presidential debate #1

There are many things I could say, but I will restrict myself to four.

1. Why the hell wasn't I invited?

2. In the "rational argument" sense, Obama won by a significant margin. (Actually, I think there are even multiple ways of evaluating in an "rational argument" sense, but since I think what I say holds for all of those, I won't take the time to distinguish.)

I don't have anywhere near the time to give a line by line commentary on the transcript in defense of my claim. But here is a very helpful illustration. McCain spent a lot of his time (time he could've spent in the service of rational argument) talking about how he has seen the mountains of Pakistan, seen a poster of Putin labelled "Our President" in Georgia, etc. However, as I hope a moment's thought will make obvious, such things do nothing to make it the case that McCain is better able to deal with foreign-policy issues (such as those concerning Pakistan and Georgia).

You might think that the point here was his greater experience; after all, McCain also mentioned having talked to so-and-so high-level political figure of Pakistan. (Though, in fact, if you pay close attention to how he was saying these things, I think it was pretty clear that the primary message he was usually intending to convey with such remarks was simply that he had been to these places. It was in other comments that the primary message was his experience.) But, look, by far the most important thing we want in a president when it comes to these foreign-policy issues is the setting up of the proper middle-level goals, and what is needed for that is:
A. the proper high-level moral and national-interest goals, and
B. intellectual grasp of the relevant facts
(most importantly, the extremely various kinds of facts
which determine how other political leaders will make
choices in the face of various sets of circumstances).
Having seen the mountains of Pakistan, or even having talked so-and-so high-level leader of Pakistan, does nothing to make McCain better in these respects.

(This very much relates to a point that Obama has made many times, namely, that what we most directly wanted a president is judgment, not experience - a point that is surely right. And he frequently notes that, not only is experience far from a sure means to judgment, there are other ways to acquire judgment - another point that, once you take a moment to think about it, is obviously right.)

Of course, that's not all of it. We also want a president who is skilled in diplomacy and deal-brokering. However, a lot of that involves more general skills of articulation, dealing with opposing forces with different views, etc., and it is entirely clear that Obama has proven himself in these respects throughout his campaign (indeed, proven himself better than McCain). Some of it, however, surely has to do with more narrow skills having to do with how to manage the particular situation of one-on-one conversation with another high-level political leader, how to deal with their egos, etc. In this respect, McCain does have more experience, and it does make it somewhat more likely he will, in this particular respect (at least at the outset), be better than Obama at this sort of thing. (However, it makes it far from certain, since some people don't learn from experience, and since McCain's actual experience with such things is frequently exaggerated).

This is not, of course, to say that McCain didn't win (in the "rational argument" sense) on a few points here and there. And it's also not to say that McCain's goal even was to win in the "rational argument" sense. He is aiming for a different kind of voter, one who is (statistically speaking) more likely to be swayed by things other than rational argument (and instead more by things like references to Ronald Reagan and exclamations about the greatness of America).

3. Even if McCain's main goal in the debate were to win in the "rational argument" sense, he almost surely still would have lost. But, what I want to note here, is that such a fact is far from ideal evidence that Obama would be a better president.

Winning, even in the "rational argument" sense, in a one-on-one debate in such a specialized forum involves some narrow skills that probably are not relevant that often when it comes to the various tasks and activities of being president. I have made quite clear in other blog entries that I think a high level of general thinking skills is extremely important in the president. However, having such skills is far from sufficient for succeeding in debate in the "rational argument" sense.

For just one example, succeeding in debate in this sense requires the skill of being able to pay careful attention to, and be sensitive to, very short amounts of time while also talking (such as making sure you don't waste all of your two minutes responding only to the first of those three points that your opponent just made). But when it comes to any important decision a president has to make, there is always much more than two minutes to do so (and so much more than two minutes to review the relevant reasons); and so it really matters very little whether the president is prone to get distracted and spend a few more minutes (or even hours) than is really necessary (or better: appropriate, given other pressing matters) on some particular point. (Though there is a limit to this, which is how we can construe one point Obama was making. If you let Iraq almost completely distract you from other foreign-policy issues for seven years, some undesirable things are likely to happen - as they in fact did.)

4. It really really really annoyed me when very near the end of the debate, McCain charged Obama with "parsing words" when Obama was simply trying to make a certain distinction necessary to careful thinking. Even though perhaps sometimes politically wise in the "campaign strategy" sense (at least on the conservative right), it drives me nuts when a candidate appeals to the anti-intellectual, anti-careful-thinking element of the voting populace.

"The Audacity of Hope"

So Obama's most recent book (which I hope to read very soon) has a perfectly fine subtitle: "Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream". But the main title, "The Audacity of Hope", is just stupid. Hope, given its very nature, can very reasonably and coherently be had on the slimmest of bases. So, as far as I can tell, there is no such thing as audacious hope. Perhaps audacious belief, but not audacious hope. (Even audacious belief is quite a stretch since, although there are lots of things that need a hell of a lot of improvement, current circumstances are not so extremely terrible that belief in future possibilities would count as audacious.) Now, if the main title had been "Audacious Confidence In Myself As the Savior of America", then the "audacious" part would have been perfectly appropriate (and, as an added bonus, it would've shown that he had some balls).


ADDED 9/17/08:

First, I should clarify. What I think (for the reasons explained above) is that the title itself, more or less in terms of CONTENT, is stupid. I am by no means claiming that Obama's CHOOSING this as a title was stupid; in fact, it was probably politically savvy and inspired some. (See the important distinction drawn in "the target of my various claims" under "basics".)

Second, I am in no way claiming that having a book with a stupid title CONTENT-wise (or even being someone who made a stupid CHOICE of a book title) is by itself evidence that the person in question would not be a good president (or is not a respectable individual, etc.).

Nader's 2008 presidential bid

My sense is that, although Nader quite likes Obama, the reason he nonetheless chose to run in 2008 is because Obama's political rhetoric is lacking the details that Nader would like. (I get this sense from a Nader interview I saw on YouTube. I'm pretty sure it was an interview on the David Letterman show, but not fully sure. If anyone cares to know the exact interview for sure, let me know by adding a comment to this entry, and I'll track it down.) Now, on the whole I'm actually a big Nader fan (in fact, I voted for Nader in 2000, with John Hagelin being my close second choice), but I think this is ridiculous.

The ordinary US citizen is not remotely competent in the various intricacies relevant to, e.g., the health care issue WHEN IT COMES TO DETAILED POLICY. The ordinary US citizen knows little about the various costs of ALL the various kinds of health care, which sectors of the population tend to use which kinds of health care, what kinds of preventative healthcare can plausibly reduce the need for other kinds of palliative health care later, the proportion of health care costs that are ultimately due to administration, liability coverage, and the like rather than ultimately due to the actual provision of health care services and health care products (broadly construed, thus including pharmaceuticals, hospital gowns, MRI machines, etc.), what are the current legal rules governing HMOs, let alone what an HMO actually is. And these are just some of the very many things one has to have deep knowledge of in order to reasonably have a view on what the best HIGHLY DETAILED governmental healthcare policy would be. (I myself have deep knowledge of none of these things, and so make no pretense of knowing what the best highly detailed governmental health care policy would be.)

Apparently Nader thinks that US citizens should choose their political leaders by attempting to think about things about which they aren't even remotely competent. I myself think that's ridiculous.

In contrast, I think that US citizens should choose their political leaders on the basis of something that they can more plausibly be said to reasonably have some opinions on, namely, high-level goals. For example, here is a statement of a possible high-level goal: "the US should have a national health care system which provides basic health care to every US citizen, no matter their wealth, whether or not they are responsible (and so at fault) for failing to procure independent healthcare, etc."

So, in fact, I applaud Obama in avoiding such details and sticking to statements of his chosen high-level goals in his campaign and political rhetoric. (Though, note, this does not involve me in saying that this is WHY he has chosen to campaign in this way. Most likely this choice involves, at least IN PART, attention to sheer strategical factors. Not that I think this is a bad thing. Hopefully more on this sometime before Election Day either in "issues" or "commentaries".)


ADDED 9/16/08:

I need to add one point to the previous. For the reasons explained, I don't think the model where US citizens vote for their political leaders based upon the detailed policies they (the candidates) endorse is a good model. However, in voting for their political leaders, US citizens should at least aim for ones who have demonstrated an ability to understand and evaluate detailed policies - since, after all, as elected officials (if they win), they will have to choose among detailed policies. And, of course, this is done by taking some time, in speeches and the like, to talk about detailed policy, explain why they prefer the one that they do, etc.


ADDED 9/17/08:

So I just watched Jon Stewart's discussion of the "Generic Off" on the 9/16/08 episode of The Daily Show. Now, going by the video clips he showed (after all, it is in principle possible that the clips he showed were extracted from "less generic" context), then what the Big Four candidates (Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin) had to say about very recent financial troubles, was, even by my own tastes, way under-detailed. Basically, all any of them said was "we need to fix the financial markets".

But I do NOT take issue with such lack of detail on the grounds that they failed to endorse fully detailed financial policies.

For one example, my complaint is NOT that any of them said something like: "As president/VP, I will do what I can to institute a lending policy where what a lender is allowed to lend (the amount and at what interest rate or interest rate plan) in any given case is such-and-such complex function of six factors: three general economic indicators (inflation, average performance of the NASDAQ over the last year and a half, and the value of dollars in comparison to pounds, euros, yen and rubles), and three other factors (the proportion of money the lender has already lent overall to their actual monetary holdings, the nature of the other loans the lender has already made, and the lender's own five-year history in getting back money loaned) - all of this additional, of course, to standard individual criteria (such as income and credit history)".

For another example, my complaint is also NOT that none of them said anything like: "As president/VP I will do what I can to institute a lender bailout policy where the proportion (if any) of debt (suffered by a lender facing bankruptcy) that will be paid off by the federal government is such-and-such complicated function of four general economic factors (the three from above PLUS average unemployment over the last three years), together with four other factors (the federal government's own budget and treasury deficits, the financial health of the top seven lenders aside from the one in question, the degree to which US citizens on the whole are putting income into savings rather than consumption, and the demand on the part of US citizens for loans [with demand for home mortgages in particular receiving such-and-such extra weight])".

The ordinary US citizen is not even remotely close to being competent to evaluate such detail policies. (I myself am so ignorant that this schematic characterization was just my best guess at some of the things that might be relevant to such fully detailed lending policies.)

Instead, what bugs me is that none of the Big Four even said ANYTHING about anything financial, e.g., lending policy.

First, as a result, viewers/listeners are given absolutely no sense of whether the candidate knows anything about financial markets, and so could be someone who can competently make decisions as to fully detailed financial policies on behalf of the US citizenry. (This connects with my first addition above from 9/16/08.)

Second, also as a result, viewers/listeners don't learn anything about the candidate's high-level goals, such as to what vague-and-general degree he/she is willing to have financial markets, institutions and the like regulated by the federal government, and to what vague-and-general degree he/she thinks it is appropriate for the federal government to spend taxpayer money bailing out failing large corporations (financial or otherwise). (This connects with what I originally said above, about high-level goals.)

So don't make the mistake of thinking that, given what I've said, I can't consistently join Jon Stewart in finding what the Big Four had to say about very recent financial woes as pathetically under-detailed.

the most difficult presidential decision

Newsweek (September 15, 2008, p. 17) quotes Laura Bush as saying "Of course we talk about it, and that is by far the most difficult decision the president ever makes -- to send our troops into harm's way". Now, what I'm about to say is in no way specific to Laura Bush since presidents and other politicians (especially her husband) say this sort of thing all the time. But it's just a load of crap. Yes, sending troops somewhere to engage in some kind of military action almost always involves putting them in harm's way. But the fact that they are soldiers and they are being put in harm's way in no way (unless you are an idiot) thereby makes it the toughest decision for you as president. First, consistent with all of that, it could be a very easy decision, if the reasons (or least perceived reasons) for engaging in such military action are quite strong and/or the risk of harm to soldiers is fairly slight. For a hypothetical example, if failure to take some kind of military action against evil Dr. Nefarious would result in his army of robots plundering our homeland, then (especially if we know about a secret self-destruct mechanism on the robots which makes possible a very non-risky marine mission to take them all out in one fell swoop) choosing military action is in fact very easy. For a real example, I'll bet it was not at all hard for Bush I, after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, to decide on the military action that amounted to the Persian Gulf War. Second, a decision whether or not to send soldiers into harm's way is far from the only decision a president makes which will affect who lives and who dies (or even just who is harmed in a non-fatal way and who is not), even on the part of US citizens. The most obvious example is the decisions a president makes regarding health care. But once you think about it, EVERY important decision a president makes is of this sort, including decisions about education, the economy, the environment, workplace safety, automobile safety, affirmative action, taxation, corporate welfare, service-provider liability, and so on.

In fact, it's especially irritating when a conservative (such as Laura Bush or her husband) says something like this (about sending troops into harm's way being the most difficult decision to make). In almost any other domain, conservatives go off on how people should pay the price of their choices. For example, almost any conservative would say that, if someone decides to buy an Xbox 360 rather than health insurance, then they are voluntarily choosing a certain gamble, and if they get sick or injured in the absence of health insurance, well then the government shouldn't have to do anything about it. But what is a soldier? A soldier is someone who, in exchange for a salary, commits him or herself to doing various things, importantly including things which involve being put in harm's way, i.e., someone who voluntarily chooses a certain gamble. So how is it not a double standard when the conservative says what Laura Bush said, rather than the exact opposite, something like: "I have no qualms about sending soldiers into harm's way. They chose to be soldiers - they chose, in exchange for a salary, the gamble with health and life that is involved in being a soldier - so no big deal if and when some get hurt".

Of course, if someone chooses to do something in an unjust context, then even a conservative can consistently let him or her off the hook. For example, if I choose to cut off my left foot in the unjust context wherein someone is going to shoot me unless I cut off my left foot, then the conservative can consistently say something like: "well that sucks, the government should help you out even though you chose to cut off your left foot, GIVEN THE UNJUST CIRCUMSTANCES". The reason this is relevant here is that, if someone chooses to be a soldier only because, in the context of unjust economic circumstances, that's the only way he or she can make money, then even the conservative can consistently refrain from saying: "too bad, you chose that gamble". But here's the punchline: it's exactly THE CONSERVATIVE WHO WANTS TO DENY THAT THERE ARE ANY DEEP IN JUSTICES IN THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE US. So the conservative does NOT have this way out (the way out which involves noting the choice in question was in the context of unjust circumstances), and so it would seem the conservative DOES have a DOUBLE STANDARD in saying "too bad for the guy who buys an Xbox 360 rather than health care", but not saying "too bad for the guy who chooses to be a soldier rather than something else".

To be clear, I AM NOT ENDORSING the view which amounts to saying "too bad for the soldier". The point here is that, in not saying this, THE CONSERVATIVE IS BEING INCONSISTENT.

comparative approaches to solving social problems

I just bought this book Solutions to Social Problems: Lessons from Other Societies by D. Stanley Eitzen and Craig S. Leedham (both at Colorado State University at the time of publication - 1998). What I find interesting about this is that including "Lessons from Other Societies" as a subtitle would mark the book as distinctive when it comes to books about how to solve social problems. One would think that a book on social problems even remotely worth its salt would pay careful attention to the relevant empirical evidence, which includes the results of various attempts to solve various kinds of social problems from other societies. But, as a matter of fact, that is not the case. (So this is a dig not at this book and their authors, but rather at the approach taken by others to social problems such that it made sense for them to include this is a subtitle.) Sadly, there seems to be a terrible dearth of attention to empirical evidence and those with actual empirical and issue-specific expertise when it comes to social policies aimed at alleviating social problems, including (perhaps especially) presidential candidates. This was the main reason I was a fan of John Hagelin (Natural Law Party presidential candidate 1992, 1996 and 2000); he wanted to approach social problems very scientifically by paying attention to the best available empirical evidence and issue-specific expertise out there (and, further, he also had an extremely sharp intellect to offer by way of choosing in light of such - Hagelin is an extremely accomplished theoretical physicist and, to a lesser extent, practical engineer). As a presidential candidate, I intend to continue this theme of Hagelin's.