One theme of this election cycle so far is that televised debates have been absolutely critical in driving the polls. Good debating performances lifted Herman Cain and, subsequently, Newt Gingrich into frontrunner positions while a series of poor performances disrupted Rick Perry's campaign in a way it has never quite recovered from. In contrast, candidates running localized campaigns like Rick Santorum in Iowa and Jon Huntsman in New Hampshire have struggled to build support the old-fashioned way (though, to be fair, Huntsman is doing better in NH than Santorum is in IA).
As important as these events are, I imagine the candidates have something of a love-hate relationship with debates -- it can't be pleasant to be put under the microscope again and again, knowing any mistake you make will be magnified and broadcast far and wide. It's part of the process, to be sure, but 4-5 national debates a month has to be a tough schedule for all the candidates. OK, maybe not so much for Newt Gingrich...he absolutely seems to love debating. I can't come up with any other explanation as to why he's challenging the other Republican candidates to Lincoln-Douglas style debates -- he's even taking on Huntsman one on one despite the former Utah governor's lackluster national polling. Apart from Newt, though, I imagine most of the candidates are thinking to themselves, "Is there any way I can get out of some of these dang things?" For most, the political costs of not appearing in one or more of the remaining debates may well be too great -- after all, Republicans will actually begin casting ballots in January. There's not much time left to lose, and this is not the time to cut back. Still, if you were a Republican candidate for president and wanted to ditch a debate, there is an upcoming one in particular you might be tempted to dump.
It is set to take place on December 27th in Des Moines, Iowa. Nothing wrong with anything so far -- in fact, Iowa or New Hampshire is exactly where the candidates should be in the weeks leading up to the first caucuses and primary of the election season. No, what might give a potential debater pause is not the venue or the timing; instead, it's the moderator: Donald Trump. (Another thing to consider is that this debate will probably not have the same reach as many previous debates that have appeared on major cable news or broadcast networks -- it's being broadcast by ION and Newsmax.com.) Yes, that Donald Trump...real estate mogul, reality TV star, penner of many books, and perennial almost-candidate in presidential elections. Ron Paul, whose electoral chances Trump dismissed way back in February at CPAC, has already declared he won't be attending the Newsmax/ION debate, apparently entirely due to his disdain for Mr. Trump. Jon Huntsman has followed suit (he's not really competing in Iowa anyway). It's easy enough to understand their reluctance -- Trump is always self-promotional and bigger than life, hardly the sort to share a stage. His embrace of birtherism and repeated threats to run as an independent in 2012 place him outside the Republican mainstream (oddly enough, Paul and Huntsman aren't that comfortable in that mainstream either, albeit for different reasons). Nonetheless, I feel that skipping the Trump debate is probably a mistake for both Paul and Huntsman...and would also be a mistake for any other Republican thinking of following in their footsteps.
Here's my thesis in a nutshell: it's bad to be invisible in politics. What debates do is bring attention to political candidates from diverse national audiences. True, Ion Television isn't known for political programming and it isn't available in every household -- but it is available to tens of millions of potential viewers and this debate is sure to inspire interest because of the presence of the Donald. As for Trump himself, let's not forget that he had a brief moment in the sun when it appeared he might be a notable presidential contender himself. Ultimately he opted not to run, but that had more to do with his lack of interest in the presidency than the polling. Snubbing the Trump debate is snubbing Trump supporters as well. Before the Trump "campaign" got knee-deep in birther conspiracy theorizing, its signature issue was America's trade policy with China. Right now, neither party is a particularly comfortable fit for China trade skeptics -- this is a group of voters that could very well be tuning in to the Trump debate with an open mind, and I strongly suspect China issues will be brought up by Trump or other moderators. Perhaps Paul and Huntsman are already considered to be too pro-China to win this group of voters over anyway: Huntsman of course is a former ambassador to China while Paul's outspoken support of free trade and noninterventionism leave little to no room for him to criticize China over anything, be it currency manipulation, unfair trade, the one child policy, suppression of religious and ethnic minorities, etc. Still, their absence from the debate will leave different perspectives unheard -- perhaps no one will make the case that trade with China benefits the US as much, if not more, than the PRC. Perhaps no one will make the claim that America's economic ills have more to do with poorly though out domestic policies than with anything to do with China. If nothing else, skipping the debate makes Huntsman and Paul less visible figures in the presidential race. When you consider that Huntsman is getting left out of some debates because of his poor polling numbers and that Paul isn't being invited to the Republican Jewish Coalition's forum this week because of his positions on Israel, it appears that both candidates face some danger of being overshadowed in the pivotal month leading up the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. Certainly, if you have to skip a debate this is not the worst one to skip...but I don't think not showing up is the way to win the presidency unless you're named William McKinley.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Thursday, November 17, 2011
The Republican Electorate's Wandering Eye
The race to determine the Republican nominee for president in 2012 has been eventful and suspenseful. Even with the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary just around the corner, there are still several candidates who have a decent chance of winning the nomination. Arguably, this is less a testament to the quality of the competitors than it is a reflection of a divided and indecisive Republican electorate. While Mitt Romney has been a constant force near the top of most polls, other candidates have had their moments and then fallen from grace. The latest development appears to be a sudden jump for Newt Gingrich and a corresponding fall for a Herman Cain candidacy beset by scandal and foreign policy gaffes.
As a political observer, I much prefer a nomination process like what we're currently seeing with the Republicans than, say, what we saw in 2000 with the Democrats simply because it makes for more interesting theater. In that year, Al Gore was essentially handed the nomination -- Bill Bradley was a spirited primary opponent, but voters seemed more interested in a coronation than a contest. As sitting vice president, Gore was the default choice, and he won. In 2012, Mitt Romney is the closest thing the Republicans have to a default option because of his name recognition and strong organization carried over from his 2008 campaign. Potential voters have balked at coronating the former Massachusetts governor early, however. Their reasons vary: some can't overcome Romney's support for a health insurance mandate at the state level despite his declared opposition to a federal mandate, others despise him for flip-flopping on on numerous issues (including abortion), and some undoubtedly are prejudiced against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of which Mitt is a member. If voters do end up eschewing the default option, though, where will they go?
That question still cannot be answered. Other candidates have warts of their own, of course, and I think the pivotal question of the Republican primary season concerns whether or not the anybody-but-Romney crowd can coalesce around just one person-who-is-not-Romney. To do so, they will have to compromise. Newt Gingrich has become the latest frontrunner, but I think he's undoubtedly been buoyed by the simple fact that the closets that hold the skeletons acquired during his long political career haven't been aired out in public for a while. They certainly will be now, and Gingrich's good debate performances may not be sufficient to protect him from all the scrutiny. There are uncomfortable similarities between Gingrich and Romney as well -- both, for instance, have gone on record as supporting individual mandates for health insurance in at least some circumstances, and both are mistrusted by social conservatives (Gingrich because of his well-documented personal behavior, Romney because of his extensive flip-flopping on social issues). It will be something of a bitter pill to swallow if anti-Romney voters end up selecting the alternative candidate perhaps most similar to Romney due to a lack of options. If not Gingrich, though, who can they turn to? Governor Perry hardly seems like a credible threat to President Obama due to his poor rhetorical skills -- it's true that George W. Bush had speaking issues as well, but he also had the luxury of taking on charisma-challenged candidates named Al Gore and John Kerry. No such luck for Rick Perry. Herman Cain's lack of political experience, charisma, and bold ideas made him the closest thing to a Tea Party candidate in the race, but the sexual harassment accusations levied against them appear reasonably credible and the fact that they are multiple makes the issue harder to dismiss...Cain has also very obviously been learning as he goes when it comes to foreign policy. Ron Paul is looking increasingly like a frontrunner and perhaps a likely winner in Iowa, but he can only win the nomination if primary voters focus almost exclusively on economic issues...he can hardly expect to convert Republicans en masse into non-interventionists and drug war skeptics prior to the primaries. At this point, it may be too late for candidates lagging behind the famous five to make a serious run of it -- Rick Santorum SHOULD be wiping up all the social conservative votes and Jon Huntsman SHOULD be siphoning moderate voters from Mitt Romney and slightly libertarian-leaning voters from Ron Paul, for instance, but because so few voters want to risk backing a losing horse they're probably destined to languish near the bottom of the polls. Bachmann seems to be in the same boat...she was a top tier candidate once upon a time herself, but now she's just as big of a long shot. The Ames straw poll feels like it took place years ago rather than just a few months back. Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer are beyond long shot status at this point -- not being invited to most of the debates seems to have doomed their candidacies, but both could resurface as third party or independent ballot options later on.
Ultimately, it may come down to whether or not Republican primary voters opt to pick their favorite candidate or the candidate they think is most likely to beat Obama. I can see Romney, Huntsman, and Paul attracting some voters who typically pull the lever for Democrats -- the other candidates will have a more difficult time doing that. However, nominating a Republican candidate who can't count on strong conservative support may dim general election turnout or help fuel third party and independent candidates. There's enough dissatisfaction on both sides to suggest 2012 might not just be about Democrats and Republicans.
As a political observer, I much prefer a nomination process like what we're currently seeing with the Republicans than, say, what we saw in 2000 with the Democrats simply because it makes for more interesting theater. In that year, Al Gore was essentially handed the nomination -- Bill Bradley was a spirited primary opponent, but voters seemed more interested in a coronation than a contest. As sitting vice president, Gore was the default choice, and he won. In 2012, Mitt Romney is the closest thing the Republicans have to a default option because of his name recognition and strong organization carried over from his 2008 campaign. Potential voters have balked at coronating the former Massachusetts governor early, however. Their reasons vary: some can't overcome Romney's support for a health insurance mandate at the state level despite his declared opposition to a federal mandate, others despise him for flip-flopping on on numerous issues (including abortion), and some undoubtedly are prejudiced against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of which Mitt is a member. If voters do end up eschewing the default option, though, where will they go?
That question still cannot be answered. Other candidates have warts of their own, of course, and I think the pivotal question of the Republican primary season concerns whether or not the anybody-but-Romney crowd can coalesce around just one person-who-is-not-Romney. To do so, they will have to compromise. Newt Gingrich has become the latest frontrunner, but I think he's undoubtedly been buoyed by the simple fact that the closets that hold the skeletons acquired during his long political career haven't been aired out in public for a while. They certainly will be now, and Gingrich's good debate performances may not be sufficient to protect him from all the scrutiny. There are uncomfortable similarities between Gingrich and Romney as well -- both, for instance, have gone on record as supporting individual mandates for health insurance in at least some circumstances, and both are mistrusted by social conservatives (Gingrich because of his well-documented personal behavior, Romney because of his extensive flip-flopping on social issues). It will be something of a bitter pill to swallow if anti-Romney voters end up selecting the alternative candidate perhaps most similar to Romney due to a lack of options. If not Gingrich, though, who can they turn to? Governor Perry hardly seems like a credible threat to President Obama due to his poor rhetorical skills -- it's true that George W. Bush had speaking issues as well, but he also had the luxury of taking on charisma-challenged candidates named Al Gore and John Kerry. No such luck for Rick Perry. Herman Cain's lack of political experience, charisma, and bold ideas made him the closest thing to a Tea Party candidate in the race, but the sexual harassment accusations levied against them appear reasonably credible and the fact that they are multiple makes the issue harder to dismiss...Cain has also very obviously been learning as he goes when it comes to foreign policy. Ron Paul is looking increasingly like a frontrunner and perhaps a likely winner in Iowa, but he can only win the nomination if primary voters focus almost exclusively on economic issues...he can hardly expect to convert Republicans en masse into non-interventionists and drug war skeptics prior to the primaries. At this point, it may be too late for candidates lagging behind the famous five to make a serious run of it -- Rick Santorum SHOULD be wiping up all the social conservative votes and Jon Huntsman SHOULD be siphoning moderate voters from Mitt Romney and slightly libertarian-leaning voters from Ron Paul, for instance, but because so few voters want to risk backing a losing horse they're probably destined to languish near the bottom of the polls. Bachmann seems to be in the same boat...she was a top tier candidate once upon a time herself, but now she's just as big of a long shot. The Ames straw poll feels like it took place years ago rather than just a few months back. Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer are beyond long shot status at this point -- not being invited to most of the debates seems to have doomed their candidacies, but both could resurface as third party or independent ballot options later on.
Ultimately, it may come down to whether or not Republican primary voters opt to pick their favorite candidate or the candidate they think is most likely to beat Obama. I can see Romney, Huntsman, and Paul attracting some voters who typically pull the lever for Democrats -- the other candidates will have a more difficult time doing that. However, nominating a Republican candidate who can't count on strong conservative support may dim general election turnout or help fuel third party and independent candidates. There's enough dissatisfaction on both sides to suggest 2012 might not just be about Democrats and Republicans.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
At a Crossroads at the Western Republican Debate
The Republican Party will soon begin the process of selecting its 2012 nominee for president in earnest. After numerous debates, countless speeches, and millions of dollars in advertising, one of the frontrunners remains Mitt Romney. He's been the great survivor of the race: he started on top and he still has a fine chance to finish on top despite some bumps along the road. Other challengers -- Trump, Bachmann, Perry -- have seemingly already seen their moments in the sun come and go. At the moment, Herman Cain seems to be coalescing the anti-Romney vote around himself, but no one knows if Cain will be able to avoid running into the same brick wall that the other Romney alternatives smashed into. With the debate season ending and the primary season soon to begin, the Western Republican Debate at Las Vegas offered the lagging candidates one more opportunity to upset the apple cart that Romney and Cain are coasting on.
By and large, they took that opportunity. Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan was criticized by all -- Ron Paul called it regressive, Michele Bachmann accused it of introducing a value-added tax to the United States, and Rick Perry claimed to have something flatter and fairer up his sleeves. Mitt Romney faced familiar criticisms from this election cycle as well as from the last one: Rick Santorum pointed out that voters had no reason to trust that the person who signed Romneycare into law in Massachusetts would work to overturn Obamacare as a president, Newt Gingrich adduced Romneycare as an example of government overreach and chided Romney for failing to address the rising costs of health care, and Perry continued to contrast the jobs created in Texas during his reign vs the jobs created (or not created) in Massachusetts under Romney while also attacking Mitt for hiring illegal immigrants to work on his personal property. It was a vigorous and sometimes unfriendly debate, but when the smoke had cleared I reflected on one reason why Romney and Cain are ahead: they're unflappable. Both men always respond when they're attacked, but they never seem to strain to answer every specific criticism...instead, they just say what they want to say, and they generally have plenty to say. Cain kept defending 9-9-9; Romney maintained his usual line on his health care plan being appropriate for Massachusetts but not the nation as a whole and tried to turn Perry's attacks back towards the Texas governor. Even though some of the attacks last night had substance, Santorum and Perry ended up looking bad (and even drew some boos) by being so aggressive towards candidates who exuded calmness and confidence.
I suspect Herman Cain was hurt in the debate more than Romney simply because Romney supporters have likely heard all the criticisms directed towards their candidate before. Cain supporters may not have quite made their minds up about 9-9-9 just yet and may well not have realized that their candidate supported TARP when it was proposed. Like Romney, Cain seems to have a tendency to walk back on past remarks: he not only has changed his mind on TARP, but he also insisted that his recent remarks regarding the possibility of bargaining with al-Qaeda in a hostage crisis had been misconstrued. (I think what really happened is that Cain dared to suggest in an earlier interview that there might be exceptions to the conventional wisdom of "never negotiating with terrorists" but realized he'd be skewered over it by the establishment if he stood by his remarks. In truth, there are no "nevers" in government, just in campaigns.) Cain is a good candidate for the times -- he has focused on business and economic issues at a time when the economy is struggling -- but if he loses trust among voters when it comes to his bedrock issues his other weaknesses (most notably his lack of comfort with foreign policy issues) make him very vulnerable. I suspect as well that his lack of political experience is something many establishment Republicans can't get past even though it undoubtedly helps him with Tea Party supporters who often have an instinctive distrust for career politicians already tainted by Washington.
If Cain falters, where does the anti-Romney vote go? Time is probably running out for Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann, two of the best attack dogs of this debate season. With Bachmann in particular, I've been surprised how her strong performances in several debates have generally failed to bring her polling dividends. I suspect she's been fact-checked to death: her tendency to speak off the cuff leads her to make frequent factual errors, many of them trivial, which in turn makes for excellent fodder for the media. Ultimately, who would really want to vote for a person if you can't trust what she is saying? If she's too lazy to do get her facts in order before she presents them, that makes one wonder if she's willing to do the hard work the presidency requires. Nonetheless, I thought her attacking of Rick Perry regarding the HPV vaccine mandate in Texas and her criticisms of Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan in the last two debates were pivotal moments -- the woman really does possess rhetorical skill and I have no doubt that she has influenced the outcome of the race no matter what happens from here on out. If she just combined those debating skills with discipline, I suspect she'd be bringing in more campaign dollars and doing better in polling right now. That said, she's also inconsistent...the time she wasted on vague populist appeals to moms and on bashing President Obama for cheap applause made her something of an afterthought in the Nevada debate. Santorum is also good at debating, but he can come across as mean and rude. More importantly, perhaps, he's the social conservative candidate at a time when social conservatism seems to be on the wane. That doesn't necessarily indicate the death of an ideology; rather, I think even social conservatives are more concerned with the economy right now than with other issues.
Newt Gingrich may have the best shot to "do a McCain" and leap into a frontrunner position from the middle of a crowded pack. He always comes across as knowledgeable in the debates, and he has anecdotes from decades of legislative experience to draw on at any time...he has a knack for sounding like a guy who has thought at length about whatever he's talking about and, in contrast to Bachmann, he actually seems to like doing his homework. To this point, the other candidates have had little reason to attack Gingrich...but there's where the problem could be. Romney slapped back at Gingrich's criticisms of Romneycare by pointing out Newt's previous support for the individual mandate -- that was effective, but there are more skeletons in Gingrich's closet. If his candidacy picks up steam, he'll have to discuss the ethics violation that cost him $300,000 and his trouble marital history. Many people still think "scandal" when they hear Newt Gingrich's name. Indeed, anyone having such a long legislative record is generally quite attackable on a number of fronts -- Gingrich's personal scandals just make it harder for him to survive intense scrutiny.
The two Texans in the debate, Rick Perry and Ron Paul, get my nod for "most improved debaters." Both men have had their moments of verbal fumbling in previous debates, but both looked sharper in Las Vegas. Not so long ago, Perry was THE frontrunner, but he's well-behind Romney and Cain in polling at the moment. Flat debate performances and the lack of an inspired message have dogged the Texas governor. These are still his biggest problems after last night -- I thought he performed better than in previous debates, but that's because he was so bad in those other ones! He's still struggling to find an effective message and is using attacks on other candidates (well, mainly just one: Romney) for cover. Increased oil and gas production could produce jobs and lower energy costs, but it's hardly the cure for all of America's economic problems seems ludicrous...nonetheless, "Drill, drill, drill" seems to be the sum total of Perry's jobs plan. While I do think Governor Romney's economic record and personal penchant for hiring illegal immigrants are valid points for criticism, Governor Perry looked a little desperate to find any attack that would really "stick" and resonate. While Perry is trying to regain support he has lost, Congressman Paul's steady polling suggests he is doing a great job of holding on to his core supporters but not bringing in enough new support to rival Romney and Cain. While some of Paul's views, particularly his noninterventionist approach to foreign policy, are outside of the Republican mainstream, I also think one reason Ron hasn't attracted more support is because he is not a great speaker: he has a marked tendency to ramble on and go on tangents instead of focusing on the subject at hand. In Las Vegas, we saw a more focused Ron Paul: he didn't mumble, he didn't ramble, and he answered questions with vigor and clarity. That doesn't mean the audience liked everything he had to say; for instance, there were boos when he mentioned detainees in Guantanamo being held without charge. The hardest votes for Paul to win belong to those who fear his policies would make the country and the world less safe, especially considering that many of other candidates pander to these voters excessively. I find it a pity that there isn't someone in the race who isn't a strict noninterventionist like Paul but would still be willing to cut defense spending in a targeted way. I don't really think that something like removing troops from Germany at this point would be that controversial among US voters, but the other candidates are so frightened of being accused of weakening America's defenses that all defense cuts are placed off the table. That makes deficit reduction that much harder. One good thing for Congressman Paul is that foreign policy is probably not going to be voters' top concern in this election (barring a catastrophe in the next year at least) -- if it were, I doubt Herman Cain would be flying so high right now. The challenge for Paul will be to make sure that Republican voters realize where they share common ground with him: a great example of this was Paul's defense of Nevadans' right to decide whether or not they want Yucca Mountain to be used as a nuclear waste storage site. Paul's views on cutting unnecessary and harmful governmental departments are shared by many non-libertarian conservatives as well.
One invited candidate failed to show up at the Western Republican Debate due to his disagreement with Nevada's attempt to hold its caucuses early which made it difficult for New Hampshire to hold its traditionally early primaries (by state law they cannot be held within a week of a similar contest). Sadly for him, I'm not sure that many people noticed his absence. Jon Huntsman's one state strategy centered around New Hampshire is marginalizing him in the rest of the country -- even worse, in that one state Mitt Romney is still likely to prevail! I'm sure the Granite State will take note of Huntsman's sacrifice, but Nevadans and Republicans from other states may not be impressed.
By and large, they took that opportunity. Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan was criticized by all -- Ron Paul called it regressive, Michele Bachmann accused it of introducing a value-added tax to the United States, and Rick Perry claimed to have something flatter and fairer up his sleeves. Mitt Romney faced familiar criticisms from this election cycle as well as from the last one: Rick Santorum pointed out that voters had no reason to trust that the person who signed Romneycare into law in Massachusetts would work to overturn Obamacare as a president, Newt Gingrich adduced Romneycare as an example of government overreach and chided Romney for failing to address the rising costs of health care, and Perry continued to contrast the jobs created in Texas during his reign vs the jobs created (or not created) in Massachusetts under Romney while also attacking Mitt for hiring illegal immigrants to work on his personal property. It was a vigorous and sometimes unfriendly debate, but when the smoke had cleared I reflected on one reason why Romney and Cain are ahead: they're unflappable. Both men always respond when they're attacked, but they never seem to strain to answer every specific criticism...instead, they just say what they want to say, and they generally have plenty to say. Cain kept defending 9-9-9; Romney maintained his usual line on his health care plan being appropriate for Massachusetts but not the nation as a whole and tried to turn Perry's attacks back towards the Texas governor. Even though some of the attacks last night had substance, Santorum and Perry ended up looking bad (and even drew some boos) by being so aggressive towards candidates who exuded calmness and confidence.
I suspect Herman Cain was hurt in the debate more than Romney simply because Romney supporters have likely heard all the criticisms directed towards their candidate before. Cain supporters may not have quite made their minds up about 9-9-9 just yet and may well not have realized that their candidate supported TARP when it was proposed. Like Romney, Cain seems to have a tendency to walk back on past remarks: he not only has changed his mind on TARP, but he also insisted that his recent remarks regarding the possibility of bargaining with al-Qaeda in a hostage crisis had been misconstrued. (I think what really happened is that Cain dared to suggest in an earlier interview that there might be exceptions to the conventional wisdom of "never negotiating with terrorists" but realized he'd be skewered over it by the establishment if he stood by his remarks. In truth, there are no "nevers" in government, just in campaigns.) Cain is a good candidate for the times -- he has focused on business and economic issues at a time when the economy is struggling -- but if he loses trust among voters when it comes to his bedrock issues his other weaknesses (most notably his lack of comfort with foreign policy issues) make him very vulnerable. I suspect as well that his lack of political experience is something many establishment Republicans can't get past even though it undoubtedly helps him with Tea Party supporters who often have an instinctive distrust for career politicians already tainted by Washington.
If Cain falters, where does the anti-Romney vote go? Time is probably running out for Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann, two of the best attack dogs of this debate season. With Bachmann in particular, I've been surprised how her strong performances in several debates have generally failed to bring her polling dividends. I suspect she's been fact-checked to death: her tendency to speak off the cuff leads her to make frequent factual errors, many of them trivial, which in turn makes for excellent fodder for the media. Ultimately, who would really want to vote for a person if you can't trust what she is saying? If she's too lazy to do get her facts in order before she presents them, that makes one wonder if she's willing to do the hard work the presidency requires. Nonetheless, I thought her attacking of Rick Perry regarding the HPV vaccine mandate in Texas and her criticisms of Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan in the last two debates were pivotal moments -- the woman really does possess rhetorical skill and I have no doubt that she has influenced the outcome of the race no matter what happens from here on out. If she just combined those debating skills with discipline, I suspect she'd be bringing in more campaign dollars and doing better in polling right now. That said, she's also inconsistent...the time she wasted on vague populist appeals to moms and on bashing President Obama for cheap applause made her something of an afterthought in the Nevada debate. Santorum is also good at debating, but he can come across as mean and rude. More importantly, perhaps, he's the social conservative candidate at a time when social conservatism seems to be on the wane. That doesn't necessarily indicate the death of an ideology; rather, I think even social conservatives are more concerned with the economy right now than with other issues.
Newt Gingrich may have the best shot to "do a McCain" and leap into a frontrunner position from the middle of a crowded pack. He always comes across as knowledgeable in the debates, and he has anecdotes from decades of legislative experience to draw on at any time...he has a knack for sounding like a guy who has thought at length about whatever he's talking about and, in contrast to Bachmann, he actually seems to like doing his homework. To this point, the other candidates have had little reason to attack Gingrich...but there's where the problem could be. Romney slapped back at Gingrich's criticisms of Romneycare by pointing out Newt's previous support for the individual mandate -- that was effective, but there are more skeletons in Gingrich's closet. If his candidacy picks up steam, he'll have to discuss the ethics violation that cost him $300,000 and his trouble marital history. Many people still think "scandal" when they hear Newt Gingrich's name. Indeed, anyone having such a long legislative record is generally quite attackable on a number of fronts -- Gingrich's personal scandals just make it harder for him to survive intense scrutiny.
The two Texans in the debate, Rick Perry and Ron Paul, get my nod for "most improved debaters." Both men have had their moments of verbal fumbling in previous debates, but both looked sharper in Las Vegas. Not so long ago, Perry was THE frontrunner, but he's well-behind Romney and Cain in polling at the moment. Flat debate performances and the lack of an inspired message have dogged the Texas governor. These are still his biggest problems after last night -- I thought he performed better than in previous debates, but that's because he was so bad in those other ones! He's still struggling to find an effective message and is using attacks on other candidates (well, mainly just one: Romney) for cover. Increased oil and gas production could produce jobs and lower energy costs, but it's hardly the cure for all of America's economic problems seems ludicrous...nonetheless, "Drill, drill, drill" seems to be the sum total of Perry's jobs plan. While I do think Governor Romney's economic record and personal penchant for hiring illegal immigrants are valid points for criticism, Governor Perry looked a little desperate to find any attack that would really "stick" and resonate. While Perry is trying to regain support he has lost, Congressman Paul's steady polling suggests he is doing a great job of holding on to his core supporters but not bringing in enough new support to rival Romney and Cain. While some of Paul's views, particularly his noninterventionist approach to foreign policy, are outside of the Republican mainstream, I also think one reason Ron hasn't attracted more support is because he is not a great speaker: he has a marked tendency to ramble on and go on tangents instead of focusing on the subject at hand. In Las Vegas, we saw a more focused Ron Paul: he didn't mumble, he didn't ramble, and he answered questions with vigor and clarity. That doesn't mean the audience liked everything he had to say; for instance, there were boos when he mentioned detainees in Guantanamo being held without charge. The hardest votes for Paul to win belong to those who fear his policies would make the country and the world less safe, especially considering that many of other candidates pander to these voters excessively. I find it a pity that there isn't someone in the race who isn't a strict noninterventionist like Paul but would still be willing to cut defense spending in a targeted way. I don't really think that something like removing troops from Germany at this point would be that controversial among US voters, but the other candidates are so frightened of being accused of weakening America's defenses that all defense cuts are placed off the table. That makes deficit reduction that much harder. One good thing for Congressman Paul is that foreign policy is probably not going to be voters' top concern in this election (barring a catastrophe in the next year at least) -- if it were, I doubt Herman Cain would be flying so high right now. The challenge for Paul will be to make sure that Republican voters realize where they share common ground with him: a great example of this was Paul's defense of Nevadans' right to decide whether or not they want Yucca Mountain to be used as a nuclear waste storage site. Paul's views on cutting unnecessary and harmful governmental departments are shared by many non-libertarian conservatives as well.
One invited candidate failed to show up at the Western Republican Debate due to his disagreement with Nevada's attempt to hold its caucuses early which made it difficult for New Hampshire to hold its traditionally early primaries (by state law they cannot be held within a week of a similar contest). Sadly for him, I'm not sure that many people noticed his absence. Jon Huntsman's one state strategy centered around New Hampshire is marginalizing him in the rest of the country -- even worse, in that one state Mitt Romney is still likely to prevail! I'm sure the Granite State will take note of Huntsman's sacrifice, but Nevadans and Republicans from other states may not be impressed.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Are the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street Two Sides of the Same Coin?
It's tempting to view the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements as popular responses to the mortgage crisis and its lingering aftereffects. Under this analysis, the movements differ most sharply in the targets of their rage: the Tea Party of course focused its ire at the government, which taxed them too much already yet failed to use its massive revenues responsibly, while Occupy Wall Street's anger is directed towards big business, especially the financial institutions which created the financial house of cards based on mortgages which came crashing down in 2008. There are certainly similarities in how the two movements have developed: in particular, it's interesting to watch mainstream Democratic politicians rush to express solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street protesters just as many establishment Republicans were quick to declare themselves Tea Party supporters. I wouldn't be surprised to see the president and other prominent Democrats symbolically "occupy" Wall Street during the 2012 campaign, probably long after the original protests have petered out...but I have my doubts that the OWS supporters are really going to turn out to be loyal Obama Democrats, just as I'm skeptical that the Tea Party would rally around Mitt Romney if he were to gain the Republican nomination for president.
What the Tea Party meant politically going into the 2010 midterm elections was fairly clear: Tea partiers were fed up with the status quo and were as eager to primary out incumbent Republicans who didn't share their principles as they were to vote out incumbent Democrats in general elections. Policy-wise, the Tea Party wants the government to tax less and spend less. The political impact that Occupy Wall Street will have in 2012 and beyond is much less clear, though perhaps that will change as the movement matures. Indeed, since OWS is at this point directing protests against businesses rather than the government, perhaps its biggest impact will be to change how financial institutions operate and value their relationships with their customers. Could a Bank of America walk back on its proposed fees for debit card users, for instance? I think a lot of Americans want the big banks to show humility given that many of them would not exist today without taxpayer support and considering that the larger American economy is still struggling. Many may not realize that some of the banks that are raising fees are also struggling themselves: Bank of America has lost money (billions) in three of the last four quarters, while Regions Financial last made an annual profit in 2007. Still, it's not unreasonable to expect banks to make money from their core lending operations and not nickel and dime the customers who provide them the capital they need to make loans. The more banks view their customers and the taxpayers at large as prey, the more mass resentment their behavior will spur.
What kinds of political changes would Occupy Wall Street like to see? Increasing regulations on the banks might be one plank in an OWS platform, but it's hard to imagine another big change in finance regulation being implemented so soon after the passing of Dodd-Frank. Arguably, the protests on Wall Street stand as an indictment of Dodd-Frank -- the protesters don't seem to think it was sufficient. Some, for instance, would like to see criminal charges brought against people they perceive to have "engineered" the crisis. Personally, I've always felt the financial crisis had more to do with incompetence and shortsightedness than criminal intent, and BOA's current financial situation just reinforces that view: bad banks are bad banks even if you bail them out. While we may never a Bernie Madoff type duly chastised and sent away to prison, there are going to be lawsuits galore...Bank of America for one is facing a whopping $10 billion suit from AIG even after agreeing to an $8.5 billion settlement with other embittered investors. Whether the big banks should continue to exist in their current form is another issue (I for one don't think they should), but they are being punished for their bad behavior to a degree. Another policy change that OWS supporters might rally around is increased taxes on businesses and the wealthy. This will also be a difficult change to affect, particularly as it pits the Tea Party and OWS directly against one another -- whenever you have one energized group of people who believe something is an absolute good and another energized group that believes it to be an absolute evil, there is no common ground to be found.
So perhaps OWS won't rewrite the laws...they could at least shake up an election or two, right? After all, the success of the Tea Party in 2010 hasn't actually lead to lower taxes -- it just managed to strongly change the makeup of the House of Representatives. What President Obama and the rest of the Democratic establishment have to be hoping for is that Occupy Wall Street support will translate into more votes for Democrats. Tea Party supporters found many incumbent Republicans to be too tainted by the system to deserve their votes -- I suspect OWS supporters will similarly look askance at mainstream Democrats they perceived as being beholden to Wall Street. However, they may find their own insurgent Democrats or even third party candidates to support. I'm particularly interested in seeing whether a candidate like Elizabeth Warren is embraced by the OWS movement. Her message seems to fit the mood of the movement and the fact that her background isn't in politics is reminiscent of some Tea Party candidates, but at the same time she does have ties to the political establishment...but for Republican opposition to her being named head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, she'd be a part of the Obama administration right now, and she's already out-fundraising an incumbent Massachusetts senator. If people like Warren become the political face of Occupy Wall Street, I think this will bode well for President Obama and other prominent Democratic candidates in the next election cycle.
What the Tea Party meant politically going into the 2010 midterm elections was fairly clear: Tea partiers were fed up with the status quo and were as eager to primary out incumbent Republicans who didn't share their principles as they were to vote out incumbent Democrats in general elections. Policy-wise, the Tea Party wants the government to tax less and spend less. The political impact that Occupy Wall Street will have in 2012 and beyond is much less clear, though perhaps that will change as the movement matures. Indeed, since OWS is at this point directing protests against businesses rather than the government, perhaps its biggest impact will be to change how financial institutions operate and value their relationships with their customers. Could a Bank of America walk back on its proposed fees for debit card users, for instance? I think a lot of Americans want the big banks to show humility given that many of them would not exist today without taxpayer support and considering that the larger American economy is still struggling. Many may not realize that some of the banks that are raising fees are also struggling themselves: Bank of America has lost money (billions) in three of the last four quarters, while Regions Financial last made an annual profit in 2007. Still, it's not unreasonable to expect banks to make money from their core lending operations and not nickel and dime the customers who provide them the capital they need to make loans. The more banks view their customers and the taxpayers at large as prey, the more mass resentment their behavior will spur.
What kinds of political changes would Occupy Wall Street like to see? Increasing regulations on the banks might be one plank in an OWS platform, but it's hard to imagine another big change in finance regulation being implemented so soon after the passing of Dodd-Frank. Arguably, the protests on Wall Street stand as an indictment of Dodd-Frank -- the protesters don't seem to think it was sufficient. Some, for instance, would like to see criminal charges brought against people they perceive to have "engineered" the crisis. Personally, I've always felt the financial crisis had more to do with incompetence and shortsightedness than criminal intent, and BOA's current financial situation just reinforces that view: bad banks are bad banks even if you bail them out. While we may never a Bernie Madoff type duly chastised and sent away to prison, there are going to be lawsuits galore...Bank of America for one is facing a whopping $10 billion suit from AIG even after agreeing to an $8.5 billion settlement with other embittered investors. Whether the big banks should continue to exist in their current form is another issue (I for one don't think they should), but they are being punished for their bad behavior to a degree. Another policy change that OWS supporters might rally around is increased taxes on businesses and the wealthy. This will also be a difficult change to affect, particularly as it pits the Tea Party and OWS directly against one another -- whenever you have one energized group of people who believe something is an absolute good and another energized group that believes it to be an absolute evil, there is no common ground to be found.
So perhaps OWS won't rewrite the laws...they could at least shake up an election or two, right? After all, the success of the Tea Party in 2010 hasn't actually lead to lower taxes -- it just managed to strongly change the makeup of the House of Representatives. What President Obama and the rest of the Democratic establishment have to be hoping for is that Occupy Wall Street support will translate into more votes for Democrats. Tea Party supporters found many incumbent Republicans to be too tainted by the system to deserve their votes -- I suspect OWS supporters will similarly look askance at mainstream Democrats they perceived as being beholden to Wall Street. However, they may find their own insurgent Democrats or even third party candidates to support. I'm particularly interested in seeing whether a candidate like Elizabeth Warren is embraced by the OWS movement. Her message seems to fit the mood of the movement and the fact that her background isn't in politics is reminiscent of some Tea Party candidates, but at the same time she does have ties to the political establishment...but for Republican opposition to her being named head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, she'd be a part of the Obama administration right now, and she's already out-fundraising an incumbent Massachusetts senator. If people like Warren become the political face of Occupy Wall Street, I think this will bode well for President Obama and other prominent Democratic candidates in the next election cycle.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Don't Fear: It's Mitt Romney!
Of all the politicians currently seeking the Republican nomination for president, Mitt Romney is the one who I've come think of as the candidate who is most likely to both win the nomination yet proceed to lose against Barack Obama in the general election. His deep pockets, strong organization, and high recognition among voters let him hit the ground running -- he has been the frontrunner for the Republican nomination from day one. Although recent entrant Rick Perry has been leading Romney in the latest few polls, the newest kid on the block often polls well...the Texas governor will need some strong debate performances to maintain this momentum. If he doesn't, I think it's likely the polling will put Mitt right back on top again; after all, that's where he's been in most of the polls conducted over the past couple of years. Indeed, I have no problem imagining Romney beating Perry or Bachmann or Paul; it is his chances against President Obama that I wonder most about.
With the president's approval ratings continuing to weaken and the economy mired in a state of ugly stagnancy, Obama ought to be the type of opponent that Republican candidates would want to face head-to-head in a general election. That they likely don't relish this matchup against the incumbent more has much to do with Obama's Romney-like qualities: he's a smooth speaker, incredibly well-funded, and supported by an extremely strong campaign organization carried over from 2008. Obama and Romney have something else in common, of course: both were executives who became associated with health care reform plans that instituted individual mandates requiring the uninsured to purchase health insurance in order to avoid fines. Obama as president signed 2010's Affordable Care Act into law which remains his major legislative achievement thus far into his first term. In 2006, Romney as governor of Massachusetts signed an Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care. While Romney publicly opposes the ACA, he has not repudiated the Massachusetts bill, arguing instead that it was the right solution in Massachusetts though it wouldn't necessarily be a good fit for other states. While this point of view may appeal to states' rights supporters, Romney has essentially been forced to defend the concept of the individual mandate which is probably the most disliked aspect of both Obamacare and Romneycare. While the other Republican candidates have the rhetorical room to attack the individual mandate as an affront to personal liberty, Romney is now too linked with the individual mandate to criticize it too deeply. For all his stated dislike for Obamacare, Governor Romney is philosophically defending an important aspect of the legislation whenever he argues the individual mandate was necessary and helpful in Massachusetts. Obama's first term has not brought major change apart from health care reform -- I have no doubt that a President Romney would have sought to extend the Bush tax cuts, reform the financial sector in some way as a response to the mortgage crisis, and find Osama Bin Laden, for instance. Romney's inability to effectively attack Obama on health care seems incredibly damaging to his general election prospects given that the president has not really gotten all that much done in his first term.
This line of thinking is so convincing to me that I have to admit I've wondered from time to time why Mitt Romney is even bothering to run in 2012. Despite his popularity, he seems like exactly the wrong candidate at the wrong time -- he'd seemingly be in a stronger position running in 2016 or 2020 when Obamacare will probably not be such a volatile campaign issue, particularly if he continues to age well. Watching Mitt's early debate performances, however, has given me a different understanding of his campaign strategy and made me realize he may not be such a pushover in a general election after all. As the frontrunner, he has had the luxury of not having to attack his fellow Republicans. Instead, he has squarely focused on the economy -- he is trying to be the type of business, employment, and growth-friendly candidate that Barack Obama cannot be because the economy has been so bad during the Obama presidency. While other Republican candidates have gained much media attention for making controversial statements (Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain in particular), Romney has been better able to control his message which happens to be tailor-made for an underemployed, financially stressed electorate. He wants to appear safe and nonthreatening -- he wants people to be able to "Vote for Romney, vote for jobs!" even if they have some philosophical differences with the Republican Party or even if they think Barack Obama wasn't such a bad president apart from his economic policy or lack thereof (they might even LIKE the ACA!). While Romney may be forced to be much more aggressive in the next few debates due to the Perry surge, his measured campaign so far has clearly been tailored more towards moderates and not to strong conservatives. In a general election, there are several factions in the Republican party who may not turn out to vote for Romney in large numbers -- however, he may actually be able to steal some former Obama voters who are deeply worried about the economy. When you consider that the president has also alienated powerful factions in his own party because of his relatively moderate approach to governing, that Romney-Obama matchup doesn't sound like such a foregone conclusion after all. The Romney campaign, however, will outright require a bad economy to succeed (an odious thing to bank on!) -- if the unemployment and growth pictures brighten, Mitt will have a much harder time differentiating himself from President Obama. Even if circumstances do favor Romney, the former governor will face a difficult balancing act between on one hand trying to assuage the fears of conservatives who dislike his record and on the other hand trying to use that same record to attract disaffected Obama supporters who would not normally vote Republican. Perhaps the most interesting thing about a Romney-Obama race is that it would very much be about picking the lesser of two evils for many voters -- both conservatives and liberals could be sorely tempted to vote for a third party candidate or stay home on Election Day since Romney and Obama both have records of disappointing their bases.
With the president's approval ratings continuing to weaken and the economy mired in a state of ugly stagnancy, Obama ought to be the type of opponent that Republican candidates would want to face head-to-head in a general election. That they likely don't relish this matchup against the incumbent more has much to do with Obama's Romney-like qualities: he's a smooth speaker, incredibly well-funded, and supported by an extremely strong campaign organization carried over from 2008. Obama and Romney have something else in common, of course: both were executives who became associated with health care reform plans that instituted individual mandates requiring the uninsured to purchase health insurance in order to avoid fines. Obama as president signed 2010's Affordable Care Act into law which remains his major legislative achievement thus far into his first term. In 2006, Romney as governor of Massachusetts signed an Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care. While Romney publicly opposes the ACA, he has not repudiated the Massachusetts bill, arguing instead that it was the right solution in Massachusetts though it wouldn't necessarily be a good fit for other states. While this point of view may appeal to states' rights supporters, Romney has essentially been forced to defend the concept of the individual mandate which is probably the most disliked aspect of both Obamacare and Romneycare. While the other Republican candidates have the rhetorical room to attack the individual mandate as an affront to personal liberty, Romney is now too linked with the individual mandate to criticize it too deeply. For all his stated dislike for Obamacare, Governor Romney is philosophically defending an important aspect of the legislation whenever he argues the individual mandate was necessary and helpful in Massachusetts. Obama's first term has not brought major change apart from health care reform -- I have no doubt that a President Romney would have sought to extend the Bush tax cuts, reform the financial sector in some way as a response to the mortgage crisis, and find Osama Bin Laden, for instance. Romney's inability to effectively attack Obama on health care seems incredibly damaging to his general election prospects given that the president has not really gotten all that much done in his first term.
This line of thinking is so convincing to me that I have to admit I've wondered from time to time why Mitt Romney is even bothering to run in 2012. Despite his popularity, he seems like exactly the wrong candidate at the wrong time -- he'd seemingly be in a stronger position running in 2016 or 2020 when Obamacare will probably not be such a volatile campaign issue, particularly if he continues to age well. Watching Mitt's early debate performances, however, has given me a different understanding of his campaign strategy and made me realize he may not be such a pushover in a general election after all. As the frontrunner, he has had the luxury of not having to attack his fellow Republicans. Instead, he has squarely focused on the economy -- he is trying to be the type of business, employment, and growth-friendly candidate that Barack Obama cannot be because the economy has been so bad during the Obama presidency. While other Republican candidates have gained much media attention for making controversial statements (Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain in particular), Romney has been better able to control his message which happens to be tailor-made for an underemployed, financially stressed electorate. He wants to appear safe and nonthreatening -- he wants people to be able to "Vote for Romney, vote for jobs!" even if they have some philosophical differences with the Republican Party or even if they think Barack Obama wasn't such a bad president apart from his economic policy or lack thereof (they might even LIKE the ACA!). While Romney may be forced to be much more aggressive in the next few debates due to the Perry surge, his measured campaign so far has clearly been tailored more towards moderates and not to strong conservatives. In a general election, there are several factions in the Republican party who may not turn out to vote for Romney in large numbers -- however, he may actually be able to steal some former Obama voters who are deeply worried about the economy. When you consider that the president has also alienated powerful factions in his own party because of his relatively moderate approach to governing, that Romney-Obama matchup doesn't sound like such a foregone conclusion after all. The Romney campaign, however, will outright require a bad economy to succeed (an odious thing to bank on!) -- if the unemployment and growth pictures brighten, Mitt will have a much harder time differentiating himself from President Obama. Even if circumstances do favor Romney, the former governor will face a difficult balancing act between on one hand trying to assuage the fears of conservatives who dislike his record and on the other hand trying to use that same record to attract disaffected Obama supporters who would not normally vote Republican. Perhaps the most interesting thing about a Romney-Obama race is that it would very much be about picking the lesser of two evils for many voters -- both conservatives and liberals could be sorely tempted to vote for a third party candidate or stay home on Election Day since Romney and Obama both have records of disappointing their bases.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
A Test for Interventionism in Libya
The most agonizing decision an officeholder could have to make must be whether or not to send one's nation to war. When, after all, is there truly a good time to wage war? Warfare can only possibly yield good results when humanity is considered in the aggregate. For the civilians caught in the crossfire, the fallen troops on both sides, and the grieving families who will never see their loved ones again, even the most virtuous war can be disastrous. The idea, then, that war should be waged only when absolutely necessary -- such as when the nation is directly attacked by another country -- is reasonable. The country whose foreign policy is guided by this fundamental idea will not fight petty wars of aggression. At the same time, however, this country will also not fight for "the greater good" and that can be a hard burden to bear in and of itself.
I tend to see America's hypervigilance and aggressive interventionism during and after the Cold War period as a direct result of our experiences in World War II, a war we were very reluctant to enter and ultimately only did enter after suffering a direct attack. Our reluctance, alas, did not spare hundreds of thousands of military lives. There is still a feeling among many people to this day that we were far too reluctant to act, having given the Axis powers precious time to strengthen their positions and consolidate territorial gains and allowing them to perpetrate massive crimes against humanity. Granted, both the government and the public were working from a position of limited information -- the disgusting details of the Holocaust became common knowledge only after the war, for instance. Having viewed the destruction and death of World War II, it was only natural that policymakers should ask themselves, "What can we do to stop this from happening again?" It may seem bizarre that the desire to prevent future madmen from trying to conquer the world or annihilate their own people could in any way lead to the US supporting such things as coups against elected governments in Iran and Guatemala, but fear and an obsession with protecting one's interests at any cost can lead you down some strange paths. Ultimately, I see the excessive interventionism of the Cold War era as resulting from American determination to not allow the Soviets to gain an upper hand as the Nazis did. We certainly saw bogeymen where they probably didn't really exist at times (and compromised our principles in the name of fighting Communism), but at least we were responding to a real threat. If criticism of interventionism has risen in the post Cold War era, I would say it's largely because the policy no longer resonates with much of the public...there may be individual brutal leaders, but there's no Axis (the "Axis of Evil" was merely a list of rogue states, not a true alliance of inimical powers) , no Soviet Union intent on spreading the revolution, and no one trying to conquer the world. The questions of who we are fighting and what we are fighting for have become much more difficult to answer.
This brings us to Libya, the conflict du jour. As a fan of representative government, I've been frankly excited to watch the revolutions in North Africa from afar. I've never really believed that free speech and democracy are only compatible with certain cultures (one explanation offered for the host of dictatorships and monarchies in the Middle East and North Africa) -- rather, I think the desire to have one's voice heard and influence one's society are fundamental aspects of human nature. It's too soon to tell what sort of government the Tunisians and Egyptians will end up with, but they've reminded the world that even corrupt and despotic governments can be called to account by their people. Alas, Colonel Qadaffi in Libya has reminded the world of a more bitter truth: the ruthless and well-armed have a distinct advantage in war. I fully understand why the UN backed intervention in Libya; when Qadaffi threatened to go "house by house" in Benghazi to crush the rebels, the specter of Nazi Germany is what appeared in my mind's eye. Thus, I tend to see Libya as a test: interventionists say that war can prevent bloodshed, genocide, and, ultimately, more war...Libya is another chance to prove it. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq overthrew brutal governments, but created tremendous instability and led to huge numbers of civilian casualties. Will Libya be any different?
I certainly see a difference in how the United States is approaching Libya as opposed to Iraq. It has studiously so far avoided taking a leadership role in the conflict past the initial stage in which Libya's anti-air capabilities were destroyed; it has appeared to be as much France's or the UK's war as it has America's. This may not last -- America has more military resources than its allies and the more it commits to the operation the more it will be blamed for when things go wrong. The coalition approach was attempted in Iraq as well, but ultimately the US was the driving force behind the war, so much so that it's extremely difficult to imagine that war being waged without US direction and involvement. For a purely "humanitarian war" (which Iraq of course was not...and in practice any successful war will yield certain strategic advantages for the victors, humanitarian or not), I think it's important that multiple countries agree it is the "right" thing to do, the more global consensus there is the better. It's all too easy to decide a war is just when it is in one's own perceived best interests that it be waged. Perhaps the great reluctance of the allies to put ground forces in Libya is also a result of lessons learned in Iraq -- in addition to avoiding military casualties, this policy also places responsibility on the rebels to win the ground war, a significant challenge but one that might help ease perceptions that Westerners are trying to take over Libya.
There is at least one distressing similarity between the actions in Iraq and Libya as well: the hypocrisy of the intervening powers. The "Bush doctrine" of preventive war sounded to me like a recipe for perpetual warfare -- it allowed for war not only against Afghanistan and Iraq but also Iran, North Korea, Syria, and any number of future threats that would emerge. In truth, I doubt President Bush had any interest in taking on an enemy with the military capabilities of a North Korea. This makes one wonder, then, if it's safe to engage in dialogue with a bigger threat like North Korea, why is there any imperative to do battle with a weaker threat like Iraq? There is perhaps even worse hypocrisy coming from those who advocate humanitarian wars. France's close ties with the former Tunisian regime were exposed in the wake of the Tunisian revolution just as America's ties with Mubarak's Egypt were placed under the microscope when the Egyptian people rose up. When France and the US can have friendly relationships with dictatorial regimes when it is convenient and fight them in other circumstances, it's hard to discern any firm ideological framework for conducting "just wars." Syria and Bahrain are killing protesters as the world watches...they don't seem to fear becoming another Libya. Better to do some good than none at all, surely, but one has to wonder about the hidden reasons behind any intervention when the choice concerning where to intervene appears arbitrary.
The debate as to whether it is right to intervene or not is perhaps not resolvable; people will always believe different things. The key debate may actually become whether or not the United States and other nations can afford to intervene. The US, UK, and France are all seriously indebted nations. The US is facing a political debate regarding raising the debt ceiling so it can continue to borrow. The UK is currently undergoing austerity measures to get its fiscal house in order. France recently raised the retirement age to protect its pension system. All three nations (and, indeed, all nations) limit their domestic spending in order to pay for their militaries, diplomats, and intelligence agencies. It seems doubtful that this course is sustainable indefinitely.
I tend to see America's hypervigilance and aggressive interventionism during and after the Cold War period as a direct result of our experiences in World War II, a war we were very reluctant to enter and ultimately only did enter after suffering a direct attack. Our reluctance, alas, did not spare hundreds of thousands of military lives. There is still a feeling among many people to this day that we were far too reluctant to act, having given the Axis powers precious time to strengthen their positions and consolidate territorial gains and allowing them to perpetrate massive crimes against humanity. Granted, both the government and the public were working from a position of limited information -- the disgusting details of the Holocaust became common knowledge only after the war, for instance. Having viewed the destruction and death of World War II, it was only natural that policymakers should ask themselves, "What can we do to stop this from happening again?" It may seem bizarre that the desire to prevent future madmen from trying to conquer the world or annihilate their own people could in any way lead to the US supporting such things as coups against elected governments in Iran and Guatemala, but fear and an obsession with protecting one's interests at any cost can lead you down some strange paths. Ultimately, I see the excessive interventionism of the Cold War era as resulting from American determination to not allow the Soviets to gain an upper hand as the Nazis did. We certainly saw bogeymen where they probably didn't really exist at times (and compromised our principles in the name of fighting Communism), but at least we were responding to a real threat. If criticism of interventionism has risen in the post Cold War era, I would say it's largely because the policy no longer resonates with much of the public...there may be individual brutal leaders, but there's no Axis (the "Axis of Evil" was merely a list of rogue states, not a true alliance of inimical powers) , no Soviet Union intent on spreading the revolution, and no one trying to conquer the world. The questions of who we are fighting and what we are fighting for have become much more difficult to answer.
This brings us to Libya, the conflict du jour. As a fan of representative government, I've been frankly excited to watch the revolutions in North Africa from afar. I've never really believed that free speech and democracy are only compatible with certain cultures (one explanation offered for the host of dictatorships and monarchies in the Middle East and North Africa) -- rather, I think the desire to have one's voice heard and influence one's society are fundamental aspects of human nature. It's too soon to tell what sort of government the Tunisians and Egyptians will end up with, but they've reminded the world that even corrupt and despotic governments can be called to account by their people. Alas, Colonel Qadaffi in Libya has reminded the world of a more bitter truth: the ruthless and well-armed have a distinct advantage in war. I fully understand why the UN backed intervention in Libya; when Qadaffi threatened to go "house by house" in Benghazi to crush the rebels, the specter of Nazi Germany is what appeared in my mind's eye. Thus, I tend to see Libya as a test: interventionists say that war can prevent bloodshed, genocide, and, ultimately, more war...Libya is another chance to prove it. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq overthrew brutal governments, but created tremendous instability and led to huge numbers of civilian casualties. Will Libya be any different?
I certainly see a difference in how the United States is approaching Libya as opposed to Iraq. It has studiously so far avoided taking a leadership role in the conflict past the initial stage in which Libya's anti-air capabilities were destroyed; it has appeared to be as much France's or the UK's war as it has America's. This may not last -- America has more military resources than its allies and the more it commits to the operation the more it will be blamed for when things go wrong. The coalition approach was attempted in Iraq as well, but ultimately the US was the driving force behind the war, so much so that it's extremely difficult to imagine that war being waged without US direction and involvement. For a purely "humanitarian war" (which Iraq of course was not...and in practice any successful war will yield certain strategic advantages for the victors, humanitarian or not), I think it's important that multiple countries agree it is the "right" thing to do, the more global consensus there is the better. It's all too easy to decide a war is just when it is in one's own perceived best interests that it be waged. Perhaps the great reluctance of the allies to put ground forces in Libya is also a result of lessons learned in Iraq -- in addition to avoiding military casualties, this policy also places responsibility on the rebels to win the ground war, a significant challenge but one that might help ease perceptions that Westerners are trying to take over Libya.
There is at least one distressing similarity between the actions in Iraq and Libya as well: the hypocrisy of the intervening powers. The "Bush doctrine" of preventive war sounded to me like a recipe for perpetual warfare -- it allowed for war not only against Afghanistan and Iraq but also Iran, North Korea, Syria, and any number of future threats that would emerge. In truth, I doubt President Bush had any interest in taking on an enemy with the military capabilities of a North Korea. This makes one wonder, then, if it's safe to engage in dialogue with a bigger threat like North Korea, why is there any imperative to do battle with a weaker threat like Iraq? There is perhaps even worse hypocrisy coming from those who advocate humanitarian wars. France's close ties with the former Tunisian regime were exposed in the wake of the Tunisian revolution just as America's ties with Mubarak's Egypt were placed under the microscope when the Egyptian people rose up. When France and the US can have friendly relationships with dictatorial regimes when it is convenient and fight them in other circumstances, it's hard to discern any firm ideological framework for conducting "just wars." Syria and Bahrain are killing protesters as the world watches...they don't seem to fear becoming another Libya. Better to do some good than none at all, surely, but one has to wonder about the hidden reasons behind any intervention when the choice concerning where to intervene appears arbitrary.
The debate as to whether it is right to intervene or not is perhaps not resolvable; people will always believe different things. The key debate may actually become whether or not the United States and other nations can afford to intervene. The US, UK, and France are all seriously indebted nations. The US is facing a political debate regarding raising the debt ceiling so it can continue to borrow. The UK is currently undergoing austerity measures to get its fiscal house in order. France recently raised the retirement age to protect its pension system. All three nations (and, indeed, all nations) limit their domestic spending in order to pay for their militaries, diplomats, and intelligence agencies. It seems doubtful that this course is sustainable indefinitely.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Are Donald Trump and Sarah Palin in the Same Boat?
On the surface, no two 2012 Republican presidential hopefuls could be more dissimilar than Donald Trump and Sarah Palin. Palin is a former governor and mayor, a former candidate for vice president, a political commentator, and the honorary chair of one of the more influential political action committees of the 2010 midterm elections, SarahPAC. Trump, by contrast, has never held a political office in his life and his previous flirtations with politics in the past have been as confusing as they have been frequent: he donates to Democrats and Republicans alike, has changed his own political affiliation several times, and even publicly considered seeking the nomination of the Reform Party for president back in 2000. What this unlikely pair do have in common is their status as celebrities. Both are reality TV stars, authors, and in-demand speakers and talk show guests. Although many presidential candidates long to have the kind of name recognition that Palin and Trump have, celebrity status can be a two-edged sword. People may know who Trump and Palin are, but many don't take them seriously due to previous gaffes and well-publicized escapades...they are without a doubt overexposed and their dirty laundry has been aired all over America. It also goes without saying that the personal brands of Trump and Palin would be enhanced by their choosing to run for president; how can the public figure out if Trump and/or Palin are actually running to win or just trying to sell more books and merchandise or set themselves up to host a talk show?
All in all, I think Sarah Palin has the better chance to establish herself as a serious presidential candidate if she does ultimately opt to run in 2012. She has genuine political accomplishments, and she can probably overcome the poor public perception created by her past gaffes simply by avoiding future ones. Indeed, I think a strong performance by Palin in a debate or speech is to an extent magnified because the public always expects her to create a media firestorm with a poorly chosen phrase or two. Her biggest hurdle will be to explain away her decision to suddenly resign as Alaskan governor, especially when she will likely have to face other former governors in the race who didn't "quit on the job." I have serious doubts about whether Palin has the work ethic or even the desire to pursue the presidency at this point -- she's never been a policy wonk and may have discovered she enjoys politics better from the sidelines after all. Even if she is taken seriously as a candidate, Palin will have difficulty making any one issue all her own given that she hasn't managed to do this in the years she's been in the political spotlight. I don't think she can afford to be as cautious a "maverick" as she was in 2008; she'll need to take an energetic approach and get specific about policies she supports since she is no longer new to voters. Indeed, I'd even advise her to court a little controversy...how about adopting a pro-marijuana legalization stance, for instance? Given her past remarks about marijuana being a "minimal problem," that could mark a logical evolution of her views. It won't please some social conservatives -- not even a "leave it to the states" approach would -- but it would definitely differentiate her from the rest of the pack and probably prove an asset in a general election since many legalization advocates are disappointed Democrats.
Donald Trump has the harder road to hoe. He's been more visible than Palin in the past few months as an "unofficial" candidate for president. Despite his utter lack of political experience, he does bring a few things to the table besides name recognition: he's charismatic and an entertaining speaker, a successful businessman who has managed to look failure in the face multiple times and seemingly emerged stronger from it each time, and he is incredibly bold. He's already shown himself willing and able to touch issues no "serious" candidate wants to touch. What other candidate but Trump is talking about raising tariffs on China? Most politicians and economists would consider such a move disastrous even as they themselves decry Chinese currency manipulation, but I think protectionism has long been more popular among the general public than among the elite. There are plenty of people who, like Trump, think a tougher trade policy with China will both create American jobs and force China to ease its currency controls. If Trump keeps the pressure on China, he'll get votes because of it...I have no doubt about that Alas, Trump's boldness is perhaps not always an asset: Trump has also been daring in questioning whether or not Barack Obama was born in the United States and thus whether or not he is actually eligible to be president. This could potentially attract another crowd of voters without a home to Trump's doorstep, but I have a feeling it will turn off a lot more people than it will attract in the long run. Unless Trump can deliver some solid evidence to support the so-called "birther" allegations, he's just peddling a conspiracy theory and unnecessarily angering a lot of people who might not dislike Obama the man but do dislike Obama the president. I think about it this way: if Obama had had two American citizen parents and had spent his whole life in the United States, would Republicans like Obamacare and the stimulus any better? Would they feel more confident about his approach to fiscal issues such as the debt and taxation? If there really is a genuine issue about Obama's citizenship, it's for the courts to handle...presidential candidates should talk politics and there's plenty of policy issues for Republicans to attack Obama on. Then again, perhaps Trump really does know what he's doing: according to a recent poll of the New Hampshire electorate, Trump is running second only to Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination! Polls like that are exactly what conspiracy theories are made out of (could there be a "Trumper" movement to massage poll results in order to get Trump to actually run so that more newspapers will be sold, more ads will be clicked, and more debates will be watched? I have to admit it would make the race more entertaining to follow).
I definitely wouldn't discount the possibility that neither Palin nor Trump will run for president. Trump has already boosted his personal brand without making anything official, and even if he really does want to get into politics he could forgo a run for president and run for something in New York instead, building his credentials for a future presidential run. In truth, perhaps Palin and Trump have something else in common...perhaps neither of them actually want to be politicians! After all, you can be a star and a media sensation without a single person being willing to vote for you. It'll be interesting to see what they both ultimately decide to do.
All in all, I think Sarah Palin has the better chance to establish herself as a serious presidential candidate if she does ultimately opt to run in 2012. She has genuine political accomplishments, and she can probably overcome the poor public perception created by her past gaffes simply by avoiding future ones. Indeed, I think a strong performance by Palin in a debate or speech is to an extent magnified because the public always expects her to create a media firestorm with a poorly chosen phrase or two. Her biggest hurdle will be to explain away her decision to suddenly resign as Alaskan governor, especially when she will likely have to face other former governors in the race who didn't "quit on the job." I have serious doubts about whether Palin has the work ethic or even the desire to pursue the presidency at this point -- she's never been a policy wonk and may have discovered she enjoys politics better from the sidelines after all. Even if she is taken seriously as a candidate, Palin will have difficulty making any one issue all her own given that she hasn't managed to do this in the years she's been in the political spotlight. I don't think she can afford to be as cautious a "maverick" as she was in 2008; she'll need to take an energetic approach and get specific about policies she supports since she is no longer new to voters. Indeed, I'd even advise her to court a little controversy...how about adopting a pro-marijuana legalization stance, for instance? Given her past remarks about marijuana being a "minimal problem," that could mark a logical evolution of her views. It won't please some social conservatives -- not even a "leave it to the states" approach would -- but it would definitely differentiate her from the rest of the pack and probably prove an asset in a general election since many legalization advocates are disappointed Democrats.
Donald Trump has the harder road to hoe. He's been more visible than Palin in the past few months as an "unofficial" candidate for president. Despite his utter lack of political experience, he does bring a few things to the table besides name recognition: he's charismatic and an entertaining speaker, a successful businessman who has managed to look failure in the face multiple times and seemingly emerged stronger from it each time, and he is incredibly bold. He's already shown himself willing and able to touch issues no "serious" candidate wants to touch. What other candidate but Trump is talking about raising tariffs on China? Most politicians and economists would consider such a move disastrous even as they themselves decry Chinese currency manipulation, but I think protectionism has long been more popular among the general public than among the elite. There are plenty of people who, like Trump, think a tougher trade policy with China will both create American jobs and force China to ease its currency controls. If Trump keeps the pressure on China, he'll get votes because of it...I have no doubt about that Alas, Trump's boldness is perhaps not always an asset: Trump has also been daring in questioning whether or not Barack Obama was born in the United States and thus whether or not he is actually eligible to be president. This could potentially attract another crowd of voters without a home to Trump's doorstep, but I have a feeling it will turn off a lot more people than it will attract in the long run. Unless Trump can deliver some solid evidence to support the so-called "birther" allegations, he's just peddling a conspiracy theory and unnecessarily angering a lot of people who might not dislike Obama the man but do dislike Obama the president. I think about it this way: if Obama had had two American citizen parents and had spent his whole life in the United States, would Republicans like Obamacare and the stimulus any better? Would they feel more confident about his approach to fiscal issues such as the debt and taxation? If there really is a genuine issue about Obama's citizenship, it's for the courts to handle...presidential candidates should talk politics and there's plenty of policy issues for Republicans to attack Obama on. Then again, perhaps Trump really does know what he's doing: according to a recent poll of the New Hampshire electorate, Trump is running second only to Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination! Polls like that are exactly what conspiracy theories are made out of (could there be a "Trumper" movement to massage poll results in order to get Trump to actually run so that more newspapers will be sold, more ads will be clicked, and more debates will be watched? I have to admit it would make the race more entertaining to follow).
I definitely wouldn't discount the possibility that neither Palin nor Trump will run for president. Trump has already boosted his personal brand without making anything official, and even if he really does want to get into politics he could forgo a run for president and run for something in New York instead, building his credentials for a future presidential run. In truth, perhaps Palin and Trump have something else in common...perhaps neither of them actually want to be politicians! After all, you can be a star and a media sensation without a single person being willing to vote for you. It'll be interesting to see what they both ultimately decide to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)