Does Barack Obama Deserve Re-election Because He is Black?

A recent Washington Post article discussed efforts by black talk show hosts to generate support for Barack Obama's re-election.  “Stick together, black people,” one was quoted as saying.  He continued, “We have the chance to re-elect the first African American president, and that’s what we ought to be doing.”

Why?  Shouldn’t the question be whether President Obama’s election would be best for the country, not whether his ethnicity or skin color is pleasing? 

The emotional appeal is understandable.  After all, John F. Kennedy was an attractive presidential candidate to many Americans, in part because his heritage was that of an Irish Catholic.  And so, plainly for different reasons, was the election of Barack Obama to the presidency four years ago.

But is ethnicity an appropriate criterion?  America was founded on individualism.  English settlers fled their homeland in search of religious liberty.  Isn’t freedom for the individual a core American value?  We, as Americans, in accordance with that principle, usually focus on individual choice, not on group attitudes.  What should matter is which presidential candidate will best serve America.  That is a matter of policy and character, not group identification.  Why would blacks, of all Americans, want to be viewed as members of a group as opposed to individuals with independent thoughts and political views?

Student Loans - Unintended Consequences

Stories are rife – college and professional school graduates are overburdened with student loan debt.

Certainly, that government-backed program made sense - superficially - twenty-five years ago.

If a person wants to go to college but doesn’t have the money for tuition, the Federal government will either insure or guarantee student loans at low interest rates.  After all, the more educated our citizenry, the better for all of us economically and otherwise. 

Not coincidentally, between 1986 and 2010, college tuition rates rose 500% while inflation rose 115% and outstanding loans ballooned to over $700 billion.  In response, President Obama has directed that student loan balances after twenty years be forgiven.  Since such loans are guaranteed by the Federal government, that means, of course, that U.S. taxpayers pay the balance.

How did this happen? Of course, this was not intended.  But that is no excuse, for those who promoted the policy failed to mind a simple economic lesson:  with increased demand, prices go up.

Education is a service product which must be paid for.  Like any other product, its price is a reflection of costs, supply and demand.  If the demand is limited, the provider must focus on costs to ensure that its product is affordable so that students can afford the school’s tuition.

However, if the price the student pays can be deferred, without worries (at least then) about affordability, the school’s incentive to control costs largely disappears.  And as the 500% tuition increase in twenty-five years shows, school budgets exploded with the influx of the student loan money.  With no apparent ceiling to the loan money available (remember the guarantee), the school spending increase generated ever higher tuition demands.  More buildings, more sports facilities and higher salaries, of course, required more tuition money.

But now we see the consequences, unintended (though hardly unforeseeable) as they may have been.  But isn’t that often the rule with government programs?  Gains are relatively immediate and thus alluring.  Even if problems down the road are foreseen by proponents, they are either ignored by the politically cynical or wished away by the well-meaning, and the taxpayer is left holding the bag. 

Does the sub-prime mortgage debacle ring a bell?

Penn State Football and Child Abuse

As The Sensible Conservative, I do not believe that the application of common sense should be restricted to politics and public policy. 

I’m not a PSU graduate and, thus, this question is not posed defensively:  What does Penn State football have to do with child abuse?  Nothing.

Of course, public commentary is to the contrary, but simple truths have either been ignored or are unknown to those jumping to that conclusion.   

The reported facts: a decade or so ago, an assistant coach named Jerry Sandusky sexually abused a 10-year-old in the Penn State locker room.  A witness on the team’s staff told head coach Joe Paterno about the episode (in what detail, we do not know), who then reported that information to his administrative supervisor, and up the chain of command it went.  Nobody called the police.

Penn State football players were not involved, that assistant coach wasn’t focusing on team members as targets, and there is no suggestion whatsoever that the football program fostered or tolerated a culture of child abuse.

To be sure, if former coach Sandusky is indeed the sexual predator as charged (remember, I’m a lawyer) and Penn State personnel knew that, they personally are properly condemned for not reporting him to law enforcement officials.

But, if so, how does that qualify as an indictment of the PSU football program for which it and its players should be punished (“cancel the season; no bowl game”)?

Was the failure to report what may have been known as a serious crime motivated by greater concern for reputation than the victim?  Very possibly.  But remember, that knowledge up the chain was dependent upon what was conveyed.  Did the initial witness tell all to Joe Paterno, for instance?  And was the witness “sure” about what he had seen? 

Keep this in mind:  even if the knowledge acquired was more definitive, people want to believe the best of their friends (and Joe Paterno and the subject assistant had had a long term relationship).  They wish to ignore or downplay that which reflects poorly.  And wouldn’t the same factors and considerations be in play in any organization (in and out of sports)?

Yes, human nature has less agreeable qualities, too.  So Joe Paterno, if he knew then what so many claim to know now, undoubtedly should have done more.  Maybe he’s no longer worthy of adulation as an exemplary human being. 

But what do Joe Paterno’s personal failings have to do with Penn State football?

Romney is the Choice

The top priority for Conservatives is to defeat President Obama in 2012.  As long as he remains in office, our agenda (repeal Obamacare, cut spending and taxes, rescue the economy, etc.) will be thwarted by executive veto even if Republicans hold onto the House of Representatives and regain control of the U.S. Senate.

That being said, running the best conservative available as the Republican nominee is, therefore, of secondary concern.  If a less conservative candidate is more likely to prevail next November,  that should be a conservative’s choice.  Mitt Romney fits the bill.

First, although his proclaimed loyalty to conservative principles and policies can be fairly questioned, given his political history of being a somewhat liberal Massachusetts governor, Romney’s responsiveness to the demands of his audience (resulting in calculated policy shifts) should not disqualify him.   The continuing - and forthcoming – conservative strength in Washington ensures that he will stay in step with, and certainly not oppose, our policies.  Mitt Romney has made clear his desire to go with the flow.

But what makes him more electable, for instance, than Gov. Rick Perry or Herman Cain, whose conservative credentials are certainly more authentic?  Gov. Perry expresses himself awkwardly and seems frankly uninformed about national issues other than energy.  And while  Mr. Cain’s blunt talk is appealing, his tendency to put his foot in his mouth is not.  (Is he really pro-choice?  Did he really not know that China has had nuclear weapons since the sixties?)

Simply, Mitt Romney is the better national politician.  This is largely due to his experience and “moderate” manner.  His candidacy will reassure those voters labeled as independents who prefer their politics  in pastels rather than bold colors.  His careful, relatively mistake-free manner won’t upset them.   (Unaligned voters were essential to Obama’s victory; they are key to his defeat.)  Further, Romney has proven to be a steady debater who can be expected to at least hold his own on a public stage against the “smooth talker” currently residing in the White House.  Having been on the national stage now for some years, any skeletons in Romney’s closet would have been exposed by now.  He’s been vetted in the ways that other GOP candidates (with the current exception of Herman Cain, to his great embarrassment) have not been.

Remember the objective:  Mitt Romney is the Republican candidate most likely to reach it.

Note:  Does Romney’s  religious faith affect his electability?  Probably not.  Interestingly, new polling data suggests a strong sympathy among Jewish voters (usually strong Democrats) for Mormons.  Maybe that’s because both faiths have evoked strong hostility from often sizeable portions of the community.  And, anyway, whatever a religious conservative might think of the theological underpinnings of the Church of Latter Day Saints, there is no disputing that its values of family and individual enterprise and responsibility resonate.