Tag Archives: New Federalism

Political Paralysis

I went to Washington DC this week to pick up an award for my work on Advertising and Piracy from the Global Intellectual Property Center, which is a part of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The irony will not escape many long time readers of this blog, as I have been critical of the Chamber, especially around the issues of transparency in corporate campaign finance. But I believe strongly that our country is committing financial and cultural suicide when it comes to protecting the rights of artists, so you take your allies where you can get them. I couldn’t resist in my acceptance speech noting the irony.

I want to finish with one thought. As I said this is primarily an issue of transparency and I’m glad the Chamber is for transparency in the advertising business. At the risk of biting the hand that has fed me well today, I would ask that the Chamber also support transparency in corporate donations to politicians.  Once again, thank you very much for your support.

When it was all over a man who works for Homeland Security on IP issues thanked me for my work and then we got into a discussion about his job. It turns out he hasn’t had a permanent boss in four years, because the Senate held up the appointment of Obama’s first nominee and now the vetting process for a second nominee is taking months because of an excess of caution. The story seemed so indicative of the mood in Washington I felt in the two days I was there. Everyone seems resigned to paralysis being the new normal. The Republican minority sees it’s task as just gumming up the works to make sure Obama can’t accomplish anything. And the Democrats sometimes display a kind of Stockholm Syndrome: knowing they are being held hostage, they display cordiality towards their captors.

P1-BL464_DEBT_G_20130509185403

Meanwhile the news media continues to hunt for disaster stories that will increase the citizens sense of fear and dependency. This little item from the Wall Street Journal, showing a dramatic improvement in the deficit went unnoticed and uncommented on Capitol Hill or other organs of the MSM. It is almost impossible to create an optimistic narrative in Washington, so the best option for me is to return my focus to the Golden State. In California, progressives control both the legislature and the executive branch. Remarkable changes are beginning to happen. The state’s finances are coming into balance after the recent tax rise and money is being spent improving our infrastructure and supporting education. The very idea that Los Angeles could be come a walkable community with a great public transportation system seemed impossible five years ago and yet in a year I will be able to ride the light rail from Santa Monica to USC.

Los-Angeles-Transit-Map

 

I figure if California can once again assume its role as the architect of America’s future, then many states will follow. If we work on the pillars of the new strategy that Patrick Doherty and Mark Mykleby have been advocating: affordable college, walkable cities, low carbon transportation, regenerative agriculture and resource productivity, we will forge an example for both the nation and the world. Let’s ignore Washington and get on with our own optimistic future.

A New Civil War?

Andrew O’Hehir’s latest essay in Slate is pretty damn provocative. It’s titled Welcome to the New Civil War and it pulls no punches.

So even though it’s a truism of American public discourse that the Civil War never ended, it’s also literally true. We’re still reaping the whirlwind from that long-ago conflict, and now we face a new Civil War, one focused on divisive political issues of the 21st century – most notably the rights and liberties of women and LGBT people – but rooted in toxic rhetoric and ideas inherited from the 19th century.

We’ve just emerged from a presidential campaign that exposed how hardened our political and cultural divide has become, and how poorly the two sides understand each other. Part of the Republican problem, in an election that party thought it would win easily, was that those who felt a visceral disgust toward both the idea and the reality of President Barack Obama simply could not believe that they didn’t represent a majority. As many Republicans are now aware, the party now faces an existential crisis. It’s all very well to go on TV and talk about attracting Latinos and downplaying cultural wedge issues. But the activist core of the Republican Party is neo-Confederate, whether it thinks of itself that way or not. It isn’t interested in common cause with Mexicans or turning down the moral thermostat. Just ask Rick Santorum: What it wants is war.

As anyone who has read this blog for a while knows, I believe in a certain power that comes from regionalism. I think the notion that California has a different economy and culture than Georgia is OK and that as Justice Brandeis said, “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

But O’Hehir’s essay raises another larger question, which is what happens when individual states circumscribe the rights of individuals in areas like abortion or gay rights? As Alex Bowles wrote to me, “so while decentralization improves decision making in many, many areas, there are some things—like equality before the law—that are no longer subject to debate. To the extent that humanity is universal, there’s no need for regional considerations to enter the picture.”

So this begs the question. Is it possible to have the kind of decentralized regional experimentation that I think leads to innovation while still preserving that Federal power to enforce “equality under the law” for gays, women, immigrants and minorities? I think this is what has to happen, but it may take a showdown with the neo-confederates before it happens.

Hedgehog and the Fox

Sir Isaiah Berlin wrote a wonderful little book called The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy’s View of History. Here is a quick version of Berlin’s thesis.

‘A fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing’. This fragment of a verse by Greek poet Archilochus describes the central thesis of Berlin’s masterly essay in which he underlines a fundamental distinction that exists in mankind–between those who are fascinated by the infinite variety of things (foxes) and those who relate everything to a central all-embracing system (hedgehogs).

I think our current election pits a hedgehog (Romney) versus a Fox (Obama). I think the libertarians who comment on this blog are hedgehogs. I think Bob Dylan is a fox and Louis Armstrong and Picasso and Susan Sontag and Martin Scorsese and Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerman are all foxes. I think Ron Paul is a hedgehog and Franklin Graham and Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santorum are hedgehogs. They see the world through a single lens, be it Austrian economics or fundamentalist religion.

But our world cannot accommodate hedgehogs, because “the infinite variety of things” is only exploding. The hedgehog is incapable of dealing with facts that contradict his world worldview. Take the whole inflation debate which our Libertarian correspondents have been telling us is coming down the pike at hyper speeds for the last four years, because the Treasury and the Fed are “printing money”. As Richard Duncan points out in his new bookThe New Depression: The Breakdown of the Paper Money Economy , that at the very point that Greenspan was unloosing the easy money, Globalization was causing “a 95% drop in the marginal cost of labor by bringing a billion people from the developing world into the global industrial workforce.”

How could you possibly have inflation in such a circumstance? Hayek is simply not able to account for this. So Ron Paul will never stop predicting hyper inflation and the suckers will never stop buying gold futures which PAY NO INTEREST.

Or take Paul Ryan’s insistence that an austerity budget like the Conservatives pushed through in Great Britain is the key to America’s future. Ryan continues to push his budget, which mimics the British one, despite the announcement this week that Britain has fallen back into a double dip recession.

Britain’s austerity experiment in particular has been judged by economists to have been ill-timed and poorly constructed at best. It is a reminder, in the consensus view, that the basic tenets of Keynesian economics – primarily, that government spending plays a key role in maintaining demand when the private sector is struggling in a severe financial crisis — remain as valid as ever.

So much for the hedgehogs. Never let facts get in the way of ideology.

But how are the foxes going to convince the country that their vision that we are at a Cambrian Moment–A time of radical evolutionary development–is a rational reaction to the end of the Interregnum. I am convinced that Liberals must embrace the experimentation that flows from Subsidiarity: the notion that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. David Brooks writing about Jim Manzi’s latest book Uncontrolled: The Surprising Payoff of Trial-and-Error for Business, Politics, and Society, notes that experimentation is the key to rethinking our politics.

Manzi wants to infuse government with a culture of experimentation. Set up an F.D.A.-like agency to institute thousands of randomized testing experiments throughout government. Decentralize policy experimentation as much as possible to encourage maximum variation.

Here once again we return to the idea of New Federalism. As you know, I have been wrestling with this idea for years without coming to a satisfactory conclusion. I think as the school year ends this becomes my summer project.

Deja Vu all over again

I must admit that I am increasingly confident that Barak Obama will have a second term. The new poll from CBS/New York Times indicates as I have suggested before that Obama is in good shape.

Showing steady improvement since early December, Mr. Obama’s approval rating has reached the 50 percent mark in The Times/CBS News poll — an important baseline in presidential politics and his highest approval rating since May 2010 (excepting the brief bump he received after Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden in May 2011).

It is clear that Axelrod and Co. have suckered the Republicans into a battle over birth control! How 1950′s. This may actually lead to Rick Santorum grabbing the nomination on platform that even Barry Goldwater would have thought too right wing.

So then my mind turns to the battles of a second term. I think they will revolve around defense, disruption and devolution.

On defense the battle lines are already being drawn, with progressives who want to make a once in a generation complete reordering of the Pentagon’s stranglehold on our discretionary spending, having already won giant cuts if Congress does nothing. On the other side are Panetta, and the Republicans railing against the coming cuts.

The overall spending was dictated by the budget agreement that Obama and congressional Republicans reached last August that calls for defense cuts of $487 billion over a decade. More troubling to Panetta and lawmakers is the likelihood that automatic, across-the-board cuts will kick in in January unless Congress can come up with at least $1.2 trillion in savings.

The additional $500 billion of cuts would still leave the U.S. Military far larger than any potential rival. Of course the new focus on the Pacific is designed to start another mindless arms race with the Chinese, just like the criminal waste of money from 1950-1989 on the Soviet Arms Race. This needs to be stopped. Continue reading

Four Years is a Lifetime

Arab Spring

The first post of this blog was exactly four years ago. It’s been a long strange journey and yet I’m struck by how much I feel the same mixture of hope and foreboding. As to hope, I am still struck by the creativity of my family and close colleagues. I am still in awe of a few artists who seem to be able to make music or films with a passionate commitment to truth and beauty. And despite the disappointments, I still have an essential faith in the humanity and intelligence of Barack Obama. And the foreboding that I felt four years ago, before the Great Recession had struck, still is in place.

And then you ask–so where does the aforementioned dread come from? It comes from a sense of profound economic peril. We have lived as a country off the rich inheritance of past generations and now the party may be coming to a close.

This has been a revolutionary year. Some would compare it to 1848, 1917 or 1968. Look at the Pictures of the year as organized by the New York Times and you can’t ignore the interregnum upheaval we are experiencing. I chose the photo of the young Egyptian revolutionaries at their computers as the quintessential image of “the old is dying and the new is struggling to be borne” that defines the Interregnum. These kids give me hope and I was struck by the words of their young Russian counterpart, Aleksei Navalny at the massive anti-Putin rally in Moscow yesterday.

“Where is this man?” Mr. Navalny asked. “Can you see him? Is he here?”

He added: “These days, with the help of the zombie-box, they are trying to prove to us that they are big and scary beasts. But we know who they are. Little sneaky jackals! Is that right?” The crowd roared. “Is that true or not?” Another roar.

Of course we have our own battles with the forces that control “the zombie-box” in America. For all our idealistic belief in the liberating power of the Internet, most of our citizens still get their information from television–Fox News, CBS, ABC and NBC. And of course there is the large minority that gets no news at all, but rather sits like Mr. Navalny’s zombies zoned out on the fake spectacle of Wrestling or the lives of the Kardashians. Near the end of a presidential campaign all the advertising goes to reach these zombies–people who for some reason in late October of a Presidential race have been paying so little attention that they are still “undecided”. WTF! These cretins get to decide a close political race?

And you can bank on it that Karl Rove’s $500 Million Super Pac will have some killer ads to wake these moron’s out of their stupor just long enough to get them outraged enough to drag their sorry asses to the polls on the first Tuesday in November. Somehow, I can guarantee you that Obama will be painted as “un-American” and the Know-Nothings will drink a couple of Red Bulls and be driven to the polls to pull the lever of Democracy.

So let’s hope we can be inspired by the young activists in Cairo, Moscow, Damascus, New York, Oakland and all the points around the globe where citizens are trying to make the word “democracy” have some meaning. For me, that means going back to Localism. Trying to make Los Angeles the most livable, just, optimistic and creative city on the planet.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays,

JT

New Federalism Revisited

I run an Innovation Lab at USC. It is supported by some of the most innovative companies in the world. I can tell you one thing with certainty—the truly innovative companies have learned to devolve power and flatten organization structures. If the United States is to survive as the design and innovation hub of the digital world, it is going to have to have a government structure designed for a 21st Century World. And that means that power and funding is going to need to devolve from the Federal level to the State and City level. I’ve been writing about this idea for almost five years, but I’m more convinced than ever that some sort of New Federalism is the only way out of the grinding political gridlock that is destroying our country. Democrats cannot fight this notion that power that is closer “to the customer”, is more efficient power.

But the problem with giving the states more responsibility is that you need to encourage mobility in America, not discourage it. If my 2050 version of Social Security is being managed at the state level, it’s just harder to move. The beauty of a Federal social insurance system is that there is never any impediment to get up and move to where the work is. Your social security number is good anywhere.

So let me specify what I think we need a Federal Government for:Departments of Defense, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security as well as  Social Security and Medicare benefits. Everything else should be a State matter. Certainly law enforcement agencies like the FBI and SEC would operate at the Federal Level to enforce Federal statutes, but the funding and the personnel for the departments of Education, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Transportation and Labor should primarily exist at the State level. Obviously both the Housing and the Agriculture departments in California and Mississippi would be concerned with very different issues. And of course as the Imperial Dreams of America come down to earth, the bloated Defense and Homeland Security budgets would shrink dramatically. Continue reading

Choice Election

The best moment for me in Obama’s Thursday night jobs speech was his description of the basic choice that will be put to the electorate in 14 months. On the one hand there is the Tea Party view.

In fact, this larger notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everybody’s money, and let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they’re on their own — that’s not who we are.  That’s not the story of America.

And then there is Obama’s view.

Yes, we are rugged individualists.  Yes, we are strong and self-reliant.  And it has been the drive and initiative of our workers and entrepreneurs that has made this economy the engine and the envy of the world.

But there’s always been another thread running throughout our history — a belief that we’re all connected, and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation.

We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union.  Founder of the Republican Party.  But in the middle of a civil war, he was also a leader who looked to the future — a Republican President who mobilized government to build the Transcontinental Railroad — (applause) — launch the National Academy of Sciences, set up the first land grant colleges.  (Applause.)  And leaders of both parties have followed the example he set.

This is an essential truth. Continue reading

Savage Capital II

This morning it is deja vu all over again. In March of 2008, after having warned my readers for three months that a crash was coming, I wrote a piece about what I called Savage Capitalism. The short selling sharks had managed to crash Bear Stearns and now were swimming around with blood on their snouts looking for their next prey. It would be Lehman Bros. The whole notion that the great fortunes of the present day were made selling short, was a particularly dispiriting one.

I’m a boomer and I was raised in the 50′s with a healthy respect for the great companies and fortunes made from producing the goods America wanted. Whether General Electric, Ford Motor, AT&T, IBM, all were producing world class quality products. Even banks like Chase Manhattan and Bank Of America added great value to the American economy. But things are different now. The great fortunes get built betting on failure. John Paulson, who personally made $5 Billion in 2010, did it by shorting mortgage securities that he designed to fail. George Soros made $1Billion in 1992 shorting the British Pound.

At this very moment the school of short-selling sharks is circling the bonds of Portugal, Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland. Their big score is if they can get one of those countries to default. Continue reading

Why Now?

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way.-opening sentences of Dickens’ “Tale of Two Cities”

When I first started talking about the notion that we were in an Interregnum–Gramsci’s notion that “The old is dying and the new cannot be born.  In this interregnum there arises a great diversity of morbid symptoms”–I didn’t really suspect that it would get quite so morbid. A couple of days ago, a reporter, having read my Brave New World Redux post, called me up to ask about the reference to “Flash Robs” in the context of the London Riots. I made what I thought was a fairly uncontroversial remark about two facts. First, that in a world of increasing inequality, there is a group of unemployed young people who are totally untethered to the social norms. Second, those young people use social media for everything, including organizing vandalism and looting. Even though the reporter took a long discussion and boiled it down to one line, I still feel my comment was true. What I have seen since then is an onslaught of hate mail, much of it overtly racist, probably brought on by this blog post revealing me to be “an undisclosed new media leftist”. And here I thought I could return to my community and have a decent, civil conversation. Jeesh! Here’s an example of the kind of shit I read every morning. This one from one Dan Anthony.

Let’s tell it how it is.. These Mobs are Black Ghetto Welfare Slaves. Their parents and grandparents were also Welfare Slaves. A bunch of people caught in a cycle of no education, no ambition, and no morals. Stupid People breed Stupid People. If this was the best Economy in the history of the country , these people would still be doing this. The Economy up and downs do not effect Welfare Slaves. Maybe if people in this country told the truth without worrying about who’s feelings get hurt, we can move on and become a better society. Stay out in Cali with the rest of the elitest, leftwing nuts. You assholes out there are phooney, full of shit, Limo Liberals GO FUCK YOURSELF AND FUCK YOU JERK OFF.

I’m trying to figure out why my comments about the haves and the have nots has struck such a cord. Continue reading