Whip-sawed in the news cycle
Somebody tell me we’re not going to do this again.
The Obama administration has not even taken office yet and the nitpickers are swarming. In just the last month talking heads have over analyzed the number of Hispanics not in the new administration, the non-involvement Obama had with Illinois governor Rod-show-me-the-money Blagojevich and even Obama’s selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inaugural next month.
On the surface this just looks like typical politics—second-guessing every move a leader makes—but this over steering has a corrosive analog in economics. It is called whip-sawing and in the stock market, for example, it refers to a behavior that over reacts to every move the market makes. If the market goes up you buy, when it inevitably goes down, sell. The cumulative effect is that you consistently miss real opportunities because, rather than anticipating the future you are reacting to what has already happened. In financial circles, it is the reality that backs up the old joke, “How do you make a small fortune on Wall Street? Start with a bigger one.”
The news story about Hispanics in the new administration illustrates the point. About half way through the process of staffing the cabinet there was only one Hispanic nominated for a senior post, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico for Commerce Secretary. Tongues wagged at that point saying that one Hispanic was not enough and where were the others going to come from or go?
As the Obama team finally jelled, there were a total of three Hispanics with nominations to high positions. In addition to Richardson, Colorado Democratic Senator, Ken Salazar was nominated to lead the Interior Department and Rep. Hilda L. Solis, D-CA, was nominated for Labor Secretary. Not a bad haul for a population that represents about 14.7% of the US population.
I will leave Blagojevich-gate for another time because as I write this, the Obama camp has not released its findings on communications between itself and the seedy governor. That brings us to Rick Warren and the invocation.
Gays and Lesbians are understandably upset with Warren for his stand in support of California’s Proposition 8, which rescinded the right of Gay people to marry in California and they object to Warren’s participation in the inauguration for that and related reasons.
Seriously, though, what preacher/cleric/holy person would be acceptable to deliver the invocation if judged only by the standard of a position on gay marriage? The Pope? Nope. The Arch Bishop of Canterbury? Not bloody likely. The Dali Lama? Might it upset China?
Being gay in this society is an uphill battle. Everyday it seems you have to fight for what ought to be yours simply because you walk upright and breathe the air in this country and often that just isn’t so. But it is doubtful that simply changing the laws on the books will achieve the change many of us seek.
Like it or not, a great deal of dialog still needs to happen between parties that are right now simply talking past each other. Gays want the right to civil marriage with all of its legal protections for the partnership and the far right will only discuss marriage in the context of procreation.
The tantalizing question for all people who think dialog is necessary or would be helpful is this: What would an opening of the dialog actually look like?
The current administration in Washington has a policy of not entering discussion with any party with whom it has substantial disagreements. Thus it famously conditioned the idea of talking with countries like North Korea and Iran about their nuclear ambitions as being possible only once the parties renounced their interest in the very activities the administration sought dialog on. This is circular reasoning and it points out why the Bush administration has been such a failure in foreign relations.
So the question comes back to whip-sawing and what a real opening between the left and the right, represented by the discussion on gay rights in this case, would look like. In his relationship with Warren, President-elect Obama has teed up such an opening and in, sad to say, impeccable Bushian style, the gay and lesbian community has furiously hit the shot into the water.
For gays and lesbians, it might not be the best analogy to talk about turning the other cheek, that’s been tried before after all and most of us only have two cheeks. But another metaphor seems to fit pretty well here. You don’t preach to the choir nor do you spend a lot of effort saving the converted. In the effort to have serious dialog on the issue of civil vs. religious marriage, what would an opening look like? Hmmm?
