Monday Reads
Posted: June 13, 2011 | Author: dakinikat | Filed under: Barack Obama, Foreign Affairs, morning reads, Republican presidential politics, Syria | Tags: Iowa, Iowa Caucuses, jobless recovery, Larry Summers, Obama reelection, Presidential Politics, protest crackdowns, Refugees, Syria | 39 Comments
Good Morning!
I’ve been following a few stories recently. Of course, one is about my favorite blood sport: politics. One interesting recent announcement is that the two Mormons contending for the Republican Presidential slot are skipping Iowa. Most of the speculation has to do with the role of religionists in the Iowa Republican party. Law professor Ann Althouse has some interesting observations on what appears to be the unwillingness of evangelical Christians to vote for Mormons.
It’s distressing to see this conflation of conservatism and prejudice. It’s one thing if Iowan Republicans tend to go for someone with a stronger message of social conservatism, quite another if they are hostile to Mormons. Plenty of Mormons are social conservatives, and it just happens that the 2 Mormons in the race are not social conservatives. Can we get some serious research on this point? It’s a dangerous thing to allow insinuations of religious bigotry to seep into the public consciousness. I can’t tell if the Times is really against bigotry or not. If you portray Iowan religious conservatives as anti-Mormon, in one way, it seems anti-bigotry. But it’s also inviting us to feel hostility toward the Iowan evangelicals.
Althouses’ comments are based on this NYT article which states that Iowa may have an ‘ebbing influence’ on national elections.
But there are signs that its influence on the nominating process could be ebbing and that the nature of the voters who tend to turn out for the Republican caucuses — a heavy concentration of evangelical Christians and ideological conservatives overlaid with parochial interests — is discouraging some candidates from competing there.
Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, announced Thursday that he would skip the state’s Republican straw poll this summer, saving his resources — and lowering expectations — for the state’s caucuses next year.
Earlier in the week, Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former governor of Utah, conceded that he was likely to skip the Iowa caucuses altogether, noting that his opposition to ethanol subsidies makes him unpopular in a state where support for the corn-based fuel is all but demanded.
“I’m not competing in Iowa for a reason,” he told The Associated Press. In addition to his stand on ethanol, Mr. Huntsman, who served in the Obama administration as ambassador to China, says he believes in global warming and has not embraced the Tea Party movement like some of his rivals. And like Mr. Romney, Mr. Huntsman is a Mormon, a religion viewed with wariness by some conservative Christians.
Repercussions from the Arab Spring are continuing through Summer. Syria appears to be the latest country where members of the military are having second thoughts about cracking down on civil unrest in the general population.
The escalating military offensive in northwest Syria began after what corroborating accounts said was a shoot-out between members of the military secret police in Jisr al-Shughur, some of whom refused to open fire on unarmed protesters.
A growing number of first-hand testimonies from defected soldiers give a rare but dramatic insight into the cracks apparently emerging in Syria’s security forces as the unrelenting assault on unarmed protesters continues.
Speaking to Al Jazeera from Turkey, having crossed the border on Friday night, an activist based in Jisr al-Shughur and trusted by experienced local reporters described how a funeral on June 4 for a man shot dead by plain-clothes security a day earlier grew into a large anti-government protest.
“As the demonstration passed the headquarters of the military secret police they opened fire right away and killed eight people,” the activist, who was among the crowd, said. “But some of the secret police refused to open fire and there were clashes between them. It was complete chaos.”
There continues to be a mounting human crisis as Syrians fleeing violence pour into nearby Turkey.
As Syrian security forces move in to the besieged town of Jisr al-Shughour, thousands of refugees are fleeing across the Turkish border. More camps are being set up to house the new arrivals. Many of the refugees are in desperate need of medical help.
The emergency ward at Antakya hospital is about to receive its latest casualty from Syria. It is a young girl who has fallen sick and was brought to the Turkish border by her desperate mother, who is also pregnant. The ambulance driver says the violence in Syria means hospitals there are either full with the injured, or the journey is too hazardous.
The clashes in and around the northern Syrian town of Jisr al-Shughour have forced thousands to flee. Many of them have recorded the horrifying scenes on cellphones and cameras. In the border village of Harabjoz, people have set up tents as they wait to cross into Turkey. One refugee, who did not give his name, described the conditions they are facing. “There is no milk for the children,” he says. “We bought some but we have run out. They are targeting homes and yesterday gunmen targeted us. All these people will not survive because they burned all their crops,” he says. “Now it’s become sectarian for sure,” he said.
A spokesman for the United Nations’ refugee agency, Metin Corabatir, has warned of a growing crisis. “The latest figures UNHCR received from the border is 5051 who fled from Syria because of violence and persecution in this country,” he said.
Witnesses believe the true figure could be double that number – including those who have crossed undetected.
The Economist believes Obama is beatable in 2012 but seems dismayed at the Republican field of candidates. This was my Saturday night bath read and I found it interesting so I thought I’d pass it along. They biggest question is that how does a candidate that ran as a change agent and outsider run as ‘Goliath’ this time?
In 2008 Mr Obama represented change. This time he will have to fend off charges that he is to blame for the achingly slow recovery by arguing that it would have been worse without his actions, such as his $800 billion stimulus package and the takeover of GM and Chrysler. That may be true but it is not easy to sell a counterfactual on the stump (as the first President Bush learned). And there are other holes in Mr Obama’s record. What happened to his promises to do something about the environment or immigration or Guantánamo? Why should any businessman support a chief executive who has let his friends in the labour movement run amok and who let his health-care bill be written by Democrats in Congress? Above all, why has he never produced a credible plan to tackle the budget deficit, currently close to 10% of GDP?
Asking these questions will surely give any Republican a perch in this race. But to beat the president, the Republicans need both a credible candidate and credible policies.
I may have to change my opinion of Larry Summers a little bit. In this FT Op-Ed, Summers tries to fight the austerity agenda and a US “lost decade”. Wow.
Beyond the lack of jobs and incomes, an economy producing below its potential for a prolonged interval sacrifices its future. To an extent once unimaginable, new college graduates are moving back in with their parents. Strapped school districts across the country are cutting out advanced courses in maths and science. Reduced income and tax collections are the most critical cause of unacceptable budget deficits now and in the future.
You cannot prescribe for a malady unless you diagnose it accurately and understand its causes. That the problem in a period of high unemployment, as now, is a lack of business demand for employees not any lack of desire to work is all but self-evident, as shown by three points: the propensity of workers to quit jobs and the level of job openings are at near-record low; rises in non-employment have taken place among all demographic groups; rising rates of profit and falling rates of wage growth suggest employers, not workers, have the power in almost every market.
A sick economy constrained by demand works very differently from a normal one. Measures that usually promote growth and job creation can have little effect, or backfire. When demand is constraining an economy, there is little to be gained from increasing potential supply. In a recession, if more people seek to borrow less or save more there is reduced demand, hence fewer jobs. Training programmes or measures to increase work incentives for those with high and low incomes may affect who gets the jobs, but in a demand-constrained economy will not affect the total number of jobs. Measures that increase productivity and efficiency, if they do not also translate into increased demand, may actually reduce the number of people working as the level of total output remains demand-constrained.
I’m beginning to feel like part of a chorus these days. Nearly all economists are telling whatever news source they can that this is your basic demand problem. Now if the TV media would hire some one other than lawyers and political consultants we might get some traction here on getting a conversation about policy solutions.
I’ve got one more interesting link given to me by our resident psychologist, Bostonboomer. TNR has an interesting article up on why poor people can’t escape poverty easily.
In a paper in April 2010, Harvard behavioral economist Sendhil Mullainathan (for whom, full disclosure, I once worked) and MIT’s Abhijit Banerjee applied this same notion to decisions requiring self-control. If a doughnut costs twenty-five cents, they wrote, then that “$0.25 will be far more costly to someone living on $2 a day than to someone living on $30 a day. In other words, the same self-control problem is more consequential for the poor.” And so, in addition to all the structural barriers that prevent even determined poor people from escaping poverty, there may be another, deeper, and considerably more disturbing barrier: Poverty may reduce free will, making it even harder for the poor to escape their circumstances.
All of this suggests that we need to rethink our approaches to poverty reduction. Many of our current anti-poverty efforts focus on access to health, educational, agricultural, and financial services. Now, it seems, we need to start treating willpower as a scarce and important resource as well.
Okay, so what’s on your reading and blogging list this morning?
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
- Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- More





Recent Comments