Sunday morning....

Sunday morning....Good CSPAN discussion this a.m. with Nolan Finley, a Romney supporter and Editorial Page Editor of the Detroit News, though it's getting repetitive now. Obviously the "auto bailout" v. "managed bankruptcy" debate is proxy for Obama v. Romney.

One hour later.....Now Chris Wallace on Fox News is hammering Romney pretty hard.  "President Obama dedicates a trillion to deficit reduction.  Your plan doesn't."  Ouch.  Waiting to hear questions about the height of trees.....

Lunar Newts

Meet the Press, 2/5/12, Newt Gingrich talking space policy. He's correct in his touting of how space fits into China's security and commercial interests and its impact on American interests.  More on that in a bit. Another aspect of his ideas is his assertion that his plans would not require additional federal funds, going on to promote a highly privatized space policy and a "fundamentally reformed" NASA geared toward privatization.  This notion should be fairly easy to rebut with evidence from the private sector that the capital risk is too substantial to engage a policy as expansive as what Gingrich has in mind.  Since the failed Solyndra case is a campaign issue, it makes a good case in point. Not its failure, that is, but the public-private partnership the case represents. Would the Walton family of Walmart fame risk $7 million, as they did with Solyndra, without the federal loan guarantee? Given the conservative spokepersons' usual affinity for Walmart and its owning family, why leave this angle of the Solyndra story out of nearly all reporting and commentary, or any of the $78 million in private investments attracted to Solyndra?  If this were put at the center of the conversation for once, then we could better discuss Gingrich's ideas on pursuing an expanded commercial (and, apparently, political) presence in space.

The other space-related comment was similar to what I've heard elsewhere, not only in reference to this particular topic, but to many issues because it represents one of my pet peeves (especially when coming from Dr. Gingrich): the misuse of history.  Granted, Gingrich was quoting Greta van Susteren of FoxNews, but doing so in explicit agreement.  Gingrich applauded Susteren's statement that she "could not imagine" criticism of John F. Kennedy over his space policy.  This ignores Kennedy's long history of ignoring or even belittling space exploration as a priority matter, and that it was Vice President Johnson who made Kennedy a convert.  In his political career, LBJ was long an advocate of the opportunities afforded by space.  Kennedy saw the space program in purely political terms, as a demonstration to the Soviets of the superiority of the American political and economic systems.  Still, there's no doubt the eloquent JFK deserves great credit for his serious support of the Apollo program once he converted.

More to the point is the statement about criticism. Let's review.  Former President Eisenhower (R) called JFK's ideas "madness" and asked, "Why the great hurry to get to the Moon and planets?" He said JFK's calls in June 1963 for $40 billion in federal expenditures on the Apollo project were "just nuts."

Conservative icon William F. Buckley, Jr., was very critical of the high priority afforded the space program: "Very well, you have reached the Moon, but meanwhile here in America, we have been trying, however clumsily, to spread freedom and justice."  Democrats Fulbright and Proxmire were also very critical, with Proxmire calling Kennedy's space program, "corporate socialism."

Kennedy softened his tone about space policy being a matter of national greatness in a speech to the United Nations:

...Why, therefore, should Man's first flight to the Moon be a matter of national competition? Why should the United States and the Soviet Union...become involved in immense duplications of research, construction and expenditure? Surely we should explore whether the scientists and astronauts of our two countries — indeed of all the world — cannot work together in the conquest of space, sending someday in this decade to the Moon not the representatives of a single nation, but the representatives of all our countries.” (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, 1963, 695).

This drew criticism in both houses of Congress, who used the budget process to resist such plans.The quotes in this post are taken from a paper published on the University of North Dakota webpage for an academic conference. The paper is linked here, as is a paper by my good friend and colleague Dr. Charles Pellegrin of Northwestern State University. While I'm recommending good works on related topics, I'm happy to mention the work of my former undergraduate Mr. Peter Pindjak, who went on to earn his Master's degree from the University of Pittsburgh.  Peter's thesis on space militarization in the Eisenhower administration can be found here.  I was very proud to be a committee member for Peter's undergraduate honors thesis on contemporary missile defense policy.  He is now employed in a national security policy position for the government of his home state, Slovakia.

I am always amazed at the idealism of Americans. So many times we hear respected people make historical statements without further discussion or question, largely because it is time to move on to another topic. It especially bemuses me when people exaggerate the political unity of past eras. No doubt we are in an especially polarized condition as we progress into the 21st century.  But I've heard radio talk show hosts speak as though there was no press or political criticism of FDR during World War II, for example, when what we should do is not only acknowledge but also study, learn from and even celebrate such criticism.  But that takes time, for which broadcast politics do not allow, whether on major news programs or formal candidate debates.

InfoPower

This morning on CNN Saturday tech reporter Mario Armstrong appeared in a piece titled Google's New Privacy Policies, policies that will affect anyone who uses any of Google's 70+ products.  The policies seemingly amount to a retraction of any notion of privacy, as a digital web version of our lives will take form from Google's tracking devices. I took note of Armstrong's use of the phrase "the digital lifestyle" to emphasize the extent to which we are affected by such a policy change:  not just discrete pieces of our lives, but the totality of our lifestyles.  News of this has been reported over the last day or so, and measured in media time I'm bringing up this issue rather late and I'm sure that the tech blogs have been burning for some time, mostly with language I probably wouldn't understand.  It's the political angle I'm pondering, obviously, on an election-centered blog.  Several specific strands of thought emerge....The first arising from the roughly 300 year long American conversation about the proper roles and functions of citizens and their government. Ever since 1776 brought us both the Declaration of Independence and The Wealth of Nations, this conversation has often focused on the proper construction codes for the wall between public and private. In this case, the first question is whether Google intends simply to refine its marketing strategies, which even itself often brings annoyances to users but is not necessarily nefarious.  But what are the alternative possibilities?  What is the threat of cyber-criminals and -terrorists accessing this new synthesis of our life patterns and those of our business and civil society organizations?  What about our 7000 government bodies from school boards to the White House who use their products? What about Google's relationship with foreign governments and international organizations? Individuals can try to no longer use Google products, but one's digital past is still there, and as I'm trying to say there are considerations that extend beyond the ways individuals are affected. Even if a person manages to avoid Google products completely, participation in a society that relies deeply and widely on digital services propels one into the web.  And, again, this is not just about Google, since this sort of news can be expected to be heard about an increasing number of digital service providers.


We have to consider Google not only as a market player but as a political actor as well, and consider the latest news as one albeit attention-grabbing piece of a much larger and long developing picture.  That is, this discussion is not just about the 2012 presidential election, but all 21st century socio-political processes.  The use of digital products by citizens, candidates (and those merely considering candidacy for office), campaign organizations and the media makes them subject to these sort of policies.  The ability to frame the questions and control the messages of the contest are now subject to a new contextual variable: a global marketplace for innumerable individual commercial and social decisions bundled into neat categories of identity and put up for sale.  The size and the depth of this market's impact on political processes go well beyond what the textbooks call interest aggregation and interest articulation, functions normally tasked to political parties and interest groups.  Now, political parties and interest groups are themselves maneuvering within the digital marketplace, consequently subjecting their identities to the "privacy" policies of Google, et al.  Indeed, there's an open invitation, as reported here, whereby the CEO of Google calls for using the internet for increasing transparency in the lives and activities of politicians.

Just something to think about, but for now I have to check my gmail.
***************
Addendum...I see now where Google is explaining that the app in place in current contracts for services to government are not covered by these policies. As expected, more questions are raised for each one answered.

The GOP debate shapeshift

No formal debates for about a month, supposedly.  The SuperPac ads will undoubtedly fill the vacuum, and the Sunday news shows will likely feature the candidates most weekends.  I find the latter preferable anyway. It really must get awkward and irritating to have to stand up on a stage, all in a row looking like game show contestants and fodder for Saturday Night Live.  The field may narrow post-Florida primary, but formal debates will continue through the spring.  If that is so, I would prefer to see one similar to the debate hosted by the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation.  Some of the questions at that one were a bit too contrived and slanted, but even then the questions overall were more substantive than those offered by many debate moderators from the media.  I would love to see one on foreign policy/national security hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and moderated by Fareed Zakaria.  I guess the Council on Foreign Relations would rile up the conspiracy theorists too much, not worth it.

Speaking of the CFR, or more specifically its flagship publication, Foreign Affairs, I'm wondering if, as was done in 2008, the major candidates will each write an article laying out foreign policy ideas and priorities. I need to dig them up, but I believe it was still during the primary stage that the 2008 articles were published.

Looking forward to the Florida polls.....

Fun with Labor Statistics

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics webpage, I compiled a quick guide to unemployment rates by presidency, using yearly averages. I used the inaugural year and the last full year (the last election year, regardless if first or second term).

 http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

                                                                  Change
HST-D     1949  3.9     1952   3.0                   -0.9
DDE-R    1953  2.9     1958   6.8                   +3.9
JFK-D     1961  6.7     1963   5.7                    -1.0
LBJ-D     1964  5.2     1968   3.3                    -1.9
RMN-R   1969  3.5     1973   4.7                   +1.5
GRF-R    1974 5.6      1976   7.9                   +2.3
                           1975 8.5
JEC-D      1977 7.1     1980   7.1                    No change
RWR-R    1981 7.6     1988   5.5                     -2.1
           1982 9.8  1983 9.6 1984 7.5
GHWB-R 1989 5.3    2000  7.5                     +2.2
WJC-D     1993 6.9    2000    4.0                    -2.9
GWB-R    2001 4.7    2008 5.5                      +0.8
BHO-D    2009 9.3     2012 8.2                      -1.1


One quick consideration can be given to the question of divided government. How many of the R's had at least one chamber of congress controlled by D's, and vice versa. Looks like the decline in the unemployment rate began while Reagan had a Republican Senate, and continued after the Democrats took the Senate majority.  Under Clinton, the 1990s economy improved as well under divided government, after the Republicans took the House for the first time in forty years.