Republicans' Iowa Straw Poll

August 15, 2011, 5:30 p.m.

Winning's Not "The Only Thing" In Politics or Golf
There were two major contests within the last 72 hours. Both resulted in someone being proclaimed "the winner."

First was the Iowa Republicans' "straw poll" Saturday [August 13] afternoon.

The headline proclaimed, ""Michele Bachmann wins Iowa Straw Poll." Jennifer Jacobs, "Michele Bachmann wins Iowa Straw Poll," Des Moines Register, August 14, 2011. (Other quotes from the story: "Michele Bachmann, the first woman to win the Iowa straw poll, is now the official front-runner in Iowa . . .. With 16,892 Iowans casting ballots, Bachmann won with 4,823 votes. . . . Bachmann’s win . . ..) [Photo credit: Charles Dharapak, Associated Press.]

What does "win" mean in this context?

Even if one candidate got 50% or more of the vote, they still wouldn't have won enough to buy deep fat fried butter on a stick at the Iowa State Fair.

Moreover, on this occasion (a) Bachmann only got 28% of the vote, and (b) Ron Paul virtually tied her with 27%. They were separated by only 152 votes out of 16,891. Does it make any sense to proclaim one a "winner" and the other a "loser," given those numbers out of 55 million registered Republicans?

Here is Jon Stewart's take on the mainstream media's virtual total dismissal of second place finisher Ron Paul:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

"Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier," August 15, 2011.

I have a lot more problems with that straw poll.

For starters, two of the Party's frontrunners -- Mitt Romney and Rick Perry -- weren't even on the ballot. Jon Huntsman was, but made no effort to garner votes. What does it mean to "win" a vote in which the two leaders haven't participated?

The straw poll is about as far as one can get from scientific polling. It's a fund raiser; it's a poll tax on steroids. It's Chicago politics with no holds barred.

To vote you first have to pay the $30 poll tax -- except that "you" don't have to pay, because the candidate will pay you to vote. Moreover, candidates can bus in voters from anywhere -- and do. Last time Romney paid $10 million to bus in and turn out straw poll voters. (This time he wisely chose to save the money.) [Thanks to "baune" for Aug. 17 blog correction/comment, below, "Not that it matters that much, but Mitt Romney's name was on the ballot for the straw poll." Thus, the first sentence, two paragraphs above, should have read: "For starters, two of the Party's frontrunners -- Mitt Romney and Rick Perry -- weren't even campaigning for votes."]

Maybe the vote is a measure of how much money candidates were able to raise, and willing to spend, on staff, organization, buses and poll tax tickets, but it's not much indication of Republican voters' preferences at this point.

Indeed, there is a suspicion that some voters "refused to stay bought." They went to the tent of the candidate with the best food and entertainment, accepted their $30 ticket, and then voted for whomever they pleased.

Finally, there's the matter of Republicans' judgment, to the extent the results were a measure of their genuine choice. Not that there aren't Democrats equally capable of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory, mind you, but it does say something about Iowa Republicans that less than 1/2 of 1% of them are willing to support the one candidate actually capable of attracting enough independents and even Democrats to defeat Obama in a head-to-head general election once it is heavily covered by the media. That candidate? Jon Huntsman.
_____
The other contest finished up on Sunday, August 14. It was the 2011 PGA Championship at the Atlanta Athletic Club in Johns Creek, Georgia.

Golf has always been more honorable than politics. Players' actual, and reported, numbers of strokes are far less likely to have been manipulated or distorted than a straw poll's number of votes.

And so it is that we know Keegan Bradley took one less stroke to finish a three-hole playoff than Jason Dufner required.[Photo credit: Kohjiro Kinno, Sports Illustrated.]

Thus, the headline proclaims that Bradley "wins PGA Championship." Gary Van Sickle, "First time's a charm for Bradley as he wins PGA Championship in a playoff," Sports Illustrated, August 15, 2011.

He deserved to win. He played spectacular golf throughout. I tend to agree with SI that "Bradley just might be that new golf star America so badly needs" -- though I may not be as confident as SI that America "badly needs" a golf star, as much as, say, to bring some of our wars to a close, create a few million jobs, and get our economy back on a growth curve.

How any human is capable of hitting a little golf ball with a stick some 200 to 300 yards and have it land within 15 feet of a flag is beyond me -- especially when most of that distance is over a lake. In fact, the only thing Bradley's game had in common with mine was his triple bogey on the 15th (where he did leave one in the lake).

The difference in ultimate outcome was that he was able to recover and Dufner was not, which is what sent them into a three-hole playoff which Bradley managed to finish with one stroke less than Dufner.

I understand about winning in sports. A baseball team can have better hitting and batting than their opponent for eight innings and still lose the game in the bottom of the ninth. A 1/100th of a second can make the difference between the gold and silver medals in swimming or downhill skiing. And some of the world's best golfers may be separated by no more than one to three strokes at the end of a tournament.

But after a sporting contest between the world's finest is over, it often seems to me that more needs to be said about the accomplishments of all the participants, not just the final score, or "winner's" time. I know that's not what some of the participants think. They want to "win." But it's what I think, as I review in my mind the unbelievable catch in the football game, the golfer's 30-foot putt, or approach shot that comes within a half inch of a hole in one.

Bradley and Dufner were no Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, of whom it was said, he was great, but she did everything he did, backwards and in high heels.

Neither Keegan Bradley nor Jason Dufner were were wearing high heels or walking backwards; both were playing on the same golf course.

But before the playoff, don't forget that out of all the championship golfers who made the cut for this tournament, it was only Jason Dufner who was able to tie the tournament score of America's new young golfing superstar -- who won the first major championship in which he played -- "that new golf star America so badly needs."

In my book Dufner's accomplishment is worthy of a little more recognition and respect than the characterization of Bradley as the "winner" and Dufner the "loser" of that championship. Clearly, Dufner is also a "golf star America needs."

And I'd say the same for Ron Paul's accomplishment in the straw poll -- brought about, I suspect, more from the wild enthusiasm from his Libertarian supporters than with busloads of strangers and lots of money.
# # #
Here's how the 16,892 straw poll votes ended up:

1st Michele Bachmann 4823 28.551977%
2nd Ron Paul 4671 27.652143%
3rd Tim Pawlenty 2293
4th Rick Santorum, 1657
5th Herman Cin 1456
6th Newt Gingrich 385
7th Jon Huntsman 69
8th Thaddeus McCotter 35

The Last One to Die . . .

August 9, 2011, 1:50 p.m.

. . . for a mistake


Every Sunday toward the end of ABC News' "This Week with Christiane Amanpour," she says (as she does 45 seconds into the excerpt above, from the August 7, 2011, show's "Lives of Note" segment), "And we remember all of those who died in war this week."

It is, for me, a very somber moment; a Sunday church service of sorts. No more multi-tasking. I stop whatever else I am doing to focus on the name, rank and young age of each. I think of their families, loved ones, parents.

Last Sunday Amanpour continued, "The Pentagon has yet to release the identities of the Americans who were killed yesterday in the single deadliest attack of the war in Afghanistan, but we have learned the names of seventeen soldiers and Marines who were killed the days before."

With the soldiers' names, their home towns scrolled by: Edmond, Oklahoma; Broken Arrow, Oklahoma; Daly City, California; Columbus, Georgia; Wilson, North Carolina; Moscow, Pennsylvania; Brecksville, Ohio; Dallastown, Pennsylvania; Sapulpa, Oklahoma; Sliver Spring, Maryland; Holton, Kansas; Jacksonville, Florida; Red Bay, Alabama; Chelsea, Oklahoma; Chatsworth, California; Vernal, Utah; Warner Robins, Georgia.

They are not all well known American towns. Some are little more than a stop for gas when you take a trip along one of America's scenic "blue highways." But this week, each of those 17 towns is filled with grieving Americans.

The men and women in today's military were not drafted. They volunteered. We need a military, and all of us owe thanks and more to those willing to serve.

But we, and our elected officials, also owe them common sense, and more restraint in our willingness to risk their lives.

If there were hostile armed forces entering the United States from Canada, Mexico, or either coast by sea, I would be willing to take up arms myself, even in my advanced age, to help protect my country.

But the war into which we sent these 17 soldiers, and the 38 who died last Saturday, is not that kind of war.

The likelihood of the Afghan Taliban doing harm to Americans residing in the United States is somewhere between slim and none at all. Even in 2001, the individuals who attacked us on 9/11, and their funding, primarily came from Saudi Arabia not Afghanistan; and our decade-long goal since then -- to capture or kill bin Laden -- now truly is, "mission accomplished." The only Americans who are at risk of harm from the Taliban are those who have been sent into Afghanistan -- over the objections of many Afghans -- and whose presence is now fueling Afghan hostility and Taliban recruiting efforts.

The bumper sticker says, "Whatever is the question, war is not the answer." That's not, strictly speaking, always true in every instance. I'm not confident there was any meaningful answer besides war to Hitler's advance through Europe. War is sometimes not only an answer, it is the only answer.

But as I have written about the Viet Nam war, and in comparable ways about Iraq and Afghanistan, war is not a very sensible option when and if,

1. given the history of the country, you will be perceived as only the latest in a centuries-long string of invaders (which prior to us in Viet Nam were the French),

2. you can’t speak or understand the native language,

3. you know little or nothing of the history, religion, culture and customs of the people, and have little grasp of the territory in which you’re fighting,

4. you are easily identified by your “enemy,” and to make sure you will be, you wear uniforms

5. your enemy, on the other hand, looks almost identical to your allies and the locals you employ, and refuses to wear a uniform,

6. since there is no “front line,” as such, territory is repeatedly lost, and gained, only to be lost again,

7. during which battles, your troops are given the impossible choice between (a) killing disproportionately large numbers of innocent civilians, or (b) being killed by enemy fighters who look like innocent civilians,

8. with the consequence that an internal inconsistency exists between the strategy of “winning hearts and minds,” and the tactic of “burning down the village to save it,” such that the longer the fighting continues the more counterproductive it becomes

9. up to and including the possibility of exacerbating, rather than reducing, chaos and civil war

Nicholas Johnson, "General Semantics, Terrorism and War" (2006).

That piece also contains my own version of what's credited to former General Colin Powell as the "Powell Doctrine" -- questions the military leaders (and we citizens and taxpayers) need to ask our politicians before sending our sons, daughters and dollars to war:

* What, specifically, is the goal you’re trying to accomplish?
* Why do you think a military operation will contribute to (rather than impede) its accomplishment?
* What will it require in troops, materiel, lives and treasure to achieve that goal?
* Are you prepared to provide those resources and pay those costs?
* Will the American people support this effort for as long as it takes -- and how long will that be?
* How will we know if we’ve ever been “successful”?
* What, then, will be our exit strategy?
* What will happen when we leave?
* Will that be consistent with our original mission?

Given the conditions under which war is, and is not, a viable option, and given the questions that need to be at least asked, and hopefully answered, before engaging in war, my own view is that we ought to get our military personnel out of Afghanistan before even more will die.

In reflecting on the 30 more American dead in one helicopter (38 counting Afghans, whom I think should and do count), I hear an echo of the words of Senator John Kerry -- then a 27 year old Navy veteran of Vietnam -- in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 23, 1971:

How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

Kerry's entire moving presentation is very much worth reading, the video excerpt worth watching, in the context of Afghanistan today. Deborah White, "John Kerry's Famed 1971 Testimony to Congress on Vietnam," About.com.



A cynic might respond, "Don't be worrying about the last military man or woman to die in Afghanistan, Nick. The last person to die in Afghanistan hasn't yet been born."

We can only hope and pray that's not true.

Yet from what I read and hear in the media, we have troops in 150 countries, SOCOM (United States Special Operations Command) forces in 75, headed toward 100 by the end of this year, plus the CIA personnel and the private sector warriors. SOCOM has increased its numbers by four-fold or more since 9/11, and shows no signs of slowing down. (See/hear, e.g., Tom Ashbrook, "Special Operations Forces In Afghanistan," On Point, August 9, 2011.)

So, sadly, the cynic is probably right.

Nor are our military adventures unrelated to the global financial troubles, and the riots in London. The best estimates are that when everything is totaled up, the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan, including the lifelong care of the wounded, will run something like the $2-3 trillion we currently need to balance a budget.

Given that, in Afghanistan, even defining "success" seems almost as difficult as achieving it, one is not reassured by President Obama's insistence that "We will press on and we will succeed. Our troops will continue the hard work . . .." "President Obama Pledges to Press on in Afghan War," Reuters, August 8, 2011.

One is reminded of more of the commentary regarding the Viet Nam war, so effectively embedded into the anti-war protest songs that played a role in ultimately bringing that failed effort to an end.

Press on?

How about "push on"?

Here's Pete Seeger's Viet Nam era "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy ("and the big fool said to push on"):



While we're at it, here are a couple more from that war:

Edwin Starr singing his song "War (What is it good for? Absolutely nothing)" (1969)



An excerpt from the lyrics:

"War, what's it good for?/Absolutely nothing."
War..huh...look out...
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing...listen to me ohhhhh
WAR! I despise,
'cause it means destruction of innocent lives,
War means tears to thousands of mother's eyes,
When their sons gone to fight and lose their lives.
I said WAR!...huh...good God y'all,
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing

And . . .

Country Joe & The Fish, "Feel Like I'm Fixing to Die Rag"



with an excerpt from those lyrics:

Well, come on all of you, big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
He's got himself in a terrible jam
Way down yonder in Vietnam
So put down your books and pick up a gun,
We're gonna have a whole lotta fun.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Come on Wall Street, don't be slow,
Why man, this is war au-go-go
There's plenty good money to be made
By supplying the Army with the tools of its trade,
But just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
They drop it on the Viet Cong.

Why aren't we out in the streets? Why aren't there songs protesting the Afghan war?

Because those who favor war, even when it is counterproductive, learned a lesson from Viet Nam. To keep the American people from demanding an end to foreign and military policies of perpetual war, you need only provide the illusion that it is war without sacrifice.

(1) War costs nothing -- except for those few Americans (as a percentage of 325 million) who die or are wounded. We don't have to pay the costs of war. There are no war taxes. We simply put it on our Chinese credit card; we borrow the money -- plus a little more for tax breaks for the wealthy.

(2) We've abolished the draft. No one has to go to war; just the ones who want to. What could be more American than that?

As a strategy for perpetual war, it seems to have worked.

The last one to die for this mistake? She's yet to be born.

# # #

Here's Another Nice Mess

August 6, 2011, 8:30 a.m.

Congress as Laurel and Hardy
Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy created one of the most popular two-man comedy teams ever, "Laurel and Hardy." Together they made some 100 films from the 1920s to 1950s. See, "Laurel and Hardy," Wikipedia.org. Somewhere in each film, or stage routine, "Ollie" would inevitably deliver the line, "Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into."


The behavior of our Congress, especially the House, calls to mind that line of Ollie's.

In "When Obstruction Becomes Treason," July 30, I referred to our waiting for "the other boot to fall."

Well, there it now is, right on our neck.

"Standard & Poor’s removed the United States government from its list of risk-free borrowers for the first time on Friday night [August 5, 2011] . . .." Binyamin Appelbaum and Eric Dash, "S.&P. Downgrades Debt Rating of U.S. For the First Time," New York Times, August 6, 2011, p. A1.

Let me repeat that, while you think about it: "Standard & Poor’s removed the United States government from its list of risk-free borrowers for the first time . . .."

What does "for the first time" refer to? It is a reference to the beginning of the United States of America's government on March 4, 1789. See "United States Constitution," Wikipedia.org.

That's right. For the first time in the history of our country we have a Congress so partisan, so selfish, so childish, so stupid, so irresponsible, so ideologically constrained, as to be willing to bring down the credit rating of our country.

Indeed, the only good news seems to be that the performance has attracted both the attention and the basic good sense of the American people: "A record 82 percent of Americans now disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job — the most since The Times first began asking the question in 1977 . . .." Michael Cooper and Megan Thee-Brenan, "Disapproval Rate for Congress at Record 82% After Debt Talks," New York Times, August 5, 2011, p. A1.

Now it may be that the sky is not falling -- although the global stock markets are. The other two ratings services, Moody's and Fitch, have not, at least not yet, lowered our credit rating. But it's very hard to argue with S&P's analysis, even if one wishes to argue with its conclusion. As Appelbaum and Dash report:

The company . . . said it was cutting its rating of long-term federal debt to AA+, one notch below the top grade of AAA. It described the decision as a judgment about the nation’s leaders, writing that “the gulf between the political parties” had reduced its confidence in the government’s ability to manage its finances.

“The downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenge,” the company said in a statement.

Isn't that what you think, too?

As further evidence of Congress' role playing Laurel and Hardy with very, very serious business, China is getting nervous.

Imagine you had loaned $1.2 trillion to your brother-in-law, only to discover that he's not quite as reliable, competent and trustworthy in managing a big business as you originally thought. Wouldn't you be a little nervous, too?

China, the largest foreign holder of United States debt, said Saturday [August 6, 2011] that Washington needed to “cure its addiction to debts” and “live within its means,” just hours after the rating agency Standard & Poor’s downgraded America’s long-term debt.

The harshly worded commentary, which was released by China’s official Xinhua news agency, was Beijing’s latest attempt to express its displeasure with Washington. . . .

Chinese officials are clearly concerned that China’s substantial holdings of American debt, worth at least $1.1 trillion, is being devalued.

“The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone,” read the commentary . . ..

Beijing, which did not release any other official statement on the downgrade, called on Washington to make substantial cuts to its “gigantic military expenditure” . . ..

The commentary serves as a sharp illustration of how America’s standing in the world is sliding and that China now views itself as ascendant. . . .

China is sitting on the world’s largest foreign exchange holdings and its economy is growing at close to 9 percent. The country is also once again racking up huge trade surpluses with the rest of the world. . . . [For another example of a country that is enjoying the benefits of a government more intelligent, rational and functional than ours, see "What Brazil Can Teach America," August 4, 2011.]

Beijing policy makers are discussing ways to diversify the country’s foreign exchange holdings away from dollars and also how to encourage Chinese companies to invest some of the foreign reserves overseas. . . .

China has about $3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves . . ..

Analysts say that if China pulls back from purchasing Treasuries, the dollar would weaken and America’s borrowing costs would rise sharply . . ..

[G]overnment leaders here increasingly sound like they are losing confidence.

“International supervision over the issue of U.S. dollars should be introduced and a new stable and secured global reserve currency may also be an option to avert a catastrophe caused by any single country,” the Xinhua commentary said."

"China, a Big Creditor, Says U.S. Has Only Itself to Blame," Reuters/New York Times, August 6, 2011.

The messes that Laural and Hardy got into were fiction, and funny.

The messes that many members of Congress repeatedly get us into are neither fiction nor funny. They're tragedy, not comedy; reality, not fiction.

They keep offering us further proof, if any were needed, that there comes a point at which obstruction is treason. A point Congress has now gone far beyond.

# # #

What Brazil Can Teach America

August 4, 2011, 10:00 a.m.

America, There Is Another Way
Things aren't looking really good for America right now. And, frankly, I don't see a way out.

Our answers are obvious. What appears to be even more obvious is that we're apparently not going to choose any of them.

If we can't learn from our mistakes, or from others' success, at least it may be psychologically palliative to know about, and watch, other countries' progress and know that darkness is not covering the entire world.

As I have written here repeatedly, it seems so obvious that in an economy 70% driven by consumer spending it does little good to ask CEOs to build more plant and hire more workers when consumers aren't prepared to buy what's already stored in warehouses. With true un- and under-employment running closer to 20% than 9%, and some population sectors (e.g., black, male, high school dropouts) running over 50%, even those with jobs fear they may lose them, and those with job security are still shaky about their financial future (e.g., galloping inflation; global depression).

What we should have done three years ago was apply a lesson from the New Deal depression recovery: make the federal government the employer of last resort (e.g., WPA and CCC). That would have put money in the pockets of those who would have spent it, and helped restore the confidence of the rest of us as well. Gradually, as they spent, and the rest of us followed, it would have become rational for CEOs to increase production -- and hiring, moving the employed from federal to private payrolls.

Of course, now that the trillions have been given to Goldman Sachs' and other executives among the over-privileged employed, those who fear that we really can't go on spending billions and trillions on additional "stimulus" programs have a point.

That's why I don't see a way out -- especially given the financial problems confronting Greece, Spain and Italy, among others, as well. It's now impacting even China, since the rest of us have less with which to buy even China's production.

Many of our public officials have proven themselves to be either ignorant, incompetent, or venal. Clearly they can't either govern or be governed. (One is reminded of the adage "Lead, follow, or get out of the way" -- given that none of those options seem acceptable to them.) They seem prepared to see American fall further rather than "compromise" an emotionally held ideological mantra. See, e.g., "When Obstruction Becomes Treason," July 30, 2011.

So while we sit and wait for the final boot to fall, I find some satisfaction in Brazil, and its example that there is another way.

Here are some relevant fair use excerpts from a segment on last Sunday's [July 31, 2011] CBS' "60 Minutes" program -- "Brazil: The World's Next Economic Superpower?" -- followed by some comments from me.

While most of the world is consumed with debt and unemployment, Brazil is trying to figure out how to manage an economic boom. As we first reported last December, it was the last country to enter the Great Recession, the first to leave it, and is now poised to overtake France and Britain as the world's fifth largest economy. . . .

Brazilian tycoons like Eike Batista, who has . . . a net worth of $27 billion . . . said, "GDP-wise, we are bigger than all the other countries [in South America] together. . . .."

With most of the world's economies stagnant, Brazil's grew at 7 percent last year, three times faster than America. It is a huge country, slightly larger than the continental U.S., with vast expanses of arable farmland, an abundance of natural resources, and 14 percent of the world's fresh water.

Eighty percent of its electricity comes from hydropower, it has the most sophisticated bio fuels industry in the world, and for its size, the world's greenest economy. Brazil is already the largest producer of iron ore in the world, and the world's leading exporter of beef, chicken, orange juice, sugar, coffee and tobacco -- much of it bound for China, which has replaced the U.S. as Brazil's leading trade partner. . . .

Batista, who has interests in mining, transportation, oil and gas, is building a huge super-port complex north of Rio with Chinese investment. The complex will accommodate the world's largest tankers and speed delivery of iron ore and other resources to Asia.

But it's not just commodities that are driving the Brazilian boom. The country has a substantial manufacturing base and a large auto industry. Aviation giant Embraer is the world's third-largest aircraft manufacturer, behind Boeing and Airbus and a main supplier of regional jets to the U.S. market. . . .

"We have to create more engineers," he told Kroft. "In my oil company, I'm importing Americans to weld our platforms, just to give you an, an idea."

"To weld the platforms?" Kroft asked.

"Yes," Batista said. "There's a lack of welders. We are walking into a phase of almost full employment. Already we have created this year 1.5 million jobs. It's unbelievable." . . .

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva walked into the president's office. . . .

When he was elected eight years ago on his fourth try, Lula was a firebrand labor leader with socialist tendencies. Some predicted another Hugo Chavez.

But he left office at the end of last year with an 87 percent approval rating and much of the credit for turning the country around. . . .

Lula [said], "Look, every once in awhile I joke that a metal worker with a socialist background had to become president of Brazil to make capitalism work here. . . .."

He added, "If you look at the banks' balance sheets for this year, you will see that the banks have never made so much money in Brazil as they have during my government. The big companies have never sold as many cars as they have during my government, but the workers have also made money."

So how has he managed to do that?

Lula told Kroft he has "found out something amazing."

"The success of an elected official is in the art of doing what is obvious," Lula said. "It is what everyone knows needs to be done but some insist on doing differently."

One thing obvious to Lula was the social and economic chasm separating Brazil's rich and poor. He gave the poor families a monthly stipend of $115, just for sending their children to school and taking them to doctors.

The infusion of cash helped lift 21 million people out of poverty and into the lower middle class, creating an untapped market for first-time buyers of refrigerators and cars.

But he was also far friendlier to business than anyone expected. Lula encouraged growth and development, and maintained conservative fiscal policies and tight banking regulations that left Brazil unscathed by the world financial crisis. . . .

[E]conomists from Goldman Sachs no less are predicting that Brazil - along with Russia, China and India - will dominate the world economy in the 21st century.

If it happens, Brazil would be a different kind of superpower, one that would rather make love not war. It has no nuclear arsenal, and aside from contributing a small number of troops to the allied cause in 1944, Brazil hasn't fought a war since 1870.

"Why fight?" Batista asked. "With all the pleasures, beach and sun. War? Forget it. Soccer? Let's watch a soccer game. Let's go to the beach. Let's drink a beer."

So what lessons does Brazil offer America? Here are a few from my perspective.

How can we explain why Brazil is enjoying an "economic boom" and was "the last country to enter the Great Recession, the first to leave it, and is now poised to overtake France and Britain as the world's fifth largest economy" -- and we were not?

Why was it that Brazil's economy "grew at 7 percent last year, three times faster than America"?

Environmental initiatives. Did you notice the line that, "Eighty percent of its electricity comes from hydropower, it has the most sophisticated bio fuels industry in the world, and for its size, the world's greenest economy"? Our public officials, responsive to the campaign contributions, lobbying and other pressures from special interests, such as the oil industry, have failed to seize our opportunity to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. Brazil has figured out a way to fuel its cars with ethanol while still producing food for export.

Manufacturing base. Note that, Brazil "has a substantial manufacturing base and a large auto industry. Aviation giant Embraer is the world's third-largest aircraft manufacturer, behind Boeing and Airbus and a main supplier of regional jets to the U.S. market. . . ." We've largely abandoned our manufacturing, and the jobs it provided, letting American corporations profit by outsourcing and building plants overseas. As a result, Brazil has "created this year 1.5 million jobs" and is "walking into a phase of almost full employment." Meanwhile our government, while turning its back on the obvious solution of creating federal jobs for the unemployed, is bemoaning our 20% actual unemployment.

Economic recovery means supporting the poor. Some of our political leaders have as their primary mission (after making sure President Obama fails as a president and is limited to one term) the reduction or elimination of government itself, and everyone seemingly runs and hides at the mere whisper of the word "socialism." By contrast, Brazilians were not only willing to elect an confessed socialist, they -- including most of the Brazilian business community -- now give him 87% approval ratings.

"The success of an elected official is in the art of doing what is obvious," Lula said. "It is what everyone knows needs to be done but some insist on doing differently."

One thing obvious to Lula was the social and economic chasm separating Brazil's rich and poor. He gave the poor families a monthly stipend of $115, just for sending their children to school and taking them to doctors.

The infusion of cash helped lift 21 million people out of poverty and into the lower middle class, creating an untapped market for first-time buyers of refrigerators and cars.

This approach appeals to me, of course, because it demonstrates the success of precisely what I have been arguing; the solutions to our problems are available, we just need to be "doing what is obvious" that our majority "insist on dong differently."

Henry Ford, no socialist, knew that his success depended on his pricing his cars, and paying his workers, such that the workers could afford to buy the cars they were building.

Like Lula's Brazil we, too, need to recognize, and do something about, "the social and economic chasm separating [our] rich and poor." To stimulate an economy you need to give more money to the poor, not to the rich. Brazil proves it. By lifting "million[s of] people out of poverty and into the lower middle class, [we, too, could create] an untapped market for first-time buyers of refrigerators and cars" and pull our economy out of economic malaise in short order. That it is also a humane thing to do is an added benefit for those who care about such things.

Government regulation can be our friend. One of the consequences of our "best government that money can buy" is that workers die on offshore oil rigs that pollute the Gulf, and in coal mines that have been documented as unsafe, and Wall Street is permitted to profit while bringing down the global economy.

How did Lulu deal with that phenomenon? Was he hostile to business? Not at all. "[H]e was also far friendlier to business than anyone expected. Lula encouraged growth and development . . .." However, and this is the big difference, he also "maintained conservative fiscal policies and tight banking regulations that left Brazil unscathed by the world financial crisis. . . ." When we permit special interests to buy a substitution of "self-regulation" in place of rational regulation, as we do, people die and economies collapse. Lulu knew better than to permit that to happen. Why don't we?

As a result, now even the "masters of the universe," "[E]conomists from Goldman Sachs no less are predicting that Brazil - along with Russia, China and India - will dominate the world economy in the 21st century."

The true cost of military budgets. Finally, it is no accident that Switzerland and Brazil are among the most solid economies in the world. What am I talking about? We pay a price, an enormous and debilitating price, for our insistence on being, not only the strongest military power in the world, but one that spends more than the next ten nations combined.

What does Brazil do?

"Brazil . . . would rather make love not war. It has no nuclear arsenal, and aside from contributing a small number of troops to the allied cause in 1944, Brazil hasn't fought a war since 1870. "Why fight?" Batista asked. "With all the pleasures, beach and sun. War? Forget it. Soccer? Let's watch a soccer game. Let's go to the beach. Let's drink a beer."

Some final words. You see? That's what we could have been doing. We knowingly and deliberately chose not to. We chose to borrow 40% of what we spend. We chose to maintain three ongoing wars, and a military presence in 150 countries. We chose not to create a level playing field for third parties, or provide public financing of campaigns. We chose to run from anything that might be labeled socialism. We chose not to tax ourselves, and especially not our wealthiest.

We chose to become a third world country in which the richest 1% control 90% of the wealth. We chose to watch video games, computer screens, smart phones and TV rather than march in the streets in protest.

Finding ourselves in a hole, we chose to go on digging.

Rather than sucking it up and doing what needs to be done, we're still kicking the can down the road.

It's been fun. But it's no fun anymore.

Have a nice day.

Like to watch the entire segment? Here it is:


# # #