Obama Backs The Fiscal Commission

Obama is planning to endorse the Simpson-Bowles plan. Ezra Klein explains the logic:

[Simpson-Bowles is] plausibly bipartisan. Ryan’s budget was almost a calculated effort to appall Democrats, which means it has little chance of passing through the Senate. Simpson-Bowles was an effort to attract votes from both parties.

The reason it can be bipartisan is that, unlike the House GOP’s proposal, it doesn’t use deficit reduction as cover to sneak in ideological changes to the state: there’s no effort at privatizing Medicare or block granting Medicaid, no decision to go after programs for the poor while exempting both revenues and defense cuts. The plan’s theory is that cutting the deficit is hard enough without also engaging a couple of long-running ideological wars about the shape and responsibilities of the America state. So it dodges those wars, and in endorsing it, Obama will too.

Counting Triumphs

Priscilla Gilman movingly describes how her son’s struggle with hyperlexia put her in touch with her “deepest sense of what’s truly meaningful”: 

A partial list of the milestones and moments of triumph that have mattered most: Benj pats his crying baby brother on the head and says, “It’s OK, James;” drinks from an open cup without spilling all over himself or screaming in frustration as the juice dribbles down his chin; says “yes” for the first time at 3½ years old; refers to himself as “I” for the first time at a little over 4; says “I love you” for the first time at 4½; swims the length of a pool unassisted, his little head bobbing determinedly above the water; writes a poem called “The Reading Boy” about enjoying “A good book/alone in his own private nook.”

I can’t imagine obsessing over first-, second-, or third-tier schools, sports trophies, the perfect birthday party.

The WWII Model

Newcollege_wall-hall-chapel_oxondude

Rick Hertzberg compares how the US handled prisoners of war during WWII to Guantanamo today:

[B]y the tens of thousands, German soldiers were loaded aboard Liberty Ships, which had carried American troops across the Atlantic. Eventually, some five hundred P.O.W. camps, scattered across forty-five of the forty-eight United States, housed some four hundred thousand men. In every one of those camps, the Geneva conventions were adhered to so scrupulously that, after the war, not a few of the inmates decided to stick around and become Americans themselves. That was extraordinary rendition, Greatest Generation style.

And it makes one weep to see what we have now come to. In the Republican policy riders to the budget deal – one of the more jaw-dropping documents I have read in a while – there was an absolute insistence on not funding the closure of Gitmo. It was that important – to retain something that the entire world sees as a black mark on America and the West.

All war is unspeakable – but there is a civilized as well as a barbaric approach to it. In a civilized culture, you respect how the enemy, however we have to demonize them to kill them, is still human. And so there are limits to what will be done to them if they come into our custody. And there are laws of war to manage this. And then there are those moments, like those German POWs becoming American, when a gesture takes on a grander scale and actually heals.

It would be hard to think of a bloodier war than World War I. Its psychic scars are still profound in Europe. You'll find a war memorial in most English towns, somewhere, and even today, everyone wears a paper poppy in their lapel in November, to honor the fallen in Flanders. And if you go to New College Oxford chapel, you'll also find a war memorial: an etched list of names in stone of those students who died in combat. And in one section, you will see a list of German names, for those German transfer students from New College who went to war to fight against England.

They are still remembered and honored, not as Germans or as Englishmen, but simply as members of New College. I recall the moment I first saw that, and absorbed the values it upheld. It taught me something about what it was to be English, just as the memory of decent American soldiers conveyed what it meant to be an American. 

We need to find that sentiment again. It's still there, but buried in fear.

“A Theatre Of Probity”

David Runciman reviews Nicholas Shaxson's Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men who Stole the World:

The essence of offshore is the need to keep up a solid appearance of respectability, while allowing money in and out with as little fuss as possible. Tax avoidance (unlike tax evasion) is not a clandestine activity, and tax havens don’t exist just to enable people to squirrel their money away from the authorities. The money needs to be accessible, and it needs to be liquid. For that reason, people prefer tax havens where they can conduct their business relatively openly, and the most successful offshore jurisdictions are the ones that ask no questions but also tell no lies. 

Shaxson's memorable phrase for this is ‘theatre of probity’. The Swiss have always been the masters, with their formal manners and careful paperwork. But it turns out that the other champions of this way of doing business are the British. Shaxson’s book explains how and why London became the centre of what he calls a ‘spider’s web’ of offshore activities (and in the process such a comfortable home for the likes of Saif Gaddafi). It is because offshore is the offshoot of an empire in decline. It perfectly suited a country with the appearance of grandeur and traditionally high standards, but underneath it all a reek of desperation and the pressing need for more cash. 

That last sentence is brutal. And, of course, true.

Lying About Likes

Facebooklike

Kevin Sablan crunches some Facebook numbers:

The number of “likes” usually displayed alongside the Facebook like button is really an aggregate of shares, likes and comments. This morning, I took an arbitrary mix of Facebook related stories and found that the actual number of likes only accounted for a 39% of the number displayed. This is by no means scientific, but I think it’s noteworthy.

Why does this matter? Because news sites are publishing factual inaccuracies in articles that say things like “100 people recommend this” when in fact only 39 people did.

Party pooper.

The Daily Wrap

Today on the Dish, Andrew wrestled with healthcare costs and humans being forced to play God. Andrew grappled with a NOM organizer finally seeing the conservative nature in gay rights, we rounded up the reax to the narrowly averted shutdown, and Andrew finally got approved for a Greencard. National Enquirer blew up Todd Palin's spot again, and Sarah put her foot in her mouth on birth certificates. Rick Hertzberg explained why Fox dumped Glenn Beck, Chait sized up us sizing up the candidates based on looks, and Trump relegated Birtherism to the backwoods of conservatism. David Kenner kept his eyes glued to the YouTube, Henry Farrell analyzed bigotry in France's veil ban, and we tracked a possible Libyan ceasefire and its quick demise.

Andrew appreciated the polyglot bluntness of Anglo-Saxon English, cooed over other people's babies, and couldn't get behind an Objectivist worldview, while readers chimed in. Flowing Data informed us how long we'd get in retirement, GPS technology could spark cab wars, and America remained exceptionally tan. Nina Simone had the final word on Mississippi, Habitat For Humanity lead with a partnership model, and tsunami debris headed for the west coast. Suicides kill more than automobiles, Peter Smith shared the neuroscience of overeating, and readers calculated our tax brackets.

Hathos alert here, chart of the day here, correction of the day here, FOTD here, VFYW here, nixed regular airplane views here, but a window-seat-worthy MHB to make you feel better here.

–Z.P.

Yglesias Award Nominee

"Who the hell is for abortion? I don’t know anybody running around with a sign that says, “Have an abortion! They’re wonderful!” They’re hideous, but they’re a deeply intimate and personal decision, and I don’t think men legislators should even vote on the issue.

Then you’ve got homosexuality, you’ve got Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. We have homophobes in our party. That’s disgusting to me. We’re all human beings. We’re all God’s children. Now if they’re going to get off on that stuff—Santorum has said some cruel things—cruel, cruel things—about homosexuals. Ask him about it; see if he attributes the cruelness of his remarks years ago. Foul," - former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY).

Man, I loves me some raw Simpson. He's such an obviously good fellow. And I wish the GOP had more like him.

Growing Up Objectivist, Ctd

Young-randian

A reader writes:

My father, too, was a devotee of Ayn Rand, as was my stepmother.  When I was a teenager, there were many spirited arguments at the dinner table over altruism, with my dad and stepmom doggedly clinging to their belief that self-interest was the admirable core of human nature and that any progressive tax system that financed a social safety net was "punishing success."  

As the years passed, the two most successful children (of five) in the family turned out to be my brother and me.  My stepmom's kids, because of their own choices, have been less well-off financially.  Imagine my surprise at receiving a phone call from my father a few years before he died, informing me that he was revising his will and asking if I would mind if he left most of his estate to my stepmom's kids because my brother and I were now wealthy!  I agreed and was happy to do (I'm a left-wing Democrat who thinks  Ayn Rand was nuts), but to my everlasting regret, I didn't ask Dad if that wasn't "punishing success!"

My point is, Ayn Rand, like much far right-wing "philosophy," doesn't work so well in the real world.

Another writes:

I think that you hit the nail on the head when you stated, "As a worldview, [Objectivism] has always struck me as making the most sense to someone who is 13 years' old." Rand's work has always seemed more simplistic than anything else. For an adolescent just beginning to wrestle with personal identity issues, her writings could appear to be a profound revelation, while to anyone with any wisdom whatsoever they just seem naive. My favorite critique of Rand's masterwork, "Atlas Shrugged", was penned by Ian Williams in a 2000 Salon article about Alan Greenspan:

For those who never read Rand, be warned that "Atlas Shrugged" reads like a novelization of Mein Kampf by Barbara Cartland. She depicts bodice-ripping capitalist supermen who obtain fanatical loyalty from their workers, and then leave them in the lurch in search of a capitalist paradise where everything has a price — and it's in gold.

I couldn't sum it up any better. As an Architecture student in the late Seventies, "The Fountainhead" was required reading for me and my friends. I read "Atlas Shrugged" shortly thereafter. A more literal expression of Objectivism than was found in Rand's previous novel, but every bit as juvenile.

Another:

A great quote related to this topic, from screenwriter and producer John Rogers:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Another:

The great literary critic Martin Seymour-Smith (in his "Who's Who in 20th Century Literature") observed that Ayn Rand's writings "appeal to the conservatively bred young, because they encourage them to be selfish without a guilty conscience."

Another:

Your posts on Objectivism reminded me that for years I meant to – and never did – write an article that illustrates the remarkable alignment between the personal ethics of Ayn Rand’s outlook and those of Anton LaVey’s “Satanic Bible.”

Lest you think I’m being intentionally provocative, understand that this idea came about as I was reading LaVey’s text in preparation for a class I now teach on New Religious Movements. The course deals, in part, with organized Satanism (not the “Satanism” of evangelical paranoia lurking in record albums and body piercings). I was struck by the fact that individual happiness and the full development of the individual at the expense, when necessary, of the “weak” and conformist, with all its Spencerian/neo-Darwinian implications, rests at the heart of both ideologies. LaVey dresses it up in fantastic ritual and comical magic aimed at undermining the authority of Christianity, but the handbook on how to live a life does not differ substantially. Neither ideology celebrates willful, arbitrary cruelty, but both take an aggressive stance to those who advocate submissive ethics and meeting the needs of the collective before meeting the needs, and desires, of the self.

Do yourself a favor and pick up LaVey’s book. You may have to hide the cover in the subway, but the parallels are uncanny.

One more reader:

I suppose I took a little longer to develop literary habits compared to your 14-year-old Rand readers. I didn’t get exposed to the Fountainhead until my senior year in high school and found it thrilling. I loved the rebellion themes and the artists’ right to create his/her own vision. But Atlas Shrugged was much tougher to buy into, and I distinctly recall skimming the wordy speeches to get to the plot, which has a few interesting moments. It might have ended there, one of many books shaping me in those years, but a close friend became much more devoted to Ayn and his enthusiasm was contagious.

Objectivism is a near-perfect fit for above-average, privileged college students destined to become leaders in some field or another. I can attest to the power of the no-guilt philosophy, something that was in complete concert with the Reagan-era capitalism that was taking off at the time. If you really think you are something special, how can you not like a philosophy that celebrates the elite you are convinced you will join?

Two things conspired to snap me out of the Objectivist sway. One was a few summers working in the great National Parks of the American West, where I realized that it took collective action to protect the magnificent rivers and mountains that I loved exploring (and Rand clearly hated – her protagonists decried the lack of billboards when traveling through raw, “unimproved” nature). I easily replaced Rand with Thoreau, Leopold, Stegner, and Abbey – plenty of misanthropy, rebellion, and audacity for a young man’s taste, but with a better world much more likely to come from it.

The second was a geography professor with a Marxist slant, who exposed me to the spatial complexities of modern societies that refuted at nearly every turn the simple Randian notion that individuals and their individual decisions created optimal solutions. By my senior year, I don’t think I ever thought of Rand as anything but a naive prop of the College Republicans – stuck up preppies whom I couldn’t stand (even if some of that probably stemmed from a touch of self-hatred of my own roots). The point is, Rand has its time and place, but then usually becomes replaced for anyone who travels, reads widely, or gets exposed to other more complex ideas.

My friend and I pursued different degrees and went our own ways after school. I always assumed he’d moved past Rand like me, especially when he gave up his “promising” career as a VP at a bank and moved west to fish, hike, and fix up houses for a living. But on a recent once-a-decade hike in the Rockies, I learned to my surprise that he still considered Rand central to his core. He had to do some serious contortions to square his Objectivist beliefs with his life choices, love of public lands, and recent vote for Obama, but he still did not doubt that the “best and the brightest” carry the burden of productivity and deserved its just rewards (which naturally included him). We argued around it for a while, but I couldn’t even recall enough of those books or their philosophy to keep the conversation going. I could honestly admit I liked a few Randian ideas: disdain for bureaucracies and general support for meritocratic systems. But the rest seemed juvenile and unrealistic in a world where our collective fate is tied to how well others are doing too.

Later, during another campfire discussion, my friend divulged that he had avoided paying much federal tax for years through creative accounting related to his homes, mortgages, and remodeling projects – then espoused some Randian drivel to justify the morality of it all. That was the moment I lost respect for my friend and realized how lost Ayn’s black and white ideas had become. Objectivism has a self-serving core idea that is disastrous if taken literally.

Flickr user Sage Ross captions the above photo:

I've never read any Ayn Rand, but this is what I imagine a Randian hero looks like: a fourteen-year-old man who grows a handlebar mustache through sheer force of will, well on his way to being a captain of industry and all-purpose world-changer.

I found this at an antique mall in Vermont, and at $2.50 it was too good to pass up.