Enough, already!

Library of Congress

Maybe my iPhone was protesting, too. Last night and early today, I couldn't retrieve any e-mails. Late this morning, the connection to the server finally was restored and I opened an e-mail from my friend, Bob.

"I'm trying to avoid national political newscasts for a few days." he said. "I'm suffering from pundit overdose."

"Amen to that!" I replied. Post-election analysis and parsing of the numbers from every conceivable angle has even me worn out. The proverbial straw? CNN's web site had a series of hypothetical match-ups pitting Obama against various Republicans in 2012. He'd beat Palin but he'd lose to Huckabee and Romney. As if a November 2010 exercise in what-if has any substance...

Anyway, I'm glad to get back to other things in life, whether it's watching the Blazers lose in overtime or digging into a new book. I picked up three at an in-house sale of used books to benefit The Oregonian's Season of Sharing charity. I was reminded of the pleasure of reading when I saw a guy at the back of my bus today, wearing a plain gray T-shirt with black lettering that simply said: "Library of Congress. Est. 1800."

Rock on, dude.

Photograph: robertarood.wordpress.com

The morning after

I went to bed after midnight, feeling dispirited about the Republican beat-down that swept across the country. But you know what? The sun came up this morning. The Earth stayed on its axis. And my neighborhood streets looked as familiar as ever as I went on my morning run.

Even though the GOP rout in the House was one of historic proportions -- and even though, as I write this, we still don't know if Oregonians have elected a Republican governor for the first time since 1986 -- I'm OK with it. Why? For one thing, we all saw it coming. I would have been shell-shocked otherwise, but voter anger was volcanic and impossible to miss. What's still up for debate is correctly identifying the target of that anger: Obama? The Democrats? Incumbents, no matter what their party? Congress? The federal government? It's probably all of that.

There's no question that continuing concerns over the economy, and related worries about the mounting size of the federal deficit, eclipsed everything. We can debate all we want about whether Obama and the Democrats acted responsibly or not in responding to the economic disaster that Bush left behind but, the truth is, there's no objective answer. Judgment is subjective and history ultimately will shine a light on who and what was right, though there will still be plenty of room for other interpretations.

The second thing is that it's now time to put up or shut up. Whether you credit or blame the tea party movement for lighting the spark that ignited this fire, the burden is now clearly on those folks to make the transition from politicking to governing. That's where I have huge doubts -- and it's where I hope I am proven drastically wrong about bipartisan solutions that involve painful fixes to complex policy issues and budget choices.

The morning after is a good time to reflect on how we got here and where we might go from here. And I point to two superb articles in The Economist's (Oct. 30-Nov. 5) issue as exemplary.

The cover story, "Angry America," asserts that the rage directed at Obama is "overdone" -- a charge I completely agree with.

In the non-bylined column called Lexington, the essay "The good, the bad and the tea parties"  accurately portrays the challenge ahead.

"Ideology is one thing. But if the tea-partiers do well...especially if the Republicans capture the House, they need to move past ideology into the realm of practical policy. This means having something serious to say about how actually to bring spending under control. To date, they have preferred breezy slogans. Will they cut into pensions and Medicare, and if so how? Will they accept that taming the deficit will require hikes in taxes as well as cuts in spending? Will they continue to oppose reflexively every measure of a Democratic administration, or have the courage to share responsibility for the painful decisions the times demand? It has been all too easy from the outside to conjure up a mythic America of limited government, sing hymns to the constitution and denounce the federal bureaucracy in all its forms. Once they are in government themselves, that gig will be over."

 Illustration: The Economist.

Face of the Tea Party

Finally, some poll-based data on those who consider themselves supporters of the Tea Party movement. If you were thinking of a monolithic group of poorly educated, below-average income hicks, think again.

From today's New York Times comes this story: "Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated."

The principal findings: The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45. [No surprise there.]

They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as “very conservative” and President Obama as “very liberal.” [Again, no surprise.]

And while most Republicans say they are “dissatisfied” with Washington, Tea Party supporters are more likely to classify themselves as “angry.” [Ah, now there's the revealing characteristic.]

And what are they angry about?

Mostly, the recent health care reforms, excessive government spending and "a feeling that their opinions are not represented in Washington."

They are pessimistic about the direction of the country and believe that the policies of the Obama administration "are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich." [Hmmm, is that a bad thing?]

They believe Obama "does not share the values most Americans live by and that he does not understand the problems of people like themselves. More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 90 percent believe the country is headed in the wrong direction.

We've heard a lot of outrageous stuff in the past year or so from the extreme right wing -- those who scream "socialism" at every turn, those who believe Obama is a Muslim and wasn't born in the United States, those who dispute the phenomenon of climate change.

This story, with the accompanying poll data and video interviews with Tea Party supporters, helps break down the easy stereotype. But it also helps put a face on those whose animosity about the new administration and its new policies reflects their loss of entitlement.

Photograph by Gretchen Ertl for The New York Times

Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize

Well, that was fast.

Obama's been president not enough nine months and here he is being awarded what, from my perspective, is the single most prestigious award in the world. Some might argue that winning the Nobel for medicine or science might be as high -- or even higher -- an honor. But in my book, you don't get to research medical or scientific breakthroughs, or write transformative literature or develop a novel economic theory, unless there is peace.

Some will call it premature to bestow the award on Obama this early into his term. After all, the Feb. 1 deadline to nominate someone for this year's prize meant his name was put into play less than two weeks after his Jan. 20 inauguration. Plus, with inherited wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and diplomatic or military hotspots presenting themselves from Pakistan to Palestine, from Iran to North Korea, there's nothing concrete that our new president has accomplished in any of those areas. Which is not to say he won't achieve some kind of breakthrough in due time.

A co-worker at The Oregonian, David Sarasohn, noted wryly in the column he wrote for this Sunday that Arizona State University had opted not to confer an honorary degree on Obama when he spoke at the school's commencement in May, contending that his "body of work is yet to come." As if being the first African American president in our 233-year history wasn't enough of an achievement. I'm guessing ASU would like a do-over.

In the meantime, The Associated Press reports, the five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee said awarding Obama the peace prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence intended to build global support for the policies of his young administration.

They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen its role in combating climate change.

While I'm among those surprised by the Nobel going to Obama this soon, I have no doubt he will accomplish great things as president.

It's not just his oratorical skills but his towering intellect, calmness under pressure and amazing ability to multitask that make him a transformative international figure. He speaks from the heart, as well as the head, when he calls for diplomatic engagement over brute force as the way to peace. And he has given people around the globe reason to hope for a better future, one in which they can strive to better themselves educationally and economically while the United States moves away from the belligerent, me-first posture the characterized the George W. Bush administration.

Ironic, isn't it, that W's father is the one who vowed in his 1988 acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that he would work to make the United States "a kinder and gentler nation."

Wouldn't it be nice to hope that the prestige of winning the Nobel would translate to Obama having greater clout on Capitol Hill? The longer the health care reform "debate" drags on, the more exasperated I become at the influence of the medical insurance companies and the failure (stupidity?) of millions of Americans to realize that comprehensive reform is in their best interests.

I realize there's no direct connection between receiving an international award and rounding up enough votes in the Senate to not only pass legislation but invoke cloture and shut off debate. But one can always wish, right?

Photo by The Associated Press

Afghanistan, reconsidered

Leave it to Bob Woodward, half of that storied team of Washington Post reporters who broke the Watergate scandal 35 years ago, to get me to thinking about Afghanistan again. Not that it's ever far from my mind.

When you have a young son who's in the Army, you read the newspapers and magazines and tell yourself that he won't be deploying for several months, maybe even a year or more, to either Afghanistan or Iraq. At the same time, you read these articles and watch the TV news reports and try to come to some understanding of what our interests are in that part of the world and whether it makes sense to be there...regardless of the soldier in your family.

It was obvious a long time ago that George Bush invaded the wrong country after 9/11. What a waste of manpower and money and public support on such a misadventure...

And so here we are eight years into the Afghanistan War, launched ostensibly to root out Osama bin Laden, with little to nothing to show for our efforts. You've got a corrupt or incompetent government with allegations of fraud in the recent presidential election, some of the most formidable terrain in the world, an impoverished and largely illiterate people whose loyalties flip back and forth between U.S. and NATO forces, the Taliban and their individual tribes, based mainly on who can help them feed their families.

As Woodward reported this week, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, warns that the war can be lost if we don't commit more troops and quickly implement an effective counterinsurgency strategy. President Obama and his advisers are reviewing his assessment as public opinion polls show waning support for our involvement there. Congressional leaders -- i.e., top Democrats like Nancy Pelosi -- have already signaled their reluctance to get in deeper. And who can blame them?

The parallels to Vietnam can't be overlooked. There, we tried to force our values and military superiority on a people whose resiliency we grossly overestimated. Back then, we were fighting North Vietnam, backed by China. Now, Afghanistan is our ally and the real threat to the United States is posed by al-Qaida cells in Pakistan, which we can't invade because it too is an ally -- though probably the most unstable and erratic of our "friends."

A week ago Sunday, we devoted quite a bit of space in print and online to the Afghanistan War:
-- A thoughtful analysis by Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich, asking "How committed is Obama to the Afghanistan War?"
-- A "Letter from Kabul," an on-the-ground report from a Lewis & Clark College professor, Zaher Wahab, who's been going back every year to visit his family and help rebuild his country's higher education system.
-- An op-ed piece by Los Angeles Times columnist Doyle McManus, in which he contends "Afghanistan isn't Vietnam -- yet."

We followed up with an op-ed by one of our Oregon congressmen, David Wu, who had just come back from Afghanistan and announced his support for our continuing presence: "War in Afghanistan: an ongoing threat to our security."

And today our editorial board weighed in: "The general speaks. Now what?"

I don't know that I have the answers. Like Wu, I fear that withdrawing from Afghanistan will give the Taliban carte blanche to continue recruiting young men to their cause and plant the seeds for another potential attack on Americans, here or elsewhere in the world. I understand there's a difference between the religious extremism of the Taliban and the deadly militancy of al-Qaida, but it seems like the line would get blurred awfully quickly if we were to pull out entirely.

Editorial cartoon by Jack Ohman, The Oregonian

Socialism, anyone?

It's become quite the fashion for right-wing conservatives, as their desperation mounts, to hurl words like "socialism" and "socialist" at the new administration. Somehow, they think, we're supposed to be appalled or frightened, as if a cradle-to-grave society, fueled by skyrocketing taxes, was the path Comrade Obama was intent in putting us on.

So, when I sat down to breakfast the other day with The New York Times Magazine, intending to read the cover story --about the way Obama thinks we will live after "The Great Recession" -- I found myself drawn instead to an inside feature, "Learning to Be Sort-of Socialist." I'm glad I let myself be diverted -- proof yet again that one of the best things about print media is serendipity (when you go looking for one thing but accidentally discover something else).

As someone who's never been to Europe, I've always had something of a fuzzy notion whenever I've read of the quality of life or way of doing things on that continent, knowing there have got to be considerable differences, beyond language, in the history and culture that define England, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and the rest.

So it was with mild curiosity that I read Russell Oberto's piece, from the perspective of an American who's lived in The Netherlands for 18 months. Titled "Going Dutch: How I Learned to Love the European Welfare State," Oberto begins the piece with a startling number: 52. That's the rate at which his income is taxed. Before you gag on your oatmeal, stop and consider that's pretty much on par with what we pay here in the U.S. when you combine federal, state, local, Social Security and property taxes. (The Dutch rate of 52 percent includes Social Security.)

In any case, Oberto, a professional writer, points out the benefits he receives as a Dutch resident, including government payments to spend on vacation (over and above paid time off), child care and schoolbooks for himself. Parents with small children also can get government reimbursement for up to 70 percent of day care costs.

The Netherlands has universal health care (where nearly all general practitioners make house calls to the infirm and the elderly) and a pension system that covers about 80 percent of all workers. A family of four pays about $388 a month for health care, with co-pays, and including dental -- roughly a third less than a comparable policy in the U.S.

Also, about one-third of all dwellings are part of the public housing system, in which qualified people get apartments at below-market rents. Unlike in the U.S., there is no stigma attached to living in public housing because the government believes there is a value in keeping a mix of income levels in the units. As an example, Oberto cites a psychologist who lives in the same apartment he's had since he was a student.

So what's the down side? Oberto points to a soul-sucking sameness that stems from a homogenous population.

He cites the tradition of limited business hours on Sunday -- where it's virtually impossible to pop into a shop or a cafe -- as an example of the conservative Dutch system, rooted in the mid-20th century collision of the workers' movement and the church. Most shops are closed because there's a social consensus in support of a day of rest. During the week, most shops close by 6 p.m., precisely when people leaving work might want to patronize them, the author says.

"A broad social-welfare system works if everyone assumes that everyone else is playing by the same rules. Newcomers, with different ways of life and expectations, threaten it. This is one reason the recent waves of non-Western immigration here have caused o smuch disturbance. Can such a system work in a truly multiethnic society?"

He continues:

"...one downside of a collectivist society, of which the Dutch themselves complain, is that people tend to become slaves to consensus and conformity."

I've only hit the highlights of this provocative article, which delivered a lot of information I didn't know about Dutch history and the details of the contemporary social-welfare state. For anyone else who wants to explore the differences between capitalism and socialism, I recommend it highly.