Politicization of Time

Under pressure and criticism from Republicans, the Obama administration proudly trumpeted the success the the $787 billion dollar stimulus package. They claimed that jobs were created, and jobs that would have otherwise been lost were saved from the axe.

Yesterday, an analysis released by the Associated Press of the stimulus job report found that the 30,000 jobs credited to the stimulus are an overstatement by no less than 5,000. Last night the White House quickly responded to the report acknowledging that there were errors with the data they looked at to come to their 30,000 number and that the new data to be released Friday was reviewed much more closely. In fact, the errors were already known by the administration because their numbers were derived from “a small subset of data that had been subjected only to three days of reviews.”

The question becomes how the administration could knowingly use flawed data as evidence of the triumphant success of the single biggest government intervention into the economy. The play of time in politics certainly has a lot to do with it.

The initial reports were released October 15. At the beginning of October reports illustrated an unexpected surge in unemployment during the month of September. In response, Republicans pointed to rising unemployment as evidence of the failure of the massive expenditures of taxpayer money. On top of the poor employment situation, news was trickling in about how executives on Wall Street started raking in money once again. With millions of Americans ailing, the rich were once again indulging themselves, even after the massive bailouts that kept them afloat.

With all of this bad news piling up, it’s not surprising that the Obama administration wanted to inject some positivity into the economic story being told by the media. So, three days after the job reports were available a preliminary analysis was released and the administration used that report to tout the tens of thousands of jobs the stimulus created or saved.

Now that those results have come under fire, it has become convenient to place the highest emphasis on the preliminary nature of the initial reports, even though for the past two weeks the data has been treated as truth in the face of stimulus critics. As things worked out, the complete three week review of the data is set to be released tomorrow, just one day after the AP report made its way around the news circuit. As a result, the political costs of the report will be minimal because of the preoccupation with analyzing the new data and the time spent covering officials once again defending the effectiveness of the stimulus.

Due to the accumulating pressure from economic factors and Republicans, the Obama administration quickly released a report that could portray the stimulus in a positive light. The report was used to combat criticism and in the campaign efforts of various Congressional Democrats up for reelection in 2010. The administration bet against the potential repercussions of the decision to rush an early report, and they lucked out in this case.

The timely release of information, be they official reports or leaks to the media, is certainly not unique to the Obama administration. Presidents never admit to these things while in office, making any accusations the result of careful speculation. Considering the pressures Obama was facing and the central place the state of the economy will play in 2010, as well as the importance of that election to his first term goals, it’s hard to completely discount the notion that he will feed us any good economic news that comes his way.

It will be interesting to see how the Obama administration uses time in its various endeavors. In matters involving the state of the economy, he has clearly been very quick to react. Healthcare reform was also treated this way in its early stages, especially back when Obama originally proposed an August deadline to make sure that the process would keep moving. In contrast, the decision to send more troops to Afghanistan has drawn an Obama that emphasizes the deliberative process despite charges of “dithering” from Republicans. Going forward, and especially as the midterm elections near, the use of time as a political tool (or hindrance) by the Obama administration will become clearer in its patterns. From these patterns we can gain insight into his priorities, the way he hopes to achieve those goals, and how he matches up to his campaign promises to change how Washington functions.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMNoef6xDenBbHWO0Im6rIjDmAgAD9BKIN400

Indoctrination in a day

Fox News is doing getting down into the dirty work in investigating a New Jersey school that has been accused of indoctrinating children to praise Barack Obama after a video emerged on Youtube. Last week, Fox News filed a request with the school district for access to notices that were supposedly sent home to parents notifying them of the Obama song and that the children would be videotaped. Fox News sure is taking this indoctrination business serious. But should we be seriously concerned that indoctrination is occurring in our schools? All signs say no, at least for the elementary school children that have been the focus in the news.

First off, indoctrination is not something that happens with a single song one day at school. The popular comparison to the indoctrination of youth in Nazi Germany fails for this very reason. In Germany, the indoctrination of children was a nationwide effort. Today, only a few schools have become the target of indoctrination charges. In Germany, indoctrination was one of the primary goals of the educational system. Teachers had to have the backing of Nazi officials in order to keep their jobs. Today, you’d have to imagine that if indoctrination was occurring some of the concerned parents quoted by Fox News in their stories would notice it without a video having to go viral on the Internet.

Second, far more important than schools to the development of political views in children are the parents. Political learning occurs much more frequently at home because kids have significantly more contact with their family than with teachers in school. Everything from what parents talk about to what they watch on television can shape a child’s nascent political beliefs. In Nazi Germany, not only were schools actively pressing Nazi beliefs on children, but many parents were also buying into it because of the prospects it offered for the future after the failure of WWI. The resulting consistency of message in favor of the Nazi regime went a long way toward successfully teaching kids that they should adopt the Nazi way.

Third, the kids in these videos probably aren’t thinking too much about politics. Barring the most hostile attitudes from home, most children tend to have very positive views of the president in office. This isn’t based on any political belief system, but rather on a perception of the president as someone who makes the country work properly. In fact, the general trends show that most people don’t solidify their party affiliations until their 20s. So, if there is to be concern about indoctrination anywhere, the focus should be on US colleges, not the elementary schools.

Fox News has effectively taken something that is almost certainly not happening, and made it into a paramount issue. For many of the parents shown in videos on Youtube and quoted in articles, the principle concern doesn’t even seem to be the indoctrination, rather they are worried about their kids being recorded and posted on the internet. Unfortunately, that didn’t stop Fox News from posting an article with all the kids’ faces. It certainly doesn’t help the argument that Fox is up in arms over this because of the parents.

Nancy Pelosi might be insane

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi believes that the “public option” needs a new name that will make it more appealing to the American public. “The consumer option” and the “competitive option” are two names have popped up.

Maybe Pelosi brought some marijuana with her back to Washington from a San Francisco dispensary, or maybe she’s just crazy in thinking that calling the public option something else will make all the troubles go away.

A USA Today/ Gallup poll conducted October 16-19, 2009 shows 50% of the public in favor of healthcare reform including a public option, 46% saying it should not include the option, and 4% with no opinion.

As pointed out by a fellow on Fox News, when the public option is referred to as the “government option,” support for the policy slips dramatically. Rather than using this as evidence that the public is opposed to a government run insurance plan, I consider it evidence that the public doesn’t understand the issue that is being considered.

Pelosi finding a new and improved label for the public option won’t stop the media from confusing the public by failing to explain the issues in favor of covering the latest hot button issue (think death panels).

A new name certainly won’t fool the primary players in Washington. Republicans and the thick field of interest groups will continue their steadfast opposition to reform. They’ll certainly try to use any name change to their advantage by crying that Pelosi is trying to deceive the public by trying to disguise their” government takeover of healthcare.” Conservative Democrats won’t feel too much safer voting in favor of a public option with stiff opposition predicted in the 2010 Congressional races.

The potential benefits of a new name for the public option (and most gains are likely to be slim) do not outweigh the risks that could be incurred for the entire health reform ship. Pelosi is nuts if she pursues this idea further.

The Fox News Effect

With Senator Tom Coburn looking to gut political science funding, an article in the New York Times seeks to paint a picture of where the field stands right now. The take-home message can best be summed up from one interviewee when he said

“We political scientists can and should do a better job of making the public relevance of our work clearer and of doing more relevant work.”

As a student of political science, I am no stranger to the numerous debates about the most insignificant details surrounding a larger topic. There certainly are instances where political scientists could be spending their time and federal dollars in a more effective way.

One way political science could be of greater use would by looking at things that are occurring right now. One study conducted in 2006 found that Fox News was a significant factor in swaying people to vote for George W. Bush in 2000, especially in Florida which ended up being a decisive state in the election. Recognizing the influence of Fox News, the White House has called out Fox News for its tendency to disregard objective journalism in favor of aiding Republican causes. Concerned about how Fox News could use its dominance in the cable news market to harm efforts at progressing the Democratic agenda, the White House has taken an antagonistic stance toward the network.

A healthy amount of research has been conducted regarding the influence of media and people’s interactions with the media. An interesting, and seemingly relevant line of research could probe at the effects of Fox News in today’s political environment where Democrats control the executive and legislative branches of the government. How does Fox News affect undecided voters? Is Fox News a mobilizing force for conservatives? Who is watching Fox News? Answers to questions like this could put into perspective the roles that different news outlets are playing in our political system. Or it could just end up feeding the machine by giving Fox News the attention that will make it bigger and stronger. Either way, the tools utilized in political science provide a great way of looking at contemporary issues from an objective point of view.

Nobody gets anything done

A few weeks months ago I started writing a post criticizing the shift of various responsibilities from the states to the federal government. The main gist of what I was aiming to show was that the federal government has taken responsibility for a growing number of tasks, but fails to produce results too frequently.

For example:

Two decades after contaminated areas of the Great Lakes were identified, the cleanup process languishes. Bureaucracies are unable to deliver (in a timely manner) financial aid promised to veterans attending college after service, leaving them to make up the difference on their own through second jobs. A massive wildfire that that raged around the LA area may have been countered if the government had executed plans to clear dry brush from the area.

The inefficiencies of government are exacerbated by the range of tasks it has sought to control. On the heels of what is shaping up to be a successful vote for healthcare reform legislation, I am concerned about the government’s ability to effectively manage the new regulatory mechanisms that will be implemented. Its record doesn’t leave much room for optimism.

I never put aside the time to finish writing the original post, but looking at the links I’ve accumulated I’m uncertain why I ever thought that the states could do a better job.

Because of the bleak prospects in many states, federal stimulus dollars for various projects have not created any roads or provided any jobs and have instead gone toward closing budget gaps. Where the federal government reduced taxes, states turned around and raised them. Where the stimulus provided money to supplement school funding, states have cut funding for schools and replaced it with stimulus money. The accumulated effects of mismanagement at the state level have nullified any benefits citizens may have derived from federal funds.

Barring a sudden shift in governance, it’s doubtful that states will implement meaningful reforms that would allow them to better assume responsibility for matters within their jurisdictions. This last fact is unfortunate because logic would suggest that local management would be better suited to deal with things like Great Lake contamination and clearing of dry brush. Local officials are more knowledgeable of the area’s troubles and the risks they pose. In addition, they remain physically closer to their constituents which adds pressure to ensure the jobs get done.

Of course, states cannot simply decide that they will take care of more governing. Funds would need to be pulled away from the federal government and kept in state coffers, a task easier said than done. Any given Congressmember’s reelection success depends in part on how well he can convince his constituents that he is being a good representative in Washington, and part of that can be done through the channeling of federal funds. Members of Congress proudly come home to their constituents and boast about the federal dollars that they won for local ventures. To give the states greater control would require Congressmembers to concede some of their power and reelection advantages, a phenomena which occurs quite rarely (most recently with the McCain-Feingold act which reformed campaign finance laws).

States certainly need to prove that they could handle more responsibility, and some will do so better than others. Nevertheless, it is becoming clearer that the federal government has its hands in too many pots. A shift toward greater state control over various environmental, safety, and welfare matters, to mention a few areas, would benefit citizens around the country.

No Money for Political Science

Tom Coburn, a Republican Senator from Oklahoma, doesn’t like the idea of the National Science Foundation receiving money to fund political science research. He contends that the research that is being done has “little, if anything, to do with science.” According to Coburn, the money would be better spent on the hard sciences like biology and chemistry because they are more likely to discover something of use to people. To top things off, Coburn says that if people want to learn about politics and government, they can turn to the cable news networks, newspapers, or any random person on the Internet talking about politics (like me).

I’ve learned a thing or two in a political science class I’m currently taking on Congress, so let me see if I can put it to use.

Coburn believes that “Diverting federal funds to political science will not accomplish the goals of improving America’s standing in the fields of math and science…” (Coburn_NSF). Coburn talks like someone who is very concerned about the achievements our country makes in science and math. Unfortunately, his voting record, as rated by various educational interest groups,  reveals a story of opposition to education. Science and medical research interest groups have also given him ratings of 0, but the sample only includes three groups. Coburn has also voted against funding for stem cell research.

So why the change in heart? Part of this may have to do with Coburn’s upcoming reelection bid in 2010.  In contrast to his 2004 campaign, Coburn has received contributions from the pharmaceutical/health products industry for this election cycle. For example, Coburn has received $15,650 from the Emergent BioSolutions PAC, a company which just won nearly $5 million from the stimulus bill to research an anthrax vaccine. Less money for political science research means more money available for drug companies to compete for.

I’m not sure if Coburn would appreciate the unflattering explanation I just gave for his actions but in his world my political analysis is valid enough to take away money from real political science work.

Marijuana Legalization on the agenda

There are a few propositions floating around that are trying to get marijuana legalization the the 2010 ballot in California. I encountered one a few days ago which would essentially regulate selling and possession the same way we treat alcohol. I’m not the biggest fan of the stuff, but a law like this seems completely reasonable. The criminalization of the substance has had no deterrent effect at all. A large portion of the state’s prison population is locked up for drug offenses, leading to a revolving door of more serious offenders who by all measures should remain locked up. In addition, there’s no reason why this lucrative business should benefit shady figures who would cause us harm when it can be tapped as an excellent source of tax revenue to benefit the state.

On the downside, legalization of marijuana could lead to a confrontation with federal agencies. The state could potentially lose federal funding due to noncompliance with federal laws in the same way that highway funds were withheld from states who didn’t raise the minimum drinking age to 21.

Also, there’s no sure way of knowing that increased tax revenue would help the state’s fiscal problems. Since the legislature is always so eager to spend, the money could be allocated to new projects instead of going toward paying for what we already have which we cannot afford. In this case we would end up with an even bigger deficit and no benefit from the new law.

Juiced up eggheads

In an article in the October Journal of Medical Medical Ethics, Vince Cakic brings up the issue of “academic doping,” the process of using drugs such as Ritalin to get a cognitive boost. Among other things, Cakic looks at the ethical implications of academic doping by comparing the situation to steroid use by athletes. In the end, he downplays the notion that use of prescription drugs by healthy individuals is destroying fairness in academia because the playing field was not level to begin with. For example, differences in genetics and socioeconomic status afford certain people advantages in cognitive ability over others. Cakic also brings up the idea that we might reach a point where making these drugs more readily available might be a viable option for helping people who are struggling academically due to their “neurological handicaps” (612).

Cakic makes an interesting argument, but I think it allows us to continue down a path that isn’t necessarily one that should be traveled. For many people, caffeine raises the bar on the amount of work they can accomplish. Nootropics raise that bar even higher. Suddenly the baseline workload for a growing number of people is something that is unsustainable without continued use of drugs. For Americans who are often thought of as being overworked, raising expectations even higher will only accelerate the decline in health that is associated with stress and fatigue. Cakic rejects the idea that people will feel pressured or forced to use cognitive enhancing drugs due to lack of empirical evidence, but I think logically it isn’t something that can be dismissed. In our capitalistic society, there are few things untouched by a sense of competition. Especially in hard economic times, it’s hard to believe that people would not be tempted to take drugs to give themselves an edge. When individuals make the choice to enhance themselves, it raises the collective bar and everyone suffers from the consequences.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cakic, Vince. “Smart Drugs for cognitive enhancement: ethical and pragmatic considerations in the era of cosmetic neurology”. Journal of Medical Ethics. 10.35 (2009): 611-615.

Summary article from ScienceDaily covers parts of the article I didn’t discuss