I've been thinking today about which of the remaining presidential candidates I feel like I know the best at this point in time. After some reflection, I realized that Barack Obama feels more familiar to me than John McCain. This surprised me a little -- after all, John McCain has run for president before. I wasn't following politics too closely in 2000, but I do remember that McCain's campaign for the Republican nomination was pretty much the most exciting thing about that election prior to election night. Obama, on the other hand, is someone I hadn't heard of until 2006. How can I possibly feel like I know Obama better than McCain?
I actually think the recent past explains my feeling of familiarity with Obama at the moment. After all, Obama's been in the limelight for the whole year. He's been battling Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, after all -- never mind that the battle was essentially over for all accounts and purposes months ago. McCain, on the other hand, has been somewhat out of the public eye following his dispatching of his Republican rivals. The one other lingering Republican, Ron Paul, failed to win enough votes to be a credible McCain challenger or even a political thorn in the side of the Arizona senator. Clinton and Obama's struggle for the nomination was theater -- hard to watch at times, for sure, but theater nonetheless. It has in recent months eclipsed McCain, a candidate who did nothing wrong other than win too easily. The ugliness of the Clinton-Obama fight may very well benefit Obama in the long run. While Obama probably wishes Reverend Wright had not become a household name, I think it's far better for him that the country became acquainted with Wright when it did rather than later. Likewise, it's good for him that he's already been called an elitist and that his Islamic ties have been revealed. The fact that this stuff is already out in the open means that McCain can only get a limited amount of traction out of any of these issues.
John McCain in contrast hasn't really been exposed in the media much so far. The Republican nomination process had its nippy moments, but it wasn't a particularly bruising affair. McCain was able to defeat his challengers essentially on one issue: national security. Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney all sought to sound like the kind of president who would keep America safe, but McCain's military and political experience made for a far more impressive national security resume than anything the security trio had to offer. I honestly think McCain could win the election in a similar fashion; national security is the issue for many people right now, and McCain has a strong experience advantage over Obama. Obama, however, won't be trying to out-do or out-tough McCain on national security issues like Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani attempted. He'll be arguing for different policies and different approaches. Thus, there will be a different dynamic to their matchup. The question voters ask themselves won't be, "Who is the best man to lead us through war?" but rather, "Which man has the best strategy and philosophy?" Ultimately, I think McCain will make his general election campaign about a lot more than just national security. The challenge for him will be choosing which issues to emphasize. Unlike a Tom Tancredo, McCain is not a one-dimensional candidate. Like a Tom Tancredo, McCain's stance on the issues can be polarizing even within his own party. I really don't expect McCain to make immigration one of the centerpieces of his campaign; neither do I expect campaign finance reform or pork-barrel spending to be strongly emphasized by McCain in the runup to November. Those are issues that McCain is passionate about, but they are controversial issues among his fellow Republicans. It would be safer for McCain to be the anti-tax candidate, the smaller government candidate, the personal liberties candidate...but does he really want to be any of those things? If not, he could find himself losing votes to Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. While McCain's vice presidential choice will likely appeal to some important base of the Republican party somewhat alienated by McCain, I'm not sure that alone will be sufficient to energize disaffected voters.
Although I hope we've got the most dirty politics of 2008 out of the way already, it is probably inevitable that McCain will be attacked on character issues just like Obama has been. McCain's marital history certainly makes for ugly reading; as much as I don't want to judge McCain the candidate based on what McCain the man did thirty years ago, I must admit that I think of Carol McCain just about every time I see Cindy McCain on TV now. I don't want to, but I do...that's the power of a sensationalistic story. I have no idea if McCain's personal life is going to become a big campaign issue or not, but I'm sure something similarly non-political will hit McCain over the head sooner or later. How well McCain is able to step out of his national security comfort zone to defend himself and win over skeptical voters could have a very big impact on the election.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Mike Gravel and the National Initiative for Democracy
Mike Gravel recently announced his retirement from active politics after Bob Barr became the Libertarian Party's presidential nominee. There will be no independent run from the colorful former senator from Alaska this year -- it seems Gravel will be spreading his message through books, the Internet, and other media from now on. He undoubtedly deserves the rest after his truly marathon presidential run. I don't think there's any question that Gravel enriched the presidential process. Above all else, he made us think. There may not be another person on this planet who has exactly the same set of political views that Gravel holds yet the Alaskan never seemed to hesitate to state his opinion in a debate or interview. Iran? It's no threat! Illegal immigration? It helps the economy! Democracy? The people need to take charge of things themselves! I don't agree with Gravel on a lot of issues, but I love how he made me think about common issues from a new perspective. In fact, it was rather hard to ignore Gravel at any event to which he was invited -- he was combative to the point of rudeness in the debates, the cantankerous old man par excellence. He would have made a most unlikely president, but many people who would never have voted for him will nonetheless miss seeing him on the campaign trail.
Mike Gravel's mission to bring direct democracy to America in a big way will surely continue. The National Initiative for Democracy aims to let the people play a much larger role in establishing policy than they currently can. In effect, Gravel and the Initiative want the people to become another branch of government equal to Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court. There is something undeniably appealing about making decisions for yourself rather than trusting someone else to make those decisions for you. I would definitely have liked to have been consulted about going to war with Iraq, for instance. I certainly no longer believe that elected representatives are "more qualified" than average people to make political decisions -- I refuse to accept that I myself, my friends, and my family are part of the "rabble" than cannot be trusted whilst Larry Craig, David Vitter, and others of their ilk are members of an "elite" who will make sound decisions even in times of crisis. The Craigs and the Vitters do still have an advantage over the average person, though, and it is a big one: they're professionals. Politics is their job. They go to meetings, attend hearings, and have advisers who are experts in various fields -- if they are still ignorant about the issues, it is entirely their own fault. The average person cannot focus on politics to the same extent and as such would struggle to make well-considered decisions when it comes to issues he or she is not that familiar with. The idea of giving the people a direct voice in politics still has some merit, but direct democracy would probably be most effective when it comes to "big picture" issues that tend to affect everyone.
It's fun to think of how the people might change government if they had the chance. I imagine the federal budget might look a little different after it was given the direct democracy treatment. Somehow, I can't imagine health care and education being underfunded. That doesn't mean defense spending would necessary be decimated (I suspect it would be reduced, however) because national security is on a lot of people's minds as well. I have a hard time imagining popular approval for billions of aid to Pakistan, especially since many people think Pakistan is the reason Bin Laden is still on the loose. In general, I suspect more attention would be paid to internal problems and less to foreign policy issues in a direct democracy; this would undoubtedly have both good and bad effects. America would perhaps no longer be an interventionist, but it could find itself in a position of weakness and vulnerability in the international sphere. Who is to say that the people wouldn't adjust, though? If foreign policy experts make the case for aid to Pakistan in terms anyone could understand and market the message directly to the people, perhaps that aid would continue even in a direct democracy. It's harder to say if people would always vote for policies they perceive would be in their economic best interest regardless of how such policies would affect other people and the economy as a whole. Would, for instance, the masses vote for a 75% income tax on the rich to pay for bread and circuses for themselves? Aristotle would probably say, "Yes." I concede that this is a danger zone, but it isn't because regular citizens are inherently greedier than politicians. The real problem would be that economics is a subject a lot of people are pretty uncomfortable with -- direct democracy is likely to fail if people are forced to make decisions without either knowledge or experience to guide them.
Although Mike Gravel thinks the federal government has been corrupted by corporate interests, he is not exactly arguing for its extermination. Rather, he sees the people as being a complement to the government -- direct democracy would in effect coexist with indirect democracy. Ideally, the people will make the government better and perhaps vice versa as well. The important thing is that the voice of the people will be heard on a national level. How the National Initiative intends to make this happen is somewhat peculiar. It sees the government and the people as fundamentally opposed so it doesn't seem to think that elected officials would ever support any idea to give the people any of their power. So the Initiative is collecting signatures and donations at the moment. Their big plan seems to be to amend the Constitution without the support of Congress or the state legislatures. Personally, I think this is a flawed strategy that has no constitutional basis. A better approach, in my opinion, would be to lend support to candidates who support the principles behind the Initiative so that they can change government from within. Perhaps the reason this idea has been rejected is because supporters of the Initiative think that only corporatists can win offices these days; personally, I'm not quite so cynical. If 50 million people are willing to "vote" in a National Initiative, why wouldn't they be equally willing to support pro-direct democracy candidates in legislature and congressional elections?
As always, Gravil is making me think. Thanks for everything, Mike.
Mike Gravel's mission to bring direct democracy to America in a big way will surely continue. The National Initiative for Democracy aims to let the people play a much larger role in establishing policy than they currently can. In effect, Gravel and the Initiative want the people to become another branch of government equal to Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court. There is something undeniably appealing about making decisions for yourself rather than trusting someone else to make those decisions for you. I would definitely have liked to have been consulted about going to war with Iraq, for instance. I certainly no longer believe that elected representatives are "more qualified" than average people to make political decisions -- I refuse to accept that I myself, my friends, and my family are part of the "rabble" than cannot be trusted whilst Larry Craig, David Vitter, and others of their ilk are members of an "elite" who will make sound decisions even in times of crisis. The Craigs and the Vitters do still have an advantage over the average person, though, and it is a big one: they're professionals. Politics is their job. They go to meetings, attend hearings, and have advisers who are experts in various fields -- if they are still ignorant about the issues, it is entirely their own fault. The average person cannot focus on politics to the same extent and as such would struggle to make well-considered decisions when it comes to issues he or she is not that familiar with. The idea of giving the people a direct voice in politics still has some merit, but direct democracy would probably be most effective when it comes to "big picture" issues that tend to affect everyone.
It's fun to think of how the people might change government if they had the chance. I imagine the federal budget might look a little different after it was given the direct democracy treatment. Somehow, I can't imagine health care and education being underfunded. That doesn't mean defense spending would necessary be decimated (I suspect it would be reduced, however) because national security is on a lot of people's minds as well. I have a hard time imagining popular approval for billions of aid to Pakistan, especially since many people think Pakistan is the reason Bin Laden is still on the loose. In general, I suspect more attention would be paid to internal problems and less to foreign policy issues in a direct democracy; this would undoubtedly have both good and bad effects. America would perhaps no longer be an interventionist, but it could find itself in a position of weakness and vulnerability in the international sphere. Who is to say that the people wouldn't adjust, though? If foreign policy experts make the case for aid to Pakistan in terms anyone could understand and market the message directly to the people, perhaps that aid would continue even in a direct democracy. It's harder to say if people would always vote for policies they perceive would be in their economic best interest regardless of how such policies would affect other people and the economy as a whole. Would, for instance, the masses vote for a 75% income tax on the rich to pay for bread and circuses for themselves? Aristotle would probably say, "Yes." I concede that this is a danger zone, but it isn't because regular citizens are inherently greedier than politicians. The real problem would be that economics is a subject a lot of people are pretty uncomfortable with -- direct democracy is likely to fail if people are forced to make decisions without either knowledge or experience to guide them.
Although Mike Gravel thinks the federal government has been corrupted by corporate interests, he is not exactly arguing for its extermination. Rather, he sees the people as being a complement to the government -- direct democracy would in effect coexist with indirect democracy. Ideally, the people will make the government better and perhaps vice versa as well. The important thing is that the voice of the people will be heard on a national level. How the National Initiative intends to make this happen is somewhat peculiar. It sees the government and the people as fundamentally opposed so it doesn't seem to think that elected officials would ever support any idea to give the people any of their power. So the Initiative is collecting signatures and donations at the moment. Their big plan seems to be to amend the Constitution without the support of Congress or the state legislatures. Personally, I think this is a flawed strategy that has no constitutional basis. A better approach, in my opinion, would be to lend support to candidates who support the principles behind the Initiative so that they can change government from within. Perhaps the reason this idea has been rejected is because supporters of the Initiative think that only corporatists can win offices these days; personally, I'm not quite so cynical. If 50 million people are willing to "vote" in a National Initiative, why wouldn't they be equally willing to support pro-direct democracy candidates in legislature and congressional elections?
As always, Gravil is making me think. Thanks for everything, Mike.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)