"Us"

This post is intended to further illustrate Austin's thoughts, as well as a previous response to a question I posed.

Wrote Austin:

"What sense is left in a system where uninformed people mindlessly vote for whichever pretty-faced candidate fit the most key words (change, hope, middle class families, etc) into their pre-packaged and processed prime-time interview?"

Consider Austin's words in relation to a brief dialogue I had with Randal Quarles, former treasury undersecretary to President Bush. During a Q&A session Mr. Quarles' held after he gave the keynote address at a private equity conference, I asked, "From your experience in the federal government, what is the greatest obstacle to political progress in [economic] issues?" After a ten second pause he replied, "Us." Mr. Quarles went on to explain that the government is full of good people, trying to do a good job. What makes things difficult and consequently ineffective, he explained, is that we don't know what the hell is going on, and we end up pushing (directly or indirectly) our elected representatives into making dumb decisions or not making any substantive progress by voting based on simplistic, oftentimes erroneous premises. Of course, we would hope that statesmen would possess sufficient integrity and such unequivocal commitment that they would always do what is right and what works. This is certainly ideal, but to systematically expect this sort of behavior is extremely unwise.

Call it Parkins's Law or the path of least resistance, but we must acknowledge that aspiring politicians will get votes in the easiest, simplest ways possible, whether that means adopting simplistic "yes or no" or "more or less" positions, or retaliating against opponents to shift the campaign focus to issues irrelevant to economic or social value. We can make getting elected as easy or as hard, as focused or as distracted, as reasonable or as ridiculous as we want it to be. If the political process in the United States is in any way not going the way we'd like it to go, it is absolutely our fault as voters. Democratic elections are enormously powerful mechanisms of excellence. If only we care enough about how this country is run, we can set the standard for being elected and subsequently reelected as high as we want. These people are certainly capable. So I think we should do it.

Also, I should probably explain my reasoning for including President Bush in my post. Listening to 99% of people I know talk about politics motivates me to electrocute myself, and a great deal of that motivation stems from flippant criticism of President Bush.

My opinion is that judgments you make on people's decisions should be supported by equivalently strong evidence. Saying that someone (a President) made a stupid decision is not justified if your evidence is that, after the fact, negative unintended consequences transpired. I suppose you can say that, but if you consider someone stupid because he or she cannot accurately predict adoption of policy and retaliation of policy, you are intellectually ridiculous. I am of course, in this context, referring to our failure to predict the unfortunate rejection:adoption ratio of the Iraqi civilians and politicians, as well as the dreadful retaliation:accommodation ratio of the insurgents, the Iranians, and others with incompatible interests. If you think you would have accurately predicted it, you're a liar. Contemporary military strategy is composed of entirely new hypotheses.

Whether President Bush made poor decisions or not, the fact is that he is refreshingly distinct from most every other existing and aspiring politician. His point of differentiation is that, ultimately, he did not make decisions based on what everyone simplistically provoked him to do. I find it disappointing that soon after Iraq became a challenge the official position of the Democratic Party became: If you commit to something but then unexpected difficulties arise, BAIL! Leverage these unexpected difficulties by calling them manifestations of bad policy! In President Obama's case, use the war to create a position for yourself that will get you elected, but then don't make one substantive change in policy or strategy once you're in power.

Cowards.

The same goes for how we 'treat' terrorists. Many disapprove of the tactics the Bush administration promoted to keep us safe. All I can say is that if you are a part of this constituency, I'm glad you don't have the ear of Secretary Gates. Sure, it is horrendous to consider any violence imposed upon any human being, but what constitutes persuasion varies among the human race. As the graphic asserts, like it or not, we have been safe ever since 9-11. This fact denotes either insufficient motivation on the part of our enemies or sufficient protection on the part of the past administration. In summation, there is something to be said for the few who are willing to do what is ugly and unpopular, but also right.

My hope is that we will seek out these types of individuals to make these types of decisions, and for the rest of them, that we will at least significantly raise the bar for election and subsequent reelection.