For a minute, can we please just set aside politics and stop worrying about the impact of the unemployment rate on the prospects of President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney?  The last time I checked, they both had jobs — which puts them ahead of the millions of Americans who want to find work but can’t, because our economy is sputtering.  Those millions of unemployed Americans, many of whom have been out of work for years, are at the end of their ropes.  They’re about to be joined by a host of new college graduates, many of them saddled with absurd amounts of debt, and high school graduates searching for jobs in the driest of dry holes.

Before the talking heads start spinning the data, or trying to assign blame to one political party or another, let’s pause for a moment to think about the jobless women and men who have lost their houses, spent their retirement nest eggs and children’s college funds, and beat the pavement trying to find gainful employment without success.  They’re beaten down by failure, worried about their futures, and tired of the constant infighting.

Can’t we all agree that this latest round of unemployment data shows that what we have tried hasn’t worked?  “Quantitative easing,” extensive federal “stimulus” projects, and massive deficit spending have not produced the promised results.  It’s time to try something else.

Elizabeth Warren’s campaign must not employ a public relations person.  If it does, she isn’t very good at her job — because the story of Warren’s alleged Cherokee ancestry has become a never-ending story in Warren’s campaign for election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts.  Every day, seemingly, there is some new revelation that puts Warren on the defensive, interferes with her intended “message,” and distracts from the issues she thinks are important.

On Wednesday, for example, Warren acknowledged for the first time that two law schools that identified her as Native American did so because she identified herself as such, based on her understanding of “family lore.”  Her admission is just the latest in a series of statements about the issue — some of which arguably are inconsistent — that have just encouraged the press to dig ever deeper into the history of Warren’s employment, whether she identified herself as Native American, and whether there is any proof of actual Cherokee ancestry in her family tree.

I don’t think a candidate’s race, or self-reported minority status, has anything to do with fitness to serve as a U.S. Senator.  On the other hand, I think a candidate’s truthfulness, credibility, and ability to deal with a crisis are relevant — and Warren seems to be falling short in all of those categories.  The Native American story has  dominated the headlines for a month now, and for that Warren has only herself to blame.  Her statements and partial disclosures have a whiff of embarrassed shiftiness about them that have made a minor issue into a major one and, at the same time, made her look evasive and inept.  Although her race shouldn’t affect a voter’s decision about her, her apparent inability to give a satisfactory explanation of her actions reasonably could.

The recall election is the result of a petition drive that began after Walker pushed through reforms to address Wisconsin’s fiscal problems — reforms that public employee unions didn’t like, but that appear to be working and allowing the state and local governments to get their budgets under control.

The recall election is a rematch of the 2010 gubernatorial election between Walker and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.  Huge amounts of money — much of it from out of state — is being spent on the election.  Interestingly, Barrett’s chief objection to Walker doesn’t seem to be the merits of the reforms that produced the recall election.  Instead, he has raised other, minor issues and seems most troubled because he thinks Walker has been “divisive.”  If a politician has been successful in dealing with seemingly intractable problems, however, he’s likely to have upset some people. Why should that disqualify him from finishing his term and standing for reelection at that point?

The Wisconsin election just shows why recall elections are a bad idea and should be reserved for rare circumstances — like criminal activity by the incumbent.  Recalls should not be had just because a segment of the population disagrees with the incumbent’s approach to issues.  Elections should have consequences, and when they do the losing side shouldn’t be able to force costly redos that just distract from the public business.

The polls are indicating that Walker will survive, and national Democrats are downplaying the notion that the Wisconsin election reflects the national mood come November.  I don’t think they need to worry about that.  Wisconsin has been mired in a bitter brew of its own making over the past few years, and I’m sure that many voters just want to bring an end to the constant fighting and let Walker finish his term.  I’d be cautious about drawing too many national inferences from the Wisconsin results.

In the West Virginia Democratic primary, a Texas convict named Keith Judd won 41 percent of the vote.  In the Arkansas primary, a lawyer named John Wolfe won 40 percent of the vote.  In Oklahoma, a variety of candidates received 43 percent of the vote.  And in yesterday’s Democratic primary in Kentucky, “uncommitted” got 42 percent of the vote. The Democratic primaries in other states have seen similarly significant votes for options other than President Obama.

Pundits have offered a variety of explanations for these curious results.  They speculate that the results might be racism, or strong opposition to gay marriage in states that tend to be culturally conservative.  Others reason that, because President Obama is running unopposed and therefore has long had the nomination sewn up, he isn’t trying to win crushing victories and the only people motivated to vote are those that want to send a message.

Alternatively, we might employ Occam’s Razor and conclude that a number of Democrats are voting against the President simply because they are unhappy with his performance and have decided to show that in a tangible way.  Over history, in many elections for many offices, voters have chosen “none of the above” to tell the powers that be that people who are perfectly willing to fulfill their civic duty by voting are dissatisfied with the crummy choices being presented.

The states that have seen these interesting Democratic primary results are states that have been hard hit by the economy.  It’s not implausible that voters would be fed up — so fed up that they are willing to take time from their normal daily activities, go to the polls, and cast a pure protest vote.  That’s a powerful message, and one that President Obama and his campaign staffers may not be glad to hear.

Rather than simply reaching conclusions about America, Brooks softens his views by addressing both the European and American democratic systems.  Does anyone actually believe there are similarities between these “systems”?  America has been a representative democracy for almost 250 years; Europe still had crowned heads leading it into a bloody war less than 100 years ago.  The balkanized, multi-party, coalition-dependent parliamentary systems in most European countries bear little relation to our two-party system, where nearly every election has a clear winner and loser and a ruling majority results.  Until recently, America had stoutly resisted the European socio-economic model, with its early retirement ages and short work weeks and months of paid vacation.  And no one in their right mind would equate the European Union with our Congress.  The ponderous bureaucrats of the EU will be there forever, impossible to root out; in America, in contrast, voters can easily — as the last three election cycles have shown — toss out incumbents and install new representatives who purportedly will better reflect their views.

Still, Brooks reaches the right conclusion.  America is on the wrong track because people have stopped viewing government as a necessary evil and have come to view it instead as a kind of personal gravy train.  John Kennedy’s stirring statement in his inaugural address — “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” — has been turned completely on its head.  Many Americans now just want to get government benefits without paying taxes.  They want the government to provide them with jobs, and “loans” that will ultimately be forgiven, and “free” health care.  And our poll-driven “leaders” are perfectly happy to encourage this dependency on government and are too craven to act responsibly, whether it comes to the federal budget or eliminating programs that don’t work well — and in some cases don’t work at all.

Brooks recognizes this.  Why, then, does he create a false equivalence between America and Europe?  I think it’s because simply stating that America is on the wrong track, and our politicians have led us there, requires more guts than he possesses.  He doesn’t want to unnecessarily upset any of the powerful inside-the-beltway types that he hobnobs with, so he writes something that makes it seem as though democracies, generally, are doomed to fail through the sheer force of greedy human nature.  That conclusion makes the bitter pill a lot easier to swallow:  it’s no one’s fault, really.

I strongly disagree with that.  America has been, is, can be, and should be different from Europe.  Our failure is the failure of political leaders — Democrats and Republicans alike — who want to hold on to the reins of power and have pandered to the worst instincts of people and corporations and interest groups rather than saying “no” and even requiring sacrifice.

Europe is probably doomed; with America, though, there is still hope.  We just need some leaders who will fight to get us back on the right track, rather than throwing up their hands and concluding that we and Europe are on the road to hell together.  It would help, too, if we had journalists who were willing to state that conclusion, sharply and plainly, as journalists are supposed to do.  One of the reasons our politicians have gotten away with their behavior is that the news media has for the most part failed to call them out for their irresponsibility.

In fact, I’d like to try a kind of experiment with Andrew’s suggestion that we really haven’t done before — at least, not intentionally.  Anyone who reads our blog knows that the Webner House posters approach issues from very different parts of the political spectrum.  We frequently disagree on things, but try to do so reasonably and respectfully.  Therefore, I’d like to invite Richard, Russell, UJ, and Uncle Mack to post their own views on the David Brooks column, and then see what Andrew’s thoughts are in response.

As we move closer to the election, there undoubtedly will be other issues where we might want to take the temperature of our contributors, just to see how the far-flung branches of the Webner clan are reacting.  I think everyone, regardless of their political inclination, believes that this election will be a very important one.  Our little discussions can be like family talks at the kitchen table after dinner — except that our table will be the Webner House blog, accessible to anyone who is interested.  I’ll post my thoughts on the David Brooks column later tonight.

This situation becomes worse as elections near.  Then, the talking heads fall into two categories:  those with an agenda, and those who state the obvious.  As an example of the latter, consider the headline on a Gallup release yesterday:  “National Mood a Drag on Obama’s Re-Election Prospects.”  The folks at Gallup have consulted their polls, see that the polls indicate that people are unhappy with the economy, aren’t satisfied with the direction the country is heading, and lack confidence in the President’s ability to turn things around.  From this, they conclude that the President’s re-election prospects are “uncertain.”

Wait a second — you mean citizens might actually decide how to vote based on prevailing economic factors and their respective confidence in the candidates’ ability to fix the problem?  They might actually hold the incumbent accountable if they think he’s done a poor job?

What an amazing insight!  I wonder if these guys could express a view on the challenging question of whether night follows day?

If I were a California voter, I’d be a bit skeptical of Brown’s budget figures.  He forecast a $9.2 billion deficit in January; only four months later that amount has nearly doubled.  His budget also assumes economic growth, a sharp increase in new home construction, and $1.5 billion from Facebook’s initial public offering.  The Governor’s budget also counts on the use of one-time funds, and assumes that he will be able to convince state employee unions to accept a reduced workweek and that he will be able to convince the Democrats in the California state legislature to cut spending on social services.  Notably, Governor Brown also refuses to cut spending on a high-speed rail program.

In short, it’s the by-now-familiar scenario where voters are asked to approve “temporary” increases to the sales tax and income tax on the promise of cuts that never quite materialize.  Brown’s budget contemplates spending $91.4 billion.  Can’t California assign priorities and just cut those programs at the bottom of that priority list?  Rather than relying on phony promises of reduced workweeks and percentage cuts, or overly optimistic growth forecasts, how about making tough decisions and ending programs altogether?  How about firing employees, rather than negotiating to trim their workweek?  How about cutting the dreamy high-speed rail program in the face of budget realities?

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting piece contrasting how New Jersey Governor Chris Christie dealt the deficit he inherited with Brown’s approach.  Christie ended a high-speed rail program as an unaffordable luxury.  Christie vetoed tax increases as economically suicidal.  Christie was able to close New Jersey’s budget deficit without raising taxes.  Why can’t California make similarly tough decisions?

Paul always seemed like somebody’s batty uncle.  Now that he’s called a kind of end to his campaign, he can go back to the House of Representatives, where he has served for years and accomplished virtually nothing.  (Of course, the people who support Paul probably think that is a good thing.  When you take a libertarian approach to the issues, you don’t want the federal government doing much of anything.)  Still, Paul was entertaining, and his views clearly resonated with a quirky core of voters.  Accordingly, he deserves a bit of farewell doggerel:

Bring all troops home, so Ron Paul said,

And while we’re at it, shut down the Fed

Time to get government off our backs

Which means we end the income tax

And there’s one other thing we hate

Yes, that would be the welfare state

We’ll also strongly protect our borders

While we all become gold hoarders

So anti-government Ron is done

Now he’ll head back to . . . Washington?

Romney says he doesn’t recall the incident, but has apologized nevertheless.  We should all follow his lead, because it is the rare person who can make it through the social thresher that is high school without being a self-centered, insensitive jerk who occasionally treats parents, teachers, and fellow classmates like dirt.  If every American who was involved in a regrettable, mean-spirited incident in high school were disqualified from seeking political office, there would be no captain for the American ship of state.

I recognize that in some respects, as Wordsworth observed, “the Child is father of the Man.”  I nevertheless think it is ludicrous to view a 47-year-old incident as some kind of window into Romney’s soul, just as it is silly to focus on President Obama’s admitted consumption of dog meat as a youngster.  During this presidential campaign, can we please talk about Romney’s actions since he reached adulthood, and President Obama’s actual performance in office, rather than their youthful activities many decades ago?

I don’t get the “flip-flopper” criticism.  I think it’s common for people to reassess their views about issues.  I certainly don’t adhere to every belief I held when I was 20, or 30.  Life experiences have shaped my views, and circumstances have, too.  I don’t want a President who is so rigid in his thinking that he is unwilling to reexamine his position, even when events strongly suggest that his position is wrong or ill-advised.  Why wouldn’t we want a President who is flexible and open-minded enough to react to new information or new developments?

It’s worth remembering that perhaps the greatest “flip-flop” in American political history involved Abraham Lincoln.  Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery, but also was opposed to the notion that the government could, or should, simply order that slaves be freed.  He favored voluntary emancipation by slaveowners, who would be compensated as a result.  Military and civil conditions during the Civil War, however, caused Lincoln to revisit his position, and the Emancipation Proclamation was the result.  Although some people opposed the Proclamation, I don’t remember that people reacted by shrieking that Lincoln was a “flip-flopper” or an unprincipled hack.  Now, does anyone care that Lincoln’s views on the issue changed over time?  The important point was that Lincoln’s ultimate position clearly was the right position.

The lesson of Lincoln, I think, is that we should focus on whether we agree with the politicians’ stated positions, without worrying overmuch about how they finally got to those positions.  In the case of same-sex marriage, I agree with the President.  If a gay couple wants to make the commitment of marriage, and to assume the rights and legal obligations that accompany that status, I think they should be permitted to do so.  Why should a gay couple be treated any differently from another couple simply because of their sexual orientation?

I recognize that other people will disagree with this position because of their religious or cultural beliefs.  Such disagreements are the stuff of which political campaigns are made.  The important point, for purposes of this posting, is that the issue of same-sex marriage be considered and debated on its merits.  Whether a politician’s position on the issue has changed doesn’t advance the debate, and indeed just distracts from it.

I don’t blame Indiana voters for giving the 80-year-old Lugar the boot.  He has served in the Senate for 36 years — six terms in all — which means he has been in the Senate since Jimmy Carter was President and I was in college.  Can anyone identify any great legislative accomplishments or extraordinary statesmanlike achievements by Lugar during that 36-year period?  I’d say he has served long enough.

I’m not sure that term limits are the answer, but I see no value in having legislators serve in Congress for more than a third of a century.  They inevitably focus more on what people are saying in Washington, D.C. than what their constituents are saying back home.  In Lugar’s case, he hadn’t even lived in Indiana since 1977.  How could he possibly reflect the views and values of Indiana voters under such circumstances?

Lugar’s loss my just be another sign of a strong anti-incumbent mood in the heartland this election year.  American voters seem to be fed up with career politicians who have sat ineffectively by while the country has moved off on the wrong track.  When that happens, the logical recourse is to throw the bums out.

Americans vote with their pocketbooks.  For all the recent talk about Mitt Romney’s roof transportation of a family pet years ago, President Obama eating dog meat in the distant past, and other silly issues, the economy is what most ordinary people really care about.  Contrived issues like prior treatment of dogs have no impact on everyday American life — but a shrinking economy, or a robust one, reaches every kitchen table in every home.  We don’t need to be instructed by the media elites about the importance of the economy; we see it every day in unemployed or underemployed friends and struggling local businesses.

That’s why today’s report is significant.  Unfortunately, our economy seems to be teetering on the brink.  After marginal job growth over the holiday season, March’s jobs report was poor.  More and more people seem to be giving up on finding a job — so much so that the government doesn’t even bother to count them in calculating unemployment statistics.  If another bad report comes out, it probably means that our economy is mired in the mud and we’re in for more hard times.

Political campaigns focus on “messaging” and packaging their candidates and working to spin everything in their favor.  Economic performance, however, doesn’t need messaging or packaging, and can’t really be spun.  It’s a uniquely powerful political force, beyond the control of the spinmeisters and talking heads — and that’s why the campaigns will be carefully scrutinizing today’s report.

The Democratic candidate is Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor.  At times in the past, she identified herself as a minority in a directory of law school professors, and Harvard identified her as native American when it responded to claims that its faculty was non-diverse.  Those matters have now been raised as a campaign issue — had she used her ancestry claim to gain an unfair advantage over other job applicants? — and Warren has been scrambling to substantiate her “family lore” of a native American ancestor.  Genealogists now have concluded that her great-great-great-grandmother, who is therefore responsible for 1/32nd of her genetic makeup, was listed on an Oklahoma marriage certificate as a Cherokee.

I realize that all’s fair in love and political campaigns.  Moreover, I can understand that if a candidate made a bogus claim about her background — by, say, falsely claiming to have served in the military or received a degree from a prestigious school — it would be fair game.  Warren’s story also might cause you to ask what reported diversity statistics really mean, and it might be a topic of conversation in the native American community, as one of the articles linked above suggests.

Still, this story is unsettling.  Whenever people start talking about someone’s “blood” it raises the specter of Nazi racial purity laws or the racial identity statutes enacted long ago in some southern states.  Those are awful, unforgivable chapters in human history, and it’s painful to think about them.

I’ve never thought about my great-great-great-grandmother — whoever she was — but if Warren’s pride in a distant ancestor’s native American heritage caused her to self-identify as native American, too, what difference should that make to a voter?  And if she listed herself as a native American for some other, less salutary reason, can’t we just allow her conscience to do its work without making the matter a political issue?  Can’t we just judge her quality as a candidate based on her positions on the issues, her experience, and other relevant qualities?

Amazing, isn’t it, that after the disastrous failure of Solyndra the federal government would still consider making any loans to private firms, much less loans of billions of dollars?  That’s not the only amazing thing about this proposal, however.

For those who aren’t familiar with California geography, Victorville is 68 miles from Los Angeles.  The concept for the “DesertXpress” train thus envisions L.A. residents bound for Vegas white-knuckling their way through the appalling southern California traffic and then, just as they reach the wide open spaces of the High Desert, getting off the road and waiting for a train!  If they want to play golf in Vegas, they’ll wrestle their clubs onto the train, too!  And then, after a ride that is only about an hour shorter than driving, the train will deposit them at a station in some remote part of Vegas, so they can catch a cab to get to the Strip!  And they’ll happily pay at least $50 one-way (or more than they would pay for gas, even at today’s high prices) for this privilege!

Nothing wrong with that well-conceived concept, eh?  Skeptics might contend that our leaders should follow a simple rule:  if a business plan is so fantastic that even venture capitalists won’t buy in, the federal government shouldn’t, either.  If DesertXpress can’t convince capitalists to invest, taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to fill the void — no matter what kind of phony feasibility studies or rosy projections of increased employment might be cited in support of the project.

Remember, too, that the United States doesn’t have money on hand right now.  If we loan money to DesertXpress, we’ll first have to borrow it from other sources and pay interest.  And when the DesertXpress goes toes up, as common sense dictates it must, our loan won’t be repaid, and we’ll have to dig even deeper into our own pockets to pay off what we borrowed.  Can our government seriously be considering putting us in such a position?  Seriously?