Confidence

The word indicates an inner feeling, but sometimes it is best to parse it. It comes from “trust,” combined with “with,” thus trusting with or trusting X. It seems to me that the X is here the issue. We use the word in relationship to the inanimate ranges of reality of well. We’ll test a knot and say that we are confident that it will hold. But when it comes to complex situations that we cannot actually test, like we can test a knot or a beam, the presence of confidence or lack of it has everything to do with people, with agents. Public confidence in the economy—therefore motivating us to spend or to invest—is not produced by careful observation of a mechanical arrangement but comes from a general “feel,” as it were. And much of that feel comes from the news, the media—alongside talking to other people and observing what they do.

The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal both feature stories this morning that certainly shape public confidence. The NYT headline: HOUSE G.O.P. SETS A NEW OFFENSIVE ON OBAMA GOALS. The Journal’s: RANCOR IN WASHINGTON FANS PUBLIC DISAPPROVAL.

It’s really the same story, although the Times’ focus is on actual planned cuts in budget whereas the Journal concentrates on a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showing public disapproval of Congress—which has reached an all time high of 83 percent.  Obama’s approval rating was low too, 45 percent. The Founding Fathers would here have talked about the evils of faction. That last word comes from the Latin for “a making or doing” used ever since to mean a political party or a class of persons.

Uncertainty breeds lack of confidence and conflict breeds uncertainty. No. We cannot neatly isolate the political from the economic, the personal from the public. Nor can such things as attitude be put in place by Constitutional language. Yet the performance of a democracy absolutely demands that once an administration has been elected by the public, the political conflict that resulted in that outcome must be brought to a halt; unified action must follow. We now have a situation that, were it manifesting in a person, would make that person highly unreliable. He would no sooner start something than try to destroy it, say something then try to unsay it, promise something and then do the opposite. With such a “person” in charge of our country, can we be confident? Civil war comes in many different forms—acute and violent, insidious and undermining. We have the latter, Syria the former. In a forced choice, I’d rather have ours—but in a free choice I don’t want civil war at all.

Money in Politics

The elections are over. President Obama remains in office. As in earlier years, but more intensely than ever, the media emphasized the power of money, particularly of independent groups, such as political action committees (PACs) active on behalf of candidates but at a distance: the campaigns could not influence them.

The New York Times featured a page (link) yesterday showing total spending by such independent organizations as of November 6, 2012. The listing featured 35 Republican and 10 Democratic groups. I show the results in the following graph:

I look at this and say to myself, “If money could buy elections, the Republicans should have swept the field.”

But the picture is mixed when we include funds actually raised by each campaign combined with funds contributed by the two party committees, the Democratic and Republican National Committees (link). Those in the following tabulation (in millions of dollars):

Funds raised by the candidates
	Obama	Romney
Campaign	637.3	388.1
Party Committee	214.6	342.0
Totals	851.9	730.1

Here Obama had more money than Romney, although the difference between them isn’t very large. Money obviously plays its role, but would not seem to be conclusive. What this tells me is that my deeply-held doubts about the predictable powers of advertising need not be reexamined.

Thursday Night SmackDown

Soon to be followed by Tuesday Night RAW. These will not be brought to us by World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), a much nobler institution than our two political parties. “Nobler?” you ask? Am I not just a bit irreverent? No, sir! WWE knows that it is doing and does not attempt to cover itself in anything except tongue-in-cheek glory and well-earned profits. It knows the business it is in. It’s called Entertainment. Nor are the fans of wrestling much deceived, when they root for Sheamus against The Miz, into thinking that in some way they’re taking part in saving the world from approaching Armageddon. It’s just bread for them and circuses for us. But as for those vice- and presidential debates, where the referee almost trembles in his or her honor to preside over the fray, they need to get with the program. The next time, say for next Tuesday Night’s RAW, wouldn’t it be a lot more genuinely entertaining to watch CM Punk take on Antonio Cesaro? I think so. Ahead of it, to be sure, two emissaries, one from each campaign, could exchange white papers in which each candidate would present a detailed, written description of his policies—to be printed in newspapers of record. Then on to the breathless fun of it all. I’d also stay around for the following Shields and Brooks as these two gentlemen try their best to explain just why the Punk won or perhaps lost—register their views on the miserable or horrid refereeing—and what that odd sack filled with something might have contained that that cute cheerleader, wearing a crown, threw at the wrestlers just before Cesaro smacked the Punk down at the end, or did Punk slip on something?

The Catholic Vote

In the context of the controversy that erupted a few days ago—the Obama Administration’s regulatory mandate requiring Catholic hospitals and other institutions to offer health insurance to their employees that feature provisions in support of birth control, including sterilization procedures—I thought I’d look up data on the Catholic vote. It is amazingly difficult to get these data, but Wikipedia’s article on “Catholic Church and politics in the United States” (link) provides a tabulation at least on the presidential votes from 1948 through 2008. I present this as a graphic:

The summary: In 12 of the last 16 presidential elections (75%), Catholic majorities voted for the winning candidates, now by large and now by narrow margins. In four elections the Catholics backed the losing candidate, in all but one case (1968 - Humphrey against Nixon) by very small margins. In each of these cases, the loser was a Democrat.

According to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA), Catholics represented 77.7 million people in 2011 (link), a substantial population. The Catholic, not surprisingly therefore, is viewed as a major swing vote, meaning that it does not consistently stick to one party—as these data indicate. Now, of course—as might be expected—one can find numerous sites on the web showing that Catholic women are not uniformly committed to the teachings of the Church regarding birth control, “choice,” etc. And in a story in the NYT this morning the author wonders if the flock will follow the bishops. Well, we shall see. Individual opinions are one thing, identification with the Catholic culture is something else—meaning that even secularized Catholics will feel this sort of thing as a sting.

Initially the media ignored this controversy—so much so that some pundits (the Catholics pundits, of course) noted this here and there. But now it’s out in the open and heating up. The Obama Administration is showing signs of caving. But caving after the damage is already done is miles from wisdom. The very first words of the first amendment to the Constitution refer to freedom of religion—but somehow that did not seem to have occurred to the secular evangelists who seem to lead our Department of Health and Human Services. Mr. President, you already have the pro-choice vote—and you alone have it. But it won’t keep you in office. I for one am sitting here spelling out C-L-I-N-T  E-A-S-T-W-O-O-D on a pad to see what it might feel like.