Friday, November 22, 2013

Chris Christie = Republican Savior?

Nathaniel and I have created something of a Monday night tradition. I pretend all day that I am going to swing by the grocery store on the way home and pick up ingredients for dinner. I'll even send multiple texts to Nathaniel asking if he has any particular preference or desire. All in an attempt to convince myself, or maybe guilt myself, into actually going to Harris Teeter and buying pasta sauce and spaghetti.

However, none of these tactics have worked for the past three weeks and instead I come home and fling myself onto the bed and Nathaniel asks, "Where are we going for dinner?" It's a charade, and we both know it.

This week we went to Red Bowl to enjoy some sushi (made with cooked shrimp, for anyone concerned about the health of the baby.) We were seated in the bar area where there are many, many TV's. There were two news stories on the television and our conversation vacillated between Chris Christie's broader GOP appeal and whether Richie Incognito is a villain or victim (riveting, I know).

During our dinner, Nathaniel asked me if I thought that Chris Christie was going to be the savior of the Republican party. I thought for a minute and then I gave this answer:

Maybe.

Chris Christie has a huge personality that somehow bridges the gap between demographics that traditionally vote liberal and those that traditionally vote more conservative. His polling numbers in the wake of his recent re-election victory are truly impressive:


Christie beat his female opponent, Barbara Buono, 60% to 39%. He bested her by 16 points with women, by 20 points with independents and by 30 points with moderates. He won the majority of voters who make less than $50,000/year and voters who make more than $100,000/year.

Additionally, Christie made an impressive showing with other demographics that traditionally favor democratic candidates heavily. Christie raked in:

  • 49% of 18-29 year olds
  • 30% of people who identified themselves as liberals
  • 50% of Latinos
  • 20% of African-Americans
These numbers are absolutely crazy!! No Republican presidential candidate has ever won even 40% of the Latino vote in an election. Since 1980, no Democratic candidate has received less than 83% of the African-American vote, and Democrats typically carry more like 90% of the African-American vote.

So Nathaniel's question is a good one:

"Is Chris Christie the savior of the Republican party?"

Again, I'll say "maybe."

Chris Christie surely has the force of personality to unite an odd coalition of individuals behind him. He projects an aura of independence from the "establishment" and I think that this is the root of his broad appeal. He has also been able to jettison some of the negative baggage that many Republicans in office deal with.  My hesitation with Christie, however, is due in large part to what I see as a lack of ideology.

Ideology is important to me. I want to vote for a candidate who supports or opposes legislation based on principle rather than what is popular with voters. I think most people would agree with me here. 

Additionally, I want to vote for a candidate who makes decisions based on well-thought out and reasonable arguments. I don't want a candidate or a leader who makes decisions based on gut-instinct.

Chris Christie has not demonstrated that he functions from a clear ideological framework. His mantra and his apparent winsomeness appears to revolve around his ability to size up a situation and act decisively. That may work as a governor, but Washington, D.C. is something different and I am skeptical of his ability to effectively lead when nothing is leading him except his intuition.

Christie and Gay Marriage

Christie's stance on gay marriage provides an excellent example of a man who doesn't seem to know what he thinks or what he wants to do. Christie is Catholic and he has stated that he does not think that homosexuals have a Constitutional right to marriage. Instead, he supports a civil union. He also vetoed a bill from the New Jersey State Legislature that would approve gay marriage. Both of these actions would reasonably lead a person to believe that he takes a rather conservative stance towards homosexual marriage.

However, he has also stated that sexuality is something a person is born with and is not a sin. Furthermore, he recently signed legislation into effect in New Jersey that bans gay-conversion therapy. Both of these actions indicate a more liberal approach to gay marriage and gay rights in general.

Christie says that there is no contradiction in his stance, but I disagree. What is it that motivates Christie to act? What is it that guides his decision-making process? It's clearly not a close adherence to the teachings of the Catholic Church. It's also not a truly conservative or liberal ideology either. I don't know that I would even call it a moderate position because he has taken strong stances against homosexual rights and and then for homosexual rights. Additionally, Christie has been accused of pandering to the conservative right in order to boost his prospects for his inevitable 2016 campaign even though Steven Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality, said "Frankly, I don’t think Chris Christie has an antigay bone in his body."

Am I ultimately commenting on Christie's apparent indecision regarding homosexual rights? I'm not. The purpose here is to demonstrate my point that Chris Christie doesn't appear to make decisions based upon a well-thought out ideological system. Instead, he acts out of necessity and with an in-the-moment attitude. Does his indecision and sometimes contradictions make me want to support his candidacy for the White House? Not really. I want to know not just what a candidate is going to do now, in the current situation, but I want to be able to confidently guess how he will respond to events in the future. Chris Christie doesn't provide me with that ability.

But who knows? Maybe Christie has a brilliant ideology that he has yet to fully articulate. If he can articulate his political ideology in the same clear and concise way that Mitt Romney did during the first presidential debate last year, I'll be listening.

Sources and Suggested Reading

Exit Polls: Christie and McAuliffe Took Different Paths to Victory- CNN 
New York Times Exit Polls: 1980-2008- New York Times
On Gay Issues, Gov. Christie Says There's No Ambiguity- NJ.com
Christie Keeps His Promise to Veto Gay Marriage Bill- New York Times
Can Chris Christie be the Republican Bill Clinton?- Politico

Monday, November 11, 2013

Economics and Vintage AT&T

Is it weird to consider a Forbes article a "tear-jerker?" It's just that when you read so many articles online, and I read a lot of them, and you find that article after article presents only the idealistic, best-case scenario of the Affordable Care Act, you tend to get a bit annoyed. Then you read an article that not only references Friedrich von Hayek but also critiques the whole ideology behind the ACA, and it becomes just too much for a pregnant woman to handle. It's like stepping back into the 80's and 90's and watching AT&T long-distance commercials all over again. Waterworks.


Let's Go Back To The Beginning


It being Veteran's Day, I had a free day from school and I devoted my morning to catching up on news and what-nots (which may or may not have included a thorough inquiry into the pros and cons of the City Select baby stroller). I clicked over to Forbes to read an editorial and in the sidebar I spied an article titled, "The Obamacare Rollout Debacle Is A Hayekian 'Teaching Moment'."

Immediately there were key words that grabbed my attention: Obamacare, Debacle, Hayekian. What could this mean? I needed to know.

The article first discusses why focusing solely on the problems associated with healthcare.gov is misleading. The problems with the website can be solved, eventually, but focusing too much on that issue masks the underlying and more troubling aspects of the roll-out. From there the author references the man, the myth, the legend, Friedrich von Hayek, a 20th century economist who, were he still alive, would despise our current system of economics.

Hayek believed that the economy is far too complex for anyone to truly understand. We can't know why people spend or save the way that they do. We can't predict how the economy will respond to one incident or another and because of this lack of knowledge, the economy should be left alone. That Hayek had sincere issues with the Federal Reserve, should then go without saying (but I did anyway.) Any bubble, any bust, is typically due to us meddling in the economy in the first place.

The author of the Forbes article suggests that the issues with Obamacare stem from the fact that the government tried to understand what motivates the healthcare industry, and he suggests that they failed miserably.

It's certainly worth a read and if you are reading this and asking yourself "Friedrich von Who?," I'll post a brief educational video that will enlighten you.

Happy Veteran's Day!!

Adam Smith Video (Similar economic theory to Hayek)



Hayek Raps! (I think this is actually more instructive, but a bit longer. My students loved it...kind of).


Further Reading for Your Veterans Day


The Obamacare Rollout Debacle Is A Hayekian 'Teaching Moment'- Forbes
Obamacare Will Be Repealed Well In Advanced of the 2014 Elections- Forbes
Poll: Most Back $9 Minimum Wage- Politico
Report Fuels Warren 2016 Prospects- Politico
Is Hayek Saying Something Smith Did Not?

And just for fun...


Wednesday, November 6, 2013

The Courage of His Convictions

CONFESSION: I cried in class today. 

Vivian Malone

"Humiliating" is probably too tame of a word to use when describing the experience. My students
shifted uncomfortably in their seats as I pressed forward with the story of how George Wallace blocked two African-American students from entering the University of Alabama. Everyone avoided making eye contact with me as I told them that President Kennedy sent in the National Guard to escort Vivian Malone and James Hood past the Governor, past the police, and into the school. I was choked up, I couldn't help it!


We were honestly all relieved when the story was over.

Today's lesson discussed the bully pulpit, the power of the president to speak directly to Americans. This phrase was first coined by Theodore Roosevelt when he discovered that the president has a unique ability to speak to the American people. He realized that when the president speaks, people listen.  We tune in to hear President Obama speak on the Syrian crisis. We tune in to hear how President Bush is going to respond to the attacks on 9-11. We make sure to listen when President Clinton addresses the nation regarding the Oklahoma City bombings. We listen, and we listen to the president far more than we listen to any other person in Washington.

In order to emphasize this power, I showed my students the speech that President Kennedy gave in response to the aforementioned incident at the University of Alabama. I have shown this video to my students for two years, and even after my ninth viewing, I still find it incredibly moving.


President Kennedy delivered one powerful indictment after the other, each one accusing Americans of blatant hypocrisy and cowardice. One particularly moving excerpt reads:

If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he can not send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? [Emphasis mine]

As I watched Kennedy's speech today and as I lectured my students regarding the unique power of the president to influence the minds and attitudes of Americans, I wondered to myself when we will have a president who is courageous enough to use his bully pulpit to plead for the rights of America's forgotten generation. President Kennedy didn't give his address at the end of the battle. President Kennedy gave his address in the days and months following some of the most aggressive and assertive acts of discrimination in the 20th century. He acted in a manner that displayed the courage of his convictions and demonstrated boldness because he believed so firmly in the rightness of his cause.


When will we have a president who shows that much courage?


There were an estimated 1,212,400 abortions in the United States in 2011.

An estimated 22% of all U.S. pregnancies end in abortion.

In 2011, North Carolina had approximately 26,192 abortions performed state-wide.

In 2010, there were approximately 3,302 abortions performed in Wake County.

According to World-O-Meters, there have been 35,635,026 abortions performed in 2013.

I want a president who uses his unique power and position to plead for the lives of the unborn in the United States. I want a president who is willing to endure the angry words and accusations that will certainly come because of his stance protecting the lives of the unborn. I want a president, a governor, a congressman/woman, a senator who uses their unique position to ardently defend the rights of children whose lives are cut short by abortion.

Kennedy said, "We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the Scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution." Kennedy was right in 1963 and his sentiment is just as poignant today.



Sources:

Transcript of Kennedy's Civil Rights Address- PBS
World-O-Meter Abortion Statistics
Abortion Statistics- Guttmacher Institute
Graham to Introduce Abortion Bill- Politico



AddThis