Defying Political Gravity

            Well, once again the Party parties are behind us. I vowed not to watch any of the hoopla-ing and I didn't. But, since I don't live under a rock, I glanced at excerpts and transcripts. One site appears to be making their case with profoundly flawed planning, and the other side seems to bring no planning at all. The “how” piece seems off the table. While the country doesn't want to hear huge multipoint plans that will never pass Congress, we do need to at least see a road. We’re going this way. Please come join us. At least tell us what you think stimulates growth. Show us a clear difference rather than leave it up to the “news” people to tell us what that difference is. If such strategic thinking and planning does exist, it has not yet been shared. I guess revealing such  “secrets”  would be a Party foul. So the road ahead for both sides becomes ‘Trust us, it's magic’. We’ll either spend or trickle-down our way to prosperity, contrary to facts and history. Perhaps Harry Potter could run as a third-party candidate.

            One side proposed investment in education and infrastructure to stimulate growth. Such spending is Keynesian. While structural reforms are commendable, they are a 30 year long proposition before we experience major benefits. Republican concern with such spending is that we’ll become Greece. Our economy will always be innovative, industrious, and competitive. We will never become Greece. However, we are unable to govern or make tough choices. The actual concern raised by that fact is that we become Japan, 250% debt/GNP and running on Government fumes for over a decade, a lost economic generation. Conversely, the opposing approach to growth is to cut taxes and increase defense spending. Both of these are also Keynesian, particularly if you’re a defense contractor.

            I most enjoyed hearing from the prospective First Ladies. Both demonstrated their intelligence, warmth, humor, and humanity. Why don't we nominate these two for President? That would be a serious contest.

            In spite of of their better halves, the wonky, technocratic contenders both failed to make a convincing or compelling case. Most independents were unswayed. Political prognosticators abound, and results may vary. The most complex and sophisticated statistical analyses predicting the election outcome put Obama ahead by four points. With the margin of error, it's a coin toss. Why don't we just have a coin toss?

 

            Like much of our economy, our political system is on uncharted ground. There is a strong anti-incumbent sentiment throughout the country, but Obama's approval ratings remain inexplicably static. The Republican base continues to diminish. Exclusion, purity, and fewer old angry white men will do that. Concern for jobs and the economy is quite high nationally, yet the Presidential contenders are tied. Generational and minority sentiments may shape our political landscape. In 2008, minorities were 12% of the vote. Today they are 28%.

            I'm not surprised that Romney is not doing better. In the eight years he's run for President, he has been unable to connect with voters. Connecting with voters usually adds seven points to the spread. However, the most inexplicable situation is how Obama could possibly be tying the race up. Every historical indicator goes against the President. Obama is defying political gravity.

            The Consumer Confidence Index was established in 1967. No President has been reelected with a consumer confidence rating below 95%. Obama is at 60%. No President has ever been reelected with unemployment over 8% since Roosevelt during the Great Depression. The Nonsupervisory Wage Index, the national measure of middle-class earnings, has plummeted over the last two years. Wall Street is in far better shape than it was four years ago, but Main Street has taken a tough hit and is still bleeding out. In spite of these facts and metrics, Obama is even or slightly ahead of his competition. Whether this is due to strong support of a loyal core or the un-appeal of Romney and the Republican message, Obama's popularity and this Presidential race is a historic anomaly. Our political system is on uncharted ground.

            So my take on the Conventions is that they were full of sound and fury, signifying little. There was a dearth of solutions and alternatives. For the most part, they failed to significantly address our crucial deep strategic structural reforms in areas such as education, healthcare, energy, immigration, regulation, corporate taxation and infrastructure. They failed to address the abdication of governance and responsibility currently permeating our broken system. In the short term, they failed to shed light on the fiscal cliff we will encounter in December, a trifecta of disaster involving tax cuts, the debt ceiling, and sequestration. For gentle readers forgetting the meaning of sequestration, it can be defined as forced across-the-board spending cuts automatically imposed on Congress by Congress because Congress is too gutless to make hard choices. Anyway, I think that's what the dictionary said.

 

            Congress’ main priority (both sides) is to win elections, block the opposition, and keep our jobs. If we had national leadership with the desire and competence to do so, we could produce a growth package with bipartisan support this week. But bipartisan is a dirty word these days. The opposition is the enemy. Ask anybody in Congress. After all, Washington is a land of us and them, isn’t it?

            The America that I’m familiar with is based on We. “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the public Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.” I find it good occasionally to revisit the actual source of what it means to be an American.

            With all this newfangled us-ing and them-ing going on, it's interesting to look back at Conventions past. No ghosts are standing by. The first national political Convention was held in 1831 by the Anti-Masonic Party, who felt that power and Big Money had hijacked the government. I wonder if these guys occupied anything? The Whig Party was a hot commodity at the time and won that election. The first Party platform was seen in the Democratic Party Convention of 1840, which begins “Resolved: that the federal government is one of limited powers....” Those were the days.