TNR BLOGS

August 29, 2008 | 4:54 PM
August 29, 2008 | 4:44 PM
August 29, 2008 | 4:42 PM

August 27, 2008 | 11:42 PM
August 27, 2008 | 6:45 PM
August 27, 2008 | 6:43 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

August 29, 2008 | 6:47 PM
August 29, 2008 | 4:44 PM
August 28, 2008 | 6:37 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
06.06.2008
William Galston on How Obama Should Run Against McCain

With the primary race finally wrapped up, we asked a few friends of the magazine to consider the type of campaign Barack Obama should run against John McCain. Up first is William Galston, former policy advisor to Bill Clinton and current senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Seldom has the basic structure of an election tilted so strongly in the direction of the Democratic Party. In these circumstances especially, losing the presidential contest would be devastating for the party and would guarantee the continuation of divided government, at great cost to the country. In order to maximize his chances of winning, here are some of the steps Barack Obama needs to take.

  1. Introduce himself to the American people. Despite the protracted nominating contest, most Americans know almost nothing about him, other than his hopefulness and his unfortunate relationship with Jeremiah Wright. His early general election advertisements and speeches should lay out his biography, emphasizing that his family background was anything but privileged.
  1. Establish clear priorities. In his 2000 stump speech, George W. Bush relentlessly repeated the five main things he intended to accomplish as president. It wasn't elegant, but it conveyed a sense of direction and gave listeners something concrete to take away with them. The downside of inspiration is that when the immediate sensation fades, most listeners won't remember what they've heard.
  1. Focus more specifically on the economy. I would bet that if you asked 100 Americans today what Obama would do to improve their economic circumstances and prospects, at most a handful would be able to provide a single specific. Filling in the blanks is a necessary condition for maintaining control of the economic issue, which will be a key to victory, especially among the less-educated, lower-income voters who were unmoved by the generic promise of "change" during the primaries.
  1. Cross the threshold of credibility as commander-in-chief. Obama should emphasize that despite his determination to terminate our combat presence in Iraq, he understands that our ground forces are badly battered and dangerously overstretched. Because they will have to be rebuilt and expanded, there will be no "peace dividend." In addition, to maximize the continuity of national security despite the change of administrations, he should announce his willingness to retain both the current CIA director and the director of national intelligence for the first two years of his presidency.
  1. Reach out to Catholics. The most faithful Democratic group a half-century ago, Catholics are now the key swing religious group in the electorate. During the nominating contest, Obama tended to do worse among white Catholics than among white Protestants. If this trend continues, it could mean trouble in the fall, especially in the Midwest, where Catholics are disproportionately represented in most swing states. To turn this around, Obama should:
    • visit the Pope before the convention;
    • give Senator Bob Casey, Jr., a primetime speaking role at the convention, rectifying the exclusion of his father from the 1992 convention, a slight many Catholics still remember and resent;
    • deliver a high-profile speech at Notre Dame on themes such as social justice and community, as Bill Clinton did in 1992; and
    • create networks of local Catholic organizers in states such as Ohio, a strategy the Bush campaign employed to decisive effect in 2004.
  1. Emphasize moderation and open-mindedness on social issues. Relatively few Americans remember the path-breaking speech on religion in public life that Obama delivered two years ago. He should bring it out of mothballs, deliver it in a high-profile setting, and then incorporate its essential points in his stump speech. In addition, he should restore the so-called conscience clause on abortion that appeared in the 1996 and 2000 Democratic platforms but was removed in 2004. It read: "The Democratic Party is a party of inclusion. We respect the individual conscience of each American on this difficult issue, and we welcome all our members to participate at every level of our party."
  1. Make the electorate understand that on the issues that they care about the most, John McCain is no moderate. His prescription for the economy: even larger tax cuts. For health insurance: a privatization scheme that wouldn't even assure access to the many millions of Americans with preexisting conditions. And for Iraq: war without end. If Obama can persuade moderate and independent voters that McCain is more conservative than Bush on the issues that matter most, he will almost certainly win the election.

--William Galston

Posted: Friday, June 06, 2008 10:19 AM with 48 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

roidubouloi said:

This isn't exactly all wrong, but it is far from correct either.  Now that we are in the general, Obama does need to do more to give "truthiness" to his themes -- but that is not done in the somewhat straightforward way that Galston suggests.  He does need to reach out to groups that have spurned him, but meeting the pope is not the way to accomplish that.  Dumb.  He does, to some extent, need to provide reassurance that he is up to the CIC job only because we live in more threatening times than in 1992 and we have an active war.  Surrogates can help with that, telling the public there will be no war dividend certainly won't.  Saying that he is so insecure that he needs to keep Republican appointees in office won't either.  He does have lots of opportunity to keep framing McCain as Bush III and he should take every opportunity and means to do so.  Above all, he needs to have his ferocious responses, via surrogates, all teed up for when the Swift-boating starts.  

The first thing that Obama should do is not pay attention to "policy advisers" such as Galston when designing his campaign.  It is the confusion in the Democratic party between policy (which we love) and politics (deep ambivalence) that has led to so much misfortune since 1972.  For purposes of the campaign, the politicians, politicos, need to be in the lead and the policy wonks need to be nearby in case there are questions or a policy speech to be written or some coffee to be brewed.  As usual, policy advisers want candidates, in one way or another, to adopt their favored policy positions as the supposed way to win an election (although Galston is certainly more subtle about it than, say, Krugman).  As usual, it is crummy political advice.

June 6, 2008 10:38 AM

epicciuto said:

One thing that this gets right is the need of Obama to moderate his message. Not triangulation so much. I'm not saying he has to denounce gay marriage, or have a staged Sister Souljah moment. But what had been appealing to me about Obama, as a moderate, was his willingness to say: hey people, sometimes you have to take responsibility for yourselves. I need the help of parents in bringing our children to a better place. Businesses can help a community thrive. And so on. He seemed to get what was at the heart of the right's argument, and what is worth keeping. Contra the right, government can indeed help people, but, contra certain parts of the left, it cannot do so unless people recognize they are not mere victims of their own circumstance, and take some responsibility.

He needs to talk to the left the way he talks to the black community. Which is something like: I'm one of you. I'm with you. But we've got to move on to a different place.

He is also appealing when he understands where the other side is coming from, even if he disagrees. If he speaks with respect about the fact that there is, say, a valid moral argument against abortion (as there is also a valid moral argument in favor of it), then it makes his pro-choice position more palatable. The fact is that there is no easy answer to abortion, and he should recognize the complexity of this and other issues.

People underestimate how appealing it is to be listened to and taken seriously, even if the other person disagrees. It lets you know, not only that your voice will be heard, but that if he can understand where you're coming from in this case, he will probably be right with you where you're coming from in another.

June 6, 2008 10:58 AM

bigfish said:

To this observer, it should be easier for Obama to connect with voters on the issues than he did in the primary.  If I recall, polls have shown the Democratic party platform as more popular than the Republican.  If Obama can hammer home the policy differences between him and McCain, which are many, it should be much more of a cake-walk than winning the primary was (though still difficult).  I hope the general won't get bogged down in the silly personality characterizations of the candidates (Hillary as ruthless, Barack as vacuous, etc.)

June 6, 2008 11:04 AM

jacksondyer said:

roidubouloi said:  "This isn't exactly all wrong, but it is far from correct either. "

You need to be a little more humble, Rodo.

If you are such a great campaign consultant you shouldn't be giving away your advice for free.

You see to be sufferng from delusional blogger syndrome.

June 6, 2008 11:09 AM

roidubouloi said:

Gosh, jackson, I'm sorry.  I will carefully read everything you have written to find the appropriate expressions of humility with which you introduce your opinions.  And in the future I will follow you lead.  

Actually, I do give it away for free.  Do you think my local Democratic party committee pays me?  Nah.  I have to donate money in addition to not only giving advice but working.

Since the opinions I express here are in fact totally gratuitous, not to mention for free, feel free to ignore them.  If something I say ever makes sense to you and changes your thinking on some subject (not likely I admit), you are welcome.  And if not, no harm, no foul.

June 6, 2008 11:24 AM

michael said:

I have no gripe w/what roidubouloi. Especially, "The first thing that Obama should do is not pay attention to "policy advisers" such as Galston when designing his campaign." Or dance with who brung ya.  

So, they (the team which was so impressive when and where they won) only need to ask a few questions.

Why did we win big, across the very demographics which will enlarge the Electoral Map?

Why did we get spanked or fail to close in states where a Republican should struggle in the Fall?

Did PA only need more time & along with IN there was no indication he was not trending toward a majority.  It seemed he did his best when he was able to saturate from the street level up and his money advantage was most effective in getting that army out rather than his massive media buys.

So a visit w/the Pope and or even a speech at ND (& I live here) is great for 'free' exposure but I'd first want proof that the message that killed in WI or Iowa did not have universal appeal before I assumed people "didn't understand" Obama.  

Simply put, his 'message' not only worked it worked best when people heard it from him.  At best, a surrogate can only approve of what Obama claims and when someone else delivers the same details it sounds second hand and less convincing.

We have been so convinced that marketing, method and some sort of packaging is the only way to move a product that we doubt the essence or quality of the brand (from The Beatles to The Bug) is what allows it to be Great ( instead of Good Enough). Barack, his ideas and his team shouldn't be second guessed nor can he change focus without evidence it was truly not sharp enough. I can't believe more of the same along with more time isn't the safest route.

June 6, 2008 11:39 AM

timteeter said:

Actually, I think, contra roi, that this is mostly good advice (depending on how it's used), with one major exception: promising to keep the current heads of intelligence in place.  Not only should no candidate ever promise something like that--what if there is a major intel screw-up between now and November?--but, given the, ahem, recent track record of Bush appointees in intelligence, I think it would be hard to argue against change here, especially when you're the "change" candidate in the first place.

June 6, 2008 11:45 AM

roidubouloi said:

Dead on, michael.  

June 6, 2008 12:00 PM

fougasseu said:

I'd like to see Obama:

- Visit Iraq.

- Go to Miami.

- Aggressively pursue the Catholic vote. (Pick a Catholic for VP.)

- Bush made a major policy speech in Cincinnati, Obama should do the same.

-  Downplay his pro-choice position.

- Talk a lot about protecting Social Security and Medicare.

- Start giving interviews to evening news folks at the major networks. A lot of people can't afford cable, and a lot of older folks still watch the three majors.

- Mention George Bush ten times in every speech.

June 6, 2008 12:13 PM

michael said:

Thanks roi.  My formal education is dated as I completed my sentence in the '70's. While I've read a lot I don't recall a more forward analysis than "Audacity of Hope".  It's seemed all too clear that on the many topics, Barack had invested a good part of his life in arriving at the only way the US was going to make a leap rather than just do enough to stay a step ahead.

In the current TNR Ms. Cottle has a short list of gripes from Hillaryland. Either they didn't trust each other, didn't trust 'us' or thought they had a better plan than Hillary. (my sense)

I see the mutual respect, trust and unity in Barack's team deserves to be left alone...Deferring to the admittedly respected outside advice (now) would be like changing a line-up before a Super Bowl or decisive military battle. His machine ain't broke(en).

The glass is more than half-full, he only needs more of the same H2O rather than dump some out and hope the new stuff has more volume.  

One can't be amazed at his commitment to his original vision and how he found the chemistry of humans to roll it out and now think an outsider is best to address any flaws or think he and his group are blind to any flaws.  

June 6, 2008 12:41 PM

anonevent said:

I can't find the link, so I'm going to summarize a story I read about Obama:  In 2007, he gets a call stating that some of his donors were panicking because he was behind Clinton in the polls, and that he needed to go negative.  He shows up, and asks everyone to raise their hands if they had been told by him that this would be easy.  No one raises their hand.  He tells them that he knew it would be hard and to trust him.  

And guess what, he won the nomination.  He pulled of the major upset.  He ran the hundred meter dash, with Clinton lined up 10 meters in front of the starting line - she was the presumptive nominee - and beat her.

Trust him.

June 6, 2008 1:03 PM

roidubouloi said:

I agree again Michael.  Obama has the earmarks of being at the minimum a political prodigy and possibly one of those rare geniuses, supported by an incredibly capable team of political technicians.  

As a matter of "color commentary" I AM interested in what successful politicians think about what Obama should and should not do, just the way I love to listen to John Madden (or did until I lost interest of professional football, but I still love listening to McEnroe on tennis).  I simply do not think that "policy" people should have their hands on or any where near the controls of a political campaign.  This is about like asking lawyers whether to take a business risk.  They have already self-selected in a manner that makes them incompetent to render advice on that subject.

June 6, 2008 1:05 PM

anonevent said:

fougasseu,

The most obvious indication that Obama is going to win is that every other candidate has had to react to him, including McCain's green speech right before Obama's major speech Tuesday, and McCain's website.  Going to Iraq, or trying not to be a Progressive, plays right into the rights hands of the other side.

As for visiting Miami, that's a no-brainer:  he will be spending a lot of time in Florida, and you have to go to Miami.

June 6, 2008 1:08 PM

GSpinks said:

'One can't be amazed at his commitment to his original vision and how he found the chemistry of humans to roll it out and now think an outsider is best to address any flaws or think he and his group are blind to any flaws. "

Actually, fresh thinking may be in order if only as a landmark from which they can evaluate their bearings.

As for the rest, I pretty much agree but I think that some of these ideas have potential; Obama already sent an open letter to the Pope during that visit a while back. It might be good to have a chat with the man at some point, if only to reassert his Christian faith for the sceptics among us (as opposed to the doubters, who are more or less hopeless). Although, I'd be willing to wager a sugar-free vanilla, with whip, latte that Obama could pull significant policy gravitas out of it.

June 6, 2008 1:25 PM

liberal reformer said:

Roid: OK, come clean. You have to be a paid political flak for Obama. I was nodding my head in agreement as I was reading Willaim Galston's excellent memo and when I got to your comment, that sealed my certainty that this is the right course. Obama needs to reach out to Catholics and meeting the Pope would be hugely symbolic and would certainly help him those voters. If you are on retainer, B. is getting a very bad deal. Or maybe not, if it keeps you out of campaign headquarters.

Michael: What are you thinking? You cite the late Molly Ivins' famous line but she always employed it when she demonstrated how politician x was beholden to special interest y. Obama needs to broaden his coalition; he will not win by roids alone.

June 6, 2008 1:27 PM

arsonplus said:

anonevent

Gonna have to disagree on one point  ... Iraq. Challenging Obama to go may have been McCain's fatal blunder. Obama's winning the military age demographic in military states by 80 - 20 and by all accounts he's incredibly popular among the troops.

The Oregon like reception he's likely to get in Iraq may win him the election.  He should go to Afghanistan first though.

June 6, 2008 1:32 PM

arsonplus said:

By the way, agreement with most of Galston's advice seems a bit like party-wide battered spouse syndrome.

June 6, 2008 1:43 PM

AlanSP said:

I wonder if Mr. Galston has ever *seen* Bob Casey Jr. give a speech.  The man is atrocious, and while I am eternally grateful that he ousted Rick Santorum, I really don't want him giving a prime time speech at the convention, regardless of what the symbolism might be.  There are other Catholics among the Democrats who would be better speakers; offhand, Joe Biden and, health permitting, Ted Kennedy come to mind.

Other than that, I think this is a pretty solid outline.

June 6, 2008 1:51 PM

roidubouloi said:

liberal,

To the extent that someone gives advice to "reach out to" some group that is not being won, it is completely banal.  It sort of goes without saying, doesn't it, that if you want more votes than you already have you have to get them from people who aren't already voting for you?  Like Willie Sutton (not Horton) said about banks.  Similarly, the advice to stick to a modest number of themes and repeat them. That's why I said Galston wasn't totally wrong.

But, this type of advice is a bit like telling someone that the way to make money in the stock market is to "Buy low, sell high."  It is completely trivial.  On the other hand, when you get to Galston's specifics, his ideas are rather wacky:  Get f/p military cred by telling Americans there is no peace dividend (regardless of whether that is true or false) or by promising to keep on Republican appointees? Say what?  Has he never heard of shooting the messenger?  Americans don't like bad news during campaigns.  And keeping the Republicans on?  Is that supposed to make people think that Obama knows what he is doing?  Make inroads with Catholics by visiting the pope?  For what, an endorsement?  If you don't see that this is more likely to insult more people than it please, I cannot explain it.  Organize networks in key states?  What does Galston thinks campaigns do?  That's like saying that Obama should campaign by organizing campaigning.

Galston's advice is either so general and obvious as to be useless or, when specific, wacky and far beside the point of a serious political campaign.  He's not a campaigner.  He is a policy wonk.  That's why we have to stay away from such people.

Is that why you were nodding your head in agreement with him, liberal?

June 6, 2008 2:06 PM

ironyroad said:

The as-yet untapped vein of gold in this election could well be exactly what arsonplus said above:  the way the the average service member, aged 20-35, is far more culturally and psychically attuned to Obama than to McCain.  That doesn't mean, of course, that McCain can't generate lots of support among the active military, but in many respects we're drawn to people like us, and for a young American in a notably racially and ethnically diverse army Obama will seem a lot closer than a crusty, white 72-year-old, to be blunt about it.  

Fwiw, my 10 cents is that I think that Obama could go to Afghanistan and Iraq (but be aware of how delicate and potentially ambiguous an operation that could be, if it looks like merely a large photo-op), but if he doesn't, then he needs to have some events that show him as comfortable with men and women in uniform -- and far better with rank and file than with the brass.  He also needs to avoid dumb mistakes like Mondale and the outsize helment, but I'm pretty sure he'll be smart about this and know that Republicans will be looking for anything to suggest that he can't be taken seriously.

The demographic thing is interesting, as it's like the way in which JFK captured a certain generation's weary optimism -- people who'd served in WW2, who were anti-communist but liberal in that generous postwar way, who understood irony, who knew that success is contingent and peace fragile.  Obama is doing that in a very different context, but it's as if there's an underground rumble of generational change, and he's riding it.

June 6, 2008 4:07 PM

liberal reformer said:

Roid: You are a piece of work. You hate Republicans and if there is at least one thing you should have learned while you have nurtured your hatred, it is that consevatives grasp and employ symbolism far better than liberals do in the political arena. Only a (former) banker - and one with tunnel vison, at that - would find Galston's prescriptions banal. You have the mentality of a chit counter. No wonder my "metacommentary" goes right over your highly-challenged cranium. Yet, you are gaga over the metaBarackster. Organic matter is irrational, often enough. If Galston's points were automatically incorporated into every presidential campaign, they would be banal. But often they are not, at least not to the extent that they should be. It was someone like Birch Bayh - one of the liberals who went down in the 1980 slaughter - whose wife had an acronym that she would deploy before her husband would give a speech: KISS  - Keep It Simple Stupid. All too often, candidates will load up their campaign message tree with too many ornaments. They just aren't as shrewd as you are, roid, so we will always need the "banal" William Galstons.

June 6, 2008 5:02 PM

roidubouloi said:

I am well aware liberal that Republicans are better at political symbolism, in part because they are uninterested in policy and hence are not burdened by the felt need to conform the symbols and the policy.  Democrats think they have to be coherent. Republicans don't.  That said, I also know that with attention to the problem, this is an eminently learnable skill.

As for Galston's advice, I suppose one can ask what the point of such a column is.  I think Chait, in pointing out useful sub-themes, was at least responsive to the point.  Galston, in mixing some stuff so basic that any decent political organizer understands it, certainly Obama and his people, with a handful of loopy specifics ("Tell the public there will be no war dividend."  Why say anything?  Crazy.) sort of misses the point.  That's why I said he wasn't totally wrong, but wasn't really on target either.

I've convinced myself that if "change" is the theme, and "failed Bush and McCain policies" the defense, there is only room for three memes under the theme (I knew that already and have practiced it).  My picks:  good jobs through fair competition, independence from foreign oil, freedom from terrorism.

Within those three, there is plenty of room for riffs on everything from immigration, to global warming, to health care.  Indeed, although highly simplified, these really do touch on the key challenges of the next 50 years.  If we could solve them on any kind of enduring basis, we'd be in great shape.

June 6, 2008 6:24 PM

ironyroad said:

"Three memes under the Theme" sounds like one of those novelty song hits from the 1970s.

June 6, 2008 7:34 PM

liberal reformer said:

Ironyroad: You are doing my job for me, sending up roid. He thinks like a 70's song.

June 6, 2008 9:53 PM

ironyroad said:

There's a lot of wisdom, energy, and humor in 70s songs, don't diss 'em (Elvis Costello's "Oliver's Army" just to take one example).  But I was thinking about something earlier, the "Foul Owl on the Prowl' jukebox song from the movie "In the Heat of the Night."

June 6, 2008 11:53 PM

roidubouloi said:

Yes, and three quarks for master mark.  

You can't send me up liberal.  You don't know nearly enough about anything.

June 6, 2008 11:54 PM

liberal reformer said:

Erroroid: You couldn't even get that right. "Three quarks for Muster Mark!" is the correct rendition from James Joyce's Finnegans Wake. That is where the great physicist Murray Gell-Mann got the name for the constituent particles of hadrons. Or rather, as I understand it, someone suggested this passage from the Wake to him, rather as Isaiah Berlin did not batten on to Archilochus' hedgehog and fox trope but rather was led to it by Lord Beaverbrook. Who is it that knows nothing? But I predict that you will return, just as you get bloodied repeatedly by jacksondyer but still come back for more. Have at it, masochist.

June 7, 2008 1:42 AM

roidubouloi said:

You are quite right liberal.  My error.  On the other hand, while you purport to explicate Ricardo, you don't know the difference between "comparative advantage" and "competitive advantage."  That's because you do not in fact know anything and are unable to express an original thought on any subject.  You merely recite things that you have read apparently in the believe that someone, somewhere will think you more than an idiot savant.  To the contrary, you are the object of ridicule here but too dimwitted to notice.

June 7, 2008 2:47 AM

ironyroad said:

Dull Owl on the Prowl.

June 7, 2008 3:17 AM

liberal reformer said:

Erroroid: I just corrected you and I know nothing, huh? I think that even your incestuous buddies are beginning to see you for what you are. I wasn't trying to explicate comparative advantage, you fool. I know precisely what this concept is; I mentioned it recently to Sheena, my fiancee and I was amazed when she said that she knew what it was and then preceeded to give the best, most lucid definition ever outside of  economic textbooks that I have encountered. So much for poor sad old roid, once again. I have studied particle physics for a third of a century and I can tell you exactly what hadrons and leptons are, as well as much else. Where you are concerned, only the idiot part obtains and not the savant aspect. Of all the idiots who I have encountered in my life, you are the first to admit an error to me and then charge that I do not know anything. Of course I am ridiculed out here by the dissent-haters, the Obamaphenomena choir and the insipid posters. I would love to hear you converse with Harold Bloom, Richard Rorty and TNR's own Leon Wieseltier, as I have done and note the (low) quality of your discourse. Highly intelligent people think that I am smart and roid and his lappies think I am not. Life just can't get any more perfect.

June 7, 2008 3:41 AM

fougasseu said:

Galston mentions a network of Catholic organizers in Ohio in '04. That was extremely effective. The Bush family has (had?) a very strong organization in Ohio. I'd love to see the Democrats in Ohio undertake a major outreach to Catholics - which they have not done in the past. Bush got 52% of the Catholic vote in '04, up from 47% in 2000. But in '06, according to exit polls, Catholics favored Democrats 55 to 45 percent.

Two big issues seem to drive them: Opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage.

Rove & Co. found and funded a number of major Catholic neoconservatives: Michael Novak (American Enterprise Institute), Ralph McInerny (Notre Dame), Richard Neuhaus (First Things), and Deal Hudson.

Obama needs to find a comparable group of authors and philosophers.

He doesn't need the TV pastors, he needs Catholic intellectuals.

June 7, 2008 8:37 AM

roidubouloi said:

No, liberal, you weren't trying to explicate "comparative advantage."  You were trying to discuss Ricardo on international trade but you didn't know the difference between "comparative advantage," the relevant concept, and "competitive advantage."  When trying to impress, you should keep straight the terms you are using.  Otherwise, the demonstration just falls flat.  As you claim now to understand what "comparative advantage" means and to have at your side the "most lucid definition outside of an economics textbook," I recommend Michael Porter, "Competitive Strategy" so that you can learn a bit about "competitive advantage" and will in the future keep the two straight.

As for your boasts about how smart you are and how highly regarded by important thinkers, we can just let those stand on their own and let the wide and thoughtful audience here be the judge.  (Hint:  People who really do believe such things about themselves never say so.  It is usually taken as strong evidence of the contrary.  This is a very small social skill that people who are not emotionally impaired normally pick up some time before the second grade.)

June 7, 2008 10:29 AM

roidubouloi said:

By the way, liberal, 33 years "studying particle physics" and all you have to impress us with is that you know the difference between hadrons and leptons?  That's typically covered in the first class.  You have to pick up the pace, man.  You're never going to get to loop quantum gravity at this rate.

June 7, 2008 11:04 AM

ironyroad said:

"People who really do believe such things about themselves never say so.  It is usually taken as strong evidence of the contrary.  This is a very small social skill that people who are not emotionally impaired normally pick up some time before the second grade."

Yes, that's been exactly my point.  Either LR genuinely has major inadequacies in the social interaction/communication field, or else he's just playing mind games with everyone.

As my own handle suggests, I have a fondness for irony, and some people around here do it very well.  LR's ironic sallies almost never work, however.  It's as if he's trying to "do" irony by following the instructions on the box.

Indeed, it's so inept at times that I get the strong impression that it has to be intentional -- and thus there's a shadow of doubt on the idea that LR is "real" in the sense that you or I or jacksondyer or icarsur or Bill Yard or Wandreycerl are real (I'm assuming).  Like I noted earlier, it's as if it's a performance deliberately seeded with clues as to its theatrical status.  There's something more than a little creepy about it.

June 7, 2008 12:00 PM

arsonplus said:

The thing is that Galston's entire line of thinking is at least 50.1% outdated [that it's addressed to Obama not Clinton kind of freakin' proves that doesn't it?]. Or let me put it this way ... if Obama and McCain are only going to fight over PA, OH, MI and FL it makes sense ... if Obama and McCain are tied or better in CO, IN, IO, MO, NC, NM, NV, SC and VA its boneheaded and if the demographics in those last states favor Obama's "creative class" appeal it's downright silly.

June 7, 2008 12:06 PM

liberal reformer said:

Erroroid: You are a real clown. Of course that is not all I can say about particle physics. I was barely awake when I wrote my last post, very early this morning. This is typical of you - snipe and run. I will turn this around to make it more difficult for you. Describe the two-slit experiment and tell me of its import. Do subatomic particles exhibit time-directionality - some of them, none of them, all of them? What is the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and what is an alternative? Define and contrast quantum chromodynamics and quantum electrodynamics. Was Richard Feynman, the great American physicist the innovator he seemed to many or was he someone who did brilliant work in the already-established field of quantum mechanics, as Freeman Dyson suggests? What is a gluon? That should have you engaging Wikipedia for some long while. Once again, you are such a fool. I never explicated the concept of comparative advantage, I mea double standard . I did not even type the term "competitive advantage".

Ironyroad: Erroid cannot defend himself, huh? Did he pay you in liqueur or perhaps, with other favors? Your pathetic stab at reincarnating the late great Jorge Luis Borges (d. 1986) is highly amusing and your inadequacy reference even more so. I get on just fine with people who do not suffer from arrested development. You never call the Obamaphiles down on anything, so it is crystalline clear that you are a hypocrite with a double standard the size of the Grand Canyon. I have not sworn at anyone out here, as happens not infrequently with other posters, I have not called anybody vile names based on no evidence at all, as erroroid has done to me. But all is forgiven the worshippers of the Great One. I keep asking why the qualities of TGO do not rub off on you people? I know, I know, human nature is an intractable thing. Just imagine if I acted like some of you cretins - you would be apoplectic. But pleasure before business, ironyroad.

June 7, 2008 1:58 PM

ironyroad said:

Yes, yes, pathetic, hypocritical, ok ok -- but that doesn't make you, or "you," any the less creepy.  I've never seen anyone do irony -- indeed I'm almost tempted to say that I've never seen anyone do *writing* -- as awkwardly as you, despite the superficial fluency and, at times, strangely anachronistic syntax, and I say to myself, there's something not quite right here.

June 7, 2008 2:43 PM

liberal reformer said:

Ironyroid: Oh, now I am creepy. I wear that as a badge of honor coming from you. If I were an Obamaphile, I would just be one of the (arrested development) boys. I used to think that you had more class than erroroid but I am beginning to doubt that. Let's see: it isn't creepy to project violent fantasies out here - as long as you are an Obamaphile. It isn't creepy to deploy four-letter words at opponents - as long as you are an Obamaphile. It isn't creepy to call people vile names based on no evidence - as long as you are an Obamaphile. Its' "just kidding" if you are an Obaamphile. It is merely "hyperbole" if you are an Obamaphile. It is "unhinged" or "over-the-top" if you are not. You roid brothers - error and irony - are quite the pieces of work.

June 7, 2008 5:22 PM

ironyroad said:

Interesting.

June 7, 2008 6:09 PM

roidubouloi said:

liberal reformer said:

"There should be shrieking from the policy wonks, roid, because free trade is productive. Vast numbers of people do not understand this nor do they comprehend competitive advantge, nearly two centuries after David Ricardo originated that concept."

That's you, liberal, talking about international trade and 'competitive advantge [sic]," the words you think you didn't write.  Not surprising, that.  If you actually read most of what you write before you hit the send button, you would be too embarrassed to post it.  Or at least you ought to be too embarrassed to send it.

I have a degree in physcis, liberal.  I'm quite familiar with wave-partical duality, Heisenberg, Dirac, probability density functions, the works.  The thing is that, unlike you, I don't see the purpose of posting here to be ostentatious display of intellect, accomplishments, or imagined intellect and accomplishments, in the hope of winning strokes.  I'm not short of approval in my day job as you appear desperately to be.  Rather, I think the point of being here is to have an interesting conversation that offers different, novel, and insightful ways of thinking about public affairs and an opportunity to challenge and be challenged by sharp minds.

That you have no insight to contribute and like to take up space with your boasting and preposterous self-praise is  merely strange.  But your lecturing to everyone about good manners combined with your own atrocious behavior really is insufferable.  Hence, you are the object of ridicule.

Still, people here are quite forgiving in my experience.  Few bear a grudge.   If you can stop lecturing on manners and would display some, I am sure that you would be welcome.

June 7, 2008 7:22 PM

liberal reformer said:

Hemerrhoid: You are a continuing bad joke. To you, boasting is simply advertising what a person knows in his posts. I am not surprised that someone who cannot even get the "Muster Mark" quote right would take this position. I showed you up yet again. What was were you doing as a banker for so long, given you have a physics degree? Trying to calculate the velocity of money at the quantum level? Comparative advantage is at the heart of trade theory, you fool. I will take lessons on trade from Jagdish Bhagwati but certainly not from you.

June 7, 2008 8:20 PM

roidubouloi said:

Yes, liberal, "comparative advantage" IS the concept described in international trade theory, not "competitive advantage" which is what you wrote.  That is ascribed a different meaning and used in a different context.  If you want to impress with how erudite you are, you need to keep your terms straight at least, and when you have made a mistake and it is pointed out, you acknowledge it.  Otherwise you show yourself to be merely a pompous boor.  Now, that couldn't be the case, could it?

Yes, liberal, using posts to advertise what you know, or imagine you know, is called boasting.  Advertisements for oneself are not the purpose of these blogs.  To use them for that self-indulgent purpose wastes everyone's time and energy.  

And finally, in answer to your question, statistical arbitrage.

June 8, 2008 9:50 AM

liberal reformer said:

Asteroid: I cannot find the thread where I first wrote about this but I am certain that I wrote "compartive advantage". The only time that I typed "competitive advantage" was in response to yet another of your insipid posts.

June 8, 2008 3:10 PM

roidubouloi said:

Under "Jonathan Chait on How Obama Should Run Against McCain"

liberal reformer said:

There should be shrieking from the policy wonks, roid, because free trade is productive. Vast numbers of people do not understand this nor do they comprehend competitive advantge, nearly two centuries after David Ricardo originated that concept. Much more attention needs to be payed to workers displaced by trade but even here, the numbers are often vastly overstated, even by those who have some economic knowledge. Two great books to read are Jagdish Bhagwati's book on the benefits of globaliztion (he is one of the world's leading experts on trade) and Robert Reich's book on hypercapitalism, in which Reich recognizes the immense productivity of h.c but also wishes to do something about the inequities that it produces. I am not necessarily addressing you here at all, roid, but merely those who are educable.

June 6, 2008 9:44 PM

June 8, 2008 3:40 PM

liberal reformer said:

Roid: Wow, it was not a roidian trick. I actually did write "competetive advantage"; for the life of me I do not know why because I am forever talking about comparative advantage and almost never ever about competetive advantage, though the latter is an interesting and useful concept. Not all that long ago, I was conversing with my libertarian conservative journalist friend about David Ricardo and comparative advantage. My error.

June 8, 2008 4:34 PM

roidubouloi said:

People make mistakes.

June 8, 2008 10:29 PM

liberal reformer said:

Roid: I haven't read the Gerard Debreu book but I am going to get it, upon your recommendation.

June 9, 2008 12:23 PM

roidubouloi said:

It's a little slow at first.

June 9, 2008 1:26 PM