Jan

2

Vacuums Suck

Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment

In today’s Times there is a clear-headed assessment by Paul Krugman on exactly who is to blame for the near-total collapse of conservative political ideology—conservatives themselves.

If the Bush administration became a byword for policy bungles, for government by the unqualified, well, it was just following the advice of leading conservative think tanks: after the 2000 election the Heritage Foundation specifically urged the new team to “make appointments based on loyalty first and expertise second.”

Contempt for expertise, in turn, rested on contempt for government in general. “Government is not the solution to our problem,” declared Ronald Reagan. “Government is the problem.” So why worry about governing well?

Where did this hostility to government come from? In 1981 Lee Atwater, the famed Republican political consultant, explained the evolution of the G.O.P.’s “Southern strategy,” which originally focused on opposition to the Voting Rights Act but eventually took a more coded form: “You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.” In other words, government is the problem because it takes your money and gives it to Those People.
For several weeks now I have been following two ongoing threads of reporting as the Republican Party digests the results of the election. One train of thought involves the Republican relationship to minorities. While they talk about outreach, their actions say something else.

The other issue the conservatives are grappling with is newer—media infrastructure. Grumbling about the progressive advantage in the websphere is increasing. But as Steve Clemmons points out, the real problem conservatives are facing lies within.

These things are more related than they appear. A well functioning government makes it possible to implement policies. But you cannot implement policies without ideas about what you want to create. It’s a lesson made very clear in Iraq – a series of good tactics do not result in a solid strategy.

The call for tax cuts has become their mantra, but it also calls attention to the dearth of new ideas within Republican circles. This lack of creative thinking is particularly evident in conservative media outlets. Histrionics and rabid rhetoric mask the intellectual emptiness of media loudmouths like Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, Michael Savage, but conservatives get the message . Their sound and fury doesn’t mask the contempt conservatives seem to posses for solid policy thinking.

Republican strategists are still content to bandy about calls for tax cuts that they know will negatively impact liberal constituencies while making happy talk about that strangely sounds like compassionate conservatism. They don’t seem to realize that most of the country has moved on. Regardless of whether the country is center-right or center left, wedge issues won’t fly any more. People are tired of partisan hacks, on either side, and seem to genuinely want from their leadership a properly functioning government. Thanks to the extreme neglect of the last eight years, the machinery of government will need some time to get working again. However, it seems like people have a new appreciation for what government can do.

This leaves conservatives in a tricky spot. Devoid of ideas and stripped of the levers of powers, their best hope is to develop a strategy that makes their party relevant again to a large segment of the country and gives them viable policy alternatives to counter Democratic programs.

Any bets on whether they are up to the task?

Jan

1

2008 Weblog Award Finalists

Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment

The finalists for the 2008 Weblog Awards have been announced. There are many familar sites on the list, but several new blogs that I intend to visit over the next few days. It’s sufficient motivation for me to start cleaning up my link list.

Dec

31

I Might Have to Start Buying Pens

Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment

Last night I read article in the New York Times that reported on a voluntary moratorium on branded giveways to physicians by drug companies and their representatives. I found the timing of the article especially curious considering the lengthy piece in the New York Review of Books. The ban goes into effect on 1 January and is voluntary. The reaction is mixed:

“Some skeptics deride the voluntary ban as a superficial measure that does nothing to curb the far larger amounts drug companies spend each year on various other efforts to influence physicians. But proponents welcome it as a step toward ending the barrage of drug brands and logos that surround, and may subliminally influence, doctors and patients. “

What captured my attention was the amount of money involved in distribution of drug samples, pens and notepads.

“Last year, besides giving away nearly $16 billion in free drug samples to doctors, pharmaceutical companies spent more than $6 billion on “detailing” — an industry term for the sales activities of drug representatives including office visits to doctors, meal-time presentations and branded pens and other handouts, according to IMS Health, a health care information company.”

The article also notes that there are conflicting opinions on whether these giveways unduly influence the actions of physicians and that other financial relationships that exist between doctors and drug companies are not impacted by this ban. While the merits of the ban may be debatable, what seems clear to me is that you don’t spend 22 billion dollars on “detailing” if your money isn’t providing a return. The larger issues also remain unaffected.

“The industry code also permits drug makers to pay doctors as consultants “based on fair market value” — which critics say means that companies can continue to pay individual doctors tens of thousands of dollars or more a year. “

I have to admit that I am a little saddened by the ban. Drug company pens were always pretty well made and I’ve been swiping them during doctor visits all my life.

Dec

30

Influence Peddling

Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment

I believe that I am naturally cynical. The glass is half empty of course, but I am more concerned with finding out who has been drinking my water. This inclination toward deep skepticism is magnified many-fold when dealing with bureaucracies, government officials or corporations. Thus, I find myself quite surprised that I was surprised by Marcia Angell’s article in The New York Review of Books.

While I don’t inherently mistrust the medical profession as much as I do a multi-national corporation like a pharmaceutical company, I suppose I could have figured out for myself if I had tried that piles of cash might influence the opinions of medical researchers acting on behalf of a drug company.

“No one knows the total amount provided by drug companies to physicians, but I estimate from the annual reports of the top nine US drug companies that it comes to tens of billions of dollars a year. By such means, the pharmaceutical industry has gained enormous control over how doctors evaluate and use its own products. Its extensive ties to physicians, particularly senior faculty at prestigious medical schools, affect the results of research, the way medicine is practiced, and even the definition of what constitutes a disease.”

There has been growing awareness of the conflict of interest present when research institutions are the beneficiaries of revenue streams, grants and gifts from the manufacturers of the products they are testing. The poisonous nature of these financial relationships do not just corrupt drug testing and research as it turns out. The ties between medical professionals and drug companies distort the primary tool for diagnosing and treating mental illness, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

“Given its importance, you might think that the DSM represents the authoritative distillation of a large body of scientific evidence. But Lane, using unpublished records from the archives of the American Psychiatric Association and interviews with the principals, shows that it is instead the product of a complex of academic politics, personal ambition, ideology, and, perhaps most important, the influence of the pharmaceutical industry. What the DSM lacks is evidence. “

Given the near total collapse of the financial system this year and the seemingly endless stream of reporting on inefficient, inept and corrupt management within some of the world’s premier financial institutions, unethical relationships between the medical establishment and the pharmaceutical manufacturers might be considered a given. I may not be as incredulous as I would like to think.

Oct

21

Tone Deaf

Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment

I am not a clothes horse. While I can admire someone’s snappy sense of style, I have never aspired to be a fashion hipster. Which is to say that while my priorities are different, I can appreciate that someone may want to own more than two or three pairs of shoes or that they might spend a sizeable poriton of their disposable income on fashion accessories. However, given the economic meltdown that we are in the midst of, I think that the McCain campaign will find that most people will not understand the necessity of spending $150,000.00 on Sarah Palins wardrobe. Call it a hunch.

Oct

12

May You Live in Interesting Times

Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment

The origins of this saying may be in doubt, but there is no question that it can apply to the economic and political turmoil unfolding these past several weeks. As as life-long consumer of news about politics and current events, I can attest to the unusual confluence of circumstances that make this election particularly important.

Candidates have made poor decisions regarding their running mates before, and this is not the first election where a significant domestic or global crisis cast a long shadow. Neither is it the first time voters went to the polls thoroughly disgusted with the performance of its government, or had to cast their ballots at time where the nation was embroiled in armed conflict or had suffered a catastophe.

But good God, are we really expected to go the polls in a few weeks with all this on the table? It’s fine that John McCain picked a running mate that makes Dan Quayle look like Noam Chomsky. And its understandable that after years of deregulation and neglect that the nation’s financial system is collapsing like a wet taco. While the electorate cannot be held responsible for the President Bush’s first term, we sure as hell have a lot to answer for considering we gave him a second. But why in God’s name are we expected to sort all of this out in four weeks?

To be realistic, some of this will take care of itself. I mean Chris Matthews has been more or less calling John McCain a troll since the debate. His temper is well known and well documented and he does not respond well when challenged. Even without a public meltdown, the public seems to be increasingly aware that McCain might not be the most stable choice for President.

This alone might not be enough to keep him out of the White House, but his recent erractic behavior in response to real crisis’ only make the election of 72 year old man with health problems seem that much riskier. This risk is magnified exponetially by the fact that his hand picked number two finds it difficult to answer questions coherently. I am suddenly nostalgice for a Vice President with a thin resume who occasionally mispells ordinary words. This makes it entirely likely that the McCain candidacy is going to collapse under the weight of its own hubris. We must hope that this happens before the election.