The "Compassion" Trap

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

As has so often happened during great debates over domestic policies since the 1930s, Republicans seem to be walking again towards what I call “the Compassion Trap”. If you’ve been involved in, or watched and listened to these debates long enough, you know what I mean.

The Compassion Trap arises when liberals play the last card in their hand—when they claim that a policy promoted by conservatives will hurt groups of individuals by changing, reducing or eliminating a financial benefit currently provided by government. In response to such accusations, enough conservatives try to avoid being labeled as heartless that they refuse to support the policy. In turn, their decision splits conservatives so that the policy initiative fails. In the end, the liberal policies that keep or expand government power and control continue by default.

As our Republican representatives cruise toward the August 2nd debt-ceiling deadline, the Democrats and their media allies are again setting the Compassion Trap. The short-run question is, will enough Republicans avoid the trap and hold the line to accomplish meaningful change, or will enough of them fall into the Compassion Trap again and raise the debt ceiling without gaining meaningful, long-term policy changes?

In the long-run though, the real question is, how can we conservatives destroy the Compassion Trap before it is set again?

I, for one, don’t think it will be destroyed by labeling ourselves, or our movement, as being “compassionate”. George W. Bush tried that approach and it didn’t work. It didn’t work with conservatives because it offended many of us who believed we already were compassionate, and it seemed to imply that some of us had not been compassionate. It didn’t work with independents, because the label ran counter to the long-ingrained perceptions they held about conservatives. Advertisers and marketers will tell you that you can’t simply change the public’s perception about a brand by changing its label.

Quite frankly, if we are going to change the way this game is played and avoid the Compassion Trap in the future, conservatives are going to have to look in the mirror and realize that our approach to political debate must change. We must reflect on the most basic reason politics and governments exist, and reshape our approach to voters accordingly.

What do I mean?

First, let’s go back to the Declaration of Independence and really look at what it says—

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

What Jefferson is saying is that the purpose of a legitimate government is to secure the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness to its citizens, and to allow for the exercise of those rights within an environment that “shall seem most likely to effect” the “Safety and Happiness” of its citizens. Jefferson is not focusing on abstract ideas and formulas—that will come later during the Constitutional Debates during 1787-88—instead, he is stating that for government, and therefore the politics of government, to be legitimate, it must create and secure an atmosphere in which individuals have the freedom and opportunity to achieve their full, God-given potentials and dreams. That means that Jefferson envisioned people—living breathing people—living and working as family members and neighbors in communities, with the freedom and safety to live the lives they wanted to live.

Now here’s a news flash: both liberals and conservatives care about people. The difference between us is what Thomas Sowell has called “A Conflict of Visions”. Unfortunately, our conservative rhetoric rarely engages the public in a debate over these visions and how these different visions impact their lives.

Sometimes we conservatives talk about politics as if we’ve forgotten about those living, breathing people—including ourselves, our family members, and our neighbors—that Jefferson envisioned, so we fail to talk about the hopes and dreams they have, which government is supposed to allow and protect. Instead, we talk about formulas and models and constitutions and markets and theories and rights and history, but too often we never talk about people. On the other hand, liberals incessantly babble about people and how government should not just provide a secure environment for them to flourish, but should actually dictate what peoples’ hopes and dreams should be, and how and when they can achieve those hopes and dreams. By talking about what they will do for people, rather than about the proper mechanics of government, liberals have convinced voters that they care about the common man and that we don’t.

We won’t change that perception with new labels—the perception is simply too deeply ingrained. We will only change that perception when we start talking about our neighbors as living, breathing people, and about how our vision, and our policy ideas, will help our neighbors pursue their happiness. In essence, we need to paint a picture of the Shining City on a Hill and explain how we get their and how it will allow our neighbors, and our neighbors’ children, to live better lives.

So, to those Republicans currently in the trenches fighting over the debt ceiling and facing the Compassion Trap, and to those Republican candidates who will face the voters (and the Compassion Trap) during the next campaign, re-arm yourselves by changing the way you talk about what you believe and how you would perform in office. For example, talk to Americans about what a reduced federal government will mean for their lives, their schools, their communities and their local governments; how greater local control and individual responsibility will allow them greater freedom to improve their lives and their communities, and greater opportunities to fulfill their dreams for themselves and their children. Help your neighbors see how individual volunteering and activism changes lives and builds communities, in contrast to the deadening dependence on government and bureaucrats that is at the end of the liberal vision of the future. Help your neighbors see a greater future—to see themselves living, working, volunteering and raising families in that Shining City on a Hill—and you will not only win the next election, but we will finally destroy the Compassion Trap and we will be able to enact the policies needed to again create and secure the society Jefferson envisioned.

If he runs, I will support Governor Perry for the Presidency

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

There is nothing quite like a vacation to allow you to clear your head and look at issues and ideas from a fresh perspective.

As I was finishing the first vacation in years during which I have done virtually no work and just focused on fun and family, I picked-up and read a newspaper article about the unfolding Republican Presidential race. As I finished the article, I reached a decision that really surprised me: if Rick Perry runs for President, I will support his candidacy.

Now before I explain why I will support Governor Perry’s candidacy, I need to write a quick disclaimer. I am declaring my support as an individual, and not as a representative of any group or club of which I may be a member or officer. Moreover, no one asked me to do this—this decision and the timing of this post were driven purely by me.

Ok—with that disclaimer behind me, let me explain why I am surprised by my decision, and why I reached decision.

I am surprised primarily by the change of fortunes and political viability of Governor Perry since 2006. Remember, that when he ran for re-election that year, he won with only a 39% plurality in a four-way field—not exactly a conventional predictor of a future presidential candidacy. Then, he pursued at least two policy initiatives that set his base on fire against him: his attempt to impose vaccinations on the young women of Texas without legislative approval; and his advocacy for the Trans-Texas Corridor development. When I ran for an appellate judicial seat in a ten-county district during 2007 and 2008, the negative reaction against the Governor and his political future were expressed openly in virtually every Republican meeting I attended. In fact, few openly predicted he would (let alone advocated that he should) run for re-election in 2010, and many were discussing Senator Hutchison as his successor.

Then, the Tea Party movement exploded. This new movement gave the Governor a new platform that he used effectively to articulate and advocate his political vision, and an attentive audience hungry for the message he was giving. The combination seemed to give the Governor a visible injection of energy and purpose as the 2010 campaign ensued. Eventually, he steamrolled over Senator Hutchison and Debra Medina without a run-off, and over the popular former Houston Mayor, Bill White, in the general election—a truly amazing turnaround. And it was a turnaround based on substance, which mixed the message of growth, frugality and federalism with the accomplishments of his tenure as Governor.

Given where his political fortunes stood a few years ago, and my own reservations over some of his specific decisions and positions over the years, I never thought I would be considering Governor Perry for President. But, in a time when our country needs a President who understands the need to down-size the federal government in order to reduce public debt and return political power to states, local governments and individuals, and in a year when there are obvious short-comings in each of the announced candidates for the Republican nomination, Governor Perry has emerged as the right man at the right time. He is the only candidate who seems to be clearly articulating the vision of the proper role of government at all levels.

Now there will be some who say that his prior political inconsistencies are too many to allow them to support him. To them, I recommend that they remember what Emerson said about “a foolish consistency.” In an essay about Self-Reliance, Ralph Waldo Emerson asked us to not judge consistency on the day-to-day life decisions and actions that we often make in reaction to events that we had not previously planned to address, but on an individual’s character that can only emerge from looking at a lifetime of decisions and actions. With the Internet and the 24/7 news cycle, such perspective is harder and harder to apply. However, if we look at Perry’s career over three decades of public life, his positions evidence a remarkable consistency in support of the economic and social conservatism that forms the core of the modern Republican Party. Moreover, his stated positions are closer to the vision for the “new” Republican Party that Reagan first espoused in 1977 than any of the other candidates in this year’s field.

As I write this post, there are two concerns I still have about a Perry candidacy, which I hope he and his team will address if he chooses to run. First, he must address the schizophrenic view of government held by most Americans—the view that simultaneously wants a smaller government that lives within its means, and low taxes, but wants no change to the government benefits they, or their family members, currently enjoy. Over the last 100 years, we gradually have allowed the federal government to use public tax dollars to provide charity to the less-fortunate and to underwrite economic risks—the risks associated with disability, retirement, health, home purchases, a college education, small business creation, and many others. Any Republican, who wants to beat Obama and actually obtain a mandate to lead this country through the changes needed to address the size and debt of the federal government, must explain to the independent voters who leaned Republican before 2008, but who voted for the Democrats in 2006 and 2008, how these changes will affect their lives—how will charity be provided to the less fortunate, and how will the risks of currently underwritten by government be addressed? Will government have a role? If so, what level of government will have that role, and what role will that level of government have? If government’s role is to be reduced, what will be expected from each individual in order to provide for charity and to protect against the risks of life that we all will inevitably face? If the answers to these questions are not clearly articulated, a Perry Presidency may not ever occur—but if it does, I fear it will fail.

Second, Governor Perry must address the concern that many outside of Texas will have in electing another Texas Republican so soon after both Bush Presidencies. Part of this concern will be addressed by the story of Texas’ economic growth during his tenure. However, I think Governor Perry also needs to consider a running mate who is from another region of the country, and preferably one who is addressing the current economic and governmental problems effectively. Ideally, one of the Republican Governors from Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio or New Jersey, would fit these criteria while also giving the ticket a better chance of picking up a state that Obama carried in 2008.

I know that this post (and its early timing) will surprise some of my friends and allies, as well as some within our party with whom I’ve had disagreements in the past, but I feel that, as Governor Perry makes his decision, it is important that he know the breadth of support he will have. To that end, I feel it is important for many of us in Texas to indicate our position about his candidacy now—one way or another. So, for what it’s worth, I pledge my support to his candidacy if he chooses to run.

A Timeless Summer Question

This column originally appeared over at Big Jolly Politics:

With the All-Star Game approaching, and with the birth of my first grandchild—a boy—my thoughts have been turning lately to my other obsession: Baseball. As my mind has wondered, I’ve thought a lot about the teams I’ve followed over the years, and those that I consider my “favorite” teams. Then, inevitably, I’ve thought a lot about that timeless question that all die-hard Baseball fans eventually argue over—which team was the “best team of all time”? If you’re not interested in contemplating this question, I’d find another post to read.

One of the few hobbies I’ve enjoyed over the years has been my love of Baseball, including the study of its history and statistics, which my late father loved and taught me to love, and which I hope to pass down to my grandson. As part of this study, I think I’ve consumed virtually every book there is on the “best team” question, and how different “experts” have answered it. And, I’ve come to these conclusions: the answer is not objectively knowable; and it depends on how you approach the question.

To objective fans, I think my first conclusion should be obvious—the more you learn about Baseball history and statistics, the more you realize that you will never be able to control for all the variables in order to arrive at an objectively provable answer. So every potential answer to this question ends up being subjective.

What I mean by my second conclusion is simply this—identifying the best team depends on the criteria you look at to determine the “best” team. I have often found that those late-night or afternoon arguments usually lead to no resolution because we each define “best” differently. That is, when we are looking for the “best team,” some of us look for the team that, if it took the field against any other team that has played Major League Baseball since the Modern Era began in 1901, it would win; others look for the team that most dominated the era in which it played, or for the team that most dominated the year in which it played, or for other, completely different attributes? Then, based on how we define “best,” we focus on different statistical and historical information to prove our case.

A few years back, two authors—Rob Neyer and Eddie Epstein—tried to answer the question relying upon one key statistic: the sum of the standard deviations between a team’s runs scored and runs allowed versus the performance of the other teams in the league in that season. They then applied their analysis to teams that performed at a high level over more than one season. What they came up with was a list of 15 teams since 1901 that virtually all Baseball fans could agree with:

1. The 1906-10 Cubs;

2. The 1910-13 Athletics;

3. The 1911-13 Giants;

4. The 1926-32 Yankees;

5. The 1926-32 Athletics;

6. The 1936-43 Yankees;

7. The 1942-44 Cardinals;

8. The 1951-53 Yankees;

9. The 1953-55 Dodgers;

10. The 1961-63 Yankees;

11. The 1969-71 Orioles;

12. The 1972-74 Athletics;

13. The 1970-76 Reds;

14. The 1986-88 Mets; and

15. The 1997-99 Yankees;

(They also addressed many of the following “honorable mentions”: 1901-03 Pirates; 1912-18 Red Sox; 1917-20 White Sox; 1921-24 Giants; 1920-23 Yankees; 1924-25 Senators; 1925-26 Pirates; 1929-35 Cubs; 1930-33 Senators; 1930-34 Cardinals; 1934-40 Tigers; 1936-37 Giants; 1939-49 Red Sox; 1949-52 Dodgers; 1950s Giants; 1950s Indians; 1950s White Sox; 1956-59 Braves; 1960s Cardinals; 1960s Dodgers; 1968 Tigers; 1976-78 Yankees; 1984 Tigers; 1988-90 Athletics; 1990s Braves; 1990s Indians; and the 2001 Mariners. You can probably think of more teams you would add to this list, and it is way too early to really assess how good the teams of the last decade have been relative to the history of the game).

Other experts, including, most notably, Bill James (who is considered by many to be the greatest Baseball statistician and historian of the last generation—if not ever), believe that all Neyer and Epstein’s new analysis does is confirm the obvious, but it doesn’t actually help answer the question. Specifically, James and others believe that the Standard Deviation only confirms that the 15 teams dominated their eras, but tells us nothing about the overall competitiveness of those eras and how the teams would perform in other eras, or against each other. Personally, I agree with James—the Standard Deviation approach doesn’t control for eras when competition was skewed because hitting dominated pitching (as it did from the late 1920s until World War II); pitching dominated hitting (as it did from at least 1965-68), or the competition was diluted because of wars (World Wars I, II and the Korean War impacted the level of competition during those years by taking players away from the game) or expansion.

This problem is highlighted by Neyer’s and Epstein’s conclusion that the best team of all time was the 1939 Yankees (a conclusion that other experts currently hold, too). Although this team is certainly one of, if not the most, dominate teams relative to the year in which it played (as evidenced by the fact that it scored 400 more runs than it allowed), it is hard to look at the overall statistics from the teams that it played against in the American League in 1939 and come to the conclusion that it played in a highly-competitive environment—especially as to the pitching and defense it faced (though, curiously, it did lose its season series of games to the Boston Red Sox). In fact, one can make a strong, if not stronger argument that the either the 1937, 1938, or 1941Yankees were actually better teams, due to the level of competition they faced in the American League during those seasons.

So, having come to the conclusion that there is no one, right answer to this question, here is how I answer the question: I’ve broken it down by a few categories, looked at the statistics and history, and come up with the a handful of teams, and one subjective answer.

First, I looked at which team was arguably “greater than the sum of its parts”—that is, the team that consistently performed at or above the talent of the players that formed the team. An objective analysis of the data leads to virtually only one answer to this question: the 1947-64 Yankees (including the 1951-53 and 1961-63 “great” teams), which shared one player—Yogi Berra. In fact, Berra exemplifies this team throughout the entire era. Although Hall of Famers Berra, DiMaggio, Mantle, and Ford would play for the Yankees during this period, the team was held together by players like Billy Martin, Hank Bauer, Gene Woodling, Gil McDougald, Bill Skowron, Elston Howard, Hector Lopez, Tony Kubek, Bobby Richardson, Roger Maris, Tom Tresh and Joe Pepitone, as well as the managing of Casey Stengel, Ralph Houk and Berra, who each seemed to know exactly when and how to make the right moves to stay one step ahead of the Indians, the White Sox, the Tigers, the Orioles and the Twins throughout those years. Few of the players who made the Yankees win day-in and day-out would have flourished—or did flourish—playing for other teams. This truly was a great “team” in the aggregate sense of that term.

Second, I looked at which team’s “sum of its parts was greater than its whole”—that is, the team that arguably amassed the greatest assortment of “great” players. This evaluation was much harder, and more subjective, than the first one, but my conclusion was the 1926-1932 Athletics. The core of this team was built around five players—Al Simmons, Robert “Lefty” Grove, Mickey Cochrane, Jimmy Foxx, and Jimmy Dykes—all of whom would not only star on this team, but they would go on to star on, or manage other teams over the next several decades, including the Tigers of 1934-38 and the Red Sox of 1939-46. In addition, other stars would play for this team who had starred on, or would help build, other great teams, including Ty Cobb (Tigers), Eddie Collins (Athletics, White Sox and Red Sox), Zack Wheat (Dodgers), and Tris Speaker (Red Sox and Indians). The team was single-handedly assembled by the only person to manage two of the 15 greatest teams—Connie Mack.

Third, I looked at the most dominate team of an era. In this I have to agree with Neyer and Epstein—the 1936 to 1943 Yankees were the greatest team over a multi-year era, winning seven pennants in eight years, and six World Series championships. The team was built around Joe DiMaggio, Bill Dickey, Tommy Heinrich, George Selkirk, Frankie Crosetti, Red Rolfe and Red Ruffing, but would also share in the early years Lou Gehrig, Tony Lazzeri, and Lefty Gomez, and in the later years Joe Gordon, Charlie Keller, and Phil Rizzuto. No team ever dominated not just the standings, but the day-to-day play of the game like this team for such an extended period of time; and they did it in a highly-competitive offensive era that included explosive offenses on the Tigers, Red Sox and Cardinals. Although I question the choice of 1939 as the “best” of these teams—especially considering the overall lack of competitiveness of the American League of that year, that Gehrig stopped playing at the beginning of this season and was replaced by a very mediocre young player, and that DiMaggio was injured for an extended period of the season—I think there is little objective argument that the Yankee teams of this era formed the finest “team” the Yankees ever assembled over the course of a multi-year period (and that’s saying a lot).

Having said all of this, the single-season team I believe is the best of all time may surprise you—not because you’ve not heard of them before, but because it is so obvious you’ll think that I’ve given this question no real thought—the 1927 Yankees. In fact, I’ve tried every way I know how to conclude that another team deserves this title, but the facts always point back to this team. Why? Well, because—because it is the most historically significant team of the Modern Era, because it was the most balanced and successful of the great Yankee teams, and because it decisively beat another one of the 15 great teams in the only sustained head-to-head competition among such teams.

The 1927 Yankees not only changed the way Baseball would be played and teams would be assembled, it changed the way Baseball would be perceived by the public—no other team before or since had this impact on the game. Reading about the mis-match between the Yankees and the Pirates in the World Series of 1927 reminds one of watching the films of the German tanks invading Poland in 1939 and being met by the Polish cavalry on horseback—the Pirates were a very good team (and won the World Series in 1925), but they were assembled for an earlier era, while the Yankees were the “new technology” for a new age. The 1927 Yankees created the prototype for the modern offensive line-up, and dictated the type of talent that general managers have looked for ever since. That team’s success, and the celebrity status of its stars, also changed the way the public would view professional sports and athletes, and its expectations about how Baseball should be played.

The 1927 Yankees won 110 games with incredibly balanced pitching and hitting—especially for the era in which it played. Its team batting average was a remarkable .307, and its runs-per-game of 6.3 is among the highest ever recorded (and about 1.4 runs per game above the league average). Meanwhile its team Earned-Run Average for its pitching staff was a relatively low 3.20 against a very good hitting league (the American League batting average was .286), and was almost a full run-per-game below the league average.

Finally, this Yankee team played 22 games against one of the other 15 great teams (the Athletics), and, over the course of its great years from 1926 to 1932, played exactly 154 games (a complete season of games) against that team—and it beat the Athletics in 1927 in the head-to-head match-up by 6 games (14-8), split the seven season match-ups 3-3-1, and ended the 154-game rivalry with an aggregate 10-game advantage (82-72). In fact, during the three great seasons for the Athletics from 1929 through 1931, the Yankees essentially split the head-to-head series during the last two of those seasons, (10-12 in 1930, and 11-11 in 1931). Although some of the other great teams would meet in one or more World Series, there is really no other statistically significant head-to-head comparison to evaluate. The Yankees were clearly better than the great Athletics of this period, which is the best circumstantial evidence we have of how the Yankees would fare in head-to-head competition with any of the other “great” teams of the Modern Era.

One last thought—an asterisk, if you will. There is one other team that could qualify as the “best team” but for the facts that it played before 1909, and it did not win the World Series—the 1906 Cubs. In fact, it is very hard to tell just how good this team really was even though it won 116 games while only losing 36 games. These Cubs won 116 games with not only good hitting and phenomenal pitching, but also with remarkable fielding in an era—before 1909—when players did not uniformly use fielding gloves and most catchers did not use any protective gear, which led to a disproportionate number of errors and unearned runs compared against other eras. It is just impossible to know how good this team really was, especially when they could not beat one of the worst offensive teams (except for, possibly, the St. Louis Browns of 1944) to ever make the World Series.

Well, there you have my mid-summer thoughts. Who do you think is the “best team of all time,” and why?