Saturday, July 28, 2007

Biden's Bluntness

Anyone who has ever known a person whose charm far exceeded his or her personal standards of behavior would be reluctant to vote for a person based on personality alone. People even say that they long for candidates who are willing to say what they truly think and are not obsessed with how the voting public thinks of them. I wonder, however, how many of those people would really vote for a candidate who says what he thinks even in situations where simple politeness would dictate that he not openly express what he is thinking. Although I thought Joe Biden's overal performance in the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate was fairly impressive, I also thought his characteristic bluntness hurt his standing as a candidate as much if not more than it helped him.

It is actually a good move, in my opinion, for a politician to be direct when answering direct questions as in a debate. When Biden talked about the impracticality of Richardson's Iraq plan, for instance, his bluntness served him well. Biden was also direct and aggressive in talking about gun control and Darfur; he seemed passionate about these issues. Biden's bluntness is not limited to the issues, however, and I think this is a problem for him. He was the only candidate to make a sarcastic remark regarding Jackie and Dunlap's video question about Al Gore, though a lot of people probably cringed at the over-the-top and stereotypical personas of the infamous Internet duo at first (I know I did, though the question turned out to be quite cute and inoffensive). When a question was asked in a similarly over-the-top way about gun control, Biden questioned the questioner's mental competence and implied, albeit jokingly, that the questioner might be planning to attack him because of his answer! The phrase "loony with an semiautomatic" might have flashed through my mind after I watched the video, but I still think it is wrong to assume someone is nuts just because he calls his favorite weapon his "baby" and even more wrong to suggest such a thing publicly in front of an audience of millions. Biden also reacted negatively to another silly question at the end of the debate; evidently, he felt it was beneath his dignity to be forced to say something nice about the candidate to his left. Granted, it was a kindergarten exercise, but the CNN/YouTube debate was all about allowing direct connections between members of the public and the candidates to be formed. Such connections are difficult to make when the candidates do not deal with members of the public in a respectful manner, even if the questions the public ask are sometimes a little on the silly side. Personally, I wouldn't want to vote for a candidate that could be expected to mock or insult me if I interacted with him personally, even if I agreed with that candidate on a lot of issues. I think Biden would be respectful when speaking towards the average American, but the government must be fair when dealing with ALL people: the just and the unjust, the wise and the foolish, and the flawless and the flawed must all be looked upon with the same eye and be judged according to the same set of rules.

Friday, July 27, 2007

Debate Time Distribution

At this point in the presidential campaign, debates play an important role in introducing the presidential candidates to the American people, but they are often accused of being more or less rigged in favor of the more established candidates. According to Talk Clock, a recurring feature on Chris Dodd's blog, the candidates which are leading in the polls are already being allowed to speak the most during the debates. Talk Clock has monitored three debates (two Democratic and one Republican) so far and published the number of minutes each participating candidate spoke at each debate. In the New Hampshire Democratic debate, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards spoke the most, with Edwards speaking nearly a minute longer than the next most garrulous candidate. In the New Hampshire Republican debate, McCain, Giuliani, and Romney spoke the most, with Romney speaking nearly four minutes (!) longer than the next candidate on the totem pole. In the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards once again spoke the most, and Edwards spoke more than a minute longer than the next most garrulous candidate. In each case, the three leading candidates spoke more than the lower-tier candidates did; I doubt very strongly that this is a coincidence. Is it right that debate time should be such a close reflection of poll numbers this early on in the presidential campaign? At what point should the debate organizers themselves be considered complicit in the marginalization of some candidates and the glorification of others?

It certainly is not easy to run a fair debate even if that is what the debate organizers and debate moderator truly want to do, which I don't think they usually do. The candidates themselves frequently contrive to take more time for themselves; some, by contrast, often answer questions relatively succinctly and thus do not even take up their allotted time! Still, it is the candidates who are asked the most questions and the candidates who are allowed to break the rules that end up speaking the most. It seems far too much of a coincidence for the main-tier candidates to get the most speaking time in three different debates. The disparity in minutes spoken becomes staggering when one compares the candidate that speaks the most with the candidate that speaks the least; it's in the neighborhood of 8-10 minutes for all three debates. Clearly, some candidates are getting more opportunities to speak their message than others are.

One rationale for asymmetric debates categorizes candidates based on their electability. Ultimately, the American people will choose a president between two major party candidates -- most of the Democrats and Republicans in the race now will be eliminated long before November 2008. Since the ultimate choice that really matters won't involve most of the candidates, highlighting the contending candidates now is best for the voters. The problem with this approach is that poll numbers at this early point in time mean little, so it is difficult to gauge who exactly is a true contender and who will fizzle out perhaps before election year has even begun. Fred Thompson has emerged as a major Republican candidate in polls even though he has not even begun his campaign officially yet; I strongly doubt that he could get as many real votes as he is getting poll votes if the primaries began today without his having campaigned or participated in any debates. In other words, I don't even think a lot of the people who answer political polls take the process that seriously -- by extension, I don't think polls mean enough to be used to determine who should speak in the debates.

Another argument focuses on the entertainment factor. No, debates aren't primarily entertainment vehicles, but ultimately they are most informative when they can hold the viewers' attention. The CNN/YouTube Democratic debate was particularly entertaining in part due to the format which eschewed asking many questions to all the candidates in favor of letting one or two respond to particular questions. This debate avoided the flurries of similar answers that usually occur when subjects on which most candidates share similar views are raised, but at the cost of letting each candidate have his or her say on each subject. That cost is significant, in my opinion; even though the YouTube debate was my favorite of the debates I've watched so far this year, I cannot hold it up as a model debate because it was more entertaining than it was fair.

I hope that the Dodd campaign will continue to monitor the debates. Holding the debate organizers and moderators accountable for debate time distribution is an important first step to having fairer debates, which I certainly hope we will see in the future.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

The Best Debate So Far

I was impressed by the quality of the recent CNN/YouTube Democratic debate. To an extent, the use of user-created videos to ask questions of the candidates was a gimmick, especially since external controls were used on both the selection (which video questions were played on CNN) and the direction (which candidate was asked which questions) of the questions. Nonetheless, just the fact that all video questions asked throughout the debate were submitted by members of the general public was a triumph for democracy. Ultimately, though, a debate's quality depends less on the questions asked and more on the substance of the dialogue and the performance of the debaters. The unusual format of the debate and oddball nature of some of the questions asked did not generally discomfit the candidates who as a group performed quite well. Most importantly, this debate brought to the forefront some of the divisions on the Iraq issue that exist among the Democrats.

Although the Democratic party has tried to establish itself as the anti-war party, the candidates do not agree on how the military situation in Iraq should be handled. Bill Richardson went on the offensive in this debate by boldly declaring that the troops should be brought home in six months -- all of them. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton argued that this was simply not feasible from a logistical point of view, an argument which Richardson unfortunately was not invited to respond to. Furthermore, Biden stated his support for a residual force in Iraq to remain even after most troops had returned home. He has come out publicly with perhaps the most detailed Iraq plan of any of the candidates, and he sounds far more in his element discussing Iraq than almost any other issue. Richardson, though, managed to do the remarkable: he distinguished himself quite markedly from Clinton and Biden by presenting a plan which would accomplish two things their plans would not: bring the troops home in six months and leave no residual force in Iraq. I see that as a message that could really appeal to military families, especially among those who are concerned that Dennis Kucinich would bring the troops home but at the same time also greatly weaken the military in order to fund his ambitious social programs. Richardson, in short, has provided himself as a safe alternative between Joe "Let's Bring Some of the Troops Home" Biden and Dennis "Show Me the Money" Kucinich. Personally, I still like the Biden plan because it shows concern both for American and Iraqi interests and addresses both political and social issues, but if fighting continues in Iraq unabated more and more people (including myself) are likely to start supporting "quick and dirty" measures which will end American casualties but leave even more chaos than already exists in their wake.

This debate was also important to me personally because it helped me understand the Hillary Clinton campaign a little bit better. What an individual viewer actually gets from a debate is often very personal; that is why there are supporters of every candidate who participated in the YouTube debate that firmly believe their candidate won the debate. Some things are harder to get than others; for me, making sense of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate has been hard. The woman is a good debater in that she speaks very well, but the day after the debates I almost never find myself thinking about what Mrs. Clinton spoke about the day before. The CNN/YouTube debate was a particularly able vehicle for Clinton because it gave her an opportunity to answer a wide variety of questions, some that probably would not have been asked in other venues. She answered them all readily and eloquently, even those which questioned her femininity, her liberality, or her ability to lead her country diplomatically. Finally, the obvious struck me: Hillary Clinton is actively trying to use the debates to create an aura of intelligence and competence about herself, not to detail her political plans exhaustively. This tactic is only worthy of strong disparagement if the candidate is trying to be something she is not; I actually do think Clinton is an intelligent and competent person, and in fact her ability to answer random questions on the fly as she did in the debate is testament to her intelligence and competence! Theoretically, an intelligent and competent president should be able to face unexpected situations as they arise very well; likewise, a "tough" and "uncompromising" president should be able to lead the War on Terror very effectively (yes, Rudy Giuliani is an "aura" candidate too!). So, voting for an aura rather than just a set of policies might not be such a bad thing...it might, however, be unsettling to find out what a candidate's policies actually are only after he or she has been voted in, so I wouldn't recommend judging any candidate solely on his or her debate persona!

Sunday, July 22, 2007

The Gilmore Rule

I am not a big fan of the idea of term limits because they do not only limit a politician's time in office: they also limit the choices that voters have. If voters really want to keep electing the same people over and over again to the same offices, then I think they should be "allowed" to do that; it's their government, after all. Aristotle noted that monarchy could be best form of government in the unlikely situation that the most capable man around was the monarch; if the best men and women are already in office, it makes sense to elect them again so that they can continue to guide the government wisely. Although many budding democracies have sadly elected presidents who quickly turned into tyrannical "presidents for life," I actually think the division of powers in American government is more effective at preventing the rise of dictatorships than term limits can be. The only thing that prevents me from dismissing term limits out of hand is my extreme dislike for reelection campaigns. I loath them because they take someone elected into office away from their actual jobs and onto the campaign trail. It is beyond me how anyone could think it is a good thing for anyone in an important office to spend their time trying to be reelected instead of actively performing the duties of their office. Even if the time factor is ignored, the extra stress of running for office could in itself conceivably hinder an elected official's judgment and competency. Although I agree with the conventional wisdom that incumbents have an advantage just because they are well known, it remains true that even the most well-known incumbent must spend some of his time campaigning if there are any credible candidates running against him. Term limits would at least prevent some incumbent politicians from participating in a reelection campaign, so they cannot be all that bad! Also, not all term limits are created equal: there is one type of term limit that I am particularly impressed with that is currently practiced in Jim Gilmore's home state of Virginia.

There is probably not anything actually called the Gilmore Rule involved, but Virginia law certainly did prevent Mr. Gilmore from seeking reelection after he had served his first term as governor of Virginia. In fact, all Virginia governors are explicitly barred from serving consecutive terms of office. Only consecutive terms are not allowed; ex-governors can run for governor again after sitting out one or more terms. Although this type of term limit still limits voter choice, I think it is fairer than some absolute and arbitrary limit on the number of terms a person may serve. I would certainly prefer this type of term limit over the present, absolute term limit of two terms for American presidents, and I think it might be a good thing to see applied to other offices as well. Apart from the matter of restricting voters' choice, which is an awful serious matter, the biggest problem with term limits I can see is that they might make it more difficult for an agenda to be implemented over a long-term period because a given politician will not be able to hold onto an office indefinitely to preside over the implementation of his or her agenda. If the voters truly want that agenda to be implemented, however, they need only elect a candidate who is also committed to the same agenda -- that's certainly possible in theory, though the transfer of offices is still a disruptive process by its very nature.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Bill O'Reilly Doesn't Understand Blogging

Daily Kos is a popular political blog that is unabashedly a haven for supporters of the Democratic Party. It is one of the blogs I check fairly often, especially when a big political story is breaking, because reading it is an excellent way to find out how fervent Democrats feel about things. It's not really a great place to learn about politics, though -- I always get the feeling that most of the posters and commentators on Daily Kos made up their own political opinions years ago, and so they no longer feel the need to articulate why they believe as they do. In other words, there's an awful lot of partisan cheerleading that goes on at Daily Kos. However, it is a blog with a huge and loyal audience; stories posted to the front page often yield hundreds of comments, and many "Kossacks" even write their own blogs, or "diaries," on the site. I always know there'll be something -- OK, a ton of stuff -- to read whenever I visit Daily Kos. The incendiary nature of some of the content that Daily Kos readers post has recently attracted the attention of Bill O'Reilly, the host of television's O'Reilly Factor, who has labeled Daily Kos a hate site.

Now, personally, I don't think of Daily Kos as a hate site, but that is largely because I tend to mentally separate user-generated blog content from blogger-generated content. Although not all blogs permit interaction, most blogs I visit do allow users to at least post comments in response to blog posts. I'm very accustomed to reading all kinds of blog comments -- some are hateful and offensive, true, but I honestly want to read hateful, offensive stuff every now and then if people out there are thinking it. That's part of the beauty of blogs and blogging: through the power of the Internet, one can find out what people really think. In any case, I tend to hold whoever posts something on the Internet responsible for the content of their own posts; I don't hold what someone posts as a comment or writes in a diary on Daily Kos against the people who actually run Daily Kos, for instance. O'Reilly, however, sees Daily Kos as a single entity: bloggers, audience, and crazy troll posters are all members of a vast Internet hatefest. He reasons that the administrators of Daily Kos would censor what is posted to their site if they did not agree with it. Certainly, the censorship that O'Reilly wants is practiced elsewhere on the Internet, but there are many blogs and web sites that prefer not to censor except in the most extreme circumstances, if even then. Daily Kos surely should not be vilified for supporting free speech. As it turns out, Daily Kos utilizes a sort of democratic censorship method for comments -- users can troll-rate particular comments so that they will be hidden from the view of most Daily Kos visitors. This system requires an active and fair user base...whether it works or not is a matter of opinion. O'Reilly certainly doesn't think it works very well, and I actually agree with him to an extent...but I hardly expect Daily Kos to be "fair and balanced" because it is partisan by design! At any rate, it is unfortunate that O'Reilly, a person who is both a fierce critic of traditional media and an active purveyor of new media, fails to understand the culture of blogging better.

Are There Too Many Cooks in the Presidential Kitchen?

John Edwards and Hillary Clinton have deservedly received some heat for a recent post-debate conversation that was unbeknownst to them caught on camera. Edwards suggested that the debates needed to be modified so that a "more serious and a smaller group" could take the stage. Senator Clinton agreed readily, even enthusiastically. I actually agree with Edwards' post-incident spin that smaller debates are needed not so candidates will be marginalized but just so each candidate gets more of a chance to speak. That doesn't really sound like what he and Clinton are advocating in the video, however; with their own voices they dismiss some of their competition as not being serious without naming names. I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that Mike Gravel is not a serious candidate; he seems to actually prefer to attack the other candidates/political establishment instead of presenting his own vision. I consider all the other Democratic candidates to be serious ones, however, even though not all are registering very strongly at the polls at the moment. Perhaps the poll numbers will even out a bit now that Clinton's and Edwards' intentions of playing kingmaker have been revealed. I strongly encourage you to watch the video that originally aired on Fox News for yourself.

It would still be nice to see some smaller debates, though -- four at a venue would be pretty good. The big debates do not do a good job of letting the candidates speak in detail, and it is also hard for the viewer to absorb so many different (yet sometimes very similar sounding!) political platforms all at once. Smaller debates could conceivably allow each candidate to express his or her agenda in more depth and also make it easier for the viewers to get to know each candidate. It is quite difficult to decide how to choose which set of candidates should take part in a given smaller debate, however. If the frontrunners participate in the same debate, then clearly the lower tier candidates are being marginalized, but perhaps it is best for the voter to get a better feel for the candidates likely to win the nomination of their party. It doesn't seem like the media which broadcast the debates should decide on their own or based on a few polls who can win a party nomination, though, so I reject the notion of dividing the candidates based on their early popularity. Random distribution of the candidates seems to be the fairest thing to do, but even that could conceivably still lead to the frontrunners all participating in the same debate, which would destroy the credibility of the small debate movement in a hurry. Human selection of the debates is another possibility -- it could be consciously decided that the frontrunners will not all appear on the same stage and that fringe candidates of principle like Kucinich and Gravel will be sent to different debates to enrich the discussion of both, for instance. Unfortunately, no matter how the candidates are distributed, it is probably true that most people who watch the debates at all will watch only one set of candidates duke it out -- the simple fact that people do not have unlimited amounts of time to devote to following the presidential campaign makes it likely that the smaller debates will reduce the exposure of some candidates because many debate viewers will now hear only four candidates speak instead of eight. Because it is so difficult to organize the smaller debates in a fair way, I think that small debates should supplement rather than replace the larger ones.

Monday, July 16, 2007

Profile of a Former Candidate: Jim Gilmore

Jim Gilmore recently announced that he was ending his presidential campaign. Poor poll results and limited funds had suggested Gilmore's road to the White House would be a difficult one from the very beginning, but when emergency eye surgery disrupted his July campaign, Gilmore's uphill climb got steeper still. With this in mind, it is not surprising that Gilmore dropped out of the race; I, for one, will miss what the former governor of Virginia brought to the table.

Few, if any, Republican presidential candidates would hesitate to call themselves "conservative," but Jim Gilmore aggressively claimed himself to be the only true conservative in the race and he derisively referred to the Republican frontrunners collectively as "Rudy McRomney" for they were, to Gilmore at least, indistinguishable because of their liberal tendencies. In practice, Gilmore rarely espoused the most extreme point of view on any issue -- perhaps that is a part of what he considers to be true conservatism. He was a candidate who was pro-life, but believed abortion should be legal during the first eight weeks of pregnancy. He was a candidate that emphasized the importance of border security, but stressed the rule of law as the basic rationale behind the need for increased security and promised secure borders both to the south and the north. He was a candidate who unabashedly supported the war in Iraq, yet in June dared to express that it was time to start reducing the number of American troops on the ground. There are some presidential candidates that scare me more than a little bit -- even a few of the ones I like -- but Gilmore never scared me because his campaign was relatively moderate. Perhaps part of the problem with Gilmore's campaign is that he was not able to put forth a single issue upon which to run on, but at least he avoided the demagoguery of a Giuliani or an Edwards.

Jim Gilmore's greatest Internet moment probably came with the posting of this video, in which Gilmore spoke of his support for the 1st, 2nd, and 3d amendments and asked YouTube viewers to bring up specific examples of how those amendments were under threat. I find it a little sad that this video garnered hundreds of thousands of views while Gilmore's other campaign videos on YouTube received very little attention; it was as if the YouTube audience was mainly interested in the chance to respond to a candidate rather than in listening to one. The video responses, as it turned out, almost entirely ignored Gilmore's actual request so this was not an entirely successful foray into the digital realm, but it did show authoritatively that even lesser known candidates could gain a huge audience online if they approached the online community in an effective manner.

Are Government and Insurance Too Closely Entangled?

Theoretically, if I happened to control 10% or more of the world's wealth, I would likely buy just about every sort of insurance possible and I would think that investment was well worth the cost considering what I would stand to lose without insurance. The dull reality is that I control very, very little of the world's wealth right now, and so I tend to think of insurance as being a costly and recurring expense as much as a necessary protection. While the fact that many Americans do not have health insurance is a major issue, another group of Americans is often forgotten, namely those who have insurance they would rather not carry. In many US states, to have some sort of auto insurance is a legal requirement for vehicle owners. The practical side of this requirement may seem beneficial; certainly, no sane person would want to be involved in a car accident with someone who is not insured, so it might seem like the more people who are insured the better things are for everyone. Undoubtedly many people with limited budgets would be extremely tempted to do without insurance if they were not concerned with the legal ramifications of that decision; to be honest, I'm in that category myself right now. However, the nature of the government requirements are unusual in that they have essentially placed state governments in the position of advocating for private insurance companies. If I were required to buy a certain amount of clothing every month, I would be incensed because I only wish to buy clothing when I need it. I would feel it a violation of my freedom to be forced to give my money to a clothing company each month. Because I am used to having to have car insurance, I don't think much about the laws which theoretically compel auto insurance upon every vehicle owner in my state, but this does not make the situation any less strange.

As it happens, there is a chance the relationship between insurance and government could get even cozier. Oftentimes the health care debate is presented in terms of health insurance rather than access to health care. The important thing, some argue, is that every American should have health insurance -- then they will have access to health care when they need it. That is true, undoubtedly, but if health care was simply free then there would be no need for health insurance to cover the bills that would no longer exist. Universal health care is a sort of double-edged sword for insurance companies; it could eliminate them almost overnight or subsidize them for generations. I suppose it's also possible it might help or hurt them in less dramatic ways, but those aren't as fun to talk about. Anyway, the fate of health insurance will all depend on which universal health care plan, if any, is ultimately adopted in the United States. I, for one, would not be shocked if the "solution" to the health care problem ends up benefiting the insurance industry as much, if not more, than the people being protected -- one way to universal health care coverage, after all, is to simply make health insurance compulsory like auto insurance generally is. With single-payer advocate Dennis Kucinich languishing towards the bottom of most polls, it seems likely that government and insurance will become only more closely entangled in the coming years -- it is much harder to decide if this relationship between the public and private sectors is too close for comfort or necessary for the good of the nation.

Friday, July 13, 2007

The Strange World of Local Politics

For most of my voting-eligible life, I've been a commuting student splitting time between two small towns. An unfortunate side effect of this arrangement is that I tend to be somewhat unfamiliar with what is going on in either location that I split my life between. Following local politics is especially challenging even now that I am interested in doing so. In a way, I feel like the Internet has hardly changed the way politics works in my hometown. The print version of the local newspaper is still the dominant source of local news, and candidates for local offices seem to virtually never set up campaign web sites. Although it is fairly common for candidates or supporters of the candidates to go door-to-door and leave pamphlets in their wake, finding information on local candidates is not always simple. "Pamphlets" is a rather generous term to describe what are frequently little more than a piece of paper with a photo, a name, and some family information printed upon it. Politics on a local level (well, in my hometown at least) certainly seems to be driven more, if not entirely, by personality rather than by issues, which in my view is not a good thing at all.

The fact that I split my time between two communities makes it somewhat harder to attend speeches or political events, which seem to be perhaps the most promising venues for learning more about a candidate's political philosophy. Personally, I'd much prefer to be able to go on the Web and read about the local candidates just like I read about the presidential candidates, but for whatever reason that is not an option. So, it seems like my only realistic chance to learn about each candidate is to read the local newspaper closely and regularly and perhaps quiz any candidates who happen to be canvassing my neighborhood. If I'm not home, the former task is difficult, and the latter task is difficult even when I am home as I'm actually a rather shy, retiring, "Thank you for the campaign literature" sort of guy. To be honest, I really don't much like candidates coming to my door which also explains my tendency to dismiss them quickly -- I want to learn about politics in a public space, but I want to keep my own private space private. Previously, I wrote about how I find some aspects of politics much more accessible to me than others; strange as it may sound, I actually find national politics to be much more accessible to me than local politics at this point. It is certainly more comfortable and convenient for me to access national political information than local political information.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

The Candidate and the Campaign

Running for president is a massive undertaking. There is no doubt in my mind that the primary reason third party and independent candidates face such an uphill battle has much less to do with ideology than with logistics. Lesser known candidates have less resources with which to build their political organizations and few seem able to achieve success without big organizations even in the Internet age. A good political organization is so vital for a successful campaign that at times it is difficult to see where the campaign and the candidate begin and end. The "little people" who are largely responsible for the everyday running of a presidential campaign rarely achieve notice as individuals; instead, their actions, both good and bad, seem to be often and sometimes absurdly attributed to the candidate they work for.

One of the major political stories of the moment is the recent shakeup of the McCain campaign. Most of the articles I've read on this topic have painted a bleak picture of McCain's presidential chances. Seemingly, the failure of the McCain organization to manage finances and put McCain in a winning position have been directly attributed to McCain himself. I tend to look at things differently. John McCain is a senator as well as a presidential candidate. He's a busy guy. He can't micromanage his campaign. Therefore, he relied on an organization to take care of certain things. He perhaps made bad choices in choosing this organization or perhaps the men and women in that organization simply underperformed. Realizing this, McCain has decided to set about cleaning up the organization. There are some departures. McCain's new organization can, perhaps, achieve better political outcomes such as higher poll numbers and more contributions. I tend to respect McCain more for realizing his campaign is not working and intervening to fix it; that's pretty presidential, albeit highly motivated by self-interest! Obviously, this isn't the script a candidate wants a campaign to follow, but I think McCain is being buried prematurely merely for acting responsibly. Obviously, the very best president possible would always select the right people to work for him and would keep a keen eye on all official affairs, regardless of his huge number of responsibilities, to make sure all is going well; however, the next best president would be able to recognize mistakes he has made and fix them when he sees them. I think McCain can still be the next best kind of president, and I'm not sure any of his competition can be any better than that.

While the mismanagement of McCain's campaign does raise legitimate questions regarding McCain's leadership ability and diligence, sometimes candidates take heat for actions of their campaign that seem to have very little to do with them. Exhibit A: Barack Obama staffer writes a memo which refers to Hillary Clinton as a representative of the Punjab rather than of New York. The insinuation stings, to be sure; does a pro-trade stance imply a betrayal of one's own country? However, at the end of the day, the insinuation came from a memo written by a staffer who is not named Barack Obama! When Obama starts calling Hillary Clinton a traitor in the debates this is an issue to be concerned about, but until that happens I think campaign workers need to be viewed as the individuals as they are rather than parts of Greater Obama. Exhibit B: Sam Brownback staffer passes on an email critical of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, aka the church Mitt Romney belongs to. Like Obama, Brownback found it necessary to make a public apology for something he did not do. Of course, if apologies were not issued I would assume the candidates DID agree with their staffers, so I think both candidates did the right thing by apologizing. The really unfortunate aspect of both cases, though, is that staffers are in a position to hurt the candidates they work for because of their own individual beliefs and preferences. Even if Obama and Brownback's staffers did actually speak with their master's voice so to speak, we have no way of knowing this with any confidence save through listening to Obama and Brownback's own words and observing their actions.

Monday, July 9, 2007

The Democratic All-American Presidential Forum

Recently, the Democratic presidential candidates gathered to debate at Howard University. This debate, the first All-American Presidential Forum hosted by Tavis Smiley, was unusual in its emphasis on what are often neglected, marginalized issues. For example, no question on the Iraq war was directly asked of the candidates, but they were asked of their attitudes towards the situation in Darfur and high HIV/AIDS rates in the African-American community. Perhaps because the debate organizers wanted to cover so many different topics, time given for each candidate to speak was quite limited, so there was a shortage of substantive answers...not that that's unusual for a presidential debate! However, I feel that a time limit on a debate should not be so fixed in stone that candidates are not given ample opportunity to speak on each topic they are asked to address -- the fact that Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel literally had less time than the other candidates to speak on the last question tarnished the entire event, in my opinion.

The debate itself was typified by solid answers across the board. The unusual questions, perhaps, revealed the most because the candidates seemed to be less prepared to answer them. For instance, some candidates missed the chance to talk about HIV/AIDS prevention even though that was the question addressed and instead continued to talk about health care in general. One of the biggest surprises for me was the responses to the Darfur question; some of the Democrats sounded positively hawkish on the issue! I think that the situation in Sudan is horrible, but the thought of intervention in another country at this time makes me utterly queasy...the debaters did not seem to share my uneasiness, however. The candidates spoke at length on education and health care and in general sounded supremely confident in discussing these bread-and-butter issues, but they struggled to distinguish themselves from one another on either topic. I was delighted that Mike Gravel called out some candidates for supporting the continued subsidization of health insurance companies, which also puzzles me. Gravel also impressed me by bringing up the war on drugs, which he opposes, on several occasions; it is interesting to think of anti-drug policy as being massively detrimental to society at large like Prohibition was, despite both policies being motivated at least in part by good intentions. It is unfortunate that Gravel does not seem too serious about his own candidacy; he wasted time by swiping at the sincerity of the other candidates instead of expressing his own views more. Bill Richardson I thought also distinguished himself with his stance towards business. Richardson seems to favor the government strategically supporting businesses to achieve particular outcomes, such as by giving economic incentives to companies that set up shop in poor areas or invest in alternative energy.

Above all else, I think the Democratic All-American Presidential Forum was indicative of how early on in the election cycle the June before election year really is. At this point, most candidates are playing it safe, content to pick up some support here and there slowly and surely. I expect to see the rhetorical flair of Obama and Edwards in full force before their campaigns are finished, but at this point the butterflies have not left their cocoons yet. Mike Gravel is perhaps the major exception, but Kucinich as well is probably campaigning with as much energy and style right now as he will next year. Indeed, in stark contrast to John McCain, Kucinich seems to be doing a fine job of picking up right where his last candidacy left off. Ultimately, I don't think this debate helped or hindered any particular candidate to any great extent. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards performed well enough to remain frontrunners while no other candidate really emerged out of the shadows to challenge those frontrunners.

Thursday, July 5, 2007

What's the Big Fuss About the Constitution?

The Constitution is undoubtedly the most revered American political document as well as the most important. Some quibble as to whether all portions of the document remain relevant in current times, but ultimately the document is the basis of American government and law. It has shaped the America that currently exists and its basic philosophy continues to influence political minds. To argue that it is not relevant seems a trifle silly to me; like it or not, the Constitution is here! Even so, all documents are vulnerable to being ignored, and the Constitution is no exception. For that reason alone, I think it is good that some people in this country are quite vocal in "defending" the Constitution. However, the fact that the Constitution exists does not imply the Constitution needs to continue as the basis for American government and law; it is a reasonable question to ask why America as a nation should continue to adhere to an 18th century document indefinitely.

There are many reasons people adore the Constitution, and not all of them have to do with the governing of a nation. For example, some admire the men who wrote the document, others admire the language and message of the document itself, and some consider loving the Constitution to be a patriotic duty. There is nothing wrong with these attitudes, but Aristotle provides a very different viewpoint on constitutions in Book V of "Politics" which I'd like to quickly mention. Essentially, Aristotle says that a state where an existing constitution is not adhered to is likely to experience a change in constitution very soon! When a constitution is ignored, it loses its strength and its meaning in everyday life; those who want to change a nation will likely begin with discarding a document of nominal but no actual importance and replacing it with a document they believe will be followed. According to this argument, protecting the Constitution (or, in other words, following it closely rather than picking and choosing what is to be followed and what is not to be followed) is a necessary part of protecting the United States as a nation! The Constitution is surely not perfect, but it is the foundation upon which America rests. Those who want to preserve America as it is (by that I don't mean the nation will not experience change but rather that America will experience change in ways similar to how it has occurred in the past) should be for the Constitution. That said, a blind adherence to any political document does more harm than good. There should be a continuing debate as to whether the Constitution should be amended or replaced, and I wish people wouldn't be so fearful of speaking against the Constitution even when their political views seem to suggest they are not strict Constitutionalists.

Incidentally, I plan to reread and blog about the Constitution after I'm through reading and blogging about Aristotle's "Politics." That'll be very exciting!

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

Is America Divided?

According to John Edwards, there are two Americas separated by wealth and privilege. Bill O'Reilly has declared there is a culture war ongoing in the United States. For a number of years, it seemed that political talk was dominated by the concept of "red" and "blue" states. (Incidentally, the only way I can remember which is which is by thinking of how "Red" and "Republican" begin with the same letter.) Is America, then, a nation at war with itself? If so, do these conflicts threaten the future of the United States?

Aristotle understood the concept of a divided society very well. I've written previously about his obsession with class conflict with a great deal of skepticism, but in some ways I find Aristotle more reasonable than some of those who seem to delight in separating America among antagonistic groups. In Book V of "Politics," Aristotle gives sage advice for any oligarchy or democracy that wishes to prolong itself: oligarchies, being dominated by the wealthy, must reach out to the poor, while democracies, being dominated by the poor, must reach out to the wealthy. Aristotle predicts revolutions will often rise where one class mistreats the other; thus, oligarchies are vulnerable to the uprising of the poor and democracies are vulnerable to the uprising of the rich. Governments which try to avoid cultivating these antagonistic relationships may persist. Too often the middle ground is lost sight of in politics; politicians like to convey some vision they have for the country and often just present it to the one segment of the population they are appealing to. John Edwards, for instance, speaks of two Americas but is searching for the support of only one -- the more numerous one, of course. The act of appealing to one group while ignoring the existence of other groups creates policy that does not fit the whole country, and can certainly help enlarge divisions that already exist.

I don't think America is tottering on the edge of a revolution, in spite of divisions. Indeed, I think too much is made of many of these divisions. The whole red/blue state thing, for instance, has never made much sense to me. If the current governor of California is a Republican, doesn't that alone shake the paradigm? While I can absolutely accept that certain regions of the country tend strongly towards a particular political party, I don't see this as necessarily being indicative of a fierce ideological division in the nation. As a formerly apathetic college student myself, I can tell you that there are a lot of other apathetic college students out there still. An awful lot of people just don't take sides in politics -- they are neither blue nor red, but they are plentiful in both blue states and red states. Similarly, the two Americas exist more vividly in John Edwards' mind than in reality. True, there are rich and poor, but how can you lump all members of either group together so? There are some poor people who are striving every day to BECOME rich; higher taxes for the wealthy may not be their top priority considering their ultimate goal is to enter that highly taxed upper echelon. There are also rich people that support wealth redistribution; Warren Buffett comes to mind immediately. And what of the robust middle class who Aristotle adored...being neither rich nor poor, don't they have an America of their own too? Very few causes bind so strongly that all members of a group will join together en masse, and that is fortunate for the sake of avoiding revolution.

Book link: Aristotle's Politics

It's a College Free-For-All!

Politics wasn't really on my radar in 2004, but somehow or other Dennis Kucinich put out a message that I received loud and clear in that election year: namely, that he felt college should be free. I was a new college student myself at that time and I thought this was a terrific idea. Unfortunately, I was of little use for Kucinich that year as I soon returned into my college fog after acknowledging his idea a very fine one.

Fast forward to 2007. I'm just about finished with my undergraduate degree. Free college is something I would probably not benefit from directly, and I have to admit my enthusiasm for the concept has dampened somewhat over the years. Nonetheless, I'm glad Kucinich still considers free college to be part of his education platform as it is something that could simultaneously benefit millions of Americans and the country at large. I've heard Kucinich speak about the opportunities opened up by a university education in the past -- for him, free college is an anti-poverty initiative as well as an educational initiative. I tend to agree with him that college can open a lot of doors, including many that are routinely closed for impoverished Americans. There is also something unsatisfying about the asymmetrical model of American education; on one hand, American public education is free through high school but there are also private institutions that provide competition, yet on the college level public institutions which already require government funds to remain operative as well as private institutions both charge money for access. In essence, Americans who go to state colleges are charged over and over again, because taxes and tuition both take money out of their pockets and put it into the coffers of educational institutions. Kucinich's free college initiative would at least take tuition out of the equation for those who qualify.

The reason not to provide free college is the same reason not to provide any government service: taxes! Undoubtedly, it's another burden on the taxpayer, and one might argue that with the explosion of the Internet it has never been easier for motivated individuals to achieve an education on their own. Unfortunately, knowing your stuff doesn't necessarily open doors for you like a college diploma often can. I've lately decided that the government does have a role in funding some important services, and I think college education is one such service worthy of being funded. At the same time, there need to be ceilings on taxes -- even the wealthiest of Americans should keep the bulk of their wealth. To get more money to provide services, government should be more efficient. I don't necessarily agree with those candidates that simply say, "End the war and slash the Pentagon budget...there's our money!" One shouldn't be politically irresponsible just to raise funds. The war effort and the Pentagon budget should certainly be continually evaluated, but it is the entire government budget that should be evaluated; a cut here and a cut there will add up and go a long way in helping fund vital services. Free college education could be a gift for some future generation of Americans -- a fitting reward for electing fiscally responsible yet socially concerned politicians.

Tuesday, July 3, 2007

It's Your Congress -- Learn What You Wanna Know

I mentioned recently that I was planning to write more about Congress -- alas, the reason I haven't done so is I'm still in the process of crossing that learning barrier before the elusive blogging comfort zone. In lieu of writing about Congressional actions and functions, I thought I could share some of the web sites I use in order to follow Congress. My favorite, by far, is GovTrack, a site which collects publically available infomation and displays it in a very user-friendly manner. GovTrack is especially awesome for statistical junkies like me; did you know that Ron Paul is one of the least successful Congressmen in terms of bills he has sponsored getting out of committee? An excellent alternative to GovTrack is the Library of Congress' THOMAS, a site I frequently visit when I want to read the full text of bills or see a rundown of daily Congressional action. I don't always want both houses of Congress somewhat lumped together as GovTrack and THOMAS do; when that is the case, I visit the official sites of the Senate or the House of Representatives depending on my need, and those are also good sites to visit for general information on either body. For information on members of Congress both past and present, I visit the Congressional Biographical Directory -- recently, this site helped me discover that even Mike Gravel was young once, and that some people call him Maurice!