Barack Obama's Political Compass

Since he made his national debut at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, the debate over Barack Obama's political ideology has been fierce and lasting.  His DNC speech was seen as a unifying, nearly conservative message. His voting record in the Illinois state senate and US Senate was one of the most liberal in either body. He ran his 2008 campaign in a manner similar to his 2004 speech, with mostly broad strokes of "hope" and "change". Since elected, his administration has seemed a curious mix of all sides on foreign, fiscal, and social policy. Many of his supporters, and even Obama himself, see him as a mainstream Republican, while his critics of course see him quite differently, some as a radical Marxist. So how can we tell for sure?

There are many tools to rate ideology on a scale to compare with others. I find the Political Compass to be particularly useful. It doesn't cover specific current policy issues, but uses broad ideological questions to place a person a two-dimensional scale of economic and social freedom.

Unfortunately, their editorial about the 2012 election and placement of the candidates on the graph was frankly absurd, placing him in the exact same ideological range as Mitt Romney, and closer to far-right Constitution Party candidate than the ideological center. Madness. The fact that they place pro-choice, pro-legalization, pro-open borders, pro-gay marriage Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson in the exact center of the libertarian/authoritarian spectrum should tell you how reliable their editorial decisions were here.













But the survey itself is still useful. So I went through it, answering each question as honestly as I could to reflect the actual votes and policies of Senator and President Obama over the last 8 years, and came up with this result:

As the kids say: "BOOM!"

While Political Compass themselves rated him as a far-right authoritarian (obviously without using their own survey data), and some of his specific policies have been moderate (tax cuts, medical marijuana raids, etc), it's clear from the actual questions within the Compass itself that President Obama is far left economically and moderately libertarian socially.

For comparison, my own Compass result:

If you're interested, below the fold are screenshots of the survey pages showing the answers I chose to represent Obama policies and views as best I could. If you disagree with how I've represented him, feel free to share how you would have answered for him.

Karl Rove, New RINO Bogeyman

Over the last week the right side of the political blogosphere and twitterverse has exploded with outrage at Karl Rove, former Bush campaign chief and policy adviser  Anyone familiar with online punditry knows how good the right is at attacking their own, but the venom spewed at Rove this time has been unprecedented.

Breitbart - The Civil War Has Begun Twitchy - Karl Rove launches attempt to silence Tea Party influence; conservatives fire back Michelle Malkin - Kneel before Zod! GOP control freak Karl Rove launches new effort to snuff out Tea Party

Reading these stories might lead you to believe Rove had switched party affiliation and viewed to elect purely Democrats from now on. Online outrage is almost never even remotely tethered to reality, so let's see just what Rove is planning and why it's so putatively evil.

New York Times - Top Donors to Republicans Seek More Say in Senate Races 

“There is a broad concern about having blown a significant number of races because the wrong candidates were selected,” said Steven J. Law, the president of American Crossroads, the “super PAC” creating the new project. “We don’t view ourselves as being in the incumbent protection business, but we want to pick the most conservative candidate who can win.”

So...he wants to elect candidates who can win? What a monster! I suppose even the father of the modern conservative movement, William F Buckley, whose electoral philosophy is cited as the philosophical mold by the backers of the new Conservative Victory Fund, would be called a spineless "RINO" today.

Buckley: "The wisest choice would be the one who would win. No sense running Mona Lisa in a beauty contest. I'd be for the most right, viable candidate who could win. If you could convince me that Barry Goldwater could win, I'd vote for him."

In case it wasn't abundantly clear, there is a small, vocal minority on the right who feel it isn't worth winning unless we do so with a 100% ideologically pure candidate. There are many problems with this "strategy", of course, not the least of which is there isn't even agreement on the right about what exactly makes someone sufficiently conservative.

Democrats don't give a damn about ideological purity in their candidates, only victory, and with the exception of 2010, they've made huge gains in every election since 2005 because of it. So how about instead of making sure we choose perfect candidates, we choose good candidates who can win, and leave our rhetorical blitzkriegs for the OTHER side?

Freedom by exemption only

Today the Obama administration revised its mandate that all health insurance coverage include contraceptives free of charge and added an exemption for non-profit religious organizations. The exception was made after dozens of churches, companies, hospitals, and religious organizations sued the federal government claiming religious objections to providing services that they believe violate their conscience. One of those lawsuits, filed on behalf of Hobby Lobby, a crafting good retail store owned by Christians, was already dismissed by a federal court. This left only the Catholic church and other explicitly religious organizations fighting the mandate. That may be why the Department of Health & Human Services thought it should offer an exemption for those type of organizations. But are they the only ones who deserve an exemption?

Religious exemptions are issued on the premise that we as citizens of a constitutional republic have the freedom of conscience not to be compelled to do things that are against our beliefs. The problem is that all people have that right, not just specifically religiously-organized groups. By exempting only religious organizations, and even more egregiously only non-profit ones, the government is enforcing the idea that it determines who has freedom of religion and conscience. Why is a non-profit religious organization more entitled to freedom of religion than a for-profit organization run by religious people? If Hobby Lobby reorganized itself as a non-profit, why would that give it more freedom than it has currently?

Of course this is not the first time exemptions from the recent health insurance reform have had to be made. Nearly 2000 businesses, unions, and other organizations were exempted from complying with early implementation of parts of the law in 2011. There's no telling what that number is up to by now.

If we are to be a free and equal society, the idea of waivers or exemptions from complying with the law should be abhorrent. Further limiting those special deals to only certain types of religiously-affiliated organizations is even more outrageous.

PROPOSAL: The Well-Regulated Militia Act of 2013

"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." 

- John F Kennedy

After a rash of multiple-victim public shootings in the last few months, the "we must do something" mentality has reached near-consensus levels. From armed guards at schools to blanket gun bans to national registry to mental health awareness, everyone has an solution. If we must do something, let's do something smart. I would like to propose a moderate, comprehensive plan to address several gun-related issues that might satisfy the "do something"ers, as well as disparate ideological forces all at once.

One of the most popular gun control measures proposed recently is a national registry of all gun ownership (or sales). I'm skeptical that having a list of who owns what gun would prevent anyone from using them in a crime, only make them easier to track after, but let's consider it. An acquaintance (and political adversary) of mine, Patrick Goff, suggested making gun registration part of a militia membership. Innovative! Synergistic! Bipartisan! Brilliant!

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

At the time of the founding, there was no standing army (and generally, the founders were against having one), so the military defense of the nation and the people was ensured by the people themselves being armed, and called to service when necessary. One argument against the individual right to arms is that without a "well regulated militia" that right is no longer applicable. Then what if we in effect re-created the militia with the national gun registry that so many suggest? You would register your gun with your state's National Guard, who would then issue you a (cheesy as it sounds) membership card as an honorary member of the National Guard militia.

This might sound like a national military conscription, and there's certainly the threat that a different administration and Congress might want to turn it into one, but it wouldn't be. We already have the Selective Service System that enables a nationwide draft upon congressional approval. Militia membership would not require any action or service from the member, only serve as an incentive to register your guns.

To give further incentive to this arrangement, militia membership might provide modest tangible benefits. The member could be entitled to a free gun safety/target practice/self defense course at the nearest National Guard base once every three years. Concealed carry permitting could be streamlined by militia membership. (If you have ideas for other benefits, leave a comment!)

Of course this proposal does not solve gun violence, cure mental illness, or keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but it does represent a huge, potentially bipartisan step forward in responsibility and awareness.

Texans vs Patriots, a history

To prepare for the Texans-Patriots divisional playoff game this weekend, let's review the Patriots' postseason history under Brady.

2011
- beat Broncos (beat Broncos week 15)
- beat Ravens (hadn't played Ravens that year)
- lost to Giants (lost to Giants 24-20 week 9 & preseason week 4)

2010
- lost to Jets (beat Jets 45-3 week 13)

2009
- lost to Ravens (beat Ravens 27-21 week 4)
(note: lost to Texans 34-27 week 17)

2008
- didn't make playoffs

2007
- beat Jaguars (hadn't played Jaguars that year)
- beat Chargers (beat Chargers 38-14 week 2)
- lost to Giants (beat Giants 35-30 week 17, 27-20 preseason week 4)

2006
- beat Jets (lost to Jets 17-14 week 10)
- beat Chargers (hadn't played Chargers that year)
- lost to Colts (lost to Colts 27-20 week 9)
(note: beat Texans 40-7 week 15)

2005
- beat Jaguars (hadn't previously played Jaguars that year)
- lost to Broncos (lost to Broncos 28-20 week 6)

2004
- beat Colts (beat Colts 27-24 week 1)
- beat Steelers (lost to Steelers 34-20 week 8)
- beat Eagles (beat Eagles preseason week 1)

2003
- beat Titans (beat Titans 38-30 week 5)
- beat Colts (beat Colts 38-34 week 13)
- beat Panthers (hadn't previously played Panthers that year)
(note: beat Texans 23-20 week 12)

2002
- didn't make playoffs

Certainly the Patriots are a great team and have done well to consistently get to the playoffs and do well once there. But looking at their playoff losses, three of them were to teams they had previously beaten, and three of them were to teams they had previously lost to in the regular season. For their 13 playoff wins, six of them were against teams they had previously beaten, five against teams they hadn't played, and two against teams to whom they had lost.

So while they do have a nearly 50% chance of beating teams twice in a season, they also have a 50% chance of losing to a team they've previously beaten, especially recently. In two of the last three post-seasons, they lost their first game to a team they'd beaten earlier in the year.

The Texans (with Schaub) have only played the Patriots twice. The Texans won the first meeting in 2009 and lost the second this year. They are absolutely capable of beating them again, especially with the newly confident, healthy, balanced team they have now. Betting on the Patriots might be a smart move, but it's not a certainty, even based on their playoff history.

For Current TV, Al Jazeera > Glenn Beck

I'm no Glenn Beck fan (though I used to be), but this is pretty outrageous:

Glenn Beck’s The Blaze approached Current about buying the channel last year, but was told that “the legacy of who the network goes to is important to us and we are sensitive to networks not aligned with our point of view,” according to a person familiar with the negotiations.

So according to Current TV executives (see: Al Gore), Glenn Beck isn't "aligned with [their] point of view" (obviously), but Al-Jazeera, a network that uses questionable methods to be a primary source for terrorist propaganda, is?

It could be that A-J just offered them more money than Beck did, and they're using the ideology argument to bolster their progressive audience while they're in the news. But if they truly did mean it, and "point of view" was one of the criteria used to reject Blaze and select A-J, it adds a whole new level to the red-green (or in this case, black-green) alliance to undermine Western institutions.

Senate fiscal cliff deal in numbers

Let's take a broad look at what 40 Senate Republicans voted for last night to avert the fiscal cliff deficit reduction they passed over the last few years.

Biden-McConnell Plan:
$620 billion revenue - mostly from tax increases on $400,000+ incomes
$30 billion in new spending - unemployment extension not offset
$15 billion in cuts - mostly military and healthcare tweaks
Postpones automatic sequester cuts of $1.5 trillion for 2 months 

Those sure do seem like small numbers. To see just how small, consider that they're spread out over 10 years, then compare them to 1 year of the budget itself.

$3.8 trillion total spending
$2.9 trillion total revenue

But let's compare apples to apples: 1 year of the budget to 1 year of the deal.

$3.8 trillion spending to start
$3 billion new spending
$1.5 billion cuts
end with ... wait for it ... $3.8 trillion spending

$2.9 trillion revenue to start
$62 billion new revenue (assuming economic growth doesn't slow...)
end with ... wait for it ... $2.9 trillion revenue

In broad terms of the budget, absolutely nothing was accomplished either in revenue or spending. Next, let's take a look at the previous proposals to really judge where we ended up.

Geithner Plan
$1.6 trillion new revenue - increase taxes, eliminate deductions over $250k income
$50 billion new spending
$350 billion cuts

Boehner counteroffer
$800 billion new revenue - eliminate deductions over $250k income
$1.2 trillion cuts

Obama outline
$1.2 trillion new revenue - increase taxes, eliminate deductions over $400k income
$80 billion new spending
$1.2 trillion cuts

Boehner "Plan B"
$1 trillion new revenue - increase taxes, eliminate deductions over $1M income
$1 trillion cuts

So instead of $350 billion to $1.2 trillion in cuts, we got $15 billion. Instead of $800 billion to $1.6 trillion in new revenue, we got $620 billion. Over 10 years.

This is not compromise, it's surrender.