Logos kai Apokalupsis

The Clouds is quite a play that has great implications in terms of:

• The conflict between Poetry and Philosophy
• The conflict between the City ( πολις ) and Philosophy
• The alleged difference between the young Socrates and the older/wiser Socrates
• The conflict between nature ( Φυσις ) and the gods, or God.

The play is a criticism of Aristophanes on Socrates and the danger of philosophical reasoning to the city, and to humans who are incapable of reasoning rightly.

More interestingly, the play seems to account for the young Socrates, who has no concern with politics, is not patriotic, or (to put it a more crude way) is not concerned with his faction–Athens.  Socrates, in the play, does not care for Athens, and does not hold faithfully to the gods of the city.  Socrates is impious.  And his impiety unsettles the city and causes it to become unstable.  Indeed, Socrates seems to corrupt the youth!

His teachings lead one youth to beat his father, and proffer the beating of his own mother.  The father, who is responsible for his own son’s corruption, is horrified.  He realizes his own misdeed, and ends up running Socrates out of town and burning down his “school.”

Aristophanes, in the play, is criticizing Socrates by claiming the Poets are the true friends of the city and politics.  It is the Poets who are able to impart the revelatory truth of the gods and their teachings.  The Poets are the true preeminent  teachers, over and above the philosophers.  But this is problematic because Poetry appeals to the passions more than to reason.  In some significant way, Poetry is unreasonable and emotional.  Hence, the divide between Poetry and Political Philosophy.  The Poets believe they deliver the gods and their will, while political philosophers deliver nature, or the belief that reason is sufficient to live the Good life based on reason alone.

The reasonable approach of philosophy leads to a tension between the city and philosophy.  The city, while certainly not a complete holy place, is more pious than the seemingly impious philosophers.  After the Clouds, we read about that conflict in the Crito and the Apology.  These dialogues are accounts of an older Socrates–one who has made a political turn.  No longer is he hanging in a basket high above the everyday concerns of life.  Now he is interested in politics, and the opinions of the Athenians. You see, opinion contains some truth to it.

That is where we turn next.

Ann Althouse posted the conclusion to this piece stating that Lomborg, the environmental skeptic on global warming.  TNR thinks that he has turned on his former skepticism because of statements like this:

The world’s most high-profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is “undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today” and “a challenge humanity must confront”, in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby.

TNR also thinks he may be opportunistic because he is calling for money to be spent:

“Investing $100bn annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century,”

TNR makes way too much of this if you follow closely the quotes provided.  First, Lomborg states that climate change is a “chief concern” that “humanity must confront.”  He never says climate change is true.  He says the idea of climate change must be confronted, and more specifically, the challenge must be confronted.  This does not mean he agrees with those who are making the claim climate change is a scientific truth.  Second, he resolves money should be spent to resolve the problem of climate change.  Again, this does not mean Lomborg thinks global warming is a truth.  It suggests that further study needs to be conducted.

In other words, Lomborg is calling for money to be spent on further study, via the scientific method.

Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to talk to you about the end of our combat mission in Iraq, the ongoing security challenges we face, and the need to rebuild our nation here at home.

I know this historic moment comes at a time of great uncertainty for many Americans. We have now been through nearly a decade of war. We have endured a long and painful recession. And sometimes in the midst of these storms, the future that we are trying to build for our nation – a future of lasting peace and long-term prosperity may seem beyond our reach.

But this milestone should serve as a reminder to all Americans that the future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment.  It should also serve as a message to the world that the United States of America intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century.

From this desk, seven and a half years ago, President Bush announced the beginning of military operations in Iraq. Much has changed since that night. A war to disarm a state became a fight against an insurgency. Terrorism and sectarian warfare threatened to tear Iraq apart. Thousands of Americans gave their lives; tens of thousands have been wounded. Our relations abroad were strained. Our unity at home was tested.

These are the rough waters encountered during the course of one of America’s longest wars. Yet there has been one constant amidst those shifting tides. At every turn, America’s men and women in uniform have served with courage and resolve. As Commander-in-Chief, I am proud of their service. Like all Americans, I am awed by their sacrifice, and by the sacrifices of their families.

The Americans who have served in Iraq completed every mission they were given. They defeated a regime that had terrorized its people. Together with Iraqis and coalition partners who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future. They shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people; trained Iraqi Security Forces; and took out terrorist leaders. Because of our troops and civilians –and because of the resilience of the Iraqi people – Iraq has the opportunity to embrace a new destiny, even though many challenges remain.

So tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.

This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq’s Security Forces and support its government and people. That is what we have done. We have removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq.  We have closed or transferred hundreds of bases to the Iraqis. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.

This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security. U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq’s cities last summer, and Iraqi forces have moved into the lead with considerable skill and commitment to their fellow citizens. Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began. And Iraqi forces have taken the fight to al Qaeda, removing much of its leadership in Iraqi-led operations.

This year also saw Iraq hold credible elections that drew a strong turnout. A caretaker administration is in place as Iraqis form a government based on the results of that election. Tonight, I encourage Iraq’s leaders to move forward with a sense of urgency to form an inclusive government that is just, representative, and accountable to the Iraqi people. And when that government is in place, there should be no doubt: the Iraqi people will have a strong partner in the United States. Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq’s future is not.

Going forward, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq with a different mission: advising and assisting Iraq’s Security Forces; supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our civilians. Consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year. As our military draws down, our dedicated civilians –diplomats, aid workers, and advisors –are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world. And that is a message that Vice President Biden is delivering to the Iraqi people through his visit there today.

This new approach reflects our long-term partnership with Iraq–one based upon mutual interests, and mutual respect. Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission. Extremists will continue to set off bombs, attack Iraqi civilians and try to spark sectarian strife. But ultimately, these terrorists will fail to achieve their goals. Iraqis are a proud people. They have rejected sectarian war, and they have no interest in endless destruction. They understand that, in the end, only Iraqis can resolve their differences and police their streets. Only Iraqis can build a democracy within their borders. What America can do, and will do, is provide support for the Iraqi people as both a friend and a partner.Ending this war is not only in Iraq’s interest– it is in our own. The United States has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people. We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq, and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home. We have persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people –a belief that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization. Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility. Now, it is time to turn the page.

As we do, I am mindful that the Iraq War has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it is time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I have said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hope for Iraq’s future.

The greatness of our democracy is grounded in our ability to move beyond our differences, and to learn from our experience as we confront the many challenges ahead. And no challenge is more essential to our security than our fight against al Qaeda.

Americans across the political spectrum supported the use of force against those who attacked us on 9/11. Now, as we approach our 10th year of combat in Afghanistan, there are those who are understandably asking tough questions about our mission there. But we must never lose sight of what’s at stake. As we speak, al Qaeda continues to plot against us, and its leadership remains anchored in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We will disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda, while preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a base for terrorists. And because of our drawdown in Iraq, we are now able to apply the resources necessary to go on offense. In fact, over the last 19 months, nearly a dozen al Qaeda leaders –and hundreds of Al Qaeda’s extremist allies–have been killed or captured around the world.

Within Afghanistan, I have ordered the deployment of additional troops who–under the command of General David Petraeus –are fighting to break the Taliban’s momentum. As with the surge in Iraq, these forces will be in place for a limited time to provide space for the Afghans to build their capacity and secure their own future. But, as was the case in Iraq, we cannot do for Afghans what they must ultimately do for themselves. That’s why we are training Afghan Security Forces and supporting a political resolution to Afghanistan’s problems. And, next July, we will begin a transition to Afghan responsibility. The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground, and our support for Afghanistan will endure. But make no mistake: this transition will begin – because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people’s.

Indeed, one of the lessons of our effort in Iraq is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone. We must use all elements of our power –including our diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America’s example –to secure our interests and stand by our allies. And we must project a vision of the future that is based not just on our fears, but also on our hopes –a vision that recognizes the real dangers that exist around the world, but also the limitless possibility of our time.

Today, old adversaries are at peace, and emerging democracies are potential partners. New markets for our goods stretch from Asia to the Americas. A new push for peace in the Middle East will begin here tomorrow. Billions of young people want to move beyond the shackles of poverty and conflict. As the leader of the free world, America will do more than just defeat on the battlefield those who offer hatred and destruction –we will also lead among those who are willing to work together to expand freedom and opportunity for all people.That effort must begin within our own borders. Throughout our history, America has been willing to bear the burden of promoting liberty and human dignity overseas, understanding its link to our own liberty and security. But we have also understood that our nation’s strength and influence abroad must be firmly anchored in our prosperity at home. And the bedrock of that prosperity must be a growing middle class.

Unfortunately, over the last decade, we have not done what is necessary to shore up the foundation of our own prosperity. We have spent over a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits. For too long, we have put off tough decisions on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform. As a result, too many middle class families find themselves working harder for less, while our nation’s long-term competitiveness is put at risk.

And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. They have met every test that they faced. Now, it is our turn. Now, it is our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for –the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it.

Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.

Part of that responsibility is making sure that we honor our commitments to those who have served our country with such valor. As long as I am President, we will maintain the finest fighting force that the world has ever known, and do whatever it takes to serve our veterans as well as they have served us. This is a sacred trust. That is why we have already made one of the largest increases in funding for veterans in decades. We are treating the signature wounds of today’s wars post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury, while providing the health care and benefits that all of our veterans have earned. And we are funding a post-9/11 GI Bill that helps our veterans and their families pursue the dream of a college education. Just as the GI Bill helped those who fought World War II- including my grandfather- become the backbone of our middle class, so today’s servicemen and women must have the chance to apply their gifts to expand the American economy. Because part of ending a war responsibly is standing by those who have fought it.

Two weeks ago, America’s final combat brigade in Iraq –the Army’s Fourth Stryker Brigade –journeyed home in the pre-dawn darkness. Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of vehicles made the trip from Baghdad, the last of them passing into Kuwait in the early morning hours. Over seven years before, American troops and coalition partners had fought their way across similar highways, but this time no shots were fired. It was just a convoy of brave Americans, making their way home.

Of course, the soldiers left much behind. Some were teenagers when the war began. Many have served multiple tours of duty, far from their families who bore a heroic burden of their own, enduring the absence of a husband’s embrace or a mother’s kiss. Most painfully, since the war began fifty-five members of the Fourth Stryker Brigade made the ultimate sacrifice –part of over 4,400 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq. As one staff sergeant said, “I know that to my brothers in arms who fought and died, this day would probably mean a lot.”

Those Americans gave their lives for the values that have lived in the hearts of our people for over two centuries. Along with nearly 1.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq, they fought in a faraway place for people they never knew. They stared into the darkest of human creations –war –and helped the Iraqi people seek the light of peace.

In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation. Every American who serves joins an unbroken line of heroes that stretches from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Iwo Jima to Inchon; from Khe Sanh to Kandahar – Americans who have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own. Our troops are the steel in our ship of state. And though our nation may be travelling through rough waters, they give us confidence that our course is true, and that beyond the pre-dawn darkness, better days lie ahead.

Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America, and all who serve her.

It is with great sadness I learned one of the Tour greats, Laurent Fignon, died of cancer today at 50.  He won the Tour twice.  His great rival was Greg Lemond.  Lemond beat Fignon by 9 seconds in 1989 in one of the most thrilling Tours of my lifetime.

Fignon was called the professor, not because he was one, but because he looked the part.  He ended 2 Tours with the Maillot Jaune.  For that he is considered one of the best Tour riders of all time.  Because he was talented at riding the time-trail, he was able to pull ahead of the other contenders.  Greg Lemond, and the Badger paid tribute to him today, and he deserves it.

Fignon had cancer of the intestine.  He was into treatment in June of 2009.  However, it spread through the rest of his body.

RIP Professor.

It is too soon to say I was onto something, but I did note here that Manchin was vulnerable.  Now there is some proof.  Rassmussen reports that

In the first Rasmussen Reports post-primary survey of West Virginia’s U.S. Senate race, Democratic Governor Joe Manchin attracts 48% of the vote while Republican businessman John Raese earns 42%.

The latest statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters shows four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate while seven percent (7%) are undecided.

This means that Manchin is not in big trouble, but he’s more vulnerable than I thought.   He polls below 50% and if polls from other sources are to be trusted, he was around 53%.  Manchin is losing ground and is below 50% presently.  For a popular governor, that is not a thrilling sign for his campaign.

Back in the day when football was great:

I noted the last protests back in 2009.  Now, there are plans for a new round of protests in the next few days.  Planet Iran has the scoop.  They call it the green revolution.  Stay tuned.

As noted in the WSJ, there is a very small movement afoot to institute something like the Whigs of old in the present.  Generally speaking, the group(s) model themselves as a centrist party–more or less free market and socially liberal.  But this sounds like the libertarian party.

The Modern Whig Party was the brainchild of soldiers tired of the bickering that filled chow-hall TV screens on bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of them, Capt. Mike Lebowitz, a Washington lawyer then serving with the 101st Airborne Division, emailed his buddies and began talking up the idea of a party that would be fiscally conservative, socially liberal and generally mild-mannered. They picked the Whig name because of its ties to the Founding Fathers, William Henry Harrison and the early career of Abraham Lincoln.

The Whigs have a somewhat important, if brief, history.  One of the best books on the topic, is Howe’s The Political Culture of the American Whigs.  The Whigs were a party that believed, essentially, in the free market, but were not adverse to using government funds for national improvements (roads, canals, etc).  The Whigs also believed in the supremacy of the legislature, and did not think that a too strong executive would be good for a properly functioning government. This is why they opposed the “monarch” Jackson.

IF we are including Abraham Lincoln into this mix, they were also no social liberals.  Lincoln believed that nature taught certain moral truths that humans were obligated to respect.  At the time–the 1830s-40s–the Whigs were less interested in laissez faire economics.  That would be the Democrats’ position.  The Whigs believed in the more centralizing forces concerning ecnomics and improvement.  Yet, the Whigs believed in banks more than the Democrats.

The new Whigs are a far cry from the old Whigs.  If they are to emulate a central principle of Whiggish ideology, though, they need to favor a mixed constitutional system more, over a system of deference to the Executive.

As noted here, we all may be able to take classes from one of the most important political philosophers of the 20th century.  He was able to revive a serious consideration of the ancient philosophers, and he took seriously the concept of justice.  But, it was his ability to teach that drew students in as this short transcript below demonstrates:

Instead of cataloging philosophers for rows of classroom note takers, he throws students into an ongoing argument: How should we live? He forces students not merely to study political philosophy but to engage in it.

For example, in one class he asks whether a leader should have guiding principles or he should judge each situation independently.

On the tape, we hear Mr. Levy, a student, ask cheekily, “Did Montgomery have to know anything about Aristotle to win the battle of El Alamein?”

“That is an entirely different question,” Strauss replies—referring to Aristotle’s written works—”whether rules means rules to be found in this or that book.”

“I was just using that as an example,” Mr. Levy fires back.

“There was one thing I believe which was quite clear in the case of Montgomery,” Strauss responds, “that he had to win it…. [I]n the case of politics as distinguished from generalship, the end is somewhat more complicated…the political good consists of a number of ingredients which cannot be reduced to the simple formula, victory.”

A very lengthy piece in Der Spiegel explains how Churchill took on Hitler. After watching the World at War this summer. a question was asked:  what did the U.K. get out of the war?  The answer?  Not much.

The U.S. and Russia emerged as the world’s superpowers.  Germany was rebuilt.  Really, only Churchill’s moral arguments and statesmanship against the Nazis was their claim.  The U.K. won the moral victory.

Churchill was a man of adventure and risk.  These manly features we do not see very often any more:

Churchill had killed people in battle as a young man, but he was not particularly struck by the experience. “Nothing in history was ever settled except by wars,” the bellicose Churchill believed. He loved danger and sought out adventure. Even when he was in his sixties, as prime minister, he would stand on the roof of a government building in London during German air raids to observe the murderous spectacle from above, while his cabinet ministers fled into the bomb shelters.

One of my favorite Churchill stories is this one:

The gauntlet had been thrown down, and the mood quickly shifted. A furious Hitler publicly berated Churchill as a “warmonger,” while Churchill increasingly ignored diplomatic etiquette. By now he was sharply criticizing the persecution of the Jews, and in a newspaper commentary in the summer of 1939, he wrote that the Third Reich represented an unprecedented “cult of malignancy.”

When World War II began a few weeks later, it was Hitler, ironically, who paved the way for Churchill’s political comeback. The German invasion of Poland shed a new light on Churchill’s earlier predictions. He had been right, after all, and the fact that the Nazis were now railing against him, calling him a “filthy liar” and a “bloated pig,” only enhanced his popularity.

Yielding to public pressure, Chamberlain appointed him to his cabinet, and in the spring of 1940, Churchill finally succeeded him as prime minister.

On the evening of May 10, Churchill, now 65, was sitting in a limousine on his way to Buckingham Palace, where King George VI would ask him to form a new government. In his memoirs, Churchill writes: “I felt as if I were walking with destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial.”

All of Churchill’s sacrifice, all his risk taking, politically, his time in the wilderness, his education–all was but a preparation for this moment in which, quite literally, Churchill would be the moral voice to save the world.  Not many people can say they have had the opportunity to really do that, much less have actually done it.

There is a lot left out of Der Spiegel’s article, but one thing is sure, the article by this apparent German writer is glowing of the man who helped conquer the country.  Is the world better off having an empire loving statesman at the helm who understood human nature?  The conclusion is most certainly.

Someone sent this to me the other day–knowing that I think The Wire is one of the best things ever to be shown on TV:

Oh, the joy!

Researchers have recently discovered that while it doesn’t necessarily make me smarter (damn!), it may help me stave off dementia or whatever special breed of insanity waits for me in my old age. Chalk up another superpower for wine.

William Voegeli from the Claremont Salvatori Center speaks about his new book, Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State.

The market reports of e-book sales keep looking up, and it has resulted in people reading more.

A study of 1,200 e-reader owners by Marketing and Research Resources Inc. found that 40% said they now read more than they did with print books. Of those surveyed, 58% said they read about the same as before while 2% said they read less than before. And 55% of the respondents in the May study, paid for by e-reader maker Sony Corp., thought they’d use the device to read even more books in the future. The study looked at owners of three devices: Amazon.com Inc.’s Kindle, Apple Inc.’s iPad and the Sony Reader.

More and more professors, like myself, are giving the students information on how they can buy electronic text books.  The reason most students prefer the electronic version is price–roughly 1/2 of the hard copy version.

But are e-books worthy the money?  A list of tips aid in the calculation.

As noted in the Chronicle, here, tenure is a disappearing reality:

Over just three decades, the proportion of college instructors who are tenured or on the tenure track plummeted: from 57 percent in 1975 to 31 percent in 2007. The new report is expected to show that that proportion fell below 30 percent in 2009. If you add graduate teaching assistants to the mix, those with some kind of tenure status represent a mere quarter of all instructors.

The idea that tenure, a defining feature of U.S. higher education throughout the 20th century, has shrunk so drastically is shocking. But, says Stanley N. Katz, director of Princeton University’s Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, “we may be approaching a situation in which there will not be good, tenure-track jobs for the great majority of good people.”

The question is whether this is a good development or a bad development for higher ed.  There are reasonable arguments on both sides.  On the one hand, tenure has been used, historically, as a buttress against abusive administrators–the college history of places like Harvard and Princeton abound with intellectual persecution of professors.  But that was over 300 years ago.  Do such protections have to apply on the 21st century? Beyond that, a stable professoriate means a college has a solid identity.  Take away tenure, and you take away an identity.

Still, what business guarantees a person a job?  Tenure can be abused by lazy faculty.  And, there is evidence that it has allowed irresponsibility to thrive.  That cannot be good for higher ed either.

There are certainly more we could talk about in regard to this issue.

But, there is more going on here.  At the same time tenure is disappearing, colleges are restructuring.  This has led to faculty layoffs and other budget cutting measures.

Clearly, higher ed is undergoing a lot of changes.

h/t Suitable Wardrobe.

I just got back from a few moments of watching a stage being assembled on campus at WLU, which makes this article more relevant–or at least gets me to thinking.  Are students studying less?  Why or why not?

One contributor claims that the standards of  college  have fallen–and some colleges are encouraging fun not study.  Colleges that market fun are less likely to attract serious students.  One student writer claims that students are not lazy. They are busier than ever. However, the glaring omission from this Columbia student, is that while students may not be lazy, they are dedicating their activities less to study.  So, our Columbia student misses the point and fails to address the problem.

One interesting claim that permeates many of the articles is that students have less time because, for one, they are working more.  This may indeed be true, but even if it is, we need more data–is there a correlation with lower grades, with degree completion?

Conventional wisdom has it that Obama is in trouble because of the sour economy. True dat.  But, could there be more to the story?  Indeed.  The problems facing Obama are more, and may be graver, than a simple number crunching calculus. Jay Cost at RCP has yet another fascinating post detailing the Obama problem:

Klein then goes on to compare President Obama’s current standing in the Gallup poll to Presidents Carter, Clinton, and Reagan – arguing that, in fact, Obama is in a slightly better position. Klein chose this trio because they are “the last three presidents who entered office amid a recession and didn’t have a country-unifying terrorist attack in their first year.”

For starters, a point of clarification. None of these Presidents entered office “amid a recession,” at least not if we take the National Bureau of Economic Research as the authority on the beginning and end of recessions. The recession of the mid-70s began in late 1973 and ended in early 1975, during President Ford’s administration. The economy was still weak when Carter took office, but the next recession did not begin until January, 1980. It ended in July, 1980, meaning that Ronald Reagan also took office when the economy was in recovery, although it was again weak. The recession of the early 1990s had been over for nearly two years prior to the time that Bill Clinton took office.

So, there is a fair amount of revision going on from people who want to make it look like Obama is really not doing that bad, comparatively, or that his woes are not due to his governance, but are out of his control.  There may be some truth to all that, but Cost then utters a brilliant observation:

These past Presidents at least partially “earned” their poor poll positions by the summer of their second year. Clinton’s early term was marred by scandal and highly unpopular legislation. Reagan had pushed for an enormous tax cut that seemed to have the opposite effect of what was promised by the Summer of 1982. And Jimmy Carter was a poor chief executive who did not really have the trust of his party when he was nominated; he had to assure the convention in his nomination speech that he was indeed a bona fide Democrat. He did not have the confidence of the voters when he was elected; he won just 50% of the vote despite all the macro forces in his favor, and even then he had to rely heavily on his native South for most of his electoral power. And he never really enjoyed the confidence of the American public when he was President; by the end of 1977, he was struggling to stay above 50%. When I look at the Carter, Clinton, and Reagan numbers, I see in part a weak economy, but I also see these three suffering the consequences of their political decisions.

This means, there is something going on here besides mere economic downturn and presidential unpopularity.  Snip:

Does the economy matter? Yes, of course. But does political management and facility matter, too? Yes, of course.

Unfortunately, it is hard to capture “facility” quantitatively. If you want to graph the President’s job approval against GDP or unemployment, that’s easy to do. But what about graphing it against competence or ambition or boldness? That’s not as easy, which means that quantitative analysis is usually going to de-emphasize these features, not because they are unimportant but because they can’t be measured very well.

Modern political science wants to measure everything.  I have said it has Physics envy.  But, not everything can be measured.  The political skills of practical wisdom cannot be charted in a graph.  This all means that Obama (and others) may be viewed as an awful president for more than the economy.  It could be the people view him as incompetent,  or too bold, or whatever.  There is a certain intangible here, granted, but it is no less real.  It also may not be fair–much of the economic downturn was not Obama’s fault, even as he has made poor choices that are making the market unstable–but he took Bush to task for his poor economy.

Causing a bit of a kerfuffle in style circles is the two new Brooks Brothers ads–here and here.  It is back to school time, and, well, while perhaps these videos are not as scandalous as Abercrombie & Fitch moving onto Saville Row, it is a departure for Brooks.  What say you?  Have the mighty fallen?

h/t Affordable Wardrobe.

More and more are speculating what I speculated many months ago–that Hillary! will challenge Obama for the nomination. BUT, there are no Republicans really catching fire.

John Fund sat down with Scott Rasmussen recently.  Rasmussen is perhaps the most innovative, and accurate, pollster in the land today.  He has certainly been the most accurate pollster in the last 2 general elections.  Rasmussen has some interesting insights into today’s political landscape:

You can tell it’s a volatile political year when a balding, middle-aged pollster gets a standing ovation from hundreds of state legislators after delivering the news that only 23% of the people in this country believe today’s federal government has the consent of the governed.

“Americans don’t want to be governed from the left or the right,” Scott Rasmussen tells the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conference of 1,500 conservative and moderate legislators. “They want, like the Founding Fathers, to largely govern themselves with Washington in a supporting—but not dominant—role. The tea party movement is today’s updated expression of that sentiment.”

***

To figure out where people are, he asks three questions: Whose judgment do you trust more: that of the American people or America’s political leaders? Has the federal government become its own special interest group? Do government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors? Those who identify with the government on two or more questions are defined as the political class.

Before the financial crisis of late 2008, about a tenth of Americans fell into the political class, while some 53% were classified as in the mainstream public. The rest fell somewhere in the middle. Now the percentage of people identifying with the political class has clearly declined into single digits, while those in the mainstream public have grown slightly. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents all agree with the mainstream view on Mr. Rasmussen’s three questions. “The major division in this country is no longer between parties but between political elites and the people,” Mr. Rasmussen says.

His recent polls show huge gaps between the two groups. While 67% of the political class believes the U.S. is moving in the right direction, a full 84% of mainstream voters believe the nation is moving in the wrong one. The political class overwhelmingly supported the bailouts of the financial and auto industries, the health-care bill, and the Justice Department’s decision to sue Arizona over its new immigration law. Those in the mainstream public just as intensely opposed those moves.

A couple of things here: 1) the people are really looking for some sort of post partisan candidate.  Obama said he was the one to deliver that kind of politics.  Assuming it is even possible, Obama has governed the opposite of his promises of a new agnostic partisan world.  2) The public is very split–again in non-partisan ways–by political elites, and the rest.  It would be nice if we had a definition of who a political elite is.  It has to be more than a person who works in government.  How does a political elite transcend party ID?

Regardless of those questions, it is odd to say the least, how the Obama administration can campaign on being above party, and then wonder how the people could possibly be reacting negatively to his partisan governance.  How could the administration really not understand the trends?  These questions notwithstanding, Rasmussen should be paid attention to until his methodology and predictive force proves he is unreliable.  Presently, nobody beats what he is able to do.

…Rip Curl’s Grom search at Kitty Hawk: