we promptly returned to doing what we do best, which is griping about being asked to make any sacrifice whatsoever.
The target of our ire was the bipartisan commission draft proposal calling on sacrifice from all to reduce our nation’s debt, which prompted people of every economic and political persuasion to argue someone else should feel the pain. It’s only natural that a society that has become so accustomed to blaming others for all our ills would expect that others should carry the burden of correcting them.
What we fail to see, however, is that we are all complicit to some degree for our challenges. From bankers more concerned about this year’s bonus than next year’s solvency to borrowers who took on debt they could not repay. From taxpayers who elect to starve schools of funds needed to educate a competitive workforce to students who don’t make the most of the educational opportunities afforded them. From a Congress that forces unwanted weapons upon the military to a public that demands their representatives bring home the bacon. The list is endless.
Our Veteran’s Day observation recognized a dwindling number of WWII vets. They experienced the hardship of the Great Depression as children and were rewarded by having to fight the ugliest war mankind has ever seen. They, and those who supported them, earned their title of the Greatest Generation through universal sacrifice, never asking someone else to shoulder the burden. We can honor their memory by putting away our fingers of blame, looking in the mirror, and asking what we can do to ensure America’s best days lay ahead. It’s our time and our responsibility.
The target of our ire was the bipartisan commission draft proposal calling on sacrifice from all to reduce our nation’s debt, which prompted people of every economic and political persuasion to argue someone else should feel the pain. It’s only natural that a society that has become so accustomed to blaming others for all our ills would expect that others should carry the burden of correcting them.
What we fail to see, however, is that we are all complicit to some degree for our challenges. From bankers more concerned about this year’s bonus than next year’s solvency to borrowers who took on debt they could not repay. From taxpayers who elect to starve schools of funds needed to educate a competitive workforce to students who don’t make the most of the educational opportunities afforded them. From a Congress that forces unwanted weapons upon the military to a public that demands their representatives bring home the bacon. The list is endless.
Our Veteran’s Day observation recognized a dwindling number of WWII vets. They experienced the hardship of the Great Depression as children and were rewarded by having to fight the ugliest war mankind has ever seen. They, and those who supported them, earned their title of the Greatest Generation through universal sacrifice, never asking someone else to shoulder the burden. We can honor their memory by putting away our fingers of blame, looking in the mirror, and asking what we can do to ensure America’s best days lay ahead. It’s our time and our responsibility.
10/10/2010
Tackle Cost Before Coverage
There are two health care crises in the U.S., one involving cost, the other coverage. It doesn't take a great deal of logic to realize that tackling the former will go a long way in addressing the latter. Unfortunately, Congress decided to focus on coverage, largely because it's much easier to offer people something they want (health insurance) than fight the entrenched interests who benefit from the outrageous cost of health care in the U.S.
Of course, to address cost, we must first understand why it costs so much here compared to the rest of the world (interesting tidbit - the U.S. government spends more per capita on health care than does Canada - and Canada has universal coverage). There are, of course, the usual suspects of malpractice suits, the defensive medicine in response, the use of emergency rooms for routine care and whatnot. But this represents little more than a few percent of our $2.2 trillion health care tab.
No, the reason for our outrageous costs can be summed up in one word: demand. We want health care and we've got the money to pay for it. It's a costly combination.
Of course, to address cost, we must first understand why it costs so much here compared to the rest of the world (interesting tidbit - the U.S. government spends more per capita on health care than does Canada - and Canada has universal coverage). There are, of course, the usual suspects of malpractice suits, the defensive medicine in response, the use of emergency rooms for routine care and whatnot. But this represents little more than a few percent of our $2.2 trillion health care tab.
No, the reason for our outrageous costs can be summed up in one word: demand. We want health care and we've got the money to pay for it. It's a costly combination.
2/25/2010
The Challenges the ACA Needs to Address
[Note: This is a response I gave my sister regarding a piece she wrote for her local paper on the proposed ACA legislation]
I just now read your health care piece on the currently proposed healthcare reform. It's very good and I agree wholeheartedly that the legislation focuses on just half the problem (coverage) and ignored the problem that needs to be addressed first (cost). Fixing the latter will go a long way in fixing the former. Still, there are a couple of challenges that are very difficult to address from a purely free-market approach.
The first is that with every type of insurance, the more that risk is spread, the lower the cost of coverage. Imagine you ran a lottery that guaranteed a million dollar payout if the winning number is drawn, regardless of how many people played. You wouldn't sell tickets for a dollar if only 1,000 people played - the risk of someone winning might be tiny, but you'd go broke if you had to pay out. You'd have to charge $1,000 per ticket just to ensure you broke even. But if two million people played, you could charge a dollar, pay the prize and make a million for yourself (nice gig if you can get it).
Now, change that to health insurance. If you agree to insure one person against illness, you might be lucky and get a person who never gets sick - or you might get someone with diabetes who is going to be taking medication for life, suffer potential circulatory problems, blindness, amputations and more. The cost can be hundreds of thousands of dollars. So how much are you going to charge to cover that one person? You might not charge much if they're healthy, but you're still going to charge plenty to cover your risk. You are going to charge even more if they're at risk - a lot more because you need to cover your risk of payout. But if you are insuring a thousand people, the risk is spread and you can charge everyone far less. Perhaps more than you would the single, healthy person, but still less than the single at-risk person.
Therein lies challenge #1. When a company or individual signs up for health insurance, the insurance company considers them their own individual group. So an individual is a group of one, a small business a group of fifteen (or however many are covered), General Electric a group of 200,000. In each case, the insurance company will charge premiums to cover the cost of caring for the individuals in the group. If a GE employee gets sick, the cost is spread among 200,000 premiums. If a small-business employee gets sick, it's spread over 15 premiums. If the individual gets sick, the individual will eventually pay the whole load (I once hired a person whose husband had heart disease - that one hire increased my premiums $24,000/year. Since I only covered 12 employees, that worked out to $2,000 per employee per year. They couldn't afford to pick up that tab, so I had to eat it).
So let's say individuals band together and form their own group. They get better rates. Eventually, one member of the group gets sick and premiums go up 20% But then another insurance company approaches one of the healthy people in the group and tells them they can get coverage individually for the original premium - so the person bolts the group, driving up premiums even more for those who remain in the group. This makes individual coverage attractive for even more people in the group, so they also bolt and the cycle repeats. Eventually, the group is down to just the sick folks and they can't afford the coverage. So the question becomes how can we build groups that healthy people won't bolt? Or, if we do allow them to bolt, how do we keep premiums low for those who remain? Any attempt to address the latter will violate all the rules of actuarial risk taking, unless we somehow subsidize the remaining people.
Challenge #2 involves those healthy people who choose not to buy insurance. Sure, they may be healthy now, but what happens when they get sick? We don't turn them away, so in effect, they're covered though they are not paying. My brother-in-law is a perfect example. He was young, healthy and uninsured when he had a serious auto accident that required Air Care to the local trauma hospital, where he was in critical condition for days. His hospital bill came to $48,000. His dad negotiated that down to $4,800, which my brother-in-law paid over several years. So who paid the other $43,200? Those of us with health insurance. In effect, the uninsured are technically part of everyone else's "group", but they are largely getting a free ride. Is that fair? Should they be required to contribute to covering potentially catastrophic illness, or should we just say tough luck and refuse them treatment? You know how that would play on the evening news ("Uninsured six-year old allowed to die after getting hit by car. Film at 11").
These aren't challenges that are easily fixed - or even possible to fix - through purely free-market solutions. In a column years ago, I suggested a psuedo-public option. Allow small businesses and individuals to buy into the health insurance plan available to federal employees. These plans are private insurance plans, so it maintains a free-market component. But they also cover millions of people who are not going to bolt the group, so the risk is spread widely. The fact that it involves government employees scares people, but it's not a solution I'm ready dismiss out-of-hand. And I do believe that people who choose not to be insured should either be required to get basic insurance to cover emergency catastrophic care or be made to pay a tax that funds a catastrophic care program. Doing so will shift the burden from those who are effectively paying for that coverage (us) to those who are getting a free ride. The alternative is to tell them tough luck when they need help, and I'm not prepared to do that.
It's an incredibly complex problem. Still, it doesn’t need an equally complex solution. I think it could be fixed with a 20-page bill, not a 1,000+ page one. Unfortunately, that's not how our government thinks.
I just now read your health care piece on the currently proposed healthcare reform. It's very good and I agree wholeheartedly that the legislation focuses on just half the problem (coverage) and ignored the problem that needs to be addressed first (cost). Fixing the latter will go a long way in fixing the former. Still, there are a couple of challenges that are very difficult to address from a purely free-market approach.
The first is that with every type of insurance, the more that risk is spread, the lower the cost of coverage. Imagine you ran a lottery that guaranteed a million dollar payout if the winning number is drawn, regardless of how many people played. You wouldn't sell tickets for a dollar if only 1,000 people played - the risk of someone winning might be tiny, but you'd go broke if you had to pay out. You'd have to charge $1,000 per ticket just to ensure you broke even. But if two million people played, you could charge a dollar, pay the prize and make a million for yourself (nice gig if you can get it).
Now, change that to health insurance. If you agree to insure one person against illness, you might be lucky and get a person who never gets sick - or you might get someone with diabetes who is going to be taking medication for life, suffer potential circulatory problems, blindness, amputations and more. The cost can be hundreds of thousands of dollars. So how much are you going to charge to cover that one person? You might not charge much if they're healthy, but you're still going to charge plenty to cover your risk. You are going to charge even more if they're at risk - a lot more because you need to cover your risk of payout. But if you are insuring a thousand people, the risk is spread and you can charge everyone far less. Perhaps more than you would the single, healthy person, but still less than the single at-risk person.
Therein lies challenge #1. When a company or individual signs up for health insurance, the insurance company considers them their own individual group. So an individual is a group of one, a small business a group of fifteen (or however many are covered), General Electric a group of 200,000. In each case, the insurance company will charge premiums to cover the cost of caring for the individuals in the group. If a GE employee gets sick, the cost is spread among 200,000 premiums. If a small-business employee gets sick, it's spread over 15 premiums. If the individual gets sick, the individual will eventually pay the whole load (I once hired a person whose husband had heart disease - that one hire increased my premiums $24,000/year. Since I only covered 12 employees, that worked out to $2,000 per employee per year. They couldn't afford to pick up that tab, so I had to eat it).
So let's say individuals band together and form their own group. They get better rates. Eventually, one member of the group gets sick and premiums go up 20% But then another insurance company approaches one of the healthy people in the group and tells them they can get coverage individually for the original premium - so the person bolts the group, driving up premiums even more for those who remain in the group. This makes individual coverage attractive for even more people in the group, so they also bolt and the cycle repeats. Eventually, the group is down to just the sick folks and they can't afford the coverage. So the question becomes how can we build groups that healthy people won't bolt? Or, if we do allow them to bolt, how do we keep premiums low for those who remain? Any attempt to address the latter will violate all the rules of actuarial risk taking, unless we somehow subsidize the remaining people.
Challenge #2 involves those healthy people who choose not to buy insurance. Sure, they may be healthy now, but what happens when they get sick? We don't turn them away, so in effect, they're covered though they are not paying. My brother-in-law is a perfect example. He was young, healthy and uninsured when he had a serious auto accident that required Air Care to the local trauma hospital, where he was in critical condition for days. His hospital bill came to $48,000. His dad negotiated that down to $4,800, which my brother-in-law paid over several years. So who paid the other $43,200? Those of us with health insurance. In effect, the uninsured are technically part of everyone else's "group", but they are largely getting a free ride. Is that fair? Should they be required to contribute to covering potentially catastrophic illness, or should we just say tough luck and refuse them treatment? You know how that would play on the evening news ("Uninsured six-year old allowed to die after getting hit by car. Film at 11").
These aren't challenges that are easily fixed - or even possible to fix - through purely free-market solutions. In a column years ago, I suggested a psuedo-public option. Allow small businesses and individuals to buy into the health insurance plan available to federal employees. These plans are private insurance plans, so it maintains a free-market component. But they also cover millions of people who are not going to bolt the group, so the risk is spread widely. The fact that it involves government employees scares people, but it's not a solution I'm ready dismiss out-of-hand. And I do believe that people who choose not to be insured should either be required to get basic insurance to cover emergency catastrophic care or be made to pay a tax that funds a catastrophic care program. Doing so will shift the burden from those who are effectively paying for that coverage (us) to those who are getting a free ride. The alternative is to tell them tough luck when they need help, and I'm not prepared to do that.
It's an incredibly complex problem. Still, it doesn’t need an equally complex solution. I think it could be fixed with a 20-page bill, not a 1,000+ page one. Unfortunately, that's not how our government thinks.
12/15/2009
Don't Misread Scott Brown's Win
Don't be fooled by White House officials blaming the loss of Ted Kennedy's old seat on Democratic candidate Martha Coakley. A lackluster candidate is not going to drive her opponent's supporters to brave wind and cold and rain to wave signs from sidewalks, street corners and parking lots, as Scott Brown's did days before the election even took place. That excitement and energy was driven by something else - something those White House staffers might find if they do a little soul-searching closer to home.
The seeds of Scott Brown's victory were planted more than a year ago when Democrats misread Barack Obama's overwhelming victory as an endorsement of their most liberal tendencies, rather than the very personal repudiation of the ineptitude of George W. Bush. Socially-moderate, fiscally-conservative Republicans and independents were essentially disgusted by the previous administration's profligate spending and flat-earth society approach to global issues. Add a financial crisis of bi-partisan making that hit the fan weeks before the election and it should come as no surprise that the party in power took a hit. In fact, if there were any surprise, it should have been that the election wasn't even more lopsided.
No, Obama's election and the ascent of a Democratic majority in Congress were not an endorsement of liberal ideals. If anything, they weren't winners so much as they were default beneficiaries of a dejected and derelict opposition. As is so often the case, the rose-colored glasses of the winning party blinded them, making it impossible for them to read the political tea leaves. In the process, they brewed themselves one heckuva a mess.
The seeds of Scott Brown's victory were planted more than a year ago when Democrats misread Barack Obama's overwhelming victory as an endorsement of their most liberal tendencies, rather than the very personal repudiation of the ineptitude of George W. Bush. Socially-moderate, fiscally-conservative Republicans and independents were essentially disgusted by the previous administration's profligate spending and flat-earth society approach to global issues. Add a financial crisis of bi-partisan making that hit the fan weeks before the election and it should come as no surprise that the party in power took a hit. In fact, if there were any surprise, it should have been that the election wasn't even more lopsided.
No, Obama's election and the ascent of a Democratic majority in Congress were not an endorsement of liberal ideals. If anything, they weren't winners so much as they were default beneficiaries of a dejected and derelict opposition. As is so often the case, the rose-colored glasses of the winning party blinded them, making it impossible for them to read the political tea leaves. In the process, they brewed themselves one heckuva a mess.
12/13/2008
Letting Automakers Go Bankrupt Not Simple as it Sounds
It's not hard to find lots of emotion on all sides surrounding the predicament our automakers face in the wake of the current credit meltdown. Certainly understandable given all the issues involved - labor, management, government, taxes, personal experiences, perhaps even a bit of nostalgia (first cars, first loves, old lemons and whatnot). Lord knows I have my own personal biases, given that my dad's a retired GM exec.
Anyway, here are my thoughts.
1) The current crisis is a direct result of the credit meltdown. That is not a problem of the automakers' making
2) The fact the credit meltdown became a crisis for the automakers IS a problem of their own making.
3) It became a problem because of cars, agreements and decisions made 10, 20, 30 and even 40 years ago (stretching back before the 1973 Arab oil embargo).
4) Current management and union leadership have made more progress in working toward fixing the problems in the past five years than was made in the previous thirty.
5) That progress is still nowhere near enough.
So where are we today from an operational/business model standpoint?
The cars are far superior to what was being turned out even a few years ago, and continue to improve with each passing year. The most recent UAW agreement promises to eliminate the cost differential between domestic and transplant automakers, putting them on a level competitive playing field. [sidenote - my dad, no fan of the union, was saying long before this mess that current UAW head Ron Goettelfinger is the first union leader who "gets it"]. Top management has agreed to aggressive pay cuts. The dividend was cut in half. Retired executive health insurance has been completely eliminated. Bondholders have been asked to exchange debt for equity.
In other words, all stakeholders, except perhaps retired UAW members who are contractually protected, have taken or been asked to take a hit.
But that's still not enough. As a result, GM and Chrysler face imminent bankruptcy. Ford has a bit more time, but they are leveraged to the hilt and will quite likely face a similar crisis in 12 to 18 months if sales do not turn around.
Now, I would clearly appear to have a bias in wanting to see GM survive for my dad's sake, but at this point I believe his fate is sealed, no matter what happens. His basic pension is secure even in bankruptcy, but his health insurance is gone for good, ditto the value of his stock holdings. The remaining dividend is as good as gone, as is his supplemental executive pension. So whatever happens from here on out really has no bearing on the personal situation.
That said, we first must decide if saving the domestic auto industry is not just a worthwhile goal, but an imperative one. First, we should keep in mind that despite all the talk of the domestics not making cars Americans want to buy, GM, Ford and Chrysler still rank 1, 3 and 4 respectively in total vehicles sales (and they retained those ranks in November). The prospect of their failure carries heavy economic, social, national security and global competitiveness implications.
The economic factors have been discussed at length - some 2.5 million jobs at risk, with all the attendant impact that would have on our precariously positioned economy. Simply from a timing standpoint, failure of one or more of the automakers could cause an economic tailspin that could take many, many years from which to recover.
But the intangible losses could be far worse. The auto industry, including ancillary industries, is the nation's largest R&D spender. Those dollars employ engineers and scientists of all stripes, researching and designing everything from power plant technologies that include electric, hydrogen fuel cell and biofuels to metal alloys, plastics, safety, navigation, pollution control and a range of technologies that have benefits that go far beyond the automotive world.
Beyond the fruits of that R&D, the demand for those scientists and engineers (automakers are the single largest employers of mechanical engineers) provides a market that encourages students to pursue studies in those fields. The industry is also a rich source for instructors in those fields. We must consider the impact the loss of such a vital skill set could have on our long-range ability to innovate and compete globally, not to mention what life-improving innovations may be lost to posterity.
That is a point that should not be taken lightly. Anecdotally, I own a business that helps source parts and components for companies. A while back we were asked to find a part for an old piece of equipment. I scoured the U.S. trying to find it, but was finally told I'd have to go to China. The reason was haunting. It wasn't just that it wasn't made in the U.S. anymore, but that - and I quote - "You won't find anyone here that knows how to make it." A skill we had lost forever, ceding it to our greatest upcoming competitor. How many more such stories will we encounter if we lose our domestic automakers? I'd rather not find out.
The loss of skills does not just pertain to college-educated professionals. Despite all the comments about bumper-hanging, hubcap-attaching autoworkers, the truth is that today's line workers have become highly skilled technicians. The equipment in today's auto plants are technical marvels that require a great deal of training and expertise to operate and maintain. Whether they are overpaid or not in today's environment may be a point of debate, but the value of those jobs and the skills they require are precious. We should not dismiss them quite so cavalierly.
Even more frightening might be the impact on our social fabric, especially in Midwestern states. The city of Detroit already provides a blueprint for what happens when good jobs leave. Crime, poverty and desperation are sure to rise. We've seen how intractable those problems are once they become a routine part of life. The financial and social cost of dealing with the fallout of failure is almost certain to far outweigh whatever cost we're considering today.
All that said, it still makes no sense to bail the automakers out if the business model remains broken. So can it be fixed? I believe it can. First, we have to separate current operations from legacy costs. A sizable, perhaps insurmountable, portion of their problems stem not from operations today, but the costs imposed by decisions made decades ago. If current operations can be freed from those costs, a thriving domestic industry can emerge. And if we believe a thriving domestic industry is important - which is what the argument above is all about - then finding a way to deal with those costs are the basis for a revival.
So how do we go about it?
To date, the argument has largely centered on one of two options: Give them the money or let them fail. Many believe Chapter 11 bankruptcy is the best option. In a way, I agree. But I don't believe a standard filing could work for several reasons. First, consumers are sure to be scared off from buying vehicles if they fear warranties won't be honored, parts and service may not be available and that resale values will plummet. That would make emerging from any Chapter 11 filing almost impossible. Second, the industry is extraordinarily dependent upon credit to finance operations, including dealer floor plans, parts and raw materials, finished inventories and capital investment. It's the nature of the business, whether we're talking GM or Toyota. Even if one wiped their current debt off the books, they'd need to secure new debt immediately to finance the business. This debt is not a bad thing, but it would be very difficult to secure it while in a Chapter 11 situation.
Therefore, I believe the best option is a pre-brokered, government-backed bankruptcy. The government would infuse cash in exchange for future consideration, whether it's in the form of warrants, preferred stock or some other form of temporary equity position. The government would then guarantee both the new debt needed to finance operations and customer warranties, thereby putting a floor to the downside of consumer expectations.
Meanwhile, the Chapter 11 filing would open the door to the draconian cuts that must take place. Current shareholders (which include my dad) would largely be wiped out. Bondholders would exchange debt for equity in the new shares. Management would take across-the-board pay cuts. The union would accelerate concessions scheduled to take effect in 2010 and accept health care plans that are more in line with what most working Americans have. They would also have to open the door to retiree concessions, particularly with regard to health insurance. It need not be eliminated, but it certainly needs to be restructured. Dealerships would be pared and product lines cut, thereby reducing overhead, redundancies and managerial jobs. No one would like it, but that's the point - everyone must sacrifice.
The result would be a far different, but very competitive, American auto industry. Analysts estimate that such cuts would make GM cash flow neutral at an industry sales volume of 13 million or fewer units annually. That's a level that has been exceeded every year since 1993 (including this year), and has been missed only twice since 1983 (12.3M in 1991, 12.9M in 1992). In other words, GM would be breaking even to slightly cash flow positive today and profitable in almost any other circumstance. That's a successful business model.
It would not be painless - not by a long shot. But it would be far better than what we're facing. I know it won't satisfy the visceral need some seem to have to see the union or management “get theirs.” But it would also mean we're not going to cut off our nose to spite our face. I've never been one to care what someone else is getting. It just doesn't matter. Nor do I have much stomach for government getting involved in private industry. Still, it happens all the time, from state and local tax breaks that encourage companies to relocate to publicly funded stadiums. None of those would appear to be nearly as important as a strong, competitive domestic auto industry.
I'll close with a well-known, though often misquoted, line from former GM president Charles Wilson, made during his 1953 confirmation hearing to become Secretary of Defense. In response to how he'd handle a situation where there was a conflict between what was in the nation's and GM's best interest, he replied "For years I thought that what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa."
I think that line captures today's situation perfectly. We're all part of one interwoven community. We should not look at this as helping the automakers - and we absolutely should not see it as helping them maintain the status quo. Instead, we should see this as helping us all. For what's good for the automakers, in this case, really is good for the country.
Anyway, here are my thoughts.
1) The current crisis is a direct result of the credit meltdown. That is not a problem of the automakers' making
2) The fact the credit meltdown became a crisis for the automakers IS a problem of their own making.
3) It became a problem because of cars, agreements and decisions made 10, 20, 30 and even 40 years ago (stretching back before the 1973 Arab oil embargo).
4) Current management and union leadership have made more progress in working toward fixing the problems in the past five years than was made in the previous thirty.
5) That progress is still nowhere near enough.
So where are we today from an operational/business model standpoint?
The cars are far superior to what was being turned out even a few years ago, and continue to improve with each passing year. The most recent UAW agreement promises to eliminate the cost differential between domestic and transplant automakers, putting them on a level competitive playing field. [sidenote - my dad, no fan of the union, was saying long before this mess that current UAW head Ron Goettelfinger is the first union leader who "gets it"]. Top management has agreed to aggressive pay cuts. The dividend was cut in half. Retired executive health insurance has been completely eliminated. Bondholders have been asked to exchange debt for equity.
In other words, all stakeholders, except perhaps retired UAW members who are contractually protected, have taken or been asked to take a hit.
But that's still not enough. As a result, GM and Chrysler face imminent bankruptcy. Ford has a bit more time, but they are leveraged to the hilt and will quite likely face a similar crisis in 12 to 18 months if sales do not turn around.
Now, I would clearly appear to have a bias in wanting to see GM survive for my dad's sake, but at this point I believe his fate is sealed, no matter what happens. His basic pension is secure even in bankruptcy, but his health insurance is gone for good, ditto the value of his stock holdings. The remaining dividend is as good as gone, as is his supplemental executive pension. So whatever happens from here on out really has no bearing on the personal situation.
That said, we first must decide if saving the domestic auto industry is not just a worthwhile goal, but an imperative one. First, we should keep in mind that despite all the talk of the domestics not making cars Americans want to buy, GM, Ford and Chrysler still rank 1, 3 and 4 respectively in total vehicles sales (and they retained those ranks in November). The prospect of their failure carries heavy economic, social, national security and global competitiveness implications.
The economic factors have been discussed at length - some 2.5 million jobs at risk, with all the attendant impact that would have on our precariously positioned economy. Simply from a timing standpoint, failure of one or more of the automakers could cause an economic tailspin that could take many, many years from which to recover.
But the intangible losses could be far worse. The auto industry, including ancillary industries, is the nation's largest R&D spender. Those dollars employ engineers and scientists of all stripes, researching and designing everything from power plant technologies that include electric, hydrogen fuel cell and biofuels to metal alloys, plastics, safety, navigation, pollution control and a range of technologies that have benefits that go far beyond the automotive world.
Beyond the fruits of that R&D, the demand for those scientists and engineers (automakers are the single largest employers of mechanical engineers) provides a market that encourages students to pursue studies in those fields. The industry is also a rich source for instructors in those fields. We must consider the impact the loss of such a vital skill set could have on our long-range ability to innovate and compete globally, not to mention what life-improving innovations may be lost to posterity.
That is a point that should not be taken lightly. Anecdotally, I own a business that helps source parts and components for companies. A while back we were asked to find a part for an old piece of equipment. I scoured the U.S. trying to find it, but was finally told I'd have to go to China. The reason was haunting. It wasn't just that it wasn't made in the U.S. anymore, but that - and I quote - "You won't find anyone here that knows how to make it." A skill we had lost forever, ceding it to our greatest upcoming competitor. How many more such stories will we encounter if we lose our domestic automakers? I'd rather not find out.
The loss of skills does not just pertain to college-educated professionals. Despite all the comments about bumper-hanging, hubcap-attaching autoworkers, the truth is that today's line workers have become highly skilled technicians. The equipment in today's auto plants are technical marvels that require a great deal of training and expertise to operate and maintain. Whether they are overpaid or not in today's environment may be a point of debate, but the value of those jobs and the skills they require are precious. We should not dismiss them quite so cavalierly.
Even more frightening might be the impact on our social fabric, especially in Midwestern states. The city of Detroit already provides a blueprint for what happens when good jobs leave. Crime, poverty and desperation are sure to rise. We've seen how intractable those problems are once they become a routine part of life. The financial and social cost of dealing with the fallout of failure is almost certain to far outweigh whatever cost we're considering today.
All that said, it still makes no sense to bail the automakers out if the business model remains broken. So can it be fixed? I believe it can. First, we have to separate current operations from legacy costs. A sizable, perhaps insurmountable, portion of their problems stem not from operations today, but the costs imposed by decisions made decades ago. If current operations can be freed from those costs, a thriving domestic industry can emerge. And if we believe a thriving domestic industry is important - which is what the argument above is all about - then finding a way to deal with those costs are the basis for a revival.
So how do we go about it?
To date, the argument has largely centered on one of two options: Give them the money or let them fail. Many believe Chapter 11 bankruptcy is the best option. In a way, I agree. But I don't believe a standard filing could work for several reasons. First, consumers are sure to be scared off from buying vehicles if they fear warranties won't be honored, parts and service may not be available and that resale values will plummet. That would make emerging from any Chapter 11 filing almost impossible. Second, the industry is extraordinarily dependent upon credit to finance operations, including dealer floor plans, parts and raw materials, finished inventories and capital investment. It's the nature of the business, whether we're talking GM or Toyota. Even if one wiped their current debt off the books, they'd need to secure new debt immediately to finance the business. This debt is not a bad thing, but it would be very difficult to secure it while in a Chapter 11 situation.
Therefore, I believe the best option is a pre-brokered, government-backed bankruptcy. The government would infuse cash in exchange for future consideration, whether it's in the form of warrants, preferred stock or some other form of temporary equity position. The government would then guarantee both the new debt needed to finance operations and customer warranties, thereby putting a floor to the downside of consumer expectations.
Meanwhile, the Chapter 11 filing would open the door to the draconian cuts that must take place. Current shareholders (which include my dad) would largely be wiped out. Bondholders would exchange debt for equity in the new shares. Management would take across-the-board pay cuts. The union would accelerate concessions scheduled to take effect in 2010 and accept health care plans that are more in line with what most working Americans have. They would also have to open the door to retiree concessions, particularly with regard to health insurance. It need not be eliminated, but it certainly needs to be restructured. Dealerships would be pared and product lines cut, thereby reducing overhead, redundancies and managerial jobs. No one would like it, but that's the point - everyone must sacrifice.
The result would be a far different, but very competitive, American auto industry. Analysts estimate that such cuts would make GM cash flow neutral at an industry sales volume of 13 million or fewer units annually. That's a level that has been exceeded every year since 1993 (including this year), and has been missed only twice since 1983 (12.3M in 1991, 12.9M in 1992). In other words, GM would be breaking even to slightly cash flow positive today and profitable in almost any other circumstance. That's a successful business model.
It would not be painless - not by a long shot. But it would be far better than what we're facing. I know it won't satisfy the visceral need some seem to have to see the union or management “get theirs.” But it would also mean we're not going to cut off our nose to spite our face. I've never been one to care what someone else is getting. It just doesn't matter. Nor do I have much stomach for government getting involved in private industry. Still, it happens all the time, from state and local tax breaks that encourage companies to relocate to publicly funded stadiums. None of those would appear to be nearly as important as a strong, competitive domestic auto industry.
I'll close with a well-known, though often misquoted, line from former GM president Charles Wilson, made during his 1953 confirmation hearing to become Secretary of Defense. In response to how he'd handle a situation where there was a conflict between what was in the nation's and GM's best interest, he replied "For years I thought that what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa."
I think that line captures today's situation perfectly. We're all part of one interwoven community. We should not look at this as helping the automakers - and we absolutely should not see it as helping them maintain the status quo. Instead, we should see this as helping us all. For what's good for the automakers, in this case, really is good for the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)