Richard Cohen Writes in the Washington Post,

From John Edwards, lessons on celebrity and politics

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Excerpt

We have substituted the camera — fame, celebrity — for both achievement and the studied judgment of colleagues. The political machine, the organization, even the parties themselves are gone, severely atrophied or discredited as (ugh) mainstream. They once served as filters, admission committees, but they have been replaced by a sham familiarity — fame at its most beguiling and dangerous. This was John Edwards. He’s not a scandal. He’s a lesson.

“The capacity to grasp and manipulate complex ideas is enough to define intellect but not enough to encompass intelligence, which involves combining with judgment and care in selecting relevant explanatory factors and in establishing empirical tests of any theory that emerges. Intelligence minus judgment equals intellect.  Wisdom is the rarest quality of all- the ability to combine intellect, knowledge, experience, and judgment in a way to produce a coherent understanding. Wisdom is the fulfillment of the ancient admonition, “With all of your getting, get understanding.” Wisdom requires self-discipline and an understanding of the realities of the world, including the limitations of one’s own experience and of reason itself. The opposite of intellect is dullness or slowness, but the opposite of wisdom is foolishness, which is far more dangerous.”

“George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool.”

From Intellectuals and Society by Thomas Sowell

“In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending (subprime) Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government -subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s”  (New York Times in 1999)

“The success of the two companies (Fannie and Freddie) in both the financial and political arena inevitably fostered a culture of arrogance. “We always won, we took no prisoners and we faced little organized political opposition,” Daniel Mudd, then president of Fannie Mae, wrote in a 2004 memo to his boss. That overconfidence led both companies eventually to move into derivatives and to employ aggressive accounting measures. They were later found by regulators to have manipulated their earnings, and both were forced to restate years of results.  The CEOs of both companies were ousted.”

From Too Big To Fail by Andrew Ross Sorkin

Random thoughts

GM’s effort to target Toyota’s  customers  in the midst of their record recall notice seems in poor taste, especially in light of the record amount of taxpayer money that is now supporting GM.  This is like the arrogant rich kid who brags about being  smart when he was just lucky enough to inherit daddy’s money.  Kudos to Honda for expressly rejecting this tactic and Ford for just making money without taxpayer funds.   This is a big debit to GM’s karma account. Remember how many Toyotas are manufactured in this country.

Has anyone ever heard a peep from this administration about the government’s  responsibility for the economic crash, or do we just keep adding to the list of corporate demons?  First the oil companies, then insurance companies, then the health care providers and then the banks and financial institutions.  I need oil companies, insurance companies, health care providers and banks because they provide stuff and  services I need and want. I wish I could say this about the government .

After reading and writing about the financial crisis, I realize that the best analysis is devoid of political and partisan scapegoating.  The causes  were multiple and extended back more than 25 years. While much is clear in hindsight, at the time there were seemingly rational reasons for every stupid step toward the cliff.  How do smart people make such stupid mistakes?  One small stupid step at a time.

I have observed that there is an innate sense of trust on the social networking sites, especially Facebook.  We have connected with people we haven’t seen in decades, and there is an instant sense of trust.  Rules of etiquette on Facebook are unwritten but seemingly obvious just the same.  I wonder if the hours we spend on Facebook comes at the expense of television viewing.

With a more substantial majority than either party has enjoyed in decades and control of the White House, the Democrats have failed to pass any of the legislative initiatives other  than the stimulus package early in 2009(and the absurd cash for clunkers program) . It seems that either the bills they are trying to pass stink or that they must be incredibly politically incompetent.

The Senate election in Massachusetts may signal much more that dissatisfaction with the current administration; it may signal and end to partisan politics as we have known it.

Given the euphoria and high expectations at Obama’s election in the midst of the worst financial crisis in half a century, it was already difficult not to disappoint. Given the generalities that accompany a campaign and the utter lack of experience he was elected more as an act of faith and hope than for noted qualifications and solutions. Wedding pictures fade.

The first year is often a learning year for a president. Many errors in judgment can be corrected and lead to a successful term and re-election. But this first year has been a year of firsts. The tea party movement should not have been taken lightly. This was a bottom up political movement. Protesters were neither praising or condemning parties; they were condemning their actions.

Independents have been critical  to election outcomes in our last 50 years.  Independents offer an accountability that party loyalists do not.  Unfortunately they also have fewer clear principles that accompany party affiliation. They can be swayed by charisma; they elected Obama.  And on January 19, just more than year later, they rejected him.

The rise of the independents may be heralding a new age that renders both political parties irrelevant. The reaction to Ben Nelson’s capitulation on health care from his own state was a note on the change coming. Anti incumbent attitudes are nothing new. But when the opportunity came to turn them out we usually found that unpopular incumbents were always those in other states and districts; we tended to tolerate our own as long as they ‘brought home the bacon’.

Nebraska ended that. They soundingly thrashed Nelson in spite of the lucrative special deal he made for his constituents. This should have alarmed the administration more than Brown’s victory.

Brown’s victory was a vote against the style as well as the substance.   When George H. Bush broke his clear pledge (“Read my lips”) and raised taxes he lost the independents and many of his own party. The independents do not like blatant lies and promises broken.  Obama promised bipartisanship and tried to force through one of the biggest changes in a decade with no Republican support.  He promised transparency yet closed door meetings with no press were common. He promised a five day posting period to review all legislation yet thousand page bills were voted on with little to no time to read them.

He was going to shun special interests yet cut special deals with unions.  Did he think nobody would notice?

If a bill has merit, it doesn’t need bribes and closed doors to pass. The more they bribed and gave into special interests the more it was rejected.  All the speeches and interviews only made it worse.

The voters have a sense of fairness and truth.  They expected more of it and get less. That a party with bigger majorities in both houses than their opponents have had in a century could not get a major bill through signals that either that their bills stink or that they are politically incompetent.