Click on WORD or PDF below for full content
Robert Kagan says we’re not in decline.
Is Barack Obama the candidate of American decline? To hear some of his supporters among the foreign policy punditry, you’d think he was. Francis Fukuyama says he supports Obama because he believes Obama would be better at “managing” American decline than John McCain. Fareed Zakaria writes weekly encomiums to Obama’s “realism,” by which he means Obama’s acquiescence to the “post-American world.” Obama, it should be said, has done little to deserve the praise of these declinists. His view of America’s future, at least as expressed in this campaign, has been appropriately optimistic, which is why he is doing well in the polls. If he sounded anything like Zakaria and Fukuyama say he does, he’d be out of business by now.
One hopes that whoever wins next week will quickly dismiss all this faddish declinism. It seems to come along every 10 years or so. In the late 1970s, the foreign policy establishment was seized with what Cyrus Vance called “the limits of our power.” In the late 1980s, the scholar Paul Kennedy predicted the imminent collapse of American power due to “imperial overstretch.” In the late 1990s, Samuel P. Huntington warned of American isolation as the “lonely superpower.” Now we have the “post-American world.”
Yet the evidence of American decline is weak. Yes, as Zakaria notes, the world’s largest Ferris wheel is in Singapore and the largest casino in Macau. But by more serious measures of power, the United States is not in decline, not even relative to other powers. Its share of the global economy last year was about 21 percent, compared with about 23 percent in 1990, 22 percent in 1980 and 24 percent in 1960. Although the United States is suffering through a financial crisis, so is every other major economy. If the past is any guide, the adaptable American economy will be the first to come out of recession and may actually find its position in the global economy enhanced. …
John Fund turns his attention to ACORN.
Acorn, the liberal “community organizing” group that claims it will deploy 15,000 get-out-the-vote workers on Election Day, can’t stay out of the news.
The FBI is investigating its voter registration efforts in several states, amid allegations that almost a third of the 1.3 million cards it turned in are invalid. And yesterday, a former employee of Acorn testified in a Pennsylvania state court that the group’s quality-control efforts were “minimal or nonexistent” and largely window dressing. Anita MonCrief also says that Acorn was given lists of potential donors by several Democratic presidential campaigns, including that of Barack Obama, to troll for contributions. …
Walter Williams has noticed the fall in oil prices. He also noticed nobody is clamoring for an investigation.
For the U.S. Congress, news media, pundits and much of the American public, a lot of economic phenomena can be explained by what people want, human greed and what seems plausible. I’m going to name this branch of economic “science” wackonomics and apply it to some of today’s observations and issues.
Since July this year, crude oil prices have fallen from $147 to $64 a barrel. Similarly, average gasoline prices have fallen from over $4 to a national average of $2.69 a gallon. When crude oil and gasoline were reaching their historical highs, Congress and other wackoeconomists blamed it on greedy oil company CEOs in their lust for obscene profits. But what explains today’s lower prices? The only answer, consistent with wackonomic theory, is easy: Oil company CEOs have lost their lust for obscene profits. Or, maybe, since many of these CEOs are getting up in years, they might have begun to heed Matthew’s warning (19:24), “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Speaking of CEOs, there’s the “unconscionable,” “obscene” salaries they receive, in some cases over $10 million a year. Wackonomics has an easy answer for these high salaries: it’s greed. However, CEOs don’t have the corner on greed. There are other greedy people we don’t scorn but hold in high esteem. According to Forbes’ Celebrity 100 list, Oprah Winfrey receives $275 million, Steven Spielberg gets $130 million, Tiger Woods $115 million, Jay Leno $32 million and Dr. Phil $40 million. …
Karl Rove says, “The polls were wrong in 2000 and 2004.
There has been an explosion of polls this presidential election. Through yesterday, there have been 728 national polls with head-to-head matchups of the candidates, 215 in October alone. In 2004, there were just 239 matchup polls, with 67 of those in October. At this rate, there may be almost as many national polls in October of 2008 as there were during the entire year in 2004.
Some polls are sponsored by reputable news organizations, others by publicity-eager universities or polling firms on the make. None have the scientific precision we imagine.
For example, academics gathered by the American Political Science Association at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington on Aug. 31, 2000, to make forecasts declared that Al Gore would be the winner. Their models told them so. Mr. Gore would receive between 53% and 60% of the two-party vote; Gov. George W. Bush would get between just 40% and 47%. Impersonal demographic and economic forces had settled the contest, they said. They were wrong.
Right now, all the polls show Barack Obama ahead of John McCain, but the margins vary widely (in part because some polls use an “expanded” definition of a likely voter, while others use a “traditional” polling model, which assumes turnout will mirror historical trends but with a higher turnout among African-Americans and young voters). …
The guys at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey and Allahpundit, post on the folks who went through Plumber Joe’s state records.
The Columbus Dispatch reports that at least one culprit has emerged from the misuse of public information to attack Joe Wurzelbacher — and to no one’s surprise, she’s a Democrat and a big Barack Obama supporter. Helen Jones-Kelly decided to check on Wurzelbacher as soon as he became an issue in the third presidential debate. But this maxed-out donor to Obama swears that she had no political reasons for her sudden curiosity about Wurzelbacher: …
…
When last we heard from Helen Jones-Kelley, the director of Ohio’s Job and Family Services Division insisted that she has everyone who gets public attention checked to see if they owe family support. Now, with more details about the searches performed on Joe Wurzelbacher becoming public, Jones-Kelley acknowledges she didn’t quite tell the entire truth at first. Her department also ran checks on taxes and welfare payments to see if they could catch Joe the Plumber cheating the system:
A state agency has revealed that its checks of computer systems for potential information on “Joe the Plumber” were more extensive than it first acknowledged.
Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, disclosed today that computer inquiries on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher were not restricted to a child-support system.
The agency also checked Wurzelbacher in its computer systems to determine whether he was receiving welfare assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes, she wrote.
Jones-Kelley made the revelations in a letter to Ohio Senate President Bill M. Harris, R-Ashland, who demanded answers on why state officials checked out Wurzelbacher. …
ABC has been after Sarah Palin’s medical records. Ed Morrissey wants to know why they’re not curious about Barack’s.
ABC goes after Sarah Palin for not releasing her medical records this week after less than two months on the campaign trail. Palin promised last week that she would release them “early” this week, and Kate Snow impatiently noted yesterday that Wednesday is the outer limit of “early”: …
The Economist reports on placebo studies.
IN 1572 Michel de Montaigne, a French philosopher, observed that “there are men on whom the mere sight of medicine is operative”. Over the centuries, all manner of sugar pills and bitter tonics have been given to patients in the belief that they might do some good and probably will do no harm. The snag is that doctors have usually prescribed them without telling patients that the pills contain nothing proven to cure their disease.
While some consider this a virtuous lie, others argue it is unethical. The American Medical Association (AMA) even issued this stern warning in 2006: “Physicians may use [a] placebo for diagnosis or treatment only if the patient is informed of and agrees to its use.” That ruling was influenced by an article published by two Danish scientists, Asbjorn Hrobjartsson and Peter Gotzsche, in the New England Journal of Medicine. This concluded that “outside the setting of clinical trials, there is no justification for the use of placebos”.
To find out whether doctors are observing the AMA’s controversial ruling, a team led by Jon Tilburt of the Mayo Clinic, in Minnesota, conducted a survey of American doctors. …