What Counts as Failure?
All that may sound abstract, but it has a number of concrete applications, some of which are vividly pertinent to the spectacle now unfolding at the Republican National Convention. High up along one wall at the Forum is a huge digital display on which the federal debt ticks its way toward $16 trillion. That by itself ought to be enough to assure the defeat of Barack Obama, but in really it is merely one data point in a litany of failure. Last night at dinner, I expressed my surprise to a friend that the polls were as close as they were. By any factual measure, I said, Obama’s administration had been an extraordinary failure. Median household income had plummeted nearly 5 percent since 2009, the year Obama promised that, if only Congress would approve the stimulus package, he would have the unemployment rate down to 5.6 percent by now, the summer of 2012, by which time he would also have halved the annual deficit. Et very much cetera. The only promise I can think of that Obama has kept is to make energy prices “skyrocket.” That he has well and truly accomplished. But otherwise, I asked as I made my way through the Caprese salad, hasn’t his record been abysmal? And doesn’t this mean the polls should point to an overwhelming victory for Romney?
Maybe, said my dinner companion, but remember that most people really have no idea what you’re talking about when you drone on about “median income.” You tell them the federal debt is $16 trillion and they shrug. What does that have to do with tomorrow’s lunch? The answer, “quite a lot, actually,” won’t cut it because numbers, especially large numbers, impress most people as mystical, by which I mean mystifying, talismans. If a gallon of gas has shot up from an average of $1.85 to over $4.00 a gallon during Obama’s tenure (which it has), that is just barely graspable. But do not ask the electorate to wrap its mind around such a prodigy as an annual deficit of $1.5 trillion. Those numbers lack traction and, besides, haven’t we been hearing about the deficit ad nauseam for decades?
You see what we’re up against. I reluctantly acknowledged that my friend was right about the relative imperviousness of the electorate. Lectures about economics are not going to inspire them. Dramatizations about economic peril, however, might just do the trick. Which is where all that choreography and convention planning comes in.
Rhetoric, said Aristotle, is the art of persuasion. It involves not having the best argument, necessarily, but of putting your case in the most effective and affecting way. That’s what this gigantic spectacle is all about. It may seem like some hypertrophied theatrical event. And in some ways it is. But it is more than that. It is theater employed not for entertainment but for awakening. Will it work? The mood here is energetic and upbeat. We’ll know in a couple of days whether that energy and cheerfulness is communicable. If, as I suspect, the answer is yes, the question will not be whether Romney will win. As my dinner companion last night put it, if he wins at all, it will likely be by a landslide. It might not happen. There is still time for an “October surprise,” which might come in September or even early November. It won’t, however, be in the shape of a stupid remark by a Missouri Senate candidate, much as the Democrats would like to pretend it could. Nor will Chris Matthews’ deployment of the race card work. Right now, anyway, the horizon looks clear. My astrology is a bit rusty, but were I a prophesying man I’d say that the stars are aligning to bring not just a Romney victory but an historic rout.
Just remember, an abject failure Franklin Delano Roosevelt got elected to a second term despite not ending an economic crisis. And then got an unprecedented third term that George Washington turned down. (I’ll give him a pass on the fourth, midst of a war and I’d have voted for him.)
Nothing is certain in politics.
I beg to differ. His doctors and everyone in the top echelons of the Democratic Party and many journalists knew FDR was dying in the summer and fall of 1944, and was put on a 20 hour work week to keep him alive. That’s why they dumped the Red Sympathizer Wallace to make the most energetic senator, Truman, the VP. And Truman knew, in his last few meetings with FDR, that he would be president soon, and he was.
William Henry Harrison survived his first term until April 4 though he was perfectly hale during his campaign. OK FDR survived in his last term until April 12 but he had a five minute Inaugural Address due to his weakness and got his clock cleaned by Stalin and his secret agent Alger Hiss at Yalta, and hardly worked at all in his final term. He hardly even talked to Truman who knew nothing of policy or of the Manhattan Project.
I know it is 20/20 hindsight, but what we know now and how the Dems lied in the 1944 Campaign (“we can’t change horse … when they knew they were going to as sure as death and taxes) and used the scare tactics of “Look at the mess that Hoover left us with” (11 years before) who would cast their vote for that den of lying thieves with a dying man at their mast head?
No the best time to have voted against FDR was in 1944, and if he were an honorable man, he would have stepped aside, but the Dems were scared to death of Wallace and had no third person to top the ticket, and all polls showed they would have lost big without FDR. Check the history. These are the facts.
My astrology is a bit rusty, but were I a prophesying man I’d say that the stars are aligning to bring not just a Romney victory but an historic rout.
While looking at the stars, perhaps the photo of Obama looking at the last quarter moon is a metaphor for his administration.
The problem is not that “the electorate” can’t “wrap its mind around such a prodigy as an annual deficit of $1.5 trillion”. The problem is that Republicans have been just as much a part of the problem as Democrats in the last 50 years, so “the electorate” doesn’t trust them to fix the problem.
When stuck between two bad options, people are far more likely to choose the devil they know over the one they don’t.
January 2007- Now Democrats controlled the purse. Debt created in that timeline? Apprx 7.5 Trillion. Hmmmmm, our boys spend like drunken sailors, they spend like drunken sailors with my credit card.
My son is a Navy officer. When sailors get drunk, they spend their own money. Comparing that to politicians’ behavior is grossly unfair (notice that I said politicians, not just Democrats).
Politicians spend money like a spoiled 13 year old “princess” with unlimited use of her daddy’s platinum card.
Larry,
Congrats on raising a fine young man…And I hear you about the “drunken sailor” phrase…
Because I was actually in a DEPARTMENT of the Navy myself, for a spell…
The “Mens” Department, a.k.a. The Marine Corps
(sorry I couldnt resist!)
On Liberty we all spent money like Drunken Sailors, but every Marine knows its a Navy Corpsman that will save his life when the bullets fly.
Blood Brothers can talk trash, all in the name of good fun
Now I owe you one for your boy, so here you go:
Ya know what M.A.R.I.N.E. stands for?
Muscles Are Required, Intelligence Not Essential.
Lay that on him, and tell him “thanks” from an old jarhead.
Thank you for your service.
It was sometime during the Reagan administration that a spokesman for America’s drunken sailors conceded that the trophy for blind, reckless spending had passed from their hands to the Federal Government.
And…I would reply IF the Marines are the Men’s Dept. of the Navy, they WHY are women in the Marines? Hmmm?
Semper Fi, Root. I’m an alumni of the US Army (airborne infantry) and Air Force myself and I’ve always respected the Marines.
I always heard that NAVY stood for Never Again Volunteer Yourself. All joking aside, the Navy has some damned tough warriors, too.
I don’t think it’s an issue of “trust” as much as it is one of “choice”. Over the past 50 years the electorate has had the choice of either the Democratic Party Agenda or 90% of the Democratic Party Agenda implemented smarter, faster and cheaper with some comments about “free markets” tossed in for good measure. The one exception was the “Contract with America” that gave the GOP control of the House for the 1st time in 40 years. Naturally, the GOP then pissed away all of the gains and reverted back to the standby position of 90% of the Democratic Party Agenda. If given the choice the electorate will vote for real change but the Parties work very hard to avoid presenting a real choice.
If you’re right, ChrisS, then it means that there is a huge untapped political market for conservative candidates that, for some reason, no politicians have noticed or seen fit to tap.
That seems kind of hard to believe.
A more realistic possibility is that conservative ideas are just harder to sell. I actually kind of doubt that, based on polling information I’ve seen down the years, but it’s not impossible.
The other possibility is that it’s just extraordinarily hard for conservative candidates to work against the liberal stranglehold on academia, entertainment, and the news media. Which means we’re not going to solve the problem in the election box or at the party convention. We’re going to have to go to work on encouraging conservative academia, entertainment, and news media.
I think Breitbart understood this.
The primary obstacle to Conservatism is politicians. The driving principle of Conservatism is limited government which means a reduction in power for those in office. You’ll note that the TEA Party, which is comprised of Democrats, Republicans, Independents and moderates, is uniformly despised by both major parties.
The Founding Fathers were willing to fight to the death for limited government, our current politicians will fight to the death for unlimited government. The parties just differ on which set of cronies gets the swag.
Popper has it right. If a proposition isn’t falsifiable, it isn’t science. This is why scientific progress has been described as ‘replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is more subtly wrong’. Where you err is in buying the peculiar (and falsifiable) notion that science is the only manner to determine truth.
No, Popper was wrong. Newton was right. Read Kimball’s recounting of Stove’s very good critique of Popper here: http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Who-was-David-Stove–3368
To the extent Popper denied that science could progress, Stove (or anyone) can make a good case against Popper. Nothing in your link, however, shows why we should reject falsifiability as a bulwark of the scientific method. A claim that isn’t falsifiable isn’t really claiming anything, and isn’t science. (See the Gaia “hypothesis” or the largely ex-post-facto “predictions” of the more alarmist proponents of anthropogenic climate change.)
I never claimed to be too smart, but I’m not getting any of this Nuance talk.
“If its not falsifiable its not science?” What does that even mean?
Not is it right or wrong, just what the heck does that mean.
Like, if you cant lie about it, it never happened?
I can squeeze absolutely anything, or exclude absolutely everything,
into word circles forever with that fancy “concept” stuff.
Dollars. Cents.
Brass. Tacks.
Hammer. Thumb.
That stuff I get. The others, not-sa-much…
Then again, maybe thats why I’m NOT broke….
With a Mansion, Fat Car, Gadgets and fancy Degrees I cant now pay for,
like all them other big thinkin’ “nuancie” types that need either Tenure, or Bailouts to stay afloat..
“If it’s not falsifiable, it isn’t science”
My Pseudonym’s namesake is why. The reason is that theories and facts can be proven false, but they cannot be proven true. Sometimes it is also the reverse, but reversing the question makes “falsifiable” a good enough condition.
More specifically, “falsifiable” can be thought of as “conclusive”. For instance, I can say that the Philosopher’s Stone is a real item. That could be proved true, if I had a stone that converted Lead into Gold without the use of a nuclear reactor. But what if I couldn’t produce such an object, and I merely asserted it was true?
Can you prove the Philosopher’s stone DOESN’T exist? You’d have to go through every inch of the Universe and show that every stone in existence cannot meet the criteria of being a Philosopher’s Stone. In other terms, it is impossible to conclude the negative; that the Philosopher’s stone doesn’t exist. Therefore it is an unscientific stance, and the question has to be shifted so the burden of proof creates a scientifically verifiable answer.
A Null Hypothesis is something you can disprove, but not prove. So, with the opposite assertion: “The Philosopher’s Stone does not exist.” I can not prove it, but by producing such a stone I can disprove the assertion. I have a way to falsify it; I can give conclusive results to the aspect of the idea where the burden of proof was mandated.
Theories, true scientific theories, are Null Hypothesis that can be disproved – can be falsified – but significant investigation insofar has failed to do so. Something doesn’t have to be proven false to be scientific; it just has to be falsifiable so that it will be shown to be false if it isn’t true.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
“That something is ‘falsifiable’ does not mean it is false, rather it means that if it is false, then observation or experiment will at some point demonstrate its falsehood.” In other words, a falsifiable hypothesis makes a claim which is specific and objectively real enough that it can be tested.
These are not falsifiable claims (and thus not really meaning anything, from a scientific standpoint):
“Man is changing the climate to a potentially dangerous extent”
“Earth is an organism”
“People have 7 intelligences”
“The soul is immortal”
These are similar claims, stated in a falsifiable form (they may be true or false):
“CO2 is a greenhouse gas” (i.e., it absorbs infrared)
“Many animals rely on grasses to survive”
“Musical intelligence is only 60% correlated to verbal intelligence”
“Corpses lose weight upon death”
(“The average temperature of the Earth will be 2F warmer by 2040″ — debatably falsifiable: not right away)
Falsifiable means that a person should be able to describe an experiment or an observation which would disprove the theory. For instance, in the case of gravity, the idea from the time of Galileo (clarified by Newton) was that two objects should fall at the same rate in a vaccuum (assuming both were far, far smaller than the planet to which they were falling). On one of the moon landings, they tested this by dropping a hammer and a feather, which fell at the same rate. The falsifiability would be that if the hammer still fell observably faster, then Newton was wrong. We can describe an observation that would make the theory disproven.
Conversely, non-scientific ideas cannot be falsified. Take for instance Freud’s theory of an id, an ego, and a superego. How could you disprove it? What observation would make it known to be false?
A good scientific theory is one wherein we understand the sorts of phenomena that would contradict it, even if the experiments required are not easy or currently possible with today’s technology (so long as the technology needed is easy to imagine in the foreseeable future).
Luckily, we haven’t had too much hubub or spillover at the University of Tampa yet, but from our position on the other side of the river, downtown looks more alive than ever.
I’m afraid that no one will be watching the Republican convention. They will be watching the Weather Channel instead.
Sorry dude but you lost me at Caprese Salad. Re-read that Aristotle.
I certainly hope you are right about Romney. As a small businessman i see little from my clients and competitors but aprehension for the future. That is of course, those who are still in business. I really believe that the poll numbers are a direct result of the incessant cheerleading by the media for Obama and his party. Most people who pay attention to popular culture are marinated in the pro socialist-pro Obama drumbeat, and really, if so many “authority figures” such as news anchors are for the man, he must be popular -right?
…but were I a prophesying man I’d say that the stars are aligning to bring not just a Romney victory but an historic rout.
I hope and pray you are right.
The reason the polls are so close is that people are planning to vote their pocketbooks, and for millions of voters that means more government financial support. For others it means jobs — think auto unions, university administrators and federal employees. Obama has systematically bought off as many groups as he could identify.
No Terry! The reason the election seems close is because the media wants the appearance of a close election for monetary purposes and dis-spiriting republicans. In reality, the election is not close, Romney wins carrying a swipe among swing states plus Michigan and Wisconsin. Sorry, Obama finished!
The reason that the polls are presently close is that Obama has the world’s greatest public relations organization — the American mainstream press — firmly in his corner. You can safely assume that the MSM will continue to act in this capacity for the next 75 days, having long ago discarded any pretense of objectivity, accuracy, evenhandedness, or even the most basic journalistic ethics.
To me, Romney’s most pressing long-term task is marginalization of the mainstream media. In order to achieve sustained cost-conscious government (a nice way of saying “No Democrat majorities”), we have to move toward an environment in which independent voters get their political information from sources other than the MSM. Otherwise, we will eventually see a recurrence of the 2008 disaster, which is something the country cannot afford — ever again.
I fervently hope that Romney and his brain trust understand this. After his election, the goal of the MSM will be to undermine his administration in every way they can. To counter this, we don’t need to shut them down (and it’s illegal anyway). But we do have to render them utterly irrelevant.
It’s not critical that the NY Times goes out of business. But it is important that their readership is ultimately limited to the same type of unredeemable, clueless liberals that publish and write for the paper.
Good luck with the rhetoric thingee. How long does rhetoric’s anodyne effect endure? Not until November, that’s for sure.
The Fabian Socialist propaganda machine grinds on, persuading some, co-opting others, generating a hazy glow of hopey-changeyness mixed with moral and intellectual condescension. Political belief is not an expression of informed choice; it’s a fashion accessory. Apres-nous, le deluge.
I was going to reply but I feel stupid after your use of French. Really threw me off.
Never underestimate the gullibility of the American electorate. Your surprise at the close polls is understandable, but given the bias in the LSM and the amount of ad money spent by the ObamaRx campaign, I always mentally add 3 to 5 points to the Republican candidate’s number. I’ve done so ever since 1980 when at this point in the campaign the polls had Reagan losing in a landslide. When the AP, CBS, NBC, ABC, the NYT, and all the news magazines harp incessantly on every little flaw in the Republican candidates while polishing the Democratic side like apples for teacher, it is no real wonder why the polls are influenced, and the gullible are taken in.
We can only hope that, as in 1980, once people step up to the ballot machine or box they remember “Am I better off then I was 4 years ago?” All but the rabid communist faithful and those who love gubmint dependency will vote self-interest.
Your last sentence,
…..”All but the rabid communist faithful and those who love gubmint dependency will vote self-interest.”….,
….is what really bothers me. Weren’t those for the “gubmint” dependency that very flippant 52% who put that chameleon Obama in office in order to stick it to th’Man? It’s my impression that that 52% were indeed voting their ill-educated self-interest; with that sotto voce racial thing being the unsaid tipping point in Obama’s favor.
I want very badly to be proven wrong in my thought that this will be a very near thing with chameleon-Obama being in a nasty re-count like that Gore/Bush “chad” business.
If Obama survives a re-count and is indeed re-elected, I see Weimar-style inflation and/or devaluation of our Dollar. I don’t think the Federal Reserve has as much leverage as they think they do…..but I’m not privy to all of those statistics everyone in the Federal Reserve hangs onto…and, I’m not a Shanghai Banker.
…..”hangs” is a poor choice of words….but I won’t delete it.
Let’s see.
About half the people may lean towards Obama despite the objective evidence.
About half the people get more from government than they contribute, or pay no taxes at all.
Coincidence? Maybe.
This may sound like hyperbole, but if Obama wins, it really is over for the rest of my life (I’m 57). His re-election means that more than 50% of voters (and probably way more than 50% of all voting-age Americans) have succumbed to the numbing dependency on government. They’ve surrendered. If anything, Obama will have accomplished his goal (consciously or unconsciously): victory for liberalism and defeat for the country. Can this really be what the leftists want?
“the media succeeded in whipping up public hysteria about the weather to such an extent that RNC chairman Reince Priebus decided to err on the side of caution and reschedule most of Monday’s speeches later in the week’
Your boy brendan loy was part of this. Fact was every time the “models” got published the storm was more west, plus none of the local signs were there. One has to have personal not academic experience and a tendency to NOT go hysterical. Loy? Not so much.
“The only promise I can think of that Obama has kept is to make energy prices “skyrocket.’”
Now that’s not fair. He also promised to diminish the technology lead enjoyed by the US military. Promise kept.
I can think of 2 more promises he’s kept:
1. He took his wife out on a date.
2. He let his kids have a dog.
I hate to pick nits, but isn’t it a bit more accurate to say Mr. Obama’s policies have been a failure? I mean Mr. Obama’s administration being a failure would entail his not accomplishing his goals. Strictly speaking, they’ve been quite successful at getting their way, albeit not uniformly. The problem is that things they wanted aren’t having very good consequnces for the country.
When Obama says his “plan” “worked” I take him at his word.
“You tell them the federal debt is $16 trillion and they shrug. What does that have to do with tomorrow’s lunch?”
Their lunch? Probably not much. However you should put into context for them to grasp, such as “your grandkids will be digging up your grave to sell the jewlry your were buried with in order to buy their lunch tomorrow.”
What counts as failure…?
Not getting involved, not defeating Obama… and failing to reform.
Not complicated.
For those surprised that the polls are so close (and who will be further surprised when Obama ekes out a win)..
Remember, single mothers vote 90% for Obama, and blacks vote 95% for Obama.
These are groups that want government handouts. Hence, Obama is good for them.
Plus, anyone who thinks women oppose socialism is shockingly naive. Women, being 54% of voters, are naturally inclined towards socialism. Biologically, this makes sense. But anyone who thinks women, even Republican women, are against big government, is clueless.
Democracy has a life-cycle. We are currently in the winter phase.
“Our criteria for success are at least in part organized around our definition of failure.”
No, you have it backwards. Our definition of failure is organized around our definition of success. We define complete and partial success. Everything else is failure.
This is very important. When you base it on failure, then even the tiniest success can be lauded as the whole being a success. This is what Obama does. See? We created some jobs. Success. See? We are no longer hemorrhaging jobs, etc…. Success!
For them, complete failure is the baseline. For us, complete success is the baseline. Theirs is the politics of failure, not the failure of their politics.
Why are the polls so close? Simple. Dear Leader’s campaign is based on envy and greed. The campaign narrative is pretty clear: Look at those evil rich folks. They didn’t earn that money. You have just as much right to it as they do. Elect me and I’ll take it from them and give it to you.
Roger wrote: “…Right now, anyway, the horizon looks clear. My astrology is a bit rusty, but were I a prophesying man I’d say that the stars are aligning to bring not just a Romney victory but an historic rout.”
I only wish I had such confidence. Yesterday, I happened to catch Charlie Rose show. It was a panel of political pundits, including John Heileman, Mark Halperin, and Joe Klein, plus a few others I’m not familiar with. Granted it was a liberal leaning group, including Rose…
But it’s as if they are on another planet, when assessing poll numbers, demographics and who is likely to win. They were all in agreement that for Romney to win, will be a tall order. I cannot recall a single comment that would be encouraging to any of us.
They seemed to feel the greatest move Obama made was the recent executive order affecting aliens, which they felt had solidified the Hispanic vote and will hand Obama the election.
Everything, and I mean every metric they cited, was not looking good for Romney. They were almost in complete agreement that the Ryan pick was a net ‘negative’ because it will cost the GOP Florida.
They felt Ohio was at risk and that Romney may lose it, because he just can’t relate to the rural voter, like Bush could. (he would need big numbers there to offset the Ohio cities, and without Ohio, Romney would lose)…and that phrase, “Without BLANK STATE, Romney will lose”, was repeated often.
Every Electoral College scenario they painted led to an Obama win. Like I say, I know this was not an objective group, for sure, but I came away baffled. That these educated people could make such a seemingly rational case why Romney almost certainly would lose, left me wondering:
What are they seeing, and are we missing something in our projections?
DO NOT. DO NOT underestimate the raw power of a cornered mother bear. And Obama is cornered. He is losing and he knows it. He will fight back with every ounce and dollar of the entire United State of America asset base. And he will fight back fiercely with every trick in Machievelli’s book and many, many more. Legal, illegal, extra legal, as with shoving ObamaCare down the throats of Congress was, it matters not if he gets reelected. Matters not. He will go mad protecting his job, his adulation, his seeking approval of his fathe.r (Which of course is impossible since the womanizing, drunken, abandoning man is long dead.)
October surprise might be the CEO of a major bank being arrested and perpwalked to the approving media. It might be an attack on Syria. It will be something.
I have a different take. Then again, I’m in a periwinkle to dark violet state. The impression I get is that people viscerally do not like Republicans…… as people, which are very reluctantly accepted as legitimate human beings. So, even if the GOP wins the election this November, they will not win the country. I fear that there will be no discernible difference, let alone improvement whichever administration takes office this coming January……..
The way I see it is if Obama wins a second term, the House (and possibly the Senate) Republicans will continue their stranglehold on any significant (and even insignificant) initiative from the administration, and threatening the debt ceiling increase until we get to a BAA+ rating. If Romney wins he’ll have more or less clear sailing, similar to 2009. So, we might get, aside from a dismantling of the ACA, a version of the Ryan budget which balances in 2039 or so? (I might have my figures wrong here). Where am I going wrong here?