For several months now we've been in that awkward part of the presidential campaign where it's pretty clear that several prominent candidates will be running but yet no one wants to make that first move of declaring their candidacy. Leave it to the brash and bold junior senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, to shake things up by becoming the first major candidate to announce their candidacy in either party. From the early looks of things, it certainly seems like the race for the Republican nomination is going to end up very crowded. The ideologically diverse GOP electorate seems uninterested in a Jeb Bush coronation, and various factions have their own dream candidates: social conservatives are rooting for Huckabee and Santorum, hawks want Lindsey Graham, libertarian-leaning voters favor Rand Paul, and many of those nebulous "mainstream Republicans" think Rubio, Walker, or Jindal would be preferable to yet another Bush. Because the race is going to be so crowded and competitive, I think announcing early and grabbing a lot of press attention was a very wise thing to do on Ted Cruz's part. The challenge that Senator Cruz faces is explaining who he is and why he should be preferred above all those other guys. That's going to be a tough task, but Cruz might just be unique, savvy, and idiosyncratic enough to pull it off.
I thought Cruz did a fine job overall in his announcement speech at Liberty University. Judging from that speech, I think Cruz will run a different campaign than he was expected to run. For starters, he clearly wants to compete for the religious and social conservative vote -- choosing to announce at Liberty University, the Christian university founded by Jerry Falwell, is a good indication of that, as was his speech which emphasized the importance of faith in his life and his opposition to gay marriage and abortion. This was a shot against the bow of Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum...I wonder if Cruz is hoping that a social conservative tilt early in his campaign might dissuade one or the both of them from running. Choosing to kick off a presidential campaign at a institution called "Liberty" has interesting connotations as well. In particular, Cruz mentioned his opposition to government surveillance of US citizens in his announcement speech. As a senator, Cruz supported the USA Freedom Act that would have reformed the NSA and limited its ability to conduct certain kinds of mass surveillance. I would not call Cruz libertarian-leaning, really, when you consider his whole range of policies, but he has the potential to be a leader on this one issue. Apart from Rand Paul, I'm not so sure any other candidate from either party will even talk about mass surveillance during this campaign. Another notable thing about Cruz's Liberty University speech was his presentation of himself. He told his personal life story in a compelling way and it's actually a great American story: the son of a Cuban immigrant fleeing a dictator (Batista, not Castro) and a pioneering female computer programmer makes good, becomes a senator, and is now running for president.
Still, finding a niche isn't going to be easy for Ted Cruz. It's just very difficult to bridge the hostile, competing camps that currently occupy the Republican Party. For instance, the good will Cruz might generate among the liberty wing of the party by his support for reforming the NSA can easily be offset by his opposition to gay marriage and abortion and support for stricter immigration policies. On the other hand, Cruz's mix of policies could enable him to thrive as a second choice candidate. By that I mean he might not be the ideal candidate preferred by any particular wing, but he could be the candidate a lot of voters from different wings might settle for. For instance, voters who might prefer Rand Paul when it comes to civil liberties but are more hawkish than the Kentucky senator could find themselves attracted to Candidate Cruz because his opposition to the surveillance state is combined with support for a robust foreign policy. His greatest strength of all is probably his purity and sheer bloody-mindedness: he has only been a senator for a couple of years and his time in office has been marked by steadfast and total opposition to the policies endorsed by President Obama. For someone with limited political experience, he's been remarkably adept at grabbing headlines both with legislation and theatrics; he's shown he is quite willing to battle Obamacare, Common Core, and amnesty until the end of time, largely regardless of consequences. He scares some because of that unwillingness to compromise -- it's probably safe to say that his administration would be no more successful at achieving bipartisan understanding than the less firebrand Obama. Thus, if there is a genuine hunger for political compromise in the country, Cruz's candidacy is doomed for sure, but there is also something appealing about knowing who a candidate is and where he or she stands.
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Monday, January 19, 2015
At What Price Scalise?
Congressman Steve Scalise of Lousiana has recently gotten himself into the news for the wrong reasons. It has been revealed that in 2002 the then state legislator addressed a racist group known as the European-American Unity and Rights Organization closely associated with former head of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan David Duke. Duke was probably one of the last politicians to gain national prominence running openly and unabashedly as a racist, but his political career consists essentially of one loss after another: quixotic runs for president (both as a Democrat and as a Republican), multiple bids for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and a try for Louisiana governor that culminated in his loss to the notoriously corrupt Edwin Edwards. His one taste of victory occurred in 1989 when he was elected to the Louisiana House of Representatives. That was it for Duke, yet it was enough to give him a strangely enduring place in American politics that, thanks to Steve Scalise, seems set to continue well into the indefinite future.
What Scalise said that day over a decade ago was probably not racist or offensive. Judging by the way the political winds are blowing, Scalise's position in the House is probably secure. He has the backing of Speaker Boehner, and his friends of all races are largely sticking by him and vouching for his character. He has apologized for addressing the group and denied sharing its views. The case against him at this point is purely guilt by association and as with any political scandal the looming question is how perfect voters have the right to expect their politicians to be. Everyone has skeletons in their closet, the argument goes. "The spotlight shines so bright that no one would meet muster, and such close scrutiny just dissuades good people from running." I've heard it all a thousand times, and I'm not entirely unsympathetic to that view. Still, I find myself wondering sometimes whether our standards as voters aren't too low. Think about it: at any given point in time, there is one president, one hundred senators, and four hundred and thirty five representatives. We could similarly break the numbers down for each state, though New Hampshire's four hundred member House of Representatives must probably inevitably include a few clunkers given the state's small population. My point is there aren't that many people in power at the highest echelon. Can't we elect the ones who don't address racist organizations, don't accept bribes, and don't cheat on their spouses? They needn't be perfect, just a little more circumspect, moral (if not moralistic), and self-controlled than the average schlub.
The real pity for the Republican Party is that Steve Scalise's political survival bolsters its naysayers and undermines its own efforts to reach out to minorities. I've long been struck at how the Republican Party is frequently portrayed as being unabashedly and extremely racist by liberal bloggers. The more nuanced argument to this effect is that Republican policies hurt minorities and benefit whites even if the average Republican politician or voter isn't necessarily racist. That, of course, is subject to debate, but it is a serious argument one could quite thoughtfully make. The less nuanced argument is that Republicans are, in fact, largely racist and deliberately pursue policies to further a particular race agenda. This one I have a much harder time following. Racial rhetoric is simply not a regular feature of mainstream American politics today. There is, for instance, no longer a publicly pro-segregation or anti-integration wing of either party. The Republican Party remains mainly white, but in recent years many minority Republicans have been elected to high office: Tim Scott, Bobby Jindal, Raul Labrador, and Marco Rubio are a few names that immediately spring to mind. As far as I can tell, these politicians have largely been embraced by their party; Jindal and Rubio remain in the mix as potential presidential candidates. Rubio and Rand Paul are among the Republicans who have sought to appeal to minority voters directly, most notably on the issues of immigration reform and drug laws respectively. Thus, it seems to me that the Democratic Party is vulnerable to a degree because the grassroots rhetoric of some liberal activists about racist Republicans, at least at its most vitriolic and hysterical, often doesn't seem to remotely match reality. Undoubtedly, there are minority voters whose political views are actually closer to the Republican Party that nonetheless continue to vote for Democratic candidates simply because they feel like they can't trust Republicans. Those are voters that Republicans could win, but every time something happens like the Steve Scalise debacle it strengthens the perception that open racism remains a norm in the modern Republican Party. That's the true price that must be paid for Steve Scalise. Representative Scalise might be a good person and an excellent politician, but he has damaged his party.
In closing, let me play devil's advocate for just a moment. Could Scalise have possibly framed his speech in a POSITIVE light? It is an expectation that an elected official will, while holding on to his or her own views, also strive to represent all members of his or her constituency. Taking that idea to its logical conclusion, we must admit that Scalise has a duty to represent racists in addition to everyone else in his district. In that context, addressing a racist group might be forgivable, one of many onerous duties a politician might perform. I can't quite go along with this argument, though. Unless one were to spend much of one's speech condemning the very group one is addressing, simply speaking in front of a group affords it legitimacy and respect. It would raise understandable fears that such a politician might secretly share a few, or some, or many, or all those views espoused by the group even if he or she was not willing to openly admit it. While a politician has a duty to serve his or her racist constituents just as any other constituent should be served, he or she certainly does not have any duty to promote or respect hateful views. Representative Scalise has done well to distance himself from the European-American Unity and Rights Organization, but he should never have allowed himself to get so close to it to begin with.
What Scalise said that day over a decade ago was probably not racist or offensive. Judging by the way the political winds are blowing, Scalise's position in the House is probably secure. He has the backing of Speaker Boehner, and his friends of all races are largely sticking by him and vouching for his character. He has apologized for addressing the group and denied sharing its views. The case against him at this point is purely guilt by association and as with any political scandal the looming question is how perfect voters have the right to expect their politicians to be. Everyone has skeletons in their closet, the argument goes. "The spotlight shines so bright that no one would meet muster, and such close scrutiny just dissuades good people from running." I've heard it all a thousand times, and I'm not entirely unsympathetic to that view. Still, I find myself wondering sometimes whether our standards as voters aren't too low. Think about it: at any given point in time, there is one president, one hundred senators, and four hundred and thirty five representatives. We could similarly break the numbers down for each state, though New Hampshire's four hundred member House of Representatives must probably inevitably include a few clunkers given the state's small population. My point is there aren't that many people in power at the highest echelon. Can't we elect the ones who don't address racist organizations, don't accept bribes, and don't cheat on their spouses? They needn't be perfect, just a little more circumspect, moral (if not moralistic), and self-controlled than the average schlub.
The real pity for the Republican Party is that Steve Scalise's political survival bolsters its naysayers and undermines its own efforts to reach out to minorities. I've long been struck at how the Republican Party is frequently portrayed as being unabashedly and extremely racist by liberal bloggers. The more nuanced argument to this effect is that Republican policies hurt minorities and benefit whites even if the average Republican politician or voter isn't necessarily racist. That, of course, is subject to debate, but it is a serious argument one could quite thoughtfully make. The less nuanced argument is that Republicans are, in fact, largely racist and deliberately pursue policies to further a particular race agenda. This one I have a much harder time following. Racial rhetoric is simply not a regular feature of mainstream American politics today. There is, for instance, no longer a publicly pro-segregation or anti-integration wing of either party. The Republican Party remains mainly white, but in recent years many minority Republicans have been elected to high office: Tim Scott, Bobby Jindal, Raul Labrador, and Marco Rubio are a few names that immediately spring to mind. As far as I can tell, these politicians have largely been embraced by their party; Jindal and Rubio remain in the mix as potential presidential candidates. Rubio and Rand Paul are among the Republicans who have sought to appeal to minority voters directly, most notably on the issues of immigration reform and drug laws respectively. Thus, it seems to me that the Democratic Party is vulnerable to a degree because the grassroots rhetoric of some liberal activists about racist Republicans, at least at its most vitriolic and hysterical, often doesn't seem to remotely match reality. Undoubtedly, there are minority voters whose political views are actually closer to the Republican Party that nonetheless continue to vote for Democratic candidates simply because they feel like they can't trust Republicans. Those are voters that Republicans could win, but every time something happens like the Steve Scalise debacle it strengthens the perception that open racism remains a norm in the modern Republican Party. That's the true price that must be paid for Steve Scalise. Representative Scalise might be a good person and an excellent politician, but he has damaged his party.
In closing, let me play devil's advocate for just a moment. Could Scalise have possibly framed his speech in a POSITIVE light? It is an expectation that an elected official will, while holding on to his or her own views, also strive to represent all members of his or her constituency. Taking that idea to its logical conclusion, we must admit that Scalise has a duty to represent racists in addition to everyone else in his district. In that context, addressing a racist group might be forgivable, one of many onerous duties a politician might perform. I can't quite go along with this argument, though. Unless one were to spend much of one's speech condemning the very group one is addressing, simply speaking in front of a group affords it legitimacy and respect. It would raise understandable fears that such a politician might secretly share a few, or some, or many, or all those views espoused by the group even if he or she was not willing to openly admit it. While a politician has a duty to serve his or her racist constituents just as any other constituent should be served, he or she certainly does not have any duty to promote or respect hateful views. Representative Scalise has done well to distance himself from the European-American Unity and Rights Organization, but he should never have allowed himself to get so close to it to begin with.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
The Long Embargo
The United States' recent restoration of full diplomatic relations with Cuba marked the end of five decades of enmity. Though the United States' long embargo against the Caribbean nation has not been lifted just yet, many political commentators seem to expect it will be soon despite continued opposition from some quarters. For better or for worse, it is an embargo that has lasted throughout my entire lifetime, and to a certain extent it has dominated the way I think about Cuba as a nation. The low points of the US-Cuba relationship occurred well before I was born, and as such I can't say as an American that I've ever really considered Cuba to be particularly threatening or dangerous. I must confess that when I think of Cuba thoughts of universal health care, mass literacy,
classic cars, and cigars come to my mind just as easily as recollections of political prisoners and harsh repression. A tyrannical and intolerant regime it has, to be sure...but there are plenty of those on our unfriendly green planet. All in all, I've generally tended to think the embargo was hypocritical given that other countries which the US trades freely with (China being one obvious example) aren't exactly known for their respect for human rights either. With detainee torture and mass surveillance being high profile aspects of American national policy in recent years, a cynical commentator might well wonder whether the old enemies don't actually have more in common than they have differences. Still, if relations with Cuba are to be completely reset, it begs the question, "What was the point of it all?" Was it all a waste? Was nothing accomplished?
Certainly, Cuba remains a Communist country that routinely imprisons critics of the government, notwithstanding the 53 political prisoners it recently agreed to release as part of its negotiations with the US. It is no longer any sort of realistic military threat to the US, but then again it never really was in and of itself -- like so many other countries during the Cold War, Cuba was just another theater in the slow burning conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. Economic hard times and perhaps waning political idealism have made Cuba more likely to export doctors than violent revolution. Although there is no question that Cuba has changed in recent years, having taken small steps to liberalize the economy and permitting (uneasily and inconsistently) Yoani Sanchez to continue to blog, my personal opinion is that Cuba has changed less than the world around it has changed. Cuba is not a threat today primarily because the Soviet Union is no longer a threat. Cuba is no longer an exporter of revolution primarily because it can no longer afford to be. The epiphany desired by the US government for so many years has never occurred; Cuba has not really changed its ideology or its values over the years. Thus, the restoration of relations and possible eventual lifting of embargo is, in my view, more a manifestation of a new American tolerance than an indication of any sudden Cuban surrender.
The embargo's fatal flaw is that it lasted too long. The Castros' regime never collapsed or capitulated, but the embargo continued on and on, becoming more a permanent feature of American-Cuban relations than a potential bargaining chip. It became institutionalized and monumentalized, a part of the scenery rather than an obstacle to be cleared away. The greatest pity is that its ultimate legacy may be judged to be nothing more than unnecessary human suffering. The effectiveness of economic sanctions in general is hotly debated, and I don't believe there are any universally acknowledged success stories. Still, I think they must have their place because the one truly effective way a nation can express its displeasure with another nation is too horrible. The other alternative is to do nothing and to just accept whatever happens in the world, but that is a policy that only rewards the violent and the rapacious. That said, embargoes are probably too extreme and unwieldy a tool in most instances. The piecemeal sanctions against Russia have seemingly had a large impact on the Russian economy in a short amount of time, but they could be easily reversed if Russia were willing to rethink its Ukrainian adventurism (alas, I'm not holding my breath). Tariffs and quotas are primarily associated with economic protectionism, but I think they can also be interesting political tools to help sort out more minor disputes -- by using them, a baseline for trade can be established and commercial links between countries maintained, but there will always be present an underlying realization that the trade between the two countries could be increased, perhaps greatly so, if only political understanding could be achieved. As I see it, economic sanctions can only encourage political change -- they, unlike wars or coups or assassinations, cannot directly effect change. As such, I suspect their performance is always going to be somewhat disappointing.
Certainly, Cuba remains a Communist country that routinely imprisons critics of the government, notwithstanding the 53 political prisoners it recently agreed to release as part of its negotiations with the US. It is no longer any sort of realistic military threat to the US, but then again it never really was in and of itself -- like so many other countries during the Cold War, Cuba was just another theater in the slow burning conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. Economic hard times and perhaps waning political idealism have made Cuba more likely to export doctors than violent revolution. Although there is no question that Cuba has changed in recent years, having taken small steps to liberalize the economy and permitting (uneasily and inconsistently) Yoani Sanchez to continue to blog, my personal opinion is that Cuba has changed less than the world around it has changed. Cuba is not a threat today primarily because the Soviet Union is no longer a threat. Cuba is no longer an exporter of revolution primarily because it can no longer afford to be. The epiphany desired by the US government for so many years has never occurred; Cuba has not really changed its ideology or its values over the years. Thus, the restoration of relations and possible eventual lifting of embargo is, in my view, more a manifestation of a new American tolerance than an indication of any sudden Cuban surrender.
The embargo's fatal flaw is that it lasted too long. The Castros' regime never collapsed or capitulated, but the embargo continued on and on, becoming more a permanent feature of American-Cuban relations than a potential bargaining chip. It became institutionalized and monumentalized, a part of the scenery rather than an obstacle to be cleared away. The greatest pity is that its ultimate legacy may be judged to be nothing more than unnecessary human suffering. The effectiveness of economic sanctions in general is hotly debated, and I don't believe there are any universally acknowledged success stories. Still, I think they must have their place because the one truly effective way a nation can express its displeasure with another nation is too horrible. The other alternative is to do nothing and to just accept whatever happens in the world, but that is a policy that only rewards the violent and the rapacious. That said, embargoes are probably too extreme and unwieldy a tool in most instances. The piecemeal sanctions against Russia have seemingly had a large impact on the Russian economy in a short amount of time, but they could be easily reversed if Russia were willing to rethink its Ukrainian adventurism (alas, I'm not holding my breath). Tariffs and quotas are primarily associated with economic protectionism, but I think they can also be interesting political tools to help sort out more minor disputes -- by using them, a baseline for trade can be established and commercial links between countries maintained, but there will always be present an underlying realization that the trade between the two countries could be increased, perhaps greatly so, if only political understanding could be achieved. As I see it, economic sanctions can only encourage political change -- they, unlike wars or coups or assassinations, cannot directly effect change. As such, I suspect their performance is always going to be somewhat disappointing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)