Obama Continues Moving Toward Center

As more and more of the Obama administration is announced, the most striking feature is the centrism of his appointments. In fact, they are so centrist, there are already cries of protest from the left, and Karl Rove has offered tepid support. Though in one way such a move is somewhat surprising, it also underscores the lack of a knowledge base about President Elect Obama, from which predictions could be drawn.

For those of us who opposed Mr. Obama's candidacy, this is a welcome surprise. Though it is very early to make any judgements on what policy will actually be in the new administration, the early signs point away from a significant swing to the left, the outcome most feared by most who preferred Mr. McCain.

Mr. Obama benefits from following Mr. Bush in many ways. Not the least of these is that by moving so far to the right and fake-right, Mr. Bush in effect enlarged the middle of the political spectrum. By moving into this space, Mr. Obama can protect himself from both a midterm challenge, which a President who has a party majority in both houses usually faces, and cement his lead with the moderate voters who gave him the presidency. Freed from ever facing a challenge from the left, he can virtually assure himself a second term, assuming a moderately successful first term, where he can move to the left if he so chooses. Whether he chooses to do so or not, he very well may have that option.

The Follies Of The New Prohibition

Once again, the new prohibition has shown how pointless it is. There are now reports of immune systems being wiped out by a cutting agent used to dilute cocaine. The entire modern justification of the war on drugs is to protect us from ourselves, because we can't be trusted to make choices for ourselves. However, this is counterproductive, because people will always continue to use drugs because they like them. Thus, instead of "suffering" a cocaine high, along with the repercussions of it, they essentially die, because they were forced to make a blind choice, not knowing what they were taking. Yes, it was their choice to take an unproven substance. However, the government had no right to deny their right to use cocaine. The foundation of modern government is to protect people from others infringing on their rights.

When the government goes beyond that basic principle, unforeseen ramifications occur. In this case, the effect of prohibition was worse than the likely effect of the banned action. The vast majority of drug deaths are due to the prohibition rather than the actual drug. Most overdoses occur because there is no way of knowing how much active ingredient is in a dose of drugs. If they were sold as any other consumer good, it would be as simple as reading the label. Yet the government does not trust you to use drugs safely, so it becomes a guessing game.

Once given a power, the tendency is for the government to abuse it. Because voters cowardly allowed the war on drugs to flourish, the government is applying the principle to other areas. Governments are increasingly regulating food, with trans fats being the first victims. All data so far points to trans fats being very bad. However, it should be a personal choice. The reason goes deeper than many realize.

Starting a few decades back, the government urged people to eat a grain based diet. For now, I'll leave aside the possibility this was pushed by grain producers with political sway. At the time, there was preliminary data to suggest a grain based diet was healthy. Today, we know that, depending on your body chemistry, this is not the case, and in fact, in many cases, those things which we were told to eat were borderline poison. The epidemic of obesity and diabetes today is caused in large part by the grain and starch based diets of Americans. By and large, it is not cause by the fat intake the government said caused it. At least those guidelines were voluntary. Imagine if they were put into law. This is yet another reason to not allow government to outgrow it's role.

Could the Mumbai Attacks Be Replicated In America?

As news of the terror attacks in Mumbai dominate the news, a critical question to ask is how similar attacks can be prevented. There are likely to be several schools of thought as to the best way to prevent attacks such as these, depending on the beliefs of those asked.

One school will insist that we need tighter security regulations and more law enforcement. While these may be helpful, they can only go so far. India has been at war with Muslim extremists much longer than the US, yet clearly was still vulnerable. Indeed, there were reports that the police station was the first target.

Another school will insist that this is the time for more gun control. This, of course, ignores the fact that those who are going to kill many people do not mind violating some government regulation. Banning guns will not have an effect on their availability to terrorists for several reasons. One, by banning them, their value will increase, along with the reward for trading in them. The prime example of this is illegal drugs. No one has any problem finding drugs if they want them, despite their illegality and the resources wasted on trying to reduce their supply. Second, guns are very easy to make. The technology for an machine gun is about 150 years old. Nothing that old is that hard to build. Guns can be made in any machine shop. They are routinely made covertly in prisons. To go back to the drug example, it is infinitely more difficult to make cocaine than a gun, yet anyone in America could get cocaine in a day if they tried hard.

Rather, the necessary solution is more guns, that is, to allow concealed carry by any and all sound minded citizens who do not have a criminal background. This is how Israel prevented shootings like this from occurring. They generally now only take place where Israeli citizens have been disarmed. This tactic has also been proven to prevent such tragedies in the US. Indeed, this is one of the reasons that most mass shootings in the US now take place at schools, which are "gun free zones". What they really are is free victim zones, where the law abiding cannot defend themselves. Until we extend the single most basic right, self-defense, to all citizens, we will always be subject to these types of attacks.

Obamanomics

As Mr. Obama starts his transition to the presidency, we start to see which campaign promises will be glossed over and which will be pursued. There are indications that he is at least attempting to govern somewhat from the middle. It appears he will go forward with his infrastructure rebuilding, which will act as a intermediate range stimulus, and also eventually boost the business community. Infrastructure spending is one of the less offensive forms of government spending, if done correctly. He also looks likely to appoint Mr. Volcker to head his economic advisory board. As I noted earlier, he is also open to at least delaying the tax increases he proposed for the top bracket.

If Mr. Obama is able to focus his party on center-left economic policy, and to minimize their unpopular social policies, such as gun control and wealth redistribution rhetoric, he will prove a powerful force, unstoppable in 2012. Mr. Obama is also smart enough to realize that if he wants his more radical agenda, he will need to postpone it until his second term, and that the key to getting a second term is to fix the economy without making too many people upset.

Obama Keeps Gates

As much as I criticize Mr. Obama, his decision to keep Sec. Gates on was a good one. With so much on the country's plate right now, it is wise to retain someone who can handle crisis #2 while the administration focuses on crises #1. Sec. Gates was fairly popular for someone in such a position, as has done a fairly good job, considering what he was working with. While I'm sure they will not agree on everything, hopefully they can find a common ground on which to work.

Taxes Vs. Deficits

It now appears that Mr. Obama will not move to raise taxes on the highest bracket under his initial legislation. I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I have strenuously opposed higher taxes for the top bracket. I do not believe in punishing success. If taxes are lowered on the lower brackets, the tax burden will still shift in ways that could become very important down the road, however, it will be the lesser of two evils. On the other hand, without some form of tax increase, the deficit will be out of control. There have already been estimates of $1 trillion dollar deficits under Mr. Obama. As the depth of the recession becomes clear, that may be optimistic, even with tax hikes. Without the additional revenue, all bets are off. Though there are all sorts of technical points and subtopics, generally speaking deficits are bad. Ironically, those who embraced deficits in the past have been the somewhat irrational far right, such as the neo-cons. Some who were essentially anarcho-capitalists and/or corporatist actually viewed deficit spending as a way of permanently crippling government.

More interestingly, this points to the possibility the Mr. Obama may in fact govern from the center, though in some cases that may be a worst of both worlds proposition, rather than a true centrist policy. This would have many implications for 2010, 2012 and beyond.

Children Need Play Time

Finally, a group of experts is saying we are harming our children by not allowing them enough time to play. In modern America way too much time is taken up in children's lives by school and other structured activities.

First, speaking with only my personal experience as a guide, much, if not most, of school time is a waste. I was homeschooled for one year. In that time, I jumped what I estimate to be at least 4-5 years of public school. I did what felt like 30-60 minutes of work a day. In my experience, most effort in public school is forcing children to obey rules. Much of the rest is make-work to take up time. Granted, I was somewhat adept at academics, but I was no savant.

Second, too many parents want to delegate their responsibility of raising their children to others, such as coaches, the schools, TV, and anyone else. This is what leads to young children having booked 14 hour days. It's not healthy. Children need time with books and open-to-interpretation toys in order to be healthy emotionally and mentally. In my personal opinion, over-exposing children to TV is borderline child abuse. My own parents did an excellent job of this, and that is one of the reasons all of their children are successes(well, some would argue about me).

I sincerely hope that this new evidence is not brushed aside by the establishment, and is instead embraced as the critical truth that it is. Playing to "what about the children" is standard justification for all kinds of issues. In this case, it really is about the children, not the transference of adults.