I'll see you there!
Friday, November 21, 2008
New Location
I'm retiring my blogspot blog. You can read all of my views at http://www.bradtitus.com.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Religious Right: RIP
When Barack Obama takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, he will do so in the 30th anniversary year of the founding of the so-called Religious Right. Born in 1979 and midwifed by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, the Religious Right was a reincarnation of previous religious-social movements that sought moral improvement through legislation and court rulings. Those earlier movements -- from abolition (successful) to Prohibition (unsuccessful) -- had mixed results.
Social movements that relied mainly on political power to enforce a conservative moral code weren't anywhere near as successful as those that focused on changing hearts. The four religious revivals, from the First Great Awakening in the 1730s and 1740s to the Fourth Great Awakening in the late 1960s and early '70s, which touched America and instantly transformed millions of Americans (and American culture as a result), are testimony to that.
Thirty years of trying to use government to stop abortion, preserve opposite-sex marriage, improve television and movie content and transform culture into the conservative Evangelical image has failed. The question now becomes: should conservative Christians redouble their efforts, contributing more millions to radio and TV preachers and activists, or would they be wise to try something else?
I opt for trying something else.
Too many conservative Evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. The futility inherent in such misplaced faith can be demonstrated by asking these activists a simple question: Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative Evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?
Too many conservative Evangelicals mistake political power for influence. Politicians who struggle with imposing a moral code on themselves are unlikely to succeed in their attempts to impose it on others. What is the answer, then, for conservative Evangelicals who are rightly concerned about the corrosion of culture, the indifference to the value of human life and the living arrangements of same- and opposite-sex couples?
The answer depends on the response to another question: do conservative Evangelicals want to feel good, or do they want to adopt a strategy that actually produces results? Clearly partisan politics have not achieved their objectives. Do they think they can succeed by committing themselves to 30 more years of the same?
If results are what conservative Evangelicals want, they already have a model. It is contained in the life and commands of Jesus of Nazareth. Suppose millions of conservative Evangelicals engaged in an old and proven type of radical behavior. Suppose they followed the admonition of Jesus to "love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison and care for widows and orphans," not as ends, as so many liberals do by using government, but as a means of demonstrating God's love for the whole person in order that people might seek Him?
Such a strategy could be more "transformational" than electing a new president, even the first president of color. But in order to succeed, such a strategy would not be led by charismatic figures, who would raise lots of money, be interviewed on Sunday talk shows, author books and make gobs of money.
God teaches in His Word that His power (if that is what conservative Evangelicals want and not their puny attempts at grabbing earthly power) is made perfect in weakness. He speaks of the tiny mustard seed, the seemingly worthless widow's mite, of taking the last place at the table and the humbling of one's self, the washing of feet and similar acts and attitudes; the still, small voice. How did conservative Evangelicals miss this and instead settle for a lesser power, which in reality is no power at all? When did they settle for an inferior "kingdom"?
Evangelicals are at a junction. They can take the path that will lead them to more futility and ineffective attempts to reform culture through government, or they can embrace the far more powerful methods outlined by the One they claim to follow. By following His example, they will decrease, but He will increase. They will get no credit, but they will see results. If conservative Evangelicals choose obscurity and seek to glorify God, they will get much of what they hope for, but can never achieve, in and through politics.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Why I Support Mitt Romney: Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=2
IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.
Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.
I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.
First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.
That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.
Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.
The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”
You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.
The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.
Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.
Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.
It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.
But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.
The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.
IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.
Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.
I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.
First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.
That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.
Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.
The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”
You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.
The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.
Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.
Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.
It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.
But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.
The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
I'm 2/2
I've only been doing this political blog for a week, and already I'm 2/2 on my commentary.
I said that there was good news for conservatives after this election, and Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal reported that, indeed, there is good news for Republicans, and for the exact same reason.
Then, I said that Joe Lieberman (D) might leave the Democratic Caucus because of his criticism of Obama and his endorsement of John McCain. Then, USA Today reported similar news.
This is why you should read my blog - I'm making great analysis here.
I said that there was good news for conservatives after this election, and Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal reported that, indeed, there is good news for Republicans, and for the exact same reason.
Then, I said that Joe Lieberman (D) might leave the Democratic Caucus because of his criticism of Obama and his endorsement of John McCain. Then, USA Today reported similar news.
This is why you should read my blog - I'm making great analysis here.
Why I'm Glad that Obama Won
I'm going to be totally honest - I don't like Barack Obama. I don't like his policies, I don't like his platforms, and I don't like his crazy, passionate, idiotic supporters who have no clue what all of his policies really mean. But I'm glad that he won the election.
The conservative movement is in trouble. I've been saying for years that the Republican party is going to split, and I was right. The GOP has become a bastardized doppelganger of the Party of Reagan, rife with contention between the Foreign Policy Hawks, the NeoConservative Religious Right, and the Anti-Federalist/Libertarians of the party.
As a modern conservative who only remembers Reagan in theory, I have to say that Reagan's status as a party demi-god is a little disheartening to someone who feels quite strongly about that whole "thou shalt not" thing. Reagan's policies were perfect for his time, and that's why he won. But the party cannot continue to look for Reagan reincarnate to lead. The GOP and the Conservative momement have lost touch with their roots and the needs and desires of the American people.
There is a generation of Americans who don't understand how trickle-down economics works, and the Democrats have successfully painted such policies as "tax cuts for the rich." The GOP has a mixed-message on health care, social programs, and the economic crisis (for instance, after pushing through the huge, disgusting $700 billion bailout, President Bush warned Americans about "too much government" involved in the market).
It's time for the Conservative movement and the GOP to redefine conservativism, to find a conservative message that resonates with America. They should take the next 2 years to redefine it, and respond in force in 2010.
The conservative movement is in trouble. I've been saying for years that the Republican party is going to split, and I was right. The GOP has become a bastardized doppelganger of the Party of Reagan, rife with contention between the Foreign Policy Hawks, the NeoConservative Religious Right, and the Anti-Federalist/Libertarians of the party.
As a modern conservative who only remembers Reagan in theory, I have to say that Reagan's status as a party demi-god is a little disheartening to someone who feels quite strongly about that whole "thou shalt not" thing. Reagan's policies were perfect for his time, and that's why he won. But the party cannot continue to look for Reagan reincarnate to lead. The GOP and the Conservative momement have lost touch with their roots and the needs and desires of the American people.
There is a generation of Americans who don't understand how trickle-down economics works, and the Democrats have successfully painted such policies as "tax cuts for the rich." The GOP has a mixed-message on health care, social programs, and the economic crisis (for instance, after pushing through the huge, disgusting $700 billion bailout, President Bush warned Americans about "too much government" involved in the market).
It's time for the Conservative movement and the GOP to redefine conservativism, to find a conservative message that resonates with America. They should take the next 2 years to redefine it, and respond in force in 2010.
On Media Bias in the Election
Let's be clear - I'm a passionate moderate/conservative. I don't like Barack Obama, I don't like his policies, and I don't think he's qualified to be president.
But I'm glad the election is over, and I'm (sort of) glad that he won. But I'm growing weary of the constant conservative whining about media bias for Obama.
Look - media is a business. It's all about ratings, all about sales, all about advertising, all about money. So the media will continue to be the filthy, whoring, nasty little worms that they are and run the biggest, best, most sensational stories that will draw people to their stations. So what does that mean for the election?
Barack Obama is, if nothing else, a positively fascinating candidate. John McCain is - and way - old news. We heard ALL about John McCain in 2000, and he's not done much else since then (except, of course, sell out to the party establishment). So why would there be reporting about the person John McCain?
Next, look at the campaigns. McCain ran the same campaign that every other candidate in recent history has run - it wasn't any different. He had typical GOP big donors, no clarity in his message, a poor choice of a running mate, and a hostile-at-best relationship with the GOP leadership. There was contention and disagreement in his campaign ranks, and a suddenly hostile relationship with a press that had formerly fawned over him.
Obama, on the other hand, ran an unique, one-of-a-kind campaign from the bottom up that has been unlike anything else seen on a national scale (thought, it was shockingly similar to Mitch Daniels' gubernatorial bid in 2004 in Indiana). His campaign was strong, energetic, and well-run. He's a new candidate, with a new message, and energized and mobilized (even if they didn't vote in record numbers like predicted) a base of volunteers unlike anything our nation has seen.
I'm not denying that there is a bias in the news media - and that includes Fox News. Cable and broadcast networks all tend to be left-leaning (some more than others), and Fox News is conservative (even the No-Spin Doctor Bill O'Reilly). Everyone has an angle, everyone has an agenda, and everyone comes to a situation with a lens through which they view the world. This includes TV personalities and news reporters.
Nor am I denying that the mainstream media missed some big gaffes that, had they been Republican, would have caused the offender to be kicked, punched, spat upon, and generally humiliated for such foolishness. But for the Dems, some things get overlooked (i.e., Biden - "This whole thing is gonna come down to a three-letter word: J-O-B-S.")
But it's not enough to throw the election. Obama ran a great campaign; McCain ran a terrible one. Obama was a great candidate; McCain was a great candidate 8 years ago. Obama represented a change of direction; McCain's attempt to appear genuinely Republican made him appear too Republican. So while conservatives can complain that media bias ruined the election, I think it's time to quit whining.
But I'm glad the election is over, and I'm (sort of) glad that he won. But I'm growing weary of the constant conservative whining about media bias for Obama.
Look - media is a business. It's all about ratings, all about sales, all about advertising, all about money. So the media will continue to be the filthy, whoring, nasty little worms that they are and run the biggest, best, most sensational stories that will draw people to their stations. So what does that mean for the election?
Barack Obama is, if nothing else, a positively fascinating candidate. John McCain is - and way - old news. We heard ALL about John McCain in 2000, and he's not done much else since then (except, of course, sell out to the party establishment). So why would there be reporting about the person John McCain?
Next, look at the campaigns. McCain ran the same campaign that every other candidate in recent history has run - it wasn't any different. He had typical GOP big donors, no clarity in his message, a poor choice of a running mate, and a hostile-at-best relationship with the GOP leadership. There was contention and disagreement in his campaign ranks, and a suddenly hostile relationship with a press that had formerly fawned over him.
Obama, on the other hand, ran an unique, one-of-a-kind campaign from the bottom up that has been unlike anything else seen on a national scale (thought, it was shockingly similar to Mitch Daniels' gubernatorial bid in 2004 in Indiana). His campaign was strong, energetic, and well-run. He's a new candidate, with a new message, and energized and mobilized (even if they didn't vote in record numbers like predicted) a base of volunteers unlike anything our nation has seen.
I'm not denying that there is a bias in the news media - and that includes Fox News. Cable and broadcast networks all tend to be left-leaning (some more than others), and Fox News is conservative (even the No-Spin Doctor Bill O'Reilly). Everyone has an angle, everyone has an agenda, and everyone comes to a situation with a lens through which they view the world. This includes TV personalities and news reporters.
Nor am I denying that the mainstream media missed some big gaffes that, had they been Republican, would have caused the offender to be kicked, punched, spat upon, and generally humiliated for such foolishness. But for the Dems, some things get overlooked (i.e., Biden - "This whole thing is gonna come down to a three-letter word: J-O-B-S.")
But it's not enough to throw the election. Obama ran a great campaign; McCain ran a terrible one. Obama was a great candidate; McCain was a great candidate 8 years ago. Obama represented a change of direction; McCain's attempt to appear genuinely Republican made him appear too Republican. So while conservatives can complain that media bias ruined the election, I think it's time to quit whining.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Lieberman to Join GOP Caucus?
Joe Lieberman is the Democratic equivalent of John McCain - a generally left-leaning maverick who is more interested in the policy than the politics. And like John McCain, Lieberman's willingness to break from the party faithful to stand for principles he believes in has angered more than a few Senate Democrats.
Today, the Associated Press reported that Lieberman's high profile criticism of Barack Obama during the Republican National Convention and subsequent endorsement of John McCain has resulted in Lieberman losing his position as head of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
In 2006, Lieberman lost the Democratic nomination in Connecticut to a challenger upset with, among other things, his support of the Iraq war. Lieberman ran as an independent, won, and joined the Democratic caucus. At that point, the Democrats had only a 51-49 majority in the Senate, so they tolerated him. Now, however, with a solid lead in place, there is unrest in the party. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) indicated that Lieberman may be removed. If he goes, Republicans have indicated that they would welcome him into their caucus.
Go, Joe, go.
Today, the Associated Press reported that Lieberman's high profile criticism of Barack Obama during the Republican National Convention and subsequent endorsement of John McCain has resulted in Lieberman losing his position as head of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
In 2006, Lieberman lost the Democratic nomination in Connecticut to a challenger upset with, among other things, his support of the Iraq war. Lieberman ran as an independent, won, and joined the Democratic caucus. At that point, the Democrats had only a 51-49 majority in the Senate, so they tolerated him. Now, however, with a solid lead in place, there is unrest in the party. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) indicated that Lieberman may be removed. If he goes, Republicans have indicated that they would welcome him into their caucus.
Go, Joe, go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
