Learning Politics

Santorum's Way

2012-01-23T00:32:00.002-06:00

Every presidential election cycle, there are a few candidates who believe their road to the White House will be paved more with their own blood and sweat than money or media recognition. They're generally proven wrong. In 2007, I wrote a little about Sam Brownback's epic 4-day, 27-stop tour of Iowa; he ended up dropping out of the race before the Iowa caucuses had even taken place. And visiting every county in Iowa didn't prove to be a winning strategy for either Tommy Thompson or Bill Richardson in 2008. More than one political pundit has publicly wondered if retail politics is now an outmoded concept -- handshaking and baby-kissing might have worked for politicians in the past, but this is an era of widely watched presidential debates and million dollar advertising campaigns. Of course, that was before Santorum won the 2012 Iowa caucuses...by visiting every county in Iowa, shaking lots of hands, and kissing lots of babies!

I think Rick Santorum in this presidential cycle has had a very distinct role: he seems to be collecting causes deemed anachronistic in modern politics. He's proven to be the least impeachable social conservative competing for the Republican nomination because of his consistently conservative record on social issues (unlike Mitt Romney) and relatively scandal-free personal life (unlike Newt Gingrich)...but that actually wasn't supposed to matter much this election cycle. It wasn't long ago that Mitch Daniels was calling for a truce on social issues within the GOP. The Indiana governor wasn't crazy: according to Gallup polling this month, just 1% of Americans think of abortion as being the nation's most important problem versus 31% who feel the economy in general is our most important problem (another 26% picked unemployment). On the foreign policy side of things, Santorum is an unapologetic neoconservative in the George W. Bush mold. Bellicose towards Iran and keen on confronting terrorists around the world, the former senator from Pennsylvania has also defended foreign aid as an important component of America's foreign policy. Beyond foreign policy, his consistent support of George W. Bush's big spending policies while in the Senate earned censure from Ron Paul who described Santorum as a "big government conservative." Some would call that phrase an oxymoron -- at any rate, it was certainly not intended as a compliment. Tea party supporters in 2010 took out a number of incumbent Republicans who could have been described in similar terms. Once again, Santorum doesn't seem to be "of the moment." He could have run the same campaign in 2004!

That dogged consistency undoubtedly draws some voters to Rick Santorum. There is something admirable about the man's work ethic and self-belief, too. How do you keep plugging away on the campaign trail for months knowing that your poll numbers are abysmal and your candidacy has been largely dismissed by the media? He had to wait a very, very long time to have his moment in the sun; many other candidates in the same position would have dropped out. Most importantly, Santorum represents constituencies that definitely still exist...they're just less visible at the moment. Social conservatives, though like everyone else concerned about the economy, haven't necessarily softened their views on abortion, gay marriage, and the importance of family values. Neoconservatives haven't necessarily changed their views on foreign policy and government spending just because George W. Bush is no longer as popular as he once was. Voters still like getting up-close and personal with presidential candidates even if they do like watching national debates and do pay attention to political advertising. I very much doubt that Santorum's way is the way of the future, even within the Republican party -- but for now he is providing a voice for real voters who don't feel represented by the other candidates.

On the Wisdom of Dumping the Trump Debate

2011-12-05T15:21:00.002-06:00

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.

The Republican Electorate's Wandering Eye

2011-11-17T11:47:00.003-06:00

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.

At a Crossroads at the Western Republican Debate

2011-10-19T15:49:00.003-05:00

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.

Are the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street Two Sides of the Same Coin?

2011-10-09T17:34:00.006-05:00

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.

Don't Fear: It's Mitt Romney!

2011-09-03T20:52:00.003-05:00

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.

A Test for Interventionism in Libya

2011-04-24T10:59:00.002-05:00

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.

Are Donald Trump and Sarah Palin in the Same Boat?

2011-04-09T17:00:00.002-05:00

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.

Sore Losers

2010-10-21T17:38:00.004-05:00

One interesting aspect of the 2010 midterm elections is that multiple candidates who have bucked the traditional party system are playing important roles in multiple races. Ordinarily, this would be something I'd be delighted about. I like the idea of candidates running as individuals and not attempting to mush their personal ideas to fit with the prevailing ideology of a particular political party. Even though independent candidates rarely win elections, many voters are registered as independents -- I think that's because a lot of them don't feel entirely represented by either the Republicans or Democrats. A lot of people agree more with one party on certain issues and more with the other on certain other issues. An independent candidate of the Ross Perot mold has the freedom to be as idiosyncratic as the voter because he or she has no party to please. Unfortunately, in 2010 a couple of important senatorial candidates are running contrarian campaigns not so much because they rejected the parties but rather because their parties rejected them.

I'm speaking of course of Charlie Crist who is vying for attention from Florida voters with Marco Rubio and Kendrick Meek as well as Lisa Murkowski who is trying to hold on to her Senate seat in Alaska against Joe Miller and Scott McAdams. The two took different paths to get to where they are today: Charlie Crist is running as an independent while Murkowski is trying to be elected via a write-in campaign as a Republican even though Joe Miller is the official Republican nominee. What the two have in common is that both kept running after seeking their party's nomination and failing to receive it. Crist launched his independent campaign in response to polls that showed Rubio the Republican favorite in the primary. Murkowski was even more audacious in that she competed in the Republican party primary to the bitter end and lost to Joe Miller yet still did not end her candidacy.

I won't argue that Crist and Murkowski don't bring anything unique to the table. Both are considered more moderate than their Republican opponents yet more conservative than their Democratic opponents. Had they chosen to leave their parties right from the get-go and run as independents I'd have completely respected their decision to do so and welcomed their attempts to shake things up in this stultifying two party political world. Under the circumstances, though, they both seem like sore losers and utterly untrustworthy to me. It's one thing to say, as Crist does now, that the Republican Party has left him and others of similar views behind -- it's another to seek the Republican nomination only to suddenly discover your independent roots when it becomes apparent you aren't going to be your party's nominee. Both Crist and Murkowski seemed to respect how their party did things right up to the point where they didn't become nominated candidates; that's exactly why I can't respect them. They thought the Republican Party was great...as long as Republican voters made the "right" choice in the primary. Had Crist polled better and Murkowski won her primary, they would never have bumped heads with their party. To me, both Crist and Murkowski seem absolutely desperate to gain power, and their candidacies seem an almost pure reflection of their personal ambition. I don't support "sore loser" laws which try to legally prevent independent candidacies from primary losers, but at the same time I don't support "sore losers"...I just don't see how you could ever trust a candidate who wants to win that badly.

Nonetheless, Murkowski and Crist are picking up votes according to the polls. Indeed, both are currently running close to their Republican rivals and beating the Democrats in their races. In Alaska, that perhaps reflects the difficult position the Democratic Party currently occupies in that state. In Florida, Crist's success seems to have come partly on the back of the Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek who has lost support from members of his own party. I find it rather puzzling that there are Democrats who would have voted for Meek over Charlie Crist had Crist been the Republican nominee yet are willing to vote for Crist over Meek as long as Rubio in the race as well...but that's the wonder of strategic voting at work. Unfortunately, Murkowski and Crist's great adventures may well inspire more sore loser candidates in the future...and make it even more difficult for real independent candidates to be noticed.

Rand Paul, the Civil Rights Act, and the Trouble With Ideological Candidates

2010-05-23T17:54:00.003-05:00

Kentucky Republican and Senate candidate Rand Paul has recently aroused a great deal of controversy for expressing concerns with one aspect of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: namely, the authority it gives to the federal government to forbid businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, and national origin. While Paul has stated that he approves of the Act's forbidding of discrimination on the governmental level without reservation, he is uneasy with the idea of businesses being compelled to provide service to all due to his firm belief in the rights of property owners. It all boils down to, "Does a private entity get to decide what to do with its property even if it hurts other people?" To understand the nature of the controversy and Paul's stance on the issue, you might want to watch his interview on the Rachel Maddow Show: part 1 and part 2 are on YouTube.

While the younger Dr. Paul seems to see this issue purely through the prism of property rights, I think there are other factors involved which is why I disagree with him. You have the right to own a gun, but you can't use it in any possible way without infringing on the rights of others. In the same way, I don't think property owners should have the right to use their property as a weapon to hurt others and deny them from purchasing what may be vitally needed goods and services. I don't think it's too much of a sacrifice to ask property owners who choose to do business with the public at large to serve all equally regardless of their demographic, no more than I think it is too much of a sacrifice to ask gun owners not to shoot innocent people who aren't threatening life, limb, or property. I absolutely understand where Rand Paul is coming from -- property rights are not anywhere near as respected as they should be in this country. Still, even property rights should have limits, and the appropriate place for rights to end is when they start to hurt other people severely and unnecessarily. Oddly enough, I actually think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is actually fairly moderate. It allows private clubs not open to the public to discriminate as they wish, and it allows all entities to discriminate against unmentioned groups all they want to (hence: "No shirt, no shoes, no service").

With that said, I've thought that all the media and blogging hoopla over Rand Paul's comments has been ridiculous, and it's given me some new insight into how the political powers that be seek to maintain the status quo. As wrong as I think Paul's position on the Civil Rights Act is, it's hardly as if he was campaigning to repeal it. Indeed, he has since stated for the record that he would not seek to change it and in fact he has even said that he would have voted for the Act despite its restrictions on business had he been in Congress at the time. He was never a racist demagogue blowing dog whistles to rally racists to his cause which is why he now resembles a dog running away with its tail between its legs as he tries to talk his way out of the firestorm. What Paul's "baggage" is is actually simply political ideology. People often wonder why it is that Republicans who talk about the importance of individual liberty when it comes to gun rights often turn around and support legislating morality or why Democrats are so keen on expanding social services but yet often also support inflationary policies and direct and indirect taxes that make products and services more expensive. The answer is easy enough: the overwhelming majority of politicians do not have an overarching political philosophy that they try to apply to each and every political stance they have. They don't mind being philosophically inconsistent -- it's probably not something most of them even think about. Rand Paul is vulnerable on issues like civil rights because he doesn't pick and choose when his political philosophy is important to him. He strives for consistency even when that leads him into uncomfortable territory. In his discussion with Rachel Maddow, he mentioned how freedom of speech protects the words of even those who hold despicable views. It's not a stretch at all to go on from there to say that property rights should also apply to those who hold despicable views. It's perfectly possible to support freedom of speech and property rights without necessarily supporting how those freedoms are used by cruel and hateful individuals. As such, I can respect Rand's point of view even though I disagree with him. He probably has a rosier view of humanity than I do and believes that racist business owners would get skewered in the market just as he's currently being skewered in the press and online. As much as I distrust government, I nonetheless don't trust people not to treat each other like crap either; to expect otherwise is to ignore the lessons of history.

What Paul's opponents on the Democratic side of things want now is for people to not simply disagree with Paul's position on civil rights but to be afraid of him. They want him to be perceived as a monster rather than simply as misguided. Above all else, they want people whose support of smaller government, lower taxes, and fiscal restraint (topics that Rand Paul made the center of his campaign rather than civil rights) would make them uneasy about voting for Jack Conway or any Democrat given the current political climate to stay home on Election Day. As a political ploy, it just might work -- if it does, I think it'll be an ample illustration of why people who are so passionate about their ideas that they take them to the nth degree seem to flounder when facing off against career politicians and the political establishment time and time again. While this makes it more difficult for extremists (relative to prevailing popular opinion, that is) to win office, it also makes it harder to get anything other than the same old breed of career politicians elected. Those folks aren't all bad, but frankly I'd bet at least a few of them are as perturbed by Rand Paul's advocacy for legislative term limits as they are about anything else the opthamologist has said.

Energy Policy and the Worst Case Scenario

2010-05-17T12:29:00.002-05:00

We all make decisions about how much risk we are willing to take on as we go about our daily lives. Some of us focus more on probability (the likelihood that something bad will happen to us if we take a certain action) and others of us focus more on the worst case scenario, the most negative consequence that could reasonably occur in response to our action. If you focus purely on probability, an activity like skydiving is not particularly dangerous -- one death per 100,000 jumps is not too bad. On the other hand, skydiving accidents are frequently fatal when they do occur. The worst case scenario is severe.

Fear of the worst case scenario is perhaps the main reason why the United States hasn't embraced nuclear power to a greater degree than it has. The 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant that exposed millions of people to small doses of radiation had a decisive impact on public opinion. What happened at Three Mile Island wasn't the worst case scenario by any means -- no one died as an immediate result of the accident, and the public health implications of the event are still being debated. What it did, however, was remind the public, the government, and the power industry of just how dangerous nuclear power can potentially be. Nowadays the majority of the American people do support nuclear power once again, but 31 years is a long time for any event to hold a prominent place in the collective memory. Another serious nuclear accident could change perceptions in a jiffy, and regulators and the industry certainly haven't forgotten what happened in 1979.

The Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill of 2010, on the other hand, is a worst case scenario we're seeing unfold before our eyes. The initial catastrophe claimed 11 lives of oil workers, a tragedy in and of itself, but the ensuing disaster will have widespread implications for millions of people and animals. That the damage to the marine ecosystem and the Gulf Coast economy will be severe is a given -- how the disaster will affect the hydrologic cycle and weather patterns is more of an open question at this point. This thing is bad enough to fundamentally change how risky offshore oil drilling is perceived to be. The probability of such a spill hasn't really changed that much...remember, there's offshore drilling going on all over the world, from West Africa to the North Sea. Massive explosions and oil spills aren't typical occurrences. One study found that just 2% of the oil in the oceans is a result of offshore drilling. So, for me at least, the issue isn't whether or not offshore drilling is too bad for the environment to be permitted...what I wonder is if the worst case scenario is so severe that it's not even worth the small risk of such massive spills.

One approach is to try to make offshore drilling and nuclear power more safe through more stringent regulations. It seems clear that BP and Transocean did not do all they could do to prepare for a worst case scenario -- just as Three Mile Island changed nuclear governmental policies, so too will the Gulf Oil Spill change governmental policies towards offshore drilling. Still, regulations can only go so far. Accidents WILL happen. Although nuclear plants are probably safer now than they used to be, the cynic in me can't help but wonder if the main reason Three Mile Island hasn't been repeated is because the nuclear power industry was utterly stalled following the accident and has only very recently shown some signs of revival. I can imagine a new regulatory environment having a chilling effect on offshore drilling in the Gulf -- risky behavior is not always banned when it can be disincentivized instead. Is that the right choice in a world where petroleum is still king and likely still will be for some time to come? I'm honestly not sure. We've seen a glimpse of the worst case scenario for offshore drilling and it is extremely ugly, but if the end result of all this is that Americans will just consume more oil drilled offshore from other countries, is that really an environmental triumph or just an economic setback?

A More Democratic Form of Capitalism

2010-04-13T00:11:00.003-05:00

Many people see the financial crisis as an example of a failure of capitalism in general. It is capitalism's very nature, they argue, to create boom and bust cycles and cause grossly unequal and unfair distributions of wealth. On the other side of the equation, you have people arguing that capitalism essentially doesn't exist in the modern world -- it's all corporatism as governments bend over backwards to give the biggest and most favored corporations extra advantages over smaller businesses, including bailouts. Both sides of critics would agree that modern economic system is not even close to ideal, as indeed do I. Sometimes, though, I wonder if a mistake is made by focusing too much on business and too little on the individual.

Who is the modern individual? In the United States, he tends to be a worker, a consumer, and a debtor. When he loses his job, he really has no personal safety net -- he has no savings to speak of to tap into and debts that still need to be paid regardless of whether or not he has income. He relies on unemployment payments from government unemployment insurance funds, bankruptcy to relieve his debts, and family and friends to help him stay afloat until he finds a new job. If he doesn't find a new job before his unemployment check runs out, he will likely have to rely on government benefits and charity. Thus, work is the center of his universe -- it may not be so extreme as, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat," but the consequences of being unemployed are dire indeed. Ultimately, the most disturbing aspect of the current recession to me is the notion endorsed by some economists of a "new normal" and permanently higher unemployment. Karl Marx would still understand the world of today: for all our technological advances and all our sophisticated machinery, we're still a world of workers and society is struggling to deal with the possibility of larger numbers of people not working less because they do not want to as because there is less need for their labor due to technology and outsourcing.

I wonder if a change in ideals is in order. Perhaps we need to stop idealizing work so much and instead idealize the concept of owning. We live in a world where even starting a business has become easier -- online businesses often require less startup capital than real world ones, for instance. It is also easier to run a "mini-business" online as you often don't have the same level of maintenance costs (for instance, you might store inventory in your closet instead of a rented warehouse) and may not need to commit as much time (for example, you don't have to wait all day behind a counter or answer the phone to fulfill orders...you just need to check your email or online storefront every so often). It has also never been easier to be a part owner of a publicly traded company by owning stock. Competition amongst discount brokers have driven fees way down which makes a tremendous difference for the investor without much money. The reason, of course, why owning tends to be less glorified is that starting a business or buying stock necessarily entails some risk -- you may, indeed, end up worse off for your investment than better off. Owning also tends to reward the patient, the creative, and the studious which are not qualities everyone has to the same degree. However, work also entails some risk: harsh working conditions claim the lives of workers each year, lead to many injuries, and sometimes cause long-term health catastrophes, for instance. Most importantly, though, work is risky because you may lose your job at any time. I think it is a necessity to have something to fall back on because it is very likely a worker will end up unemployed periodically and, if the "new normal" is to be believed, periods of extended unemployment may be only more common in the future.

Not all investments are equally risky, and it is certainly possible even for the layman to research public companies to see how deeply they are in debt and if they are making money. A few clicks on Google Finance is all it takes! It is unfortunate that "sexy" growth stocks like Apple are often the ones most promoted in the media -- I actually think it's wiser to seek out dividend paying stocks that will pay you an income as long as you own them. Many utility stocks, for instance, routinely yield 4 to 5 percent in dividends alone per year even now, and capital appreciation is also possible. They also often offer direct buy programs which enable you to entirely circumvent brokerage fees. While 401Ks and other retirement plans can offer something of a safety net if you have access to them, I tend to think workers should invest on their own as well -- you definitely will need money for retirement, at least if you live that long, but you will also need money during your periods of work and especially unemployment. Tax deferment is sometimes overrated in my view.

Many would argue that savings, because they are more reliable and often government-insured, make for a better personal safety net. Unfortunately, though, savings are quite poor at providing an income, especially when interest rates are as low as they are now. (Granted, when interest rates are low debtors also have fewer expenses, but since so many debtors have high interest debt these days that impact is less apparent.) For instance, I get a little over one percent return per year on my savings account, and I only get that much because I shop around for banks. I think it's important to have reliable money on hand and you should never put everything into a risky venture, but one percent is probably not going to keep you afloat unless you're very rich indeed. Inevitably, if unemployed, you'll have to dig deep into the principal and your return from your savings would continue to drop so your situation will only grow steadily worse over time. That's not even mentioning the hazard of inflation which can make your savings gradually worth less over time -- it's not entirely irrational to not save and to borrow heavily when you account for government monetary policy.

Having more owners would change the world. More small businesses would mean more competition for mega-corporations. Had there been more small car companies like Tesla Motors, I'm not so sure GM and Chrysler would have gotten that bailout after all. After those irresponsible giants had crashed to the ground, a bevy of new car companies might have emerged to employ the newly unemployed auto workers and engineers. OK, that's not such a great example because starting a car company requires a huge amount of investment...but at least it's topical. Still, widespread competition in every industry is the best prescription for avoiding bailouts. Having more individual stock owners would shift the balance of financial power a little further away from huge financial institutions (who are currently the main owners of stock). Individuals who trade actively or own dividend paying stocks will have an income apart from their work and savings, enabling them to avoid taking on so much debt and giving them something to fall back on when they lose their jobs.

I know there are those who would say that there is simply no way that the average person is cut out to be an owner of a small business or capable of managing a portfolio of stocks. That's something of a self-fulfilling prophecy -- people are petrified of the risks they don't know (while failing to see the risks all around them, like that of accumulating too much debt or relying too much on a job) so when they do take a chance on something new they tend to panic and lose everything. Average people are capable of many things, however, and receive much less credit than they deserve. It seems to be generally accepted that most people can learn to read and write. If they go very far at all into the educational system, they'll also learn something of algebra. Outside of school, most of them will work at various jobs and have children. Owning a business or a stock is a serious pursuit, but it is a lot easier than raising children in my view. So I firmly do believe that a person who is willing to put the time in to learn can be a successful owner or part owner. Buying stocks randomly or starting a business that sells products only you yourself would be interested in is indeed dangerous, but I doubt you would do either thing if you researched a little before you acted.

Do the Libertarian Party and the Green Party Need Each Other to Thrive?

2010-02-27T04:46:00.003-06:00

Breaking the two-party system in the United States is something that is much talked about, but no third party seems even close to emerging as a major player in American politics. What the Democratic and Republican parties do so well is to create big tents that draw people with myriad views together. Don't let anyone tell you differently: both parties ARE diverse. The Democrats bring together advocates for the poor, abortion rights supporters, and environmentalists. The Republican Party includes religious conservatives primarily concerned with social issues, fiscal conservatives primarily concerned with economic issues, and libertarians primarily concerned with individual liberty. Each constituent group (and there are of course many, many more than those I just named) would ideally prefer a party more aligned with their interests, but their fear of the other party binds them to the Big Party that they must share even with some of their ideological rivals.

Strategic voting is an entirely rational phenomenon. If a normally Democratic voter defects to the Green Party, the Republicans are indeed in a stronger position...but if a normally Republican voter defects to the Libertarian Party, the Democrats gain. Of course, not every Green or Libertarian vote benefits one of the big parties -- often people who vote third party are disgusted with both Republicans and Democrats -- but strategic voting is probably the main reason Democratic voters stay Democrat and Republican voters stay Republican. They figure they're better off with a party that might not represent them too well but at least isn't diametrically opposed to their position. This places other parties in a tough position: if they can't win over many regular voters, they're stuck recruiting the entirely disaffected and unregistered who may be uninterested in politics or have much more cynical attitudes about voting.

There is an alternative path, but it would require a strange alliance. Two of the leading alternative parties, the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, appeal to markedly different constituencies. With its focus on environmentalism, social justice, and central planning, the Green Party shares many of the same ideals as many current Democratic voters. Because of its focus on liberty, noninterventionism, and smaller government, the Libertarian Party would be a natural home for many current Republicans. Neither alternative party could quite accommodate all those in the big tent of either the Democratic or Republican Party; for instance, pro-war or pro-nuclear power Democrats probably wouldn't feel welcome in the Green Party while social conservatives and anti-immigration advocates would likely feel uncomfortable in the Libertarian Party. However, wide swathes of both major parties could find a home among either the Greens or Libertarians. To defeat strategic voting, both Republican and Democratic voters need to have an alternative; thus, viable Green and Libertarian candidates need to compete strongly in the same races. Instead of there being a situation where a vote cast for a third party will automatically benefit the other big party, each voter will be conscious of the multiple competing options and feel more free to vote their conscience. The only way to take down the two party system is to weaken both of the two parties that dominate it.

Forging such an alliance in a way that could actually make a difference would be tricky. After all, each person has only have one vote -- a Libertarian can't send a "booster vote" towards a Green candidate while also supporting a candidate who represents his or her interests. However, the party organizations can (and have in the past) work together on matters like ballot access. Libertarian and Green donors could also support the other party and its candidates financially so they could better reach out to their potential voters. This, however, would require a great deal of nose-holding on both sides. There might be some level of agreement between the parties on certain issues, like the Iraq War, but in general they favor opposing approaches: the Greens want to use government as a vehicle to create a better world whilst the Libertarians want government to free each individual to create a better world. The Libertarians are as skeptical of the good will of the government as the Greens are of the good will of the individual. The potential rewards of such an alliance, however, could be vast...and it might be the quickest way both parties could emerge as serious elements of the American political landscape.

Is Big Government Inherently a Bully?

2010-02-25T01:30:00.005-06:00

One reason conservatives and libertarians are wary of any expansion of government in size or scope is that they fear that this growth cannot be controlled. While it can be argued that government involvement in expanding access to health care or higher education might be in some ways quite positive, the believer in small government often fears the unintended consequences of such intervention. I think there certainly is some truth in the idea that the more the government takes on, the more prestige and practical power it gains. When a government provides you with many services, the social contract does change -- you do effectively "owe" your government much more. Take the example of a very sick person in a state with government-provided health care: it's quite likely that this person will not pay the equivalent in taxes what he or she receives in medical services. The more people that "get more than they put in", the stronger the moral position the government has to demand more from its citizens. It's probably no coincidence that so-called "nanny states" like Germany and Norway still continue the practice of peacetime conscription which has been abolished in most of the developed world due to popular opinion and for the sake of efficiency. Still, other nanny states certainly have left conscription by the wayside. While John F. Kennedy urged people to think about what they could do for their government (OK, he said "country"...), in a democracy citizens still have the upper hand in determining just how much they owe their government.

Democracy clearly can have a moderating effect on Big Government's ability to bully. Unfortunately, sometimes democracy is an empowering force for bullies in the majority to force their will on and restrict the freedom of the minority -- even when that does happen, though, there is at least hope that such bullying can be reversed by a more enlightened voting population in the future. The situation of big government without democracy tends to be worse for freedom as it is harder for the people to affect policy. Take Cuba as an example. It is neither the most murderous nor the most repressive regime in the world, but it exerts a great deal of control over its population and the Castros have traditionally taken a particularly hard line against political dissent in their 50+ years in power. Nonetheless, Cuba has its fair share of admirers who point to its universal health care (indeed, one of its leading exports is its doctors: Venezuela's health care system for one would struggle to function without them) and educational systems (Cuba's literacy rate is 99.8%!) as examples to the world. Indeed, online one can barely say a bad word against Cuba without a defender or five cropping up and essentially arguing that the lack of basic freedoms doesn't matter so long as you have government-provided basic services. Cuba's official motto could be, "You've got health care...now shut up!" as that is what the Cuban government seems to expect of its citizens. Raul Castro has even blamed the recent death of a Cuban dissident on the United States -- this argument seems to suggest that no one in Cuba could possibly disapprove of the government and thus any and all dissidents must be agents of the United States. This is a ridiculous stance...any student of history or of politics could tell you that even the world's most perfect possible government would still inspire dissent. It's simply a part of human nature. Still, I smile as I imagine stunned Cuban officials' reactions to the discovery of the existence of an authentic Cuban dissenter: "But....he had HEALTH CARE! How could he possibly dissent?!" At least in Cuba the government does do something besides bullying -- others get all the repression but none of the services.

Frankly, at the end of the day I'm not sure a free country really exists in this big world of ours. What we tend to see even in the best countries to live in is a great deal of freedom in certain areas of life but much less freedom in other areas...no country I've studied quite reaches the point of being reasonably free (as in "it has no unreasonable restrictions on personal freedom") according to my point of view. The United Kingdom, to give an example, is far freer than the United States for the gambler and the sports better. Irrational laws still make innocent pastimes like playing poker online or betting on the outcome of a basketball game technically illegal for most Americans though such laws, like all irrational laws, tend to be ignored rather freely. Although the USA is often not placed in the nanny state category (unfortunately, I think it probably belongs there), it is in fact the epitome of nanny state thinking to seek to prevent people from using their own money as they see fit. Anti-gambling laws are all about protecting people from themselves...though admittedly corporate interests have certainly also played a very strong role in determining the legal status of sports betting. The UK is blessed with a more sensible legal view of online gambling and sports betting so it is the freer country in this respect. On the other hand, the UK's libel laws have frequently been accused of having a chilling effect on freedom of speech and of the press because it is so easy to bring such cases to trial and win (a decent overview of the situation there can be viewed here). Even science journalists with a nose for cold, hard facts have suffered as a result of the UK's libel regime. The USA is the freer nation if you want to speak and print your mind because its legal framework is better equipped to protect speech. All things considered, I do prefer to live in the United States rather than the United Kingdom, but I think I'd only be kidding myself if I tried to make the argument that Americans are significantly freer than the British. Freer in certain ways, yes, but the Brits can say the very same thing. In truth, our very differences showcase our fundamental similarities.

If a small government, fair laws, and robust business and nonprofit sectors represent the best path to freedom and a high quality of life, a big representative government that is nonetheless limited in order to protect individual liberties seems like a reasonable compromise with reality. It's perfectly possible, for instance, to legally place the responsibility of providing specific services (not necessarily monopolizing them) like health care and education on the state but just as explicitly protect freedom of speech. In practice, it unfortunately seems far easier for government to expand than to limit itself -- politicians loathe ceding any of their power to legislate. Perhaps that tendency will require more explicit constitutions that protect more freedoms (and leave no wiggle room for politicians or a momentarily oppressive majority to exploit) in the future.

Still Controversial After All These Years

2010-02-22T03:35:00.003-06:00

Like many other Americans, my stance on the issue of drugs has changed a lot over time. I tended to support existing drug laws when I was younger because I thought of them as guardians of public health; I've softened my stance as I've come to realize criminalizing drugs punishes self-abusers more than it protects society or helps individuals. Indeed, a good argument can be made that society is actually very much hurt by drug laws in that they ensure that drug users, who are not always a danger to anyone but themselves, occupy prison space while dangerous criminals like rapists, child abusers, and burglars seem to frequently be set free prematurely in the name of prison overpopulation and often go on to recommit the same sort of antisocial crimes again and ruin more lives. I'm still not sure that all-out legalization is the way to go -- many illegal drugs really are dangerous, more dangerous than would generally be accepted for food and drink products, so it's possible total legalization might send the message that they are safer than they really are (of course a counterargument to that is that the very illegality of drugs makes them even more dangerous than they need to be because of the lack of legal means to hold narcotics manufacturers accountable for their products) -- but I do think a thorough rethink on the issue of drugs is definitely in order across the board.

With that said, it continues to surprise me how controversial every little aspect of drug policy is and how difficult it is for changes to be implemented. Take the issue of medical marijuana, for instance. Marijuana isn't exactly a health product across the board...it certainly doesn't seem to be good for your lungs or heart...but it is more readily comparable to tobacco and alcohol in its negative effects than to, say, crystal meth. Of course, a lot of people would like to make tobacco and alcohol illegal so that's not necessarily a winning argument for legalizing marijuana in itself! However, the use of marijuana or its constituent products for medical purposes is no joke -- it has serious potential as a pain reliever, for instance, and can help AIDS and cancer patients recover from the side effects of the aggressive drugs they use to treat their conditions. Indeed, the medical value of cannabinoids is acknowledged even by American regulators who have approved Marinol and Cesamet as prescription drugs. The clamor for legalized medical marijuana has continued, however, with critics contending that Marinol and Cesamet are not as effective or as convenient as the "real stuff" because they do not contain the same mix of healthful cannabinoids and are more expensive, among other issues. Even if you do think Marinol-type products ought to be enough for anyone, it should still be easy to acknowledge there is a difference between a sick person using marijuana to treat their condition or soothe their pain and a purely recreational user; isn't the whole theoretical basis for drug laws that they protect society from dangerous substances that cause harm? If the substance is clearly helping rather than harming in some cases, doesn't that suggest a clear legal distinction might be in order? Yet it still seems an uphill battle: Attorney General Eric Holder last year suggested that federal medical marijuana raids in states allowing the use of medical marijuana might be coming to an end, with the seeming implication that state laws would determine medical marijuana's legality in the future and state law enforcement would take over more of the burden of enforcing the laws, but the DEA so far has continued to raid and assuredly will continue to do so unless more significant policy changes occur at the federal level. This is why I say everything about drug policy is difficult...even what seems like it should be the least controversial drug-related matter cannot be resolved.

That said, marijuana remains controversial among the public as well. Though support for full legalization continues to tick up, a majority still want marijuana to remain illegal. However, when it comes to medical marijuana the story changes dramatically: a whopping 81% think it should be legal according to a recent ABC News poll! If we accept these numbers as even remotely close to the truth, then there is a definite disconnect between citizens and their governments both on a state and federal level. Part of the issue is that the wheels of the government roll slowly -- just think of some of the currently serving legislators who have served for decades. When they were originally elected, the public stance on marijuana was much harsher and medical marijuana had not yet been legitimized by mainstream science. The views of the public have now changed, but these legislators are the same and may understandably reflect a different viewpoint on the issue more common to their demographic (polls indicate that senior citizens are among the most skeptical of any form of marijuana legalization). Another issue is that many who support the legalization of medical marijuana don't care about it enough to vote on the basis of that issue alone. They won't go for Candidate B who agrees with them on legalization rather than Candidate A who doesn't if they like A better in most other respects. I've noticed that many of those who vigorously advocate for the legalization of marijuana have never used the stuff once in their lives -- they may sound passionate in their arguments, but at the end of the day the issue doesn't affect them that much directly. Frankly, I'm one of those people...I wouldn't ever use marijuana unless I was in great pain and the laws of the time permitted my use of it unambiguously. I doubt it will be people like me who end up changing the laws: it'll instead be the sick who are fighting for the dignity of a life with less pain and the doctors, nurses, and caregivers who see the medical benefits of cannabis firsthand. They've got a lot of work to do in Washington and many state capitals; I'll cheer them on from afar.

Can President Obama Succeed and the Democratic Party Struggle?

2010-02-20T01:49:00.003-06:00

The political momentum at the moment seems to strongly favor a Republican comeback in the 2010 congressional elections. A series of election wins (including Scott Brown's shocking Senate victory in Massachusetts) and strong poll numbers for Republican candidates in many races suggest that the Democrats face an uphill battle to avoid losing seats. At the same time, however, the same polls tell us President Obama remains more popular than either party or Congress. Could a Democratic fall in 2010 not necessarily place the president in an uncomfortable position for 2012? I think that's quite possible.

It's easy to see why the public is disillusioned with the Democrats at the moment. Their major legislative victory was the stimulus package which, to believe the rhetoric from Washington, saved the nation from another Great Depression but failed to lower unemployment to acceptable levels. The other two major items on the year's agenda, health care and climate change, were stalled in the Senate and remain unresolved. The Democrats, including the president, must cling to the stimulus as an example of their success -- they have some numbers to back them up, but I think it's asking too much to expect the public to rejoice just because things aren't any worse when they still remain really bad. The stimulus also wasn't originally sold as primarily a damage control rather than a growth package, hence the infamous claim by two Obama's economic advisers that unemployment would not exceed 8% provided that the stimulus was passed. I think it's pretty obvious that Democrats would still call the stimulus package a success regardless of what actually is going on with the economy -- they don't have much choice right now politically. Cap and trade is perhaps not popular enough to have ever been a major winning issue (especially given all the global warming related controversy since Climategate), but health care reform is another story. However, the great health care debate of '09 took some weird turns. I thought health care was one of President Obama's winning issues as a presidential candidate, but his message in 2008 was different than what was heard in 2009. Unlike Obama, many other Democrats never even had qualms about the morality of forcing Americans to buy insurance and that idea -- rather than reigning in insurers whose practices and prices Candidate Obama blamed -- became one of the central aspects of the reform debate. While regulations on insurers certainly can affect the consumer/voter, they have the virtue of being indirect. Mandates on the consumer, however, are as direct a law as can be, and it was a massive oversight on the part of the Democrats to think that voters would accept a mandate lying down...it's a political law that it's easier to accept stuff that affects other people or institutions rather than yourself. The Dems probably thought people who already had health insurance of some kind (and they are the majority) wouldn't care about such a mandate, but even if you have something you don't necessarily want to be forced to have it...I've never driven a car without car insurance, but I nonetheless feel very warmly about New Hampshire just because they don't have a car insurance mandate. The hysteria whipped up by the GOP about a potential government takeover in health care didn't exactly make things easier for the Democrats, either.

To the extent that President Obama has been linked to the Democrats' legislative failures he has indeed been damaged and the fall in his popularity reflects that. However, it's nothing unusual for presidents to lose popularity after their first years...if anything, it is de rigueur. I think he has a strong chance to win in 2012 if he plays to his strengths. Obama fits the presidential role in many of the same ways that Clinton and Reagan did and the Bushes did not (I doubt GWB would've won a second term had 9/11 not been such a game-changing event, not to mention the controversy of whether he really won that first term or not). He remains an articulate and interesting speaker -- perhaps a little overexposed but nonetheless an excellent orator. He comes across as both charming and intelligent and is a good representative of America overseas...given that George W. Bush's verbal stumbling has become the stuff of legend on YouTube, it's hard not to notice an improvement in that respect. Foreign policy and military matters are much more the domain of the president than health care, and Obama has succeeded in living up to his pledge to draw back in Iraq and ramp up in Afghanistan while pursuing a more conciliatory diplomatic policy towards much of the rest of the world. Unlike Reagan, he doesn't have the burden of being expected to act tough while confronting a world power so he has had the freedom to play a cat and mouse game with both Russia and China, bending on some issues and standing firm on others. The problems he faces overseas are lingering ones that can stew for years to come: how to get out completely of Afghanistan and Iraq, how to ease Iran's nuclear ambitions, how to influence China to change its economic policies. If he has to face a foreign policy crisis of the like of 9/11, that will be a severe test, but it may very well never happen.

For all the talk of hope and change in 2008, President Obama's greatest advantage over his fellow Democrats may well be that he is a far better politician than most in either party. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and much of the rest of the Democratic caucus seem strangely plastic and awkward in comparison. The Democrats don't have a deep bench in Congress, and the Republicans seem to have recruited more exciting challengers than the Democrats have so far. Marco Rubio and Peter Schiff get my attention...Martha Coakley, not so much. Granted, such "interesting" challengers often lose to establishment candidates in primaries because of moderate voters (after all, the Republican caucus isn't all that interesting for the most part either!), but I don't think Democrats can afford to be boring in 2010. Obama, though, just needs to campaign like he did in 2008 and use his organization wisely to have a decided edge over most likely 2012 candidates. He also will have a couple more years to really define his presidency. Frankly, he may look even better in contrast to a uncooperative, opposition Congress -- gridlock is a highly underrated route to prosperity though political party members absolutely loathe it.

Term Limits and Democracy

2010-02-18T04:14:00.003-06:00

I have a gut reaction against the idea of absolute term limits. The fundamental idea behind them has always seemed to me to be anti-democratic: aren't term limits considered to be a positive limitation because there is this presumption that the uninformed electorate will keep electing the same bozos over and over again? What's the point of democracy, though, if the people aren't allowed to pick who they want? Maybe they really like those bozos, much more so than they would like the next bozo who wants the office. Every now and then, the person who keeps getting elected might not even be a bozo but rather a transformative personality who really is making things better. It surely cannot be beneficial to replace a superior officeholder with someone not as good because of some arbitrary term restriction.

Gut feelings notwithstanding, watching Latin American politics from afar has given me a slightly different take on term limits. Latin America has historically been plagued by dictators and foreign interference -- it has not been a place where robust democracies have flourished. Perhaps in large part due to that history, term limits are a common feature of electoral politics in the region. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela had to fight one of the biggest battles of his political career to simply earn the right to run again for president in 2012 and beyond. His first attempt to amend the Venezuelan constitution by popular referendum failed -- his second succeeded. On the other hand, Manuel Zelaya's move to try to end the system of presidential term limits on Honduras proved disastrous: a military coup, supported by the Honduran Supreme Court, removed Zelaya from power. A subsequent election elected a new president in Honduras which the world seems to be grudgingly accepting. This hasn't dissuaded Alvaro Uribe, president of Colombia and political opposite of Chavez and Zelaya, from flirting with the idea of running for a third term -- depending on what the courts decide, Colombians may get the chance to amend their constitution and allow Uribe to run again. If nothing else, term limits have certainly brought a lot of political drama to Latin America. Even though a number of popular leaders have been able to adjust these limits, they remain in force in many countries. There's no doubt that there remains something decidedly anti-democratic about them, but I have to admit they are doing their job...they have made it much harder for even a highly popular elected leader to become a dictator. Term limits are like a hurdle which any would-be tyrant must cross at some point. They can't use repeated, controlled elections to give their governments a whiff of legitimacy. That isn't to say that Chavez, Zalaya, and Uribe are all would-be dictators just waiting for their chance to subvert democracy...it's just that if that does happen to be what they are term limits will be remembered as having not made their lives any easier.

Given all the allegations of voter fraud swirling about lately (Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Ukraine), I wonder if term limits aren't inherently valuable as a hedge against electoral fraud. At least it makes it more difficult for power to be concentrated in a single individual -- at least someone new must run and be vested with at least nominal power in the government even if someone else behind the scenes really controls things. I still feel reluctant to suggest that the rest of the world follow Latin America's lead, but I do realize now that there is more merit in term limits than initially meets the eye. It's amazing that George Washington was essentially able to set a precedent for American presidents to not serve any longer than two terms based entirely on the honor system that lasted for a over a century -- eventually, however, someone did come along (FDR) who was willing to break the code, and the voters embraced him all the more for it. I'd definitely like to see more of such honor systems: more people should be approaching politics as a civic duty with the expectation that they will happily leave office to pursue other things after completing a reasonable term of service.

The Government Vs Private Charity

2010-02-18T01:42:00.003-06:00

Modern governments manage services that in the past would have been entirely operated by the private sector, services which political philosophers would never have imagined would be connected to government. From health care to arts funding to scientific research, governments do it all, and sometimes they do things quite well. This poses an interesting question: does government occupy a particular domain or can it literally undertake any project that it wishes? Is there an optimal space for government to occupy or are such limits unnecessary and perhaps hurtful to society? By depending so much on government, are we missing out on the benefits offered by the private sector?

There are definitely spheres of activity that I consider should be occupied by the government alone. In particular, all areas connected to the law are governmental responsibilities in my view. The three branches of the American government are all connected to the law: the legislative branch writes laws, the executive branch executes laws, and the judicial interprets laws. I see no reason to think privatized police forces or courts would deliver better justice despite how flawed their public counterparts can be. For profit institutions always tend to cater towards their better paying customers (which would obviously lead to unequal justice) while nonprofit legal institutions might struggle to survive given the often antagonistic relationship between citizen and state. It also makes sense for war to be the domain of government given that it is always effectively waged on a nation-state level; Mexico might say it is declaring war only on Military Inc. of California, but the moment its troops march across the border or its planes start bombing everyone in the way is in danger. Perhaps most importantly, laws and wars have the power to affect every citizen's life -- surely each citizen deserves an opportunity to help determine the laws and decide when to go to war. Ineffective as it sometimes is, voting does give each citizen a meager voice in democratic countries. Theoretically, there is perhaps nothing that couldn't be decoupled from what we think of as a government, but allowing the government to control some basic functions is highly convenient and is an experiment that has been tested again and again for thousands of years. However, it's certainly true that some services have become quite traditionally associated with government that aren't really core government responsibilities at all...postal services are an example. If nothing else, the examples of such services show that governments are capable of performing many functions -- the question remains if that is a desirable thing or not.

When it comes to services, the key factor that tends to separate the public sector and the private sector is how they are funded. Public services are usually funded by force via taxation; private services are funded either by paying customers or voluntary contributions from the charitable. There are hybrid services, of course -- the United States Postal Service and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation are run like corporations and are theoretically self-sustaining but are still considered part of the government. I tend to favor privatization because I believe people generally have the right to spend their money as they wish...public services funded by taxes take away that granular level of choice in spending though presumably voting citizens still have a voice in what services are provided and to what extent they are funded. Because of the existence of consumer and donor choice, private services are rarely offered by only one provider -- there is competition for funding which encourages both quality and affordability as service providers seek to outdo one another. Government services, however, tend to be monopolies because they do not have to fight for funding from countless individual sources. Public services can improve in quality and become more affordable, but only through good oversight...there is no equivalent to the market's invisible guiding hand save perhaps in some extreme cases the ire of the public. Of course, all isn't sunshine and light in the private sector either: things can get hairy there when for one reason or another competition doesn't emerge and also when a service is particularly vital -- it's the latter situation that I particularly want to discuss in this post.

As I see it, there will always be a need for free health care and education. It's true that competition in these sectors can bring prices down, but at the end of the day there'll always be people without a penny in their pocket who need medical services and there'll always be people without a patron who need education. The default option around the developed world seems to be for government to provide these free services to those who need them. The United States has received a lot of global criticism of late for not providing universal health care coverage to its citizens, but yet government does fund an enormous amount of health care even in the United States: Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Health Administration, the Indian Health Service, health benefits for state and federal employees, etc and public education is universal. All in all, I think this is rather an unfortunate state of affairs because there is such a level of dependence on government for these vital services even in the richest countries. I have a long-term goal to at least contribute as much money to health care charities as I spend on health care services (including insurance) for myself, but the truth is health care charities are nowhere near as developed as they need to be in order to be a major player in the health care industry. I believe strongly in supporting free clinics and charitable hospitals, but there are no local institutions of the type I can support -- it's not that I'm not happy to support institutions around the country that do good work, but it bothers me that there is no alternative to for-profit (and frequently government-funded) health care in my area and so many other areas. Free private schools are even harder to track down. That such alternatives SHOULD exist seems like a no-brainer to me, but it makes me wonder if there isn't enough collective will to provide these free charitable services on a wide scale. This seems hard to believe given the great successes of private charities in other endeavors and given that health care and education are such universally needed services, but it's even harder to ignore reality.

Given the need for free vital services and the lack of success of private charity in providing these services, government involvement seems inevitable. Indeed, I have a hard time opposing it -- it's better for government to pay for or even run health care than for people to suffer and die unnecessarily. However, I can't help but feel society has failed by having to rely on government force to provide vital services that could certainly be performed by the private sector. The likely penalties are harsh: limited competition between institutions, high taxes, government influence on treatment options and school curriculums...but what can be done? Perhaps we've already laid our bed and have no choice but to lie in it for now.

The Vexing Problem of Education

2010-02-16T23:29:00.004-06:00

Education is one of those issues that politicians seem to love to simplify. They like to focus on one thing and act like that everything will fall into place if that one policy is implemented. For some, the problems of education are all related to funding -- if you pay teachers enough and provide schools with enough resources, learning will happen. Others focus on accountability issues which essentially places the responsibility of education squarely on the shoulders of teachers and administrators -- they believe that the best teachers and the best administrators will definitely deliver good educational outcomes much like a good painter produces good paintings. Still others think public schools have failed and parents need more educational options and so they support vouchers to enable more students to attend private schools. I think all of these points of view are correct to one extent or another, but I suspect that no matter how much is spent on public schools, how much teachers and administrators are held accountable, and how many school vouchers are issued, education will still remain a problem. The process of education is deeply complex and filled with innumerable players that must cooperate. A bad teacher may teach badly, but an uninterested student is also likely to learn badly regardless of instructor. A student with a rough home life walks into the door with disadvantages, but so does a teacher whose meager salary does not pay her bills. I think of education as being like a ladder: one bad rung can greatly impede a student's progress to the top. Still, it's impossible to create ideal conditions for every student. What should be done?

Virtually every reform will bring about bad consequences as well as good. Upping the funding to schools, for instance, can make education a more desirable field to enter and can provide students with more learning opportunities (computer and chemistry and robotics labs, for instance), but it strains already troubled state and local budgets and may not be sustainable for the long term. If the federal government picks up more of the funding gap, that is just another stressor on the much beleaguered federal budget. It's not like education spending is all that elastic either -- no one wants to provide students with a worse education than previous generations of students received so shutting down labs, not buying new computers when they are needed, and paying teachers less are some of the toughest fiscal decisions that can be made. Furthermore, throwing money around freely tends to create bloat rather than efficiency. Focusing on accountability would seemingly do the opposite in that it would lead to more efficiency: teachers and administrators would strive for excellence to hold on to their jobs and the best, rather than the longest employed or most well connected, would be most rewarded. However, this mindset seems to suggest that there are no bad students, just bad educators, which in my view is obviously incorrect. Past the early grades, most students have access to multiple ways to learn ranging from textbooks to libraries to the Internet. If they don't know something, they surely deserve some of the blame themselves. I'm pretty sure anyone who has ever been inside a school has noticed that not every student pays equal attention to even the most gifted and creative teacher. That's not even mentioning the individual circumstances for each student that might make it difficult for him or her learn. It's not fair to hold teachers accountable for factors beyond their control, but to a certain extent all educational outcomes ARE beyond their control. They have an important role, but they can't do it all themselves. Inevitably, some in education will be rewarded not for being better but rather for having more learning-focused groups of students at their disposal for whatever reason. Meanwhile, some teachers will get sick of all the scrutiny and seek another profession that will appreciate their talents better. Vouchers encourage competition among schools, which is fantastic in the way it allows for comparisons in educational outcomes among similar groups of students. If students from single-parent households are exceeding in one school but not in another, then there might well be something worth looking into there. However, just as public schools never get tired of public funding, private schools will undoubtedly develop an insatiable appetite for vouchers. Once again, easy money will lead to bloat and the lines between the public and private school systems will blur...not necessarily a great recipe for "competition." Inevitably, governments and private schools will butt heads -- central planners will strive for more influence on the education they are funding while the schools will attempt to remain as independent as possible. The process of education may well take a back seat to politics which benefits no one.

Personally, I think there should be something of a paradigm shift in how we approach education...actually, make that two shifts. I don't regard No Child Left Behind as a great piece of legislature, but I still think the title would be quite good if it were just slightly changed to No Person Left Behind. Education shouldn't just be about children. Of course, it's a good thing for children to learn as much as possible during their formative years. Sometimes, though, learning won't happen, and we have to accept that. That doesn't mean that the people who passed through the education system unscathed should be regarded as some kind of refuse to be discarded and forgotten in favor of more promising raw material. More and more people seem to be entering higher education later in life now, in no small thanks to the recession -- that's a great thing because a dynamic educational system should always be open to learners of any age. Children will always be left behind no matter what educational reforms are enacted...I think it's important that as adults they'll be able to make up for lost time if they have the desire to do so. However, I rarely hear any politician ask if the educational system is welcoming enough for adults and suited to their needs. The pathways for adult education do exist, but it's a societal shortcoming that we still see education as kids' stuff. Another big paradigm shift that is occurring as we speak is the result of the information revolution. Technology is going to change education in innumerable ways in the future, and it's already making it easier for those "left behind" kids to catch up. The Internet has democratized learning like no other invention; not even the printing press is quite comparable. As we speak, people from around the world are viewing lectures online for free taught by university professors at prestigious institutions -- as time goes on, more and more educational resources will be available for free to all comers. Formal and structured education will undoubtedly still be very important, but it too will be able to take more and more advantage of technology. Flu outbreaks and snowstorms perhaps won't be such disruptions when students can routinely listen to their teachers via webcam and complete assignments online. The best teachers cannot physically be in every single classroom, but no sincere teacher would mind sharing the stage for a few minutes with some brilliant lecturer who wishes to share his or her wisdom with the students of the nation or world...technology makes the transfer of knowledge so much easier. Perhaps the most valuable information students of the future will pick up in school in addition to the three Rs will be computer literacy. That skill is what they will need to learn over the course of their lifetimes, far beyond the date they graduate. That said, it's another simplification to presume the Internet will solve all our problems -- technology is a superb equalizer in education, but frankly if we were all perfect self-motivated learners libraries would have been sufficient to turn us all into polymaths long ago. Small steps like integrating technology with education and encouraging older students, however, may have a bigger impact in the long run than broad and massive reforms.

Should Incumbents Be Challenged?

2010-02-12T22:16:00.003-06:00

I'm not really into the whole team mentality of politics. Why should anyone get excited that Candidate A has been elected just because he happens to be a member of Party B, just like you? If what's important to you isn't important to A, then his affiliation with B doesn't really mean all that much. Nonetheless, it seems like people who are into politics routinely cheer on tired old incumbents whose views only match their own tangentially just because they're on the right team. This attitude only serves to empower career politicians and weakens democracy.

Democracy, as I see it, is fundamentally about choice. Because everyone has a voice, each person gets to have a measure of input when it comes to the policies of their government either directly and indirectly. If we can't choose among various points of view, though, our representation becomes more and more indirect and limited. A major problem in the United States (and probably most other countries with two party systems) is that neither party takes the opposing view on some issues so that there is no escaping this "default" view no matter how you vote. I'm not just talking about fringe issues here, either: the Iraq War resolutions, though controversial, drew bipartisan support in Congress.

When incumbents aren't challenged in their party's primary, there is only room for one Democratic or Republican voice. While political party affiliation isn't entirely useless as an indicator for policy viewpoints, I don't think voters in either party are being well-served by not being allowed a choice. The Democrat who supports the legalization of marijuana or the Republican who wants the budget to be balanced shouldn't be told to put their feelings aside and just vote for the establishment candidate because he or she has already been elected in the past. These voters might well vote for what they perceive to be the lesser of two evils in the general election, but to ask them to forgo meaningful participation even in their own party's primaries seems entirely too cruel.

On a practical level, it makes sense for the political parties to support their incumbents as long as you assume the whole point of a political party is to win elections. An unchallenged incumbent focuses his or her resources and political capital on winning the ultimate prize, the general election. No primary competition means no in-fighting; the disaffected voters will just stay home until it comes time for them to do their job and vote for the lesser evil once again. If, on the other hand, political parties are supposed to have some responsibility to stand up for the wishes and values of ALL of their members, then challengers should be welcomed not as traitors to the party cause but rather as defenders of democracy.

Secession's Bad Name

2010-01-29T21:23:00.002-06:00

Sometimes the success (or lack thereof) of an idea has less to do with the merits of an idea and more to do with the people who espouse it. We might reason that "better" ideas are embraced by "better" people, but that's only true to a degree. There's little reason to trust a doctor or a scientist's point of view on politics implicitly, for instance, though they might be brilliant in their specific niches. Perhaps the most dangerous thing for an idea is for it to become associated with disreputable people or organizations. Undoubtedly communism has gone out of vogue less because of anything that Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels actually wrote and more because what dictators like Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong actually did while in power. You can certainly be a card-carrying member of the Communist Party and not believe in mass murder, but it's difficult for any movement to survive being taken over by evil on such a scale.

In the United States, secessionism is also a severely tainted political ideology. I think it's fair to say that Americans are opposed to secession by default largely because they are opposed to the practice of slavery. Secession is still viewed through the lens of the Civil War; secessionism as an idea still stinks of the Confederacy. On the other hand, many Americans who are opposed to secession by default quite avidly support the idea of a Palestinian state or of a Free Tibet which are essentially secessionist movements; neither is it unusual for an American to believe the American colonists were justified in breaking away from Britain while at the same time refusing to seriously consider the prospect of a state legally breaking free of the United States.

As a general rule, I think people should have the right of self-determination. So, I tend to be "pro-secession" to the extent that I think there ought to be political mechanisms in place to allow people to break away from the state if there is a widespread desire to do so. It shouldn't be easy to secede, but it also shouldn't be impossible. I think it's healthy when Quebecois are allowed to vote to decide if they want to stay a part of Canada or forge ahead on their own -- they should have the right to make that decision. If the Catalonians, Scots, Tibetans, or Uighurs want to have their own nations, I also see no reason why they shouldn't. Unfortunately, it goes without saying that sometimes people will seek secession for less than noble reasons. For the most part, today's secession movements around the world seem to be tied to preserving a culture, language, or religion -- they are motivated by the desire to protect some of the most basic human rights. If we accept that all people have the right to self-determination, though, we have to accept that secession will sometimes lead to bad consequences. I would never claim that the Civil War was entirely motivated by slavery, but undoubtedly one of the consequences of secession would have been a continuation of the practice of legal slavery in the southern states, at least for a time. It's hardly surprising that China attempts to brush aside calls for Tibetan independence by villifying the feudalism of old Tibet -- the state is trying to argue that Tibetans shouldn't have the right to self-determination because they don't know what's good for them and want to go backwards. If you truly believe in self-determination as a concept, however, you also believe that people should have the freedom to make mistakes.

Many also oppose secessionism for purely practical reasons. Without a doubt, smaller nations tend to be more vulnerable to invasion. While individual areas like Venice and Genoa and Bavaria lost tremendous influence by the unification of Italy and Germany, these massive states became military powers in their own right, much more able to defend themselves against attack as well as perpetrate attacks on other nations. If every city in the world suddenly became free tomorrow, there might well be a flowering of culture and commerce as each city developed internally, but as soon as two cities formed a confederation the trend towards incorporation by force or coercion would likely begin anew. Additionally, secessionists, often motivated by pure emotion, don't always consider political matters like access to sea ports or land barriers that will surely help determine the future success of the nation they are trying to form when they are in the process of fighting for freedom. As I see it, these practical concerns will come to the fore if secessionism is treated less like a criminal act and more of a political issue to be debated. Although the independence-favoring Scottish National Power is narrowly in control of Scotland, Scottish secessionists face an uphill battle in even getting a vote on independence largely because of the reluctance of Scottish voters to break away from the rest of the United Kingdom and no longer be a part of a world power. If even the Scots aren't sure they want to break their union with their historical enemy England of all nations, then I think we can rest assured that legal secessionism is unlikely to create millions of microstates any time soon. At least the Scots can choose their own destiny (or at least influence the process), though, unlike the Uighurs and Tibetans. Amending the constitutions of the world to provide a clear legal path to secession, with definite (difficult but achievable) requirements set in place, would be a positive development in my view. In the United States, the law is already biased against secession, but I sincerely hope that Americans wouldn't treat a modern Texas independence movement (just to give a wild example...) as China treats the Tibetans.

Gauging the Success of the Stimulus

2010-01-09T16:04:00.002-06:00

I have a different take on stimulus spending than many. I don't really think it does all that much good to the economy in and of itself -- I think instead that its primary benefit is psychological. Remember, stimulus spending is typically a one shot deal...it is by its very nature not sustainable and even the largest of stimulus packages is going to be small compared to the size of the overall economy. Thus, I think the best stimulus package is the one that is as small as possible yet is still capable of instilling new confidence in the nation's entrepreneurs, investors, and consumers. From this perspective, I felt uneasy about the stimulus package that Congress actually passed and President Obama signed in 2009. I thought it was simply too big and another nail in the coffin for America's finances. After reading the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for myself, my concerns multiplied as much of the spending seemed geared not towards short-term economic growth but rather damage control for public institutions to help them survive the downturn.

As 2010 begins, I think we can see the stimulus bill was rather a mixed bag. It worked fantastically in terms of calming the jitters of investors. The stock market had a fine 2009 and recouped much of its losses suffered during the previous year. That in turn means that publicly listed companies have renewed access to the money raising engine that is the stock market, that large and small stock investors alike are making money, and that retirement accounts are looking much healthier . On the other hand, unemployment remains very high. The country returned to economic growth in the last quarter, but it's rather anemic growth and nothing to get too excited about. Undoubtedly, the ARRA did save many public jobs as state and local governments struggled with budget shortfalls, but the Boston Globe did some fantastic research to expose how flawed some of the jobs numbers reported really were. In many cases, jobs seem not to have really been created but rather retained instead -- in some cases, the money seems to have been downright misused, having been used to give raises to existing employees which hardly seems necessary in this economic climate. The infrastructure spending component of the stimulus has been a downright disappointment; the slow speed in getting these projects off the ground has really limited the effect it has had on unemployment. In fact, that slowness has made me question the value of infrastructure spending as stimulus at all...I'm as big a fan of good roads and strong bridges as anyone, but stimulus spending is supposed to have a speedy impact on the economy.

The fundamental problem with stimulus spending as damage control may be really exposed this year. It's quite possible that state and local governments, still facing revenue shortfalls, will be forced to cut even more jobs after they go through stimulus funds. It would've been far better to have stronger economic growth and lower unemployment at this point even at the expense of many public jobs as governments could easily start hiring again once tax revenues recovered. Instead, it looks like the stimulus may have little lingering effect on the economy and calls for a second stimulus will surely continue to be heard. (I expect any "jobs bill" that gets passed will in effect be a second stimulus even if it isn't called that.)

Ultimately, I feel that the biggest failure of the stimulus is that it didn't quite improve confidence enough. It worked for the stock market, but it didn't encourage people to start businesses or start hiring more workers. Did it need to do more to specifically encourage entrepreneurship or hiring? Maybe...that couldn't have hurt. However, I also think the stimulus package became something of a victim of President Obama's ambitious overall agenda. The debate over health care reform in particular has created a lot of uncertainty; arguably, the specter of cap and trade has created just as much uneasiness in the business community. In a way, it's not even so much the particulars of the proposed legislation that has the chilling effect on the economy -- it's the uncertainty and the fear of what MIGHT be enacted and the tax increases that MIGHT be coming. Had some form of health care and climate change legislation been passed quickly (which I doubt would have been even possible given the fractious political environment), I think the economy might have improved quicker. Instead, we've had lingering, paralyzing uncertainty. Ultimately, I suspect the economy would have fared better had the government focused on it ahead of all other priorities, but Obama and the Democrats didn't want to lose the opportunity to pass what they viewed as very important legislation. What they do in 2010 is going to be interesting to see. It's an election year -- do they dare tackle immigration reform as has been whispered or is this the time to focus squarely on the economy? First, however, they STILL have to finish with health care and cap and trade, though.

Islam in Europe, a Test of Religious Toleration

2009-12-12T22:57:00.003-06:00

When I think of religious intolerance in the present day, the first countries that pop in my mind are authoritarian ones like China. While Europe's disdain for certain forms of Christianity spurred on many to seek new lives in the New World, that's now the distant past -- the wars for toleration have already been fought and won, the peace treaties signed with the blood of countless Protestants and Catholics. Nonetheless, Europe's hard-won tolerance is being sorely tested at the moment as largely secular and Christian Europeans struggle to coexist with increasing numbers of Muslim immigrants.

How big of a struggle this is was revealed in Switzerland recently where a referendum passed banning the construction of new minarets in the country. Bear in mind that the minaret is essentially an architectural feature common to mosques -- it is distinctive, but about as innocuous an aspect of Islam (if it should really even be called that...the column is not an expression of the worship of Zeus or Jupiter) as there can be. If minarets are ban-worthy, would the referendum have yielded different results if it were Islam itself being evaluated? Undoubtedly the result was influenced by low voter turnout -- the people most passionate about the minarets, which hardly even exist in Switzerland, were those most opposed to Islam. Yet this is not just a Swiss thing. French president Nicolas Sarkozy has publicly stated that the burka, an all-encompassing article of clothing commonly worn by Muslim women, is not welcome in France. Once again, read between the lines: is it the clothing itself that is unwelcome or is it the religion that inspires the wearing of the clothing that is under siege? Sarkozy's statement has no legal teeth at the moment, but the gauntlet has been dropped -- the extent to which Islam can be publicly practiced in France is likely up to politicians to decide.

Now, if you listen to what the supporters of the restriction of Islam say, they'll deny everything. "No, no, no, it really IS about the veils and the minarets. It's about culture and women's rights. Nothing to do with Islam, that great religion." However, if the version of Islam you follow does require the burka, any law against the burka effectively means you cannot practice your religion. I firmly believe it is not the state's responsibility to interpret religion -- for instance, the government of France cannot say what is or is not a part of Islam. To say the veil is not part of Islam is essentially to take a side in a long running religious argument over the extent to which the hadiths, or attributed sayings of Muhammad compiled by various chroniclers, should be regarded as religiously binding. Some Muslims think the hadiths are of dubious origin and the Q'uran alone is the Islamic scripture...most, however, embrace both together to some extent. If Islam is truly to be tolerated, then the state cannot tell each Muslim what to believe and how to practice his or her religion. The burka and minaret happen to have something else in common besides a connection to Islam: they are both very visible. To ban them is to wipe away the external trappings of Islam, to make it an invisible religion...it is little but a way for Europe to try to forget its large immigrant populations. The veil itself has little to do with women's rights -- many religions require some external sign of belief and in some Islamic sects men also wear veils. On the other hand, aspects of Islam which are effectively impossible to ban, like the belief that women should not be allowed to associate with unrelated men (sometimes even teachers, doctors, and police officers) and should not be allowed to marry a non-Muslim really do restrict the lives of women in ways I don't think are acceptable. My disagreements with Islam on women's rights and other issues are simply why I am not a Muslim, though -- I certainly don't think I or anyone else has the right to let such religious disagreements lead me to interfere with how other people live their lives. The state can and should protect women who face harassment or worse because they have abandoned Islam or otherwise violated the cultural norms of their community as it would protect any abused or threatened person; however, it cannot and should not prevent women from holding beliefs that may not be shared by the bulk of society. One irony of the European situation is that many Muslims in Europe have already voluntarily abandoned the aspects of Islam that are least compatible with western traditions. Even so, they are treated like second-class citizens!

What is so wrong about Switzerland's minaret ban and the rhetoric coming out of France is that there is nothing wrong with minarets or veils and no reason to consider banning them...the only reason the issue of banning has been raised is because minarets and veils are associated with Islam. If, for instance, there were something inherently troubling about minarets and veils then they could have been banned before the influx of Muslim immigrants even started so those immigrants would have known what to expect. Religious tolerance doesn't mean "anything goes" -- followers of Thuggee can't murder with impunity just because their faith tells them to do so. Banning harmless religious practices, though, is simply a way of banning a form of religion indirectly. Besides that, it even infringes on the rights of non-Muslims: what if you want to wear a burka or build a minaret just for the heck of it (or because you're making a movie set in an Islamic country)? Free countries shouldn't have irrational restrictions like that.

I think it is fair to say that Europeans aren't necessarily intolerant by nature. Hating something because you feel it has no right to exist is somewhat different from fearing something because you feel it threatens your right to exist. Many Europeans are concerned about maintaining their national and religious identities and view influxes of immigrants as a threat to that. I don't think that point of view should be condemned out of hand, though you can certainly argue that immigrants can become good, patriotic citizens and that no nation is "pure." The fundamental reason immigration is such a hot issue around the world, though, is that immigration policies typically have little to do with public sentiment. Governments by their nature always want larger populations. They struggle mightily to cut back on spending in response to declining populations and declining revenues. Immigration is a convenient way to keep populations growing and most countries are well aware of that...Japan is one of the few remaining industrialized countries to literally restrict immigration out of principle despite a declining population. Still, it would be far more moral to have restrictive immigration policies than to infringe on the religious rights of immigrants once they have arrived in and settled down in a new country. It simply isn't fair to open up the borders of your country, let people in from all over the world, and then say, "Relinquish your beliefs and identities and mold yourselves in our images!" The Swiss and the French should really be fighting for control of their countries' immigration policies, not attacking the freedoms of their fellow citizens.

Although the United States' Muslim population is relatively small, I expect immigration will continue to be a hot topic on this side of the Atlantic throughout my lifetime. The same issues Europeans often have with Muslims native-born Americans often have with Hispanic immigrants. You hear the same arguments about culture and ways of life and the threat unbridled immigration poses...but less about religion because most Hispanics are Catholic, just like many native citizens. As more Muslims do immigrate to the US, I expect the religious arguments will crop up increasingly as well, despite the Constitution's protection of religious freedom. Many in America also feel that they don't have control over their country's immigration policies -- you can argue to an extent that the USA is a special case as a "nation of immigrants" but there have always been restrictions on immigration here, some blatantly racist, and there have always been political forces opposed to immigration. Although I'm personally proud of the United States' past embrace of immigrants from all corners of the globe, I do wonder if at some point we won't decide that we pretty much have enough people here already. The prospect of more space and less competition for resources is inherently tempting, even though settling for that form of utopia means that the Nikola Teslas and Werner von Brauns of the future will no longer come to our shores. If we do go down that route, however, I hope we can do it without punishing the immigrants who are already here and without making a mockery of a constitution that protects the basic rights of all citizens. Europe's solution may well turn out to be our own...I hope it turns out to be a reasonable one.

Jesse Ventura on the Draft

2009-12-06T02:32:00.002-06:00

Jesse Ventura, former Reform Party governor of Minnesota, has returned to the public eye as the host of the new TV show, "Conspiracy Theory." It looks like it's going to be a pretty good series -- I saw the first episode -- and I would encourage anyone interested in recent conspiracy theories to give it a look. Ventura isn't quite the skeptic you'd think someone hosting a nationwide TV program would be so the show is pretty much mainstream America's first chance to hear conspiracy theories sympathetically presented. I'd prefer a more balanced presentation personally, but at least it's not the type of "These people are NUTS and DANGEROUS!" tripe you normally hear in media channels other than the Internet (where, bizarrely, everyone seems to believe in one conspiracy theory or another). The next episode is about 9/11 and I suspect will ruin any chance Ventura has to win political office in the future...well before the "teabaggers" earned the mockery of the political elite the 9/11 "truthers" were showered with ridicule. Ventura is definitely wary of the official version of the events of September 11th, 2001.

One side effect of Ventura's salvo into broadcasting is that he's been doing a lot of interviews and talking about a lot of different things. I think he knows that he is one of America's most colorful political figures and I think he also realizes that the reason some people are going to tune into "Conspiracy Theory" is purely because of him. What better way to promote a controversial show than to stir up some political controversy? Ventura's controversial issue of choice at the moment seems to be the military draft. As a former Navy SEAL and previous supporter of an all-volunteer military, Ventura is an unlikely advocate for a return to the draft. Nonetheless, the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have convinced the governor that regular Americans are too disconnected from the military effort. The solution, in his view, is to make sure more people have skin in the game by force via the draft. He even wants the burden to fall particularly hard on senators and representatives, who he thinks should have to name a person in their family to be eligible for immediate military service. Leave it to Jesse to make conscription even less ethical...he actually wants to allow members of Congress the ability to ship off their undesirable family members to war! "Cousin Johnny has caused nothing but problems for this family since the day he was born! One way ticket to Afghanistan, please."

I've heard Ventura's basic argument many times before, and I remain unconvinced of its merits. I think a lot of people, especially those who lived through the 60s and 70s, are angry that the American public isn't more upset about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those wars effectively ended Republican control of the government in my view, but it is true that Democratic control hasn't exactly brought an end to the fighting as voters have often picked more moderate Democrats over strongly anti-war ones. Certainly the level of protests against the war have never equaled what happened during the Vietnam War. There are two reasons why I feel the comparison to Vietnam is fatally flawed, however. For one thing, more than 58,000 American soldiers died in Vietnam -- roughly 5,000 (less than 10% of the Vietnam tally) have perished in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because there are more people living in the United States today than there were during the Vietnam War, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have also affected fewer families (in terms of casualties...of course military families always suffer during wars even if their loved ones aren't killed in battle) as a percentage of the total population. Even if there were a draft going on today, I'd have expected there to be a much greater reaction to the Vietnam War than to Bush's wars simply due to the sheer numbers of casualties involved. My second beef with Ventura's argument is that it strongly implies that the draft makes waging war more difficult. Why, then, did conscription not prevent the Vietnam War to begin with? Why did it last so long despite all the protests? Why did hyper-aggressive dictators like Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler use conscription to fill the ranks of their enormous armies? Something doesn't add up here.

The morality of conscription is something Jesse Ventura barely touches on. I think that's because he's a political realist who thinks the government is in practice essentially permitted to do anything it wants...the only way to stop the government from doing something it wants to do is through popular resistance. Thus, Ventura thinks that doing something that on the surface seems to reduce an individual's freedom (allowing the government to force people into the military at will) can actually lead to more freedom down the line because of the resulting pushback and resistance. That's antithetical to the idea that there should be a limited government that is, like the citizenry themselves, itself constrained by laws. Personally, I don't want the government to violate an individual's rights even if that's popular at the time. Rather than reinstate the draft, it should be made illegal!

With all that said, I do think Governor Ventura has a point about the public's seemingly growing disinterest in the wars. There are still American soldiers who are placing their lives on the line every day in Iraq and Afghanistan -- what right do we have to forget about the dangers they are facing just because we've got massive unemployment and other economic problems at home? Forgetting a war is never wise...wars have ways of forcing your attention towards them no matter how many other problems exist. People also seem to have forgotten the startlingly high numbers of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan -- unintentional as those deaths may be, they nonetheless call into question the very idea of a "virtuous" and "justified" war.

Sarah Palin's Political Future

2009-11-16T20:14:00.002-06:00

Sarah Palin has proven to be one of the most mercurial of political figures of our day. She burst on the national scene as John McCain's surprise vice presidential pick and proceeded to make numerous friends as well as foes with her brand of conservative populism. A series of political gaffes brought a lot of media attention to her -- perhaps more than was really warranted for a VP pick -- but ultimately I don't think she can be blamed for her ticket's general election failure. The 2008 election was more about Barack Obama and George W. Bush than John McCain...I think any Republican would have had an uphill battle trying to win over a Bush-weary electorate while facing such a skilled campaigner as President Obama. In 2008, I saw no reason Sarah Palin couldn't build on her newfound popularity and be a serious political contender in the future despite her loss. In 2009, I've started to doubt that possibility.

I remember how people accused Fred Thompson of being too lazy to become president in 2008. He didn't like campaigning or doing all the little things that win campaigns, political wonks said. They may well have been right about Fred -- his presidential campaign didn't really get off the ground. He actually seemed to do better before he started running! I suspect Sarah Palin is in the same mold. The fact that she was caught off-guard in interviews seemed to suggest a lack of preparation which at the time I chalked up to nervousness and inexperience. Her decision to resign as Alaska's governor this year, though, is hard to defend politically. You can be a governor and a national figure at the same time -- heck, Mrs. Palin was Alaska's governor WHILE running for vice president! The way she just left office abruptly without serving out her term makes me seriously doubt how much Palin really enjoys the process of governing. Any political heat she felt in Alaska as governor would pale in (no pun intended) comparison to what she'd get in Washington as president. By resigning as governor, she made me wonder about her willingness to stay the course and deal with the nitty gritty of national politics. In fact, I thought at the time she might be quitting politics altogether. However, she's quickly written a new book, Going Rogue, which is largely about the campaign and is currently hitting the news circuit pretty hard. Maybe she's just trying to make her voice heard and make some money at the same time, but my guess is a 2012 Palin presidential run is still quite possible.

Can she win the Republican nomination if she does run? I do think she remains personally popular, and I actually think a voter who likes a politician personally is going to be a more loyal voter for a candidate than one who votes on ideological grounds. For example, the people who voted for Barack Obama because they liked who he was as a man most probably still like him; those who voted for him because he supported universal health care without individual mandates or thought he would rapidly bring the troops home are probably feeling more disenchanted at the moment. I think Palin's going to have a really hard time convincing anyone who doesn't already like her, though. She'll need to work hard and do a lot of preparatory work no matter how against her nature that is -- she'll have to anticipate and plan how to deal with tough questions like, "Since you quit as governor, how do we know you won't quit as president, too?" I definitely wouldn't want to be her going into the campaign, but perhaps she can make things easier for herself by what she does outside of politics over the next couple of years. People do forget, after all, even though we have YouTube to remind us of stuff now. However, if other former governors like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee run in 2012 (and Tim Pawlenty is another possibility), they'll be able to contrast their gubernatorial records with that of Sarah Palin...I think they'll come out well ahead in that comparison. She can brush a lot under the rug, but perhaps not quitting as governor.

Ultimately, polling may be what decides the issue. I wouldn't put much weight on the early early polls that have been conducted this year that have tended to show Palin, Huckabee, and Romney as leading contenders. What will matter is who emerges after the 2010 midterm elections with serious intent to run -- I suspect some shadow names being floated at the moment, like Newt Gingrich, will vanish by then. If an early favorite or two seems disinterested in running and a lesser known figure like Pawlenty remains relatively low profile, I think Palin may very well throw her hat in the ring and see what happens. I don't, however, think she'll win. She might be better off running for Congress in Alaska and trying to rebuild her political career that way...or else just enjoy private life and make the most of her celebrity. I have to give her credit, though, for keeping everyone guessing. That, arguably, is her greatest talent!

Narrowing the Gap vs Raising the Floor

2009-11-15T19:46:00.002-06:00

I've noticed that there is a lot of political angst about the rising gap between the rich and the poor, but I've long wondered if that GAP is what is really important. Some political thinkers definitely believe it is. They want to narrow this gap essentially as a matter of principle in the belief that it is immoral for so much of the wealth of a nation to be controlled by so few. They view the social problems in a country, such as unemployment and lack of access to health care, as largely resulting from this gap. However, the way I see it there will always be a large income gap among people in any economic system where people can act more or less freely; the person who saves or invests wisely is going to have more income in the long run on average than the person who spends and consumes wildly. Not everyone even wants to be rich. Sure, most everyone would opt for great wealth if it was as simple to obtain as pressing a button, but many wouldn't sacrifice the time they spend with their families or their hobbies or social commitments just to make a lot more money. Rather than focusing on a gap that naturally arises among people with varying interests, I tend to think the major goal should be to improve the living conditions for the poorest among us so that no one does without necessities. In short, I think we should focus on raising the floor rather than narrowing the gap. Both naturally can happen at the same time, but it's also quite possible to narrow the gap -- any destruction of wealth will do that -- without raising the floor.

Thus, I fundamentally reject the idea that narrowing the gap between rich and poor is inherently a good thing in and of itself. Some progressives would like to see a return to 90% marginal tax rates just to make the rich pay their "fair share." Realistically, I think in practice this would create a huge incentive for tax evasion, a huge disincentive for trying to become rich (which typically involves taking on risk, like starting a business which creates jobs), and an opportunity for other countries to lure wealthy American citizens to greener pastures. It would also give the state a heck of a lot of money to do whatever it wants with; historically, at least, waging war and building ever larger bureaucracies have been two of the state's favorite things...much more so than benefiting the poor. Instead of approaching societal problems from the standpoint of trying to hurt the rich (and fill the state's coffers in the process), we should instead think first about helping those who need help the most in whatever way we can.

To me, that means focusing on necessities first. If basic food, clothing, shelter, education, and health care are ubiquitous and affordable, everyone will have a decent place to launch from. There's more than one way to increase access to necessities, and it can be done by the private sector as easily as the public sector...I don't think the source is as important as the actual solution of the underlying problems. However, we also don't want the cure to cause as many problems as the disease. I wonder, for instance, what allowing the government to force people to buy health insurance will lead to...is it just the start of many more mandated expenses in the future as corporations and the government tag team the citizenry? I think we are definitely trading our freedom for safety which is always a dangerous proposition. Meanwhile, the underlying health care and health insurance bubble hasn't burst, and it's definitely not the only bubble still growing in this economy. Why, for instance, should a person be in debt for the rest of their lives because they want to own a home built decades ago or attend a university their grandparents were able to attend by paying their own way? Some necessities have simply grown too expensive (necessities have by definition inelastic demand...people want them regardless of price), and both the public and private sectors have teamed up to keep prices high. The concept of housing as an investment has been destructive to the concept of housing as shelter, but Fannie Mae's guaranteeing mortgages in the name of increasing access to housing has also artificially kept housing prices high. Even now, the government is actively fighting house price deflation when that is just what should be happening! I'm always interested in hearing new and innovative government solutions to problems, but for now I still think our best hope comes from technology (imagine new, cheaper ways of building homes becoming mainstream...plus robots to build them), free and competitive markets, and vigorous nonprofits if we want to improve access and affordability at the same time. I have no confidence the government won't just end up narrowing a relatively unimportant gap without actually making individual lives better. What's the use of a better Gini index if it doesn't translate into truly better living conditions?

Independents Rising

2009-10-31T15:56:00.003-05:00

Every year is an election year. Although most political junkies are either still recovering from the drama of the 2008 presidential election or are already gearing up for the sure to be eventful 2010 midterm elections, there are also a few notable elections taking place here in 2009 in the United States. Political commentators, ever eager for new data to turn over and spin to their hearts' delight, feel these elections might just show whether the country is leaning more towards President Obama or more against him, depending on whether Democrats or Republicans are successful. To me, however, the most interesting thing about the 2009 electoral season doesn't have to do with either the Democrats or the Republicans, but rather the fact that one independent candidate and one third party candidate have remained competitive in their races despite facing decidedly more established opposition.

The independent candidate, Chris Daggett, is competing with Democrat Jon Corzine and Republican Chris Christie for the office of governor in New Jersey. Polls have been all over the place for this election, with Daggett's support in particular proving variable -- at least one poll saw the independent pushing near 20% support, but others have him at less than 10% and pretty much out of striking distance. Which ever scenario is correct, Daggett is quite an interesting candidate. He's just what an independent candidate ought to be, in my view -- a candidate whose views don't fit neatly into a box. He's reminiscent to me of Ross Perot in some ways (though Jon Corzine is definitely the rich guy in the race in New Jersey...he spends millions on his political campaigns out of his own personal wealth), not so much in what he says but in his varied mix of stances on issues and his willingness to adopt new approaches to issues. He certainly has the most interesting approach to taxation. New Jersey's property taxes are among the highest in the nation on average and all three candidates acknowledge to some extent that that has some pernicious effects. Governor Corzine emphasizes the importance of providing relief to vulnerable groups who can't afford such high taxes. Christie absolutely does want to see property taxes fall (he is even more of a supporter of rebates than Corzine) and just about every other type of tax as well, and he's been extremely critical of Corzine's past tax-related actions and how they differed from his rhetoric. What Daggett wants to do, though, is something quite different. Like Christie, he does want property tax rates lower, but he actually is more a tax rearranger than a tax cutter at heart. Instead of having local governments rely so much on the property tax, he wants to increase the reach of the sales tax so that services provided by professionals like lawyers and accountants are also taxed in New Jersey. Now, a tax is a tax (and Christie has blasted Daggett as essentially being a tax and spender, too), but this change would seem to correct an inequity in the sales tax system and at the same time reduce the tax burden on property owners. Sales taxes, generally speaking, let taxpayers exert a greater degree of control on how much they pay than property taxes (at least for property owners), and in this case it's mainly professional services being taxed rather than strict necessities. Daggett's plan, however, does have the burden of being complicated and certainly will require local and state governments to see things eye to eye.

Independents are often viewed as spoiler candidates, and Chris Daggett has definitely been criticized as being one. I find it odd, however, that the general consensus seems to be that Daggett draws more votes away from Christie than Corzine. Daggett has some bold new ideas and isn't afraid to step on a few government toes, particularly in the education sector, but I'd say he leans a little more to the left than to the right politically speaking. He is pro gay marriage, pro-choice, a staunch environmentalist and advocate for green jobs, and pro gun control. While Christie isn't necessarily the polar opposite of Daggett on all those issues, I don't get why Christie supporters would be more apt to go to Daggett than Corzine supporters for ideological reasons...unless Corzine supporters are really, really passionate about their local property taxes. Although I talked about Daggett's different approach to taxation, he's definitely not some small government conservative. He does feel property taxes are too high around the state, but he welcomes the idea of raising other taxes: sales taxes, gas taxes, tolls. Christie is the only real across the board anti-tax candidate. What seems to have hurt Christie is his lack of specifics when it comes to describing how exactly he will reign in spending. New Jersey is already facing a serious budget shortfall; even Corzine's government has adopted austerity policies to deal with the mounting deficit. Every government would theoretically like to eliminate "waste", but it's not so easy to do for one man's waste is another's gravy train. Christie doesn't seem able to do the Ron Paul thing and whittle off the names of dozens of programs he wants to cut -- frankly, he seems more talk than action to me. Though a great debate attack dog, he has more bark than bite. He's also been hurt by the publicizing of an incident in which he escaped a ticket seemingly because of his position as U.S. Attorney...this matters particularly because there's been an awful lot of corruption uncovered among New Jersey politicians lately. On the other hand, I would describe Corzine's campaign as basically lackluster. It might not have a potentially fatal flaw like Christie's, but when you put it all together you get a very uninspiring whole. As an incumbent, Corzine must defend his record, but a campaign based on more of the same is pretty dull. What's more is that Corzine seems to have a tendency to dismiss problems as if they're irrelevant even though many people are very concerned about them. So Corzine expresses pride over New Jersey test scores while Christie and Daggett talk about a dangerously flawed and unequal system. Daggett's description of the way the graduation exam system works in NJ shocked me. Corzine also has a tendency to blame the current poor economic situation in Jersey largely on the overall financial crisis -- I'm sure that's largely true, but sometimes a recession can be something politicians use to hide behind so they don't have to address serious economic problems such as an unfriendly business climate that drives jobs away which is just what Christie thinks New Jersey has.

Can Daggett win? Only in a surprise based on polling data. At the end of the day, it IS hard to beat that two party system...even when you've presented the best campaign, as I think Daggett has. If Christie wins, I think the whole election will have the feel of a referendum on property taxes and on government spending. People will be voting in the hope the man can work miracles in office even as he has struggled to articulate concrete plans on the campaign trail. If Corzine wins, I think that shows that by and large New Jersey voters are content with their state's situation given the state of the nation. Something that Chris Christie said in the October 1st debate has stuck with me: he said that for every one government employee there are twenty one people in New Jersey. I don't know how mathematically accurate that statement is, but I think it sums up why it's so hard for big tax areas to change their levying ways. There are an awful lot of people invested in the status quo in New Jersey. Jon Corzine is their best bet to preserve that status quo. That alone could be enough to power him to victory. In any case, it'll be interesting to see what happens and particularly how Daggett's independent campaign fares.

Another election being shaken up by an outsider candidate is the special election to name the next member of the House of Representatives from New York's 23d congressional district. Here the outsider, Doug Hoffman, has a party of sorts -- it's the Conservative Party of New York. It might not seem like a true third party in that it commonly endorses other candidates running as Republicans or Democrats provided they are deemed conservative enough, but from time to time candidates do run under its banner. That seems to have happened in NY-23 primarily because the Republican candidate for the House seat, Dede Scozzafava, was perceived as not being conservative enough primarily due to her stances on social issues and her ties to unions. Scozzafava got some early buzz online as a possible libertarian-leaning candidate because of her pledged support for low taxes and her socially liberal stance on gay marriage, but probably she's better described as a liberal Republican. I think she struggled to find an overarching theme to her campaign, and to a certain extent I think she didn't WANT to run the race she was forced to run. By that I mean I don't think she wanted to be the liberal Republican candidate; her campaign site doesn't seem to include anything about abortion, gay marriage, unions, etc. Instead she talks about pro-business policies, about support for tax cuts, about opposition to the Death Tax and reform of the Alternative Minimum Tax, about supporting agriculture, and about protecting seniors. She and the Democratic candidate Bill Owens would likely have argued more about things like who would bring more jobs in to the district and just generally help the constituents out. Owens is naturally also pro-agriculture, and he has an interesting strategy of encouraging investment from Canada. Perhaps they would've scuffled a bit over health care reform -- Dede controversially suggested the "hurry" to change health care was unreasonable while Owens is a supporter of many of the proposed Democrat reforms (he's probably best considered as a moderate Democrat). Ultimately, though, the race wouldn't have been so much about ideology as it would have been about winning the trust of the voters and it would have been much more locally focused despite being a federal election. Doug Hoffman changed all that.

Hoffman seems to be both more ideological and national in his outlook than his two opponents. He opposes bailouts and loathed Obama's stimulus plan. He fervently opposes raising taxes and has signed a "No New Taxes" pledge. He is anti-earmarks. He's opposed to gay marriage. He is strongly pro-life. He's also squarely focused on continuing to fight the war on terror wherever those terrorists lurk. Hoffman is not nearly as unique a candidate as Chris Daggett; by and large, he seems to have many of the same political positions as most Republicans and frankly I'm not so sure he's any more sincere than most GOP politicians when it comes to fiscal issues. Unlike Scozzafava, though, he's ideologically pure from the Republican point of view which has led him to get all sorts of endorsements from well-known Republicans like Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson...that is seriously unusual in the world of third party politics where candidates are often treated like pariahs by the establishment. He's also a contemporary conservative -- he's aware of the widespread resentment among conservatives towards the bailouts and free spending in Washington and was able to conflate Scozzafava's support for a New York state stimulus plan with support for Obama's national stimulus plan. If Hoffman wins, my guess is he'll be running for reelection as a regular Republican...with the reendorsement of the Conservative Party of New York, of course.

Unlike Daggett, Hoffman has a very good chance to win the election. The nominal Republican, Scozzafava, has suspended her campaign though she'll still be on the ballot...she had fallen to third place in the race according to polling. Hoffman's policies may not be all that unorthodox, but just the fact that he has managed to do so well and even thwart the hopes of the Republican candidate bodes well for the possibility of other third party and independent candidates also succeeding in American politics. Daggett's success has also been a net positive for much the same reasons. I'm also glad whenever the voters have more of a choice about who to vote for. One thing we can say about both the New Jersey gubernatorial race and the NY-23 House race is that all the candidates have different views on some issue or another...hopefully fewer people than usual will have to hold their nose to vote this time around due to those extra options.

Can You Dislike Both Bush and Obama?

2009-10-30T13:04:00.002-05:00

I've noticed that it's become common for Obama supporters to dismiss Obama critics by arguing that these critics aren't sincere because they said nothing as George W. Bush wreaked havoc on the nation. Obviously, this tactic does allow Obama supporters to avoid responding to individual criticisms, but there's certainly some validity to this idea. The two party system in the United States encourages the party faithful to ignore the failings of their own politicians yet make mountains out of molehills when it comes to even superficial blemishes of the opposition. Undoubtedly many Obama critics would say nothing if a Republican was in office and doing the very same thing. On the other hand, is it really so unreasonable that an individual -- not a dedicated follower of a particular party -- might dislike BOTH President Bush and President Obama?

I would say that yes, it is quite possible. In some ways, I even think it's quite a natural attitude to have. President Bush's greatest failings seem to me have been his push to war with Iraq, his general fiscal irresponsibility, and his disregard for civil liberties. President Obama has inherited and continued Bush's wars, he's not just continued on the path of big spending but pressed down the accelerator, and he has only done a little bit to reverse the excesses of the Bush administration in regards to civil liberties. Bush effectively had a cover for his wars and restrictions of liberty because of the nation's fear of terrorism. Obama effectively has a cover for his economic policies because of the recession. In both cases, I think there are legitimate reasons to question whether the pursued policies of both administrations were really the best thing for the country at the time.

Of course, there are differences between the two presidents as well. Bush earned much love by cutting taxes. Obama has tackled the issue of health care reform, which millions of Americans have been clamoring for for decades, more avidly than any other president. Bush preferred an aggressive foreign policy while Obama favors a conciliatory one, even to the point of not meeting with the Dalai Lama seemingly to placate China. In fact, I think it's quite likely that the majority of remaining support for Bush (and he's no longer a popular politician at all) boils down to the two issues of terrorism and taxation while support for Obama (who still is favored by the majority of Americans) is largely based on health care and the general hope for an expanded safety net. However, I'd say Obama and Bush have more similarities than they have differences overall. It's easy to mistakenly cast one or the other in a false political light. To say Bush didn't care about social issues, for instance, is to overlook his support (billions of dollars worth) for fighting AIDS in Africa, an unprecedented effort. Obama is sometimes presented as being "weak" on foreign policy, but during his presidency so far the image of America has improved globall y.

So, I guess it all boils down to what really matters to you. If one or more of Bush's or Obama's pet issues are most important to you, there's a good chance you'll overlook their faults in other, less important (to you) areas. On the other hand, if you dislike big government spending and deficits, corporate bailouts, and wars that just keep going and going, you have every reason to dislike both presidents.

The Obama Administration Takes on Fox News

2009-10-23T23:52:00.003-05:00

The American public has recently received a series of news flashes from the White House warning them that Fox News -- ostensibly just another cable news network, albeit one proudly carrying a slogan of being "fair and balanced" -- is in fact biased (it has a "perspective" according to Rahm Emanuel...scary!) and should not be considered to be a legitimate news organization but rather as a mouthpiece for the Republican Party. The Obama team evidently considers informing the public as to Fox News' true identity to be a matter of prime national importance: thus, we've heard administration figures such as Anita Dunn, Rahm Emanuel, and David Axelrod weigh in on the subject. Even the president himself has spoken out on the matter. The problem here is that all this isn't news to anyone: I'd think that everyone who has ever watched Fox News for an appreciable amount of time knows it has a perspective and a bias and does not quite live up to its slogan...they don't even have a single non-neocon opinion show host anymore since Alan Colmes stopped co-hosting with Sean Hannity. However, most sensible newshounds realize that virtually every news organization has a "perspective." Fox News tends to reflect a neoconservative point of view, MSNBC tends to reflect a progressive point of view, the Economist tends to advocate for free markets...is there anything really wrong with that as long as the facts presented are generally correct? I do think there is a lack of truly nonbiased reporting in the media, which is a shame (however, it's definitely not just a Fox problem), but I also appreciate being able to get my news from a variety of different viewpoints so I can see the issues from different sides. What the Obama administration seems to be saying is that some perspectives are legitimate and some are not -- in a democratic republic, I don't believe the government should be deciding that.

To be fair, it is very easy to make the administration's war of words against Fox into something it isn't. We're talking about public censure here, not censorship; there's been no discussion of the administration shutting Fox down thus far. Freedom of the press endures. In fact, the diatribes against Fox rather seem to lack teeth -- administration officials still want to appear on Fox News so the White House isn't even boycotting the network. Historically, presidents have often butted heads with the press. Obama is probably not thrilled to be lumped in with President Nixon and his notorious enemies' lists, but he might not mind sharing company with John Adams...Obama has actually been by far the least villainous towards the press of the trio so far, though he still has time to change that. To tell you the truth, this whole scenario has even reminded me of something our last president (you know, the one who butted heads with NBC) would pull off. Isn't President Obama essentially telling the press, "You're either with us or against us!"? While historically normal, it is still disturbing to me that this administration would go out of its way to try to discredit a particular news organization that has broken several stories that reflected negatively on the White House recently. The ACORN, Van Jones, and Anita Dunn controversies weren't all that big a deal in my view, but they certainly did deserve to be covered...Fox News is actually doing a good job of playing the role of presidential watchdog. They're keeping him honest and checking his power; that's one of the things the press is supposed to do. Does Fox always give president a fair shake? Heck no. They also sure didn't do an effective job of checking President Bush's power. At the end of the day, they ARE a bunch of neocons who'd like America to think just like they do. Nonetheless, they're the most important news organization in the country for the moment.

Obama apologists would argue that Fox News isn't being targeted because of its views but rather instead for its tactics. I definitely think it's a good idea for the administration to call out Fox News on actual factual errors. Certainly the network has been linked to unethical practices in the past such as displaying incorrect party affiliations on screen for scandal ridden Republican politicians. It's exceedingly hard to say what is the result of human error or newsroom shenanigans and what is a deliberate attempt to mislead and propagandize, however. Bias is to a large extent in the eye of the beholder -- for instance, conservatives often see the "mainstream media" as liberal and liberals often see it as conservative. When assessing bias, news watchers naturally consider intangibles like what isn't covered and to what extent something is covered. Some think Fox News showed a great deal of bias by giving so much coverage to the tea parties; others think it's other news sources that were biased for NOT covering the tea parties more. What I tend to think is that there's bias swirling all around the media world (and it's not necessarily organizational in nature -- individual reporters can be biased), but it's pretty hard to prove subtle bias conclusively. That's likely why the Obama attacks on Fox have been so lacking in substance so far.

Even if Fox News were worse than it is, I'm not sure I'd ever want the White House to enter the fray publicly in such a way as it has. Even a well-watched media outfit is nowhere near as powerful as the president. This is simply not a battle between equals -- it has made the president seem like a bully. Considering press censorship remains a huge problem in many areas of the world, I think it would be wise for all arms of government to refrain from attacking the press directly. Just speaking personally, this controversy has made me want to watch Fox News more. Watching Fox has become a REBELLIOUS thing to do! It's fighting the power! I can't believe I'm even saying that...it's amazing what a change in administration can do. I suppose there were political reasons for why the full court press was unleashed on Fox. For one thing, Obama's base of supporters seems to love it -- they've been bashing Fox News for being biased for years so this is official confirmation of something that was painfully obvious to them. Another bonus is that it has been a distraction from other issues. I don't believe there is any serious intent on the part of the administration to squelch freedom of the press. Instead, this has been a dog-and-pony show to take some time off the clock and allow the White House some breathing space. It's not easy to be in power in a free republic -- there are political forces that will resist everything you try to do and other political forces that will never be satisfied that you are doing enough. None of them will ever shut up...President Obama should just accept that and get back to work.

Should Protectionism Be Embraced to Protect Domestic Industry?

2009-10-10T14:57:00.002-05:00

Free trade is a bit like religion. Most people seem to claim to believe in some form of it -- virtually every politician does -- but you wouldn't always know it based on their actions. It seems like most every developed country uses protectionism to at least protect some sacred cow if not as a general policy. The United States provides generous subsidies to promote domestic agriculture. France has managed to "repatriate" some auto jobs by providing incentives for domestic automakers to move some of their production back to the mother country. Ecuador responded to the financial crisis by significantly increasing tariffs on many products. Clearly, a lot of self-described free traders find something seductive about protectionism.

Honestly, there IS something seductive about it, despite the fact that most economists think it is outmoded and perhaps even dangerous. A nation that produces a wide range of goods and has a strong service economy as well has a much more diversified range of employment options. One reason the unemployment picture in the United States looks so bleak is that people who have lost their jobs must in many cases seek out new training to qualify themselves for other jobs. There is a definite shortage of easy to do jobs...the unheralded victim of the economic crisis is the teenage worker who has seen normally despised starter jobs become suddenly quite desirable. Additionally, a country that can produce what it needs is less dependent on trade and better suited to survive a war that might disrupt international shipping. I would argue that having domestic production is indeed very good...perhaps even vitally necessary. I would even go so far as to say a country that doesn't produce a wide variety of goods cannot take full advantage of its citizens' talents. If good shoemakers and good steelworkers become bad teachers and bad salespeople, a labor problem has perhaps been resolved but society can hardly be said to have benefited, and neither has the individual who is stuck in a job he or she hates! With all that said, I still can't embrace the POLICY of protectionism even though I see domestic production as being very desirable.

The most outstanding benefit of free trade has always been that it has reduced costs for the consumer. Most protectionist policies involve either making foreign goods more expensive or domestic goods more cheap -- either way, the consumer suffers because he or she either must pay a higher price for goods or higher taxes to support governmental subsidies. Outright bans on foreign products reduce choice and competition. I can't really see a way the consumer would benefit from protectionism. You could make the old "foreign products are inferior" argument, I suppose; China seems to have made a mission out of trying to strengthen that argument by marketing such winning products as poisoned pet food, toys with lead point, and home-ruining drywall. However, few would call BMWs or Maseratis inferior. Most electronic devices are assembled in Asia and they seem to drive our increasingly technology-centered lives along pretty well. If foreign products were really that bad, people ultimately wouldn't buy them. In fact, they're good enough for the most part and priced attractively...people have found them irresistible. All citizens are consumers, even service workers and the unemployed -- governments which embrace free trade are looking out for the welfare for their people as a whole far better far better than those governments which embrace protectionism.

What has long puzzled me is not why people buy foreign products but rather why more don't CHOOSE to support domestic industry given the larger benefit to the country. As I see it, free trade has the potential to greatly improve the qualify of life for the poor (potential is too weak a word -- it has already done this around the world). They benefit the most from having cheap goods available to purchase. Every penny they can save counts and represents another step out of poverty. For that reason alone, I'd never oppose free trade...protectionism disproportionately hurts the impoverished. The story just isn't the same for people with some money to spare, however. It baffles me how people will willingly overpay on cars, houses, boats, jewelry, and designer clothes yet nonetheless try to skimp on more everyday items. I personally would rather save money by not overpaying on big ticket purchases that are priced more than they are worth but instead pay a bit more for small ticket items in order to support domestic industry...why aren't there more people who think like me? I suspect shopping habits have as much to do with the downfall of domestic manufacturing as anything else. Retailers like Wal-Mart save money before the consumer even sees a product by purchasing goods made in countries where labor is cheaper. Americans who want to support domestic producers may have to shop online to do so -- Still Made in USA is a good Web resource I happen to use (just in case you're interested in getting started...no pressure from this free trader is intended!). Additionally, many shoppers don't look at country of origin labels at all. It always takes me off-guard how people who frequently complain about the downfall of American manufacturing often don't check to see where the products they are buying are actually made. They have, uncannily enough, become part of the very problem they decry!

I think the toughest political question to tackle is not whether to embrace free trade or protectionism, but rather whether free trade should be followed as an absolute policy and all semblances of protectionism should be abandoned. Should, for instance, the United States stop providing subsidies to its farmers? Should it not use foreign aid to support its defense industry? I can see the national security reasons behind such forms of protectionism. Ideally, agriculture at least could be supported without subsidies, but we've already seen consumers can be fairly quick to abandon domestic producers. Should we just accept that the benefits of having strong domestic agricultural and defense industries are worth the price we pay? Rather than eliminate this limited sort of protectionism, I think I'd experiment with reducing the amount of subsidies slowly and cautiously first. We could at least contain costs if we can't eliminate them. Wasteful support of the military industrial complex and grants to owners of farm land that aren't in fact farming clearly aren't beneficial...in fact, they are an example of the inefficiency of protectionism and show why it really isn't a good idea to expand protectionism to other industries.

Before long, I wonder if arguments like those I've just made will even be relevant. While low wages have been a driving force in encouraging outsourcing of labor from rich countries to poor ones, moving overseas has its costs as well. When it comes to manufactured goods, a good portion of that cost is transportation. I anticipate more and more manufacturing will be done almost entirely by machine in the future as technology develops and the capital investment required falls. This will likely lead to more domestic production to save on transportation costs but perhaps not new jobs (well, apart from robot repairmen...or repairmen for the robots that repair other robots). Many would argue that countries that have a weakening manufacturing base have already entered the future, a future where human labor isn't strictly necessary for material production. Ultimately, I think that future does represent progress...it at least holds out the promise of more leisure and less drudgery for humanity even though it also raises many questions about the economics of the future. That said, the demise of the human laborer has been often predicted since the Industrial Revolution and so far those predictions have largely failed to materialize.

Should There Be an Alternative to the FDIC?

2009-10-08T15:39:00.003-05:00

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has made saving a worry-free activity for most Americans. I tend to think of the FDIC as one government initiative that has worked quite well for the average citizen. Banks still fail today, but because the FDIC insures deposits and manages the receiverships of failed institutions most depositors lose no money in a bank failure. In fact, often even depositors whose balances exceed what is protected by the FDIC end up not losing any money as the government generally tries to broker deals in which all deposits from a failed institution are transferred to a healthy institution. People can feel confident that their savings really are safe thanks to the FDIC -- a failed bank no longer automatically results in financial failure for numerous depositors.

On the whole, then, I would argue the FDIC does fulfill an important role and does benefit the depositor. However, I think its influence has also been pernicious in other ways. By creating such a secure atmosphere for depositors, the government has reduced competition among the banks. Sure, they still compete on interest rates, customer service, convenience, and product offerings. However, they no longer compete on safety. The incentive to put your money in the steadiest bank has gone away -- your money is protected no matter where you put it, so long as the institution is FDIC insured. I've noticed that banks tend to be anything but transparent. They don't want you to know what they do with your money. They don't want you to know how much money they keep in reserve. They benefit more from the public not knowing how safe their practices are as it takes their fiscal policies out from under the microscope. The less you know about mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps the better as far as financial institutions are concerned. It has become the business of the government to determine when a bank has been too risky; the depositor can remain strangely unconcerned. Of course, the wise saver is still concerned -- he or she doesn't want to go through the disturbance of a bank being shut down and he or she also realizes that even the FDIC itself could fail at some point in the future. The cascade of bank failures we've had over the past couple of years has already strained the institution's resources. Another downside to FDIC insurance is that banks no longer have to compensate their depositors for risk -- at the moment, a 2% rate of return can be considered decent despite all the competition in the banking industry! Additionally, banks have to pay the piper...the FDIC is funded by its member institutions rather than the taxpayer. The FDIC fees tends to leave a little less money available to pay depositors with. The FDIC will even from time to time pressure institutions to pay lower interest rates for safety's sake; this happened recently with Ally Bank. In general, savers haven't been well-served by American fiscal policy which embraces controlled inflation that erodes the value of savings. I'm sure interest rates will rise before long, but they probably will only rise when inflation also rises so the extent to which the saver benefits will be limited.

Can we benefit from FDIC protection yet still make saving worthwhile and encourage banks to compete on safety? We probably can't have everything in one system, but I think we could have two competing banking systems that could do all this in aggregate. The FDIC system could continue be the safe, no-risk system it is now. FDIC-insured institutions would tend to give low returns to depositors and tend to be less transparent to the public. Competing with these safe banks would be a new breed of bank that would offer better transparency, better interest rates, and private insurance of deposits that depositors must themselves purchase if they want it. The person who wants to play it safe would likely have the bulk of their savings in FDIC members, but he or she could also seek out those new institutions that promise safety but still perhaps offer at least marginally better interest rates. Someone who welcomes a little more risk could aim for a higher rate of interest on his or her deposits but would be able to assess how risky the bank's policies really are and also purchase private bank insurance. This increase in banking competition would probably tend to make FDIC institutions more open as well and it might just reduce the amount of money stored in those "too big to fail" institutions that were so careless with depositors' money. I think ultimately it would be good for all if it could be done.

The biggest challenge would be ensuring transparency in the new banks. As it is, you can put your money in illegal ponzi schemes and temporarily earn a high rate of interest -- these, however, are in fact even less transparent than traditional banks and will always end in failure by their very design. Clearly there would need to be some overarching organization (presumably non-governmental) that would certify and monitor the new breed of banks just as the FDIC does and may also have a role of spreading information about banks to the public similiar to what the SEC does for the stock market. Undoubtedly some "banks" will cook their books and try to bilk as many people as possible, hurting not only depositors but the private bank insurer or insurers as well...banking would no longer be so safe. The extent to which it could be made safe would depend on the vigilance of the certifying institution. If put together cautiously by the right people, however, I think this system could be a successful alternative to the FDIC system. Both systems could thrive and make each other better over time.

As it is, the FDIC and the banking system does work for the most part. I remain confident in the FDIC as an institution and fully expect the government to bail it out if it should need help so there's no reason for savers to be too alarmed at its recent financial difficulties, though we should all be concerned about the government's ability to bail out all comers. I don't have the same confidence that the banks will pay good interest rates in the future and I have even less confidence that they will embrace prudent financial practices for the long-term. We need a "private option" in banking which rewards transparency and accountability!

The Politics of Panic

2009-09-25T08:24:00.003-05:00

One thing that annoys me about politics is that every little thing seems to get blown out of proportion and presented as if it were the Most Important Thing Ever. Only one thing can possibly be the Most Important Thing Ever so there's clearly some hyperbole going on. I suppose it's a consequence of having a representative government theoretically accountable to the people -- special interest groups, corporations, and members of the government themselves all want to win the people over to their side. If they have to overstate a problem or two, they'll do it...it's the price they have to pay for Victory.

Unfortunately, the problem seems to have gotten worse in the United States since September 11th, a panic-inducing event if we ever had one. The American public was undoubtedly mislead into thinking Iraq presented a clear and present danger to their country -- I think OJ is still out looking for the REAL weapons of mass destruction from prison. I'm perfectly willing to believe the Bush administration were merely following poor intelligence...deliberate manipulation isn't always necessarily the problem. However, the shortage of skeptics was a problem -- why wasn't the administration more circumspect about the very idea of going to war again? Didn't they consider that their basic thesis might be wrong? Didn't they worry that they might be deceiving people and thus would tarnish their place in history? Unfortunately, I think they just saw their panic mongering as a means to a desired end -- I'm sure they realized from the very start that they were exaggerating the threat, but they'd already decided war with Iraq was necessary so it was just part of the process for them. The administration didn't ask the right questions, the Congress didn't question the administration closely enough, and the public was too trusting.

The politics of panic may have reached its zenith during the financial crisis of 2008. "Too big to fail" ranks right up there with WMDs in the lexicon of classic panic terms. In this case, I think the financial industry stirred up much of the panic themselves. At the end of the day, what these oversized institutions were arguing is that they deserved to be treated better than all other institutions. Most banks that are in danger of failure get closed down by the government -- I mean that literally. Banks don't really go bankrupt in our system, and oftentimes all deposits get saved (even beyond the FDIC insurance limits) as long as another bank can be found to take them over. What Citigroup and Bank of America and the other recipients of bank bailout funds argued was, "You can't treat us like other banks." They were able to convince the government of that, and as a result they're still in operation today and still too big to fail. Essentially, the bank bailout was all about preserving bad institutions as they were -- I see no reason why the big, bad banks couldn't have been split up and shrunk dramatically instead of saved intact. It's not like they were in a position to bargain...in a pure capitalistic system, they'd all have failed completely. It was blatantly unfair to treat the bigger banks so much better than the smaller banks (which are still being closed weekly by the government), but the bigger banks were able to use their bigger voice to incite fear, an option the smaller banks just didn't have. Was there an element of truth to "too big to fail"? Of course. But failure wasn't really an option -- the thing is we didn't have to preserve Citi, BOA, etc as they were. They could have been punished and better (or at least less risky) institutions could've taken their place with the assistance of the government. A bank bailout of some kind was probably unavoidable, but it didn't need to take the form it did in my view...it improperly rewarded the banks that cried wolf. For now, at least it does look like the government will make money on those bailouts, if that was the object. (Maybe governments should drop that whole taxation thing and just become moneylenders full-time!)

The health care debate has brought a new burst of public panic. The critics warned of death panels and a government takeover of health care. You could make a slippery slope argument that the current health care reforms being debated could lead to those things down the line (many reform advocates see the public option as a road to single payer, which is definitely a government takeover), but the common argument seemed to be that proposed reforms would lead to that immediately. Definitely panic-mongering...and definitely misleading. On the other hand, proponents of health care reform aren't opposed to a little rabble-rousing of their own -- the way some speak it's a wonder that there's still anyone hasn't been dropped by their health insurer for having some mild health problem. The truth is health insurers pay for an awful lot of health care...the problem with them is they haven't delivered a universal solution that works for everyone who needs care and they haven't always behaved ethically.

The politics of panic makes it harder for anyone to find the truth, unfortunately. You have go past all the noise, all the loud voices, and all the fear-inducing catchphrases to look at the fundamental issues involved. It's rare that there isn't a grain of truth in what the fearmongers say -- failing institutions do pose a threat to the financial system, Saddam Hussein wasn't a very nice guy, government health care does tend to lead to more rationing, etc -- but they never give you the whole story. They have a slanted view of the issues and want you to have a slanted view of them as well. It's a mistake to ever made a decision solely based on panic...even in life-threatening situations calmness and thoughtfulness are assets. To preserve representative democracy and maintain the dignity of the voter, we must fight against the fear that supercedes thought.

Lingering in Afghanistan

2009-09-23T13:42:00.005-05:00

According to General Stanley McMcrystal, more American troops are urgently needed in Afghanistan if the Taliban's attempts to regain power are to be thwarted. While President Obama has long wanted to put more troops in Afghanistan, McCrystal wants as many as 40,000 more boots on the ground. As Americans focus more on cares closer to home due to the bad economy, support for continuing the seemingly neverending wars begun during the Bush administration is running low. Many would like to see a complete withdrawal even from Afghanistan despite the possibility that the Taliban could retake the country and again provide a safe haven for Al-Qaeda and other terrorists.

In a sense, we can say the Afghan war was a success if we retroactively define its goals narrowly. It was a war launched directly in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks; the Afghan government of the time provided Al-Qaeda with a base from which to operate and coordinate attacks against the United States and its allies. Defeating the Taliban per se was never the object of the war...it was principally about uprooting Al-Qaeda and making it more difficult for them to launch more attacks. The Taliban were only an enemy because they sheltered Al-Qaeda. While the United States and its allies have failed to bring peace to Afghanistan, they have succeeded in disrupting Al-Qaeda, their basic mission. Why, then, do we need more troops? It is merely because the Taliban have proven to be a more resilient enemy than was bargained for, and this is because they, much more so than Al-Qaeda, still have some popular support and are able to recruit a seemingly endless number of impoverished local fighters. Unfortunately, I think if we take the Taliban's bait we'll just be further enmeshed in a war that has no real end in sight. Every time an Afghan civilian is caught in the crossfire, another family turns against the "foreign invaders." It honestly could go on forever, and that's what really scares me.

I think the main military mission in Afghanistan has already been achieved though perhaps not permanently. Our problems right now are with the nation-building aspect of the mission that we've never really wanted to take on. We're stuck propping up a government that, if the recent indications of electoral fraud are any sign, appears to be corrupt and can't be counted on to win hearts and minds. Putting more troops in won't make the government honest and it won't make Taliban supporters give up on an idea of an Islamic state which is as old as Islam itself. Muhammad was himself a military leader, and the first leaders of the Caliphate were among his closest personal associates. There will ALWAYS be people in Afghanistan who are sympathetic to the idea of a Taliban-type government...always. It really doesn't matter how many troops there are unless the intent is slaughter on a massive scale, a morally indefensible mission. The alternative to depopulating Afghanistan is to try to help the Afghans build up something they can't bear to lose, and that's what I favor.

Right now, the main reason Afghans have for opposing the Taliban is the Taliban's own abuses and their oppressive governance. Even if the United States and NATO left the country entirely, the Taliban would still have a lot of fighting to do within Afghanistan. However, the Taliban also have made plenty of friends, particularly among religious Pashtuns who appreciated the relative stability the Taliban brought. To truly win in Afghanistan, the US needs to help make Afghanistan a better nation even as it is in chaos; the new Afghanistan has to be thoroughly better than the old Afghanistan to discredit the former regime. You can kill Taliban all day and still not accomplish that. What is sorely needed in the country is a social and economic revolution: modernizing agriculture, building schools and hospitals, expanding access to electricity, providing support for entrepreneurs, and other things of that nature are sorely required. I would try to first build up the areas of the country that have the LEAST support for the Taliban. Let those areas be an example to the rest of the country that life really can be better. Afterwards, expand into the more dangerous areas with the assistance of the military...you can guarantee that the new infrastructure and social projects will be targeted by militants. It's not a surefire solution, but it attacks the root of the problem and is, in my view, more likely to yield long-term results if done on a grand enough scale than simply bringing in more troops is. The more subtle the approach, the better -- ideally, you don't want the Afghans to see what we would consider progress to be a threat to their civilization. That might mean helping to build a few mosques and even focusing on education for boys ahead of education for girls. That's not the ideal way to go, but we're talking about a war-torn and conservative country here...this is not the time for social activism. All Afghans have a vision for what they would like their country to be; our best shot at winning peace is trying to build that country closer to THEIR collective vision than to ours for now.

Now, for the tricky part...finances. Continuing the Bush wars as they are conducted now is expensive enough; to expand them further is prohibitively expensive in my view since a complete victory can't be assured. Building up Afghanistan's infrastructure and economy is going to be quite expensive as well, though, which is why the most fiscally prudent among us would like to cut and run. What I would do to start off with is reorient American foreign aid towards Afghanistan for the near future. Israel and Egypt currently get huge amounts of American aid far in excess of their importance, in large part because we want them to buy weapons from us. Bringing stability to Afghanistan is more important than propping up our defense industry, I think, so aid to Israel and Egypt should be at least halved and those savings used to build up Afghanistan instead. In fact, cutting aid and moving the savings to Afghanistan across the board would be a wise strategy if we can do it without stepping on too many toes. The many NGOs that operate in the country can also be of some assistance with these new projects, particularly in more peaceful areas of Afghanistan. Other foreign governments will likely also continue to offer aid; if they can be made interested in assisting particular infrastructure or humanitarian projects, that would be excellent. However, we have to be careful that the money goes to the right places and projects that employ and help Afghans. We can't help but continue to spend some money maintaining a military presence and helping the Afghan security forces, but that's all needed just to stymie the Taliban; investing in Afghanistan is the best way I can see to actually achieve a lasting victory.

Is the Republican Party in Crisis?

2009-09-22T07:48:00.002-05:00

After every change in power, members of the losing party tend to wring their hands and ask one another, "Is there no hope for this country?" What they really mean is, "Is our party sunk this time...for good?" Despite many ups and downs, the Democratic and Republican parties have proven to be most resilient political parties and both have bounced back from humbling defeats in the past. Their longevity has been closely tied with their willingness to change their platform in response to changing times. Few Democrats advocate for Free Silver these days and few Republicans would call themselves non-interventionists. If history is our guide, in all likelihood the Republicans will survive their electoral losses in 2006 and 2008. However, parties do sometimes fizzle out of existence, and I think there are two major threats to the Republicans' long-term future.

The Achilles' heel for the Republicans is their insincerity. George W. Bush promised a humble foreign policy and delivered two wars. Virtually every Republican plays lip service to the idea of smaller government but while in power they have tended to expand the federal government. Somehow or other they've gotten the idea that fiscal conservatism just means lower taxes -- as long as you lower taxes, it doesn't matter if you spend more or accumulate huge deficits. Genuine fiscal conservatives, though, want the government to not just earn less but also to spend less; they recognize that an indebted nation is just as in danger of bankruptcy as an indebted company or individual but that the consequences of a national bankruptcy tend to be far worse and affect millions of people. While fiscal conservatives are unlikely to become Democrats, they will find it increasingly difficult to support Republicans who continually say one thing and deliver another. As I see it, sooner or later the Republicans will have to make a choice. Do they stand for smaller government even if that might damage America's ability to intervene politically and militarily in her interests worldwide? Are they willing to make the hard choices -- yes, even the politically damaging ones in the short-term -- that restoring the country's fiscal fitness will require? I don't think the Republicans can count on the votes of fiscal conservatives permanently...rhetoric can only go so far when it is not backed up by policy.

The Republicans' second great weakness is demographics. A century ago, the Democratic Party, particularly in the South, was THE racist party. That's simply what they were...the Republicans were the party of Lincoln, after all. Chameleons as always, the parties changed sides in the Civil Rights Era. The Republican Party welcomed former Democrat segregationists like Storm Thurmond into their midst. Republicans cynically pursued the Southern Strategy which sought to capitalize on lingering racist attitudes among whites at the expense of the black vote. Nowadays, racist rhetoric from national politicians is exceedingly rare, but the damage has been done. The Republicans still get the majority of the white vote, but the Democrats are heavily favored amongst blacks and to a lesser extent among Hispanics yet still get a big chunk of the white vote themselves. For the Republicans to change this now will be difficult because they are simply not trusted by minority voters. Frankly, why would they be? You can't embrace Storm Thurmond one day and then pretend it all didn't happen the next...it'll probably take at least another generation for Republican flirtations with racists to be forgotten. Meanwhile, the Democrats are going to fiercely try to defend the minority vote. The crazy thing is that minorities that don't necessarily approve of Democratic policies will still vote for Democrats simply because they don't feel they can trust Republicans. The Republicans are continually losing votes from fiscal conservatives, from pro-lifers, from tax cutting advocates, from supporters of the War on Terror, and from other groups whose interests they claim to represent simply because of the party's past racial strategies. As I see it, this is the most dangerous long-term threat to the Republican Party and it could very well lead to the formation of new conservative parties that don't carry the race-related baggage of the GOP.

An alternative possibility is that the Republican Party will be reformed from within. That's essentially what libertarian-leaning Republicans are trying to do. Peter Schiff and Rand Paul are both Republicans campaigning for Senate seats in 2010, Schiff in Connecticut and Paul in Kentucky. I find their candidacies interesting because they spend most of their time talking about economics and don't mind getting specific about how they hope to cut costs. Schiff's take on America's wars is devastatingly to the point: We can't afford them any longer. Eschewing moral and foreign policy arguments, Schiff rarely takes his eyes off the bottom line. Even those who support the War on Terror in theory have to admit it's been an expensive affair in practice. How well Schiff and Paul will do provides a good window into the attitudes of the electorate: if the voters really are bothered by the debt, by the bailouts, and by general fiscal irresponsibility, they'll do well and the whole party may start taking fiscal conservatism more seriously. On the other hand, if they bomb, that suggests Republican voters are still concerned more with other things than they are with fiscal matters which may make fiscal conservatives more inclined to jump ship rather than keep fighting for representation within the party.

Could Health Insurers Do Things Differently?

2009-09-15T04:12:00.004-05:00

I'm going to hazard a guess and say here that I think the health insurance industry would prefer not to have to spend millions of dollars lobbying politicians year after year in order to stay in business. I'm not entirely confident my guess is correct, especially considering that the Baucus health care plan wants to force people to buy health insurance even if they don't want it. There's no doubt the big insurers play the political game well and have become increasingly audacious in their attempts to use the system to their advantage. They're on a precipice, though -- the health care debate going on now might well be very different if the economy were in better shape and if the US government wasn't so deeply in debt. Denying coverage to Americans in desperate need for medical care and rescinding policies for frivolous reasons may have made good business sense, but it was a terrible public relations policy for the insurance industry.

Ideally, health insurance companies really ought to be looking out for people's health for the simple reason that they make more money when people don't get sick. While rising health care costs have coincided with rising premiums, that's ultimately a path to oblivion. At some point, most people won't be able to afford either health care or health insurance the way things are going. Cutting the costs of health care and creating a healthier country is actually in the insurance companies' best interest. Apart from embracing preventative care and spreading health information, though, I'm not sure the insurers have really tried to play an active role in trying to fix the underlying problems with health care in the United States. If their industry survives health care reform (and it certainly looks like it will considering the level of resistance to the public option, let alone single payer) intact, they should start doing some things differently in my view. Differently in what way? Thanks for asking; I do happen to have a few ideas...

#1. Branch off into the medical devices business.

I've done a little studying of public health insurance companies' income statements and noticed they're consistently quite profitable, but not quite making Exxon profits either. Insurance companies (well, apart from AIG) tend to be somewhat conservative -- after all, they have to always consider the worst case scenario. For a health insurance company, there are some scary worst case scenarios, like epidemics. Right now the big insurers have money, but I don't think it's realistic to expect them to directly enter the hospital or pharmaceuticals business in a notable way due to the sheer costs involved. It probably wouldn't even be desirable for them to do so; it's scary to have one entity controlling health care. If you don't want the government in charge of your health from cradle to the grave, you definitely don't want insurers to have that level of control, either.

What I think the insurers might be able to do, though, is enter the medical devices industry as a side business. High tech medicine is expensive. It's undoubtedly true that some technologies are overused and that that overuse plays a big part in increasing health care costs, but we definitely don't want technology to go away from medicine...it's still saving lives every day even if it isn't always used efficiently or wisely. The insurers could try to fill niches in the medical devices business, probably through acquisitions. At the very least, a medical devices side business can be used as a hedge against rising health care prices (if insurance profits go down, there's a good chance medical device income will go up so maybe premiums won't need to be raised so much). What would be better is if the insurers used the medical devices business as a loss leader for their core business. They wouldn't need to count on medical device profits so they could sell at lower prices, bringing the costs of this aspect of health care down and in turn making their insurance business more profitable. However, to remain competitive in their new sector, they'd have to invest in R&D as well so it'd be rather a delicate balancing act for them.

#2. Invest in research.

I think insurers might be able to work with smaller universities and pharmaceutical companies to develop new drugs. Here, the insurers should try to be financiers rather than overseers and try to work with other organizations that also want drug costs reduced, but there should be strings attached to their funding which will in some way lead to reduced drug costs. I'm not entirely sure how to go about that myself -- I'm not in the health care business, I just pretend to be someone who knows what he's talking about online -- but I think there ought to be a way that the insurance companies could help new players emerge in the pharmaceutical market who would have been held back by the costs of doing business. (The insurers could also lobby the government to change its regulatory methods and make developing drugs less expensive, I suppose, but I tend to think we need tight drug regulation...medicine is useless if it isn't safe to use. However, it is very scary that it costs nearly a billion dollars to develop a new prescription drug, though that isn't solely because of regulation.)

#3. Increase supply.

One way to reduce health care costs is to try to reduce how much medical professionals make. That sounds mean, but there are a couple of reasons why entering health care is lucrative that aren't such good things at all: first of all, there is a shortage of personnel in some areas (right now we're hearing a lot about the lack of general practitioners) and secondly education is expensive. Insurers should want more nurses, more X-ray technicians, more general practitioners, more nurse practitioners...more of everything...to bring costs down and help create a healthier population. They can help make this happen through scholarships among other things. I would particularly like them to look into helping universities start new medical schools, typically a very expensive undertaking, and also helping to fund additional residencies for doctors beyond what is funded by Medicare where possible.

#4. Let people help.

The uninsured as a group are not viewed with a friendly eye by the health insurance industry. They're potential customers who are refusing to pay up. That attitude is embodied in the idea of a mandate on individuals to buy health insurance. That attitude is flawed, though, because it overlooks the possibility that people really cannot afford insurance even though they may not be eligible for Medicaid. Every person, every family, and every household has a unique financial situation -- just looking at annual income doesn't always give the whole story. I would like to see the health insurers team up and let their customers voluntarily help fund the premiums of those who cannot afford the costs yet aren't being covered by Medicaid (I would suggest that the goal be to extend catastrophic coverage so more people can be covered. This also gives people a motivation to get more comprehensive coverage down the line instead of just accepting freebies). Let people help tackle the problem of the uninsured themselves if they want to do so. This shouldn't cost the health insurers much at all...the tricky part would be setting it up in accordance with state and federal law. The undertaking could even take the form of an Internet site like Microplace or Kiva which would allow people to read about the circumstances of the uninsured whose health insurance they are funding. Each individual donor might only fund part of a premium on average; the wealthy or organizations might put a lot more money in. The important thing, though, is that there would be fewer uninsured. That would be a good thing. It won't solve the problem, but it would help at least a little bit.

I don't know how realistic any of my propositions really are individually, but I do think the insurers need to either take a more proactive role in the process beyond protecting their own skin or slash premiums and at least try to stop being part of the problem. The best argument I can think of against the insurers taking several of the steps I suggested is the expense of it all -- rather than reinvesting in other areas of health care, the insurers could just reap less profits and pass the savings to the consumer. The problem with that argument, though, is that health insurance can't be decoupled from the larger costs of health care...they're as directly related as two businesses can be. We certainly can't expect the insurers to solve everything on their own -- they have definite financial limits, and I think some of my ideas would be difficult to implement due to legal requirements. They can play a very important role in the process, however, and I think they've been shirking that role in favor of maintaining the status quo and lobbying the government for gifts.

Global Warming and the Consumer

2009-09-10T01:44:00.004-05:00

While the debate on global warming is a contentious one, with some people claiming the whole thing is a fabrication, I do personally believe it is a serious problem. Weather is certainly complicated and affected by many factors. Even though some of the warmest years on record have occurred very recently, it's not unusual for temperatures to drop on a year to year basis -- because the trend isn't always consistent, global warming doubters often dismiss the whole thing as some sort of grand conspiracy. I personally like how the temperature graphs on NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies web site's paints the global warming picture; both sides could find fuel for an argument in the data provided there, but it reinforces my feeling that we can't ignore rising temperatures. What is uncontroversial is that greenhouse gases trap heat and thus that increased levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases caused by human activities will trap more heat. The ultimate question of the global warming debate is a matter of timing: is there really a crisis NOW that must be dealt with immediately or has the issue been overstated by those with political and economic agendas of their own?

Those who see the world as running out of time are pushing for climate change legislation such as the cap and trade bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. It's fair to call cap and trade a tax on emissions, designed to make polluting more expensive and "going green" less expensive. So long as burning fossil fuels is less expensive than investing in alternative forms of energy, fiscal prudence limits the number of companies that will actively choose to pollute less. Cap and trade creates an incentive to reduce emissions and punishes those who continue to pollute. However, even if over the long-term companies will cut back on emissions in response to the legislation, in the short-term they will likely try to place as much of the financial burden of cap and trade as they can on the consumer. That's not ever going to be good for the economy, though it's reasonable to hope the economic situation in the country will be much better before the effects of cap and trade will really be felt.

What bothers me about cap and trade the most is that it will certainly hurt the consumer to a certain extent even though the consumer hasn't had that much chance to change things on his or her own yet. Fluorescent bulbs have become common place, it's true, but electric cars aside from the expensive dream machines sold by Tesla Motors are still on the way. In the next few years, there'll be more choice in the car market in terms of low emission vehicles as several automakers are planning to unveil electric vehicles...the Nissan Leaf is one that's getting a lot of attention now. Many consumers leaped ahead of the trend by buying hybrids like the Toyota Prius, but electric vehicles are emission free and represent another big step forward for green autos. How green they truly are depends on how your electricity is produced, but even in the worst case scenario they're far greener than the best gas-powered car. Another emerging technology is solar power for small scale uses, such as for recharging cell phone batteries or powering a netbook. There are a number of advantages to these emerging technologies that aren't even environmental. For instance, electric vehicles should require considerably less maintenance than their gas guzzling cousins and they can be fueled at home -- while there are concerns over the lack of a charging infrastructure (this limits long range travel) and the longevity and expense of EV batteries, electric vehicles are a triumph for convenience. The new breed of solar power uses makes it easier than ever to go off the grid but still stay connected to the world. It's a bit more controversial about whether you'll actually save money by going green (no more gas bills for electric cars, reducing your electricity bills by using solar power) but in some cases you certainly will. My solar calculator definitely saved me money on batteries during my college years (and it's still my favorite calculator to this day)!

Basically, there are plenty of reasons for consumers to lead the green revolution. They stand to benefit from green technologies. If they feel they can help save the world in the process, that's an added incentive at the very least...for some, it'll be the dominant reason for making the initial purchase. It will be harder to make companies to change their polluting ways without something like cap and trade(though the consumer can have a big impact here as well) , but at the end of the day even they have every reason to want to preserve the world, too. Black marketeers are the only ones who make money in an apocalypse. Cap and trade isn't necessarily a bad idea, but I think the government could promote energy alternatives more benignly by continuing to make green investments and evangelizing all the positives (not just environmental) emerging technologies that are just now becoming widely available bring to the table. Taxing consumers isn't exactly the best way to create a new breed of environmentally responsible citizens...it will spur resentment to one degree or another and create suspicion that the whole thing is a scam designed to draw big profits. Nobody wins if cap and trade is passed under the current administration and shut down under another. Ultimately, though, we must return to the issue of timing. Cap and trade supporters don't think we have time to let the country voluntarily go green. I personally think they just might be selling the consumer short, however.

In Search of a Reasonable Opposition

2009-09-07T22:19:00.002-05:00

There are many reasons why someone might feel skeptical about Barack Obama's political agenda. Health care reform and cap and trade are not pedestrian measures -- they will change how this country works and affect everyone in it to some extent. I would frankly be concerned if everyone was on board with such dramatic change...they're the type of issues that we need to have a national debate about. Perhaps the largest issue facing the United States that both parties tend to pay only lip service to is our national debt which continues to balloon wildly. Truthfully, it has been huge for a long time -- as long as I've been alive certainly-- but recently there have been rumors of revolt by our foreign creditors, with China among other nations suggesting the need for a new reserve currency and overall less global dependence on the already battered American economy. To me, at least, the debt and our general economic situation is the main thing that prevents me from supporting health care reform enthusiastically. I loathe the failings of the present system, but sometimes I wonder what the point of reform is if our economy is in danger of a total collapse. How can we build a stronger country on an increasingly unsteady foundation? Don't we need to fix the foundation first?

My main point here is that I think the Obama administration should be questioned and challenged where it matters. Unfortunately, though, I can't help but feel dismayed at the way the political discourse over the past few months has been conducted. The fight for health care reform has by some been framed as a fight for or against "death panels", as if that is an outcome anyone in the administration really desires. Focusing on rationing is reasonable because that's a real consequence of the shortage of resources that government health care programs tend to run into. However, trying to make it seem like the president and other Democrats want to kill people -- to portray them as being essentially evil -- is a hideous distortion designed to scare rather than inspire thought. Even something as insignificant as Obama's speech tomorrow to school children -- basically a glorified pep talk -- has been blown out of proportion and portrayed as a form of intentional indoctrination. The critics were right that the suggested activity for teachers that involved asking students how they could help Obama was inappropriate, but the speech itself is harmless and uncontroversial and totally undeserving of such hype. I honestly don't really LIKE the idea of politicians making speeches directly to children myself. We shouldn't inject politics into the classroom. Still, we shouldn't act like words are poison that children need to be protected from, either. Obama is hardly the first president to address the nation's youth, and for many of the children listening to the president it will probably be a positive and encouraging experience. Hysterical reactions to a pretty innocent matter just make it seem like people will attack Obama for any reason...which they in fact will, for that's how the game of politics is played by both sides in 2009's America.

The most regrettable aspect of not having a reasonable opposition is that it allows hysteria to replace thoughtful debate. Reasonable people who've studied health care reform can't be blamed for deciding, "This death panel stuff isn't in the bill. The Republicans are just making stuff up." The core fiscal issues have been obfuscated by the exaggerations and the theatrics. It may be even worse that energy is being wasted on an issue like the school children speech for that just emboldens supporters of the president who will decry that the president is being unfairly targeted. I've noticed that many people simply see much of the criticism of Obama as being motivated by race -- that's what happens when you put forth silly arguments lacking in substance. What has really been accomplished if health care reform is defeated, the underlying problems with the present system remain unfixed, and the debt to GDP ratio continues to rise unabated due to other government spending (you know, the trillions that Democrats and Republicans can both agree on)? If the fundamental issues aren't addressed when they are most relevant, I doubt they ever will be.

The Mystique of an Unbreached Republic

2009-09-06T17:02:00.003-05:00

There's nothing quite like the unfiltered view of politics you can get through the Internet. No other medium lets you see how people actually feel about things better. Views brushed aside by the mainstream as inconsequential are loud and seemingly rampant online. The discourse can get a little crazy, but so can politics. One of the more fascinating trends I noticed online last year during the election was how paranoid some people were about the transfer of power from President Bush to his successor, especially when Barack Obama emerged as the leading presidential candidate. Bear in mind we've had an awful lot of peaceful transfers of power in the United States -- it's not like every now and then we elect some stick in the mud who refuses to vacate the office when he's voted out. It just hasn't happened, not even in times of crisis. Nonetheless, some of the Founding Fathers were extremely concerned that that just might occur, that a dictatorship would take the place of the democratic republic they were creating. I love the fact that there are people who are still concerned about the prospect of a dictator emerging despite America's history to this point...it's not like it's impossible for it to occur. Dictators have indeed been the death of many a democracy; just imagine how different Africa's modern political history might have been had its nations experienced more peaceful transitions of power.

Anyway, there were two main conspiracy theories I noticed emerging during the election. The first was that George W. Bush would NOT leave office. I think history will remember Bush as a not untypical wartime president in that he did trample on individual liberties (Lincoln and FDR did as well), but trampling on individual liberties is something dictators also do a lot of. The fear was that despite the election Bush would declare a state of emergency, hold on to power, and rule the country as president for life, perhaps in the name of fighting terrorism. The second theory emerged strongly once Barack Obama started dominating the polls. Suddenly people started to fear that, if elected, Obama would declare martial law and emerge as a tyrant like America had never seen before. Now, you might well wonder what Obama had done during the campaign or as a senator to incite such fear, but, to be perfectly honest, we should probably be afraid that any president we elect might try to do something of the kind no matter how cherub-faced their visage. So far, at least, these two conspiracy theories seem to have been without merit. The transfer of power went smoothly, George Bush trotted merrily off to Texas, and Barack Obama began the struggle of getting his agenda enacted. It's been business as usual so far -- no power grabs, no tyranny established. We can all breathe a sigh of relief...for now.

It's an interesting question, though: why hasn't America had a tyrant yet? The obvious answer might seem to be the firm foundation of the American republic. The balance of powers among the three branches of government is designed to prevent a single all-powerful leader from emerging. However, I think it's indisputable that we've had presidents who have overstepped their powers. From John Adams' attempts to silence political opposition to Andrew Jackson's support of Georgia over the Supreme Court in Worcester v. Georgia to FDR's unprecedented expansion of government intrusion into individual Americans' lives, we've had a lot of "strong presidents" who wielded power all too freely at times. Not one of them was a tyrant, though. Not one dissolved America's fundamental institutions or rewrote the Constitution to suit their whims. FDR did seem to be basically president for life, given that he was in office for longer than any other president and even died in office, but he was really popular and as far as I know won each of his elections fair and square. The checks and balances proscribed in the Constitution undoubtedly make it harder for a dictator to emerge, but I definitely don't think they are the only reason we haven't had one, especially considering how hard it's been to impeach presidents once they are elected. The fact that the United States is a well-armed nation with gun rights protected under the 2nd Amendment also makes establishing a tyranny more difficult, though I don't think it answers the question entirely either...after all, a popular dictator would have a lot of people with guns on his side as well.

Instead, I would say that the main reason America hasn't been ruled by a dictator yet is deceptively simple: no one in a strong enough position to try to seize that power has really wanted to do so. This doesn't mean that all our prominent political figures were saintly people, of course -- some might well have liked the idea of absolute power but just not wanted to risk everything to seize it. Still, I think there's a reason people generally don't grow up wanting to become the dictator of America. Simply put, if America ever has a dictator, it will cease to be America -- the United States is a very strange country in that our particular political system is uniquely tied to our identity. We're not like the Roman Republic, which acknowledged that dictators had their uses in times of crisis. For Americans, having a dictator in charge would be like the end of the country, the death of America. Dictators typically come to power much like democratically elected leaders, with promises of glorious days ahead. An American dictator couldn't say, "Well, I know I just killed America and all, but things are going to turn out GREAT for us!" When politicians in the United States want more power, they take it surreptitiously whilst piously proclaiming devotion to liberty.

The Health Care Debate That Hasn't Happened

2009-07-25T16:24:00.002-05:00

Even as someone who generally prefers private solutions to problems over governmental, taxpayer-funded answers, I have to admit that the Democrats, who are largely in favor of health care reform which gives government a larger role in providing coverage to all, have well-beaten the Republicans, who largely favor less of a government role, rhetorically speaking. While support for Barack Obama's approach to health care has been dropping among the public according to some polls, I think that's more because of the economic situation the country and perhaps even more importantly the government is facing. Expecting the government to help fund a universal health care system seems a bit like relying on a homeless guy to help you pay your mortgage. The thought is lovely, but you kind of have to stop and ask yourself, "Can he really afford to do that?" I think there's a lot of skepticism about cost projections related to the various health care reform proposals floating around the Congress -- well-warranted, in my view, considering we've heard for years that Social Security and Medicare are underfunded. Still, if more people had the unlimited faith in the government's ability to fund everything through taxation and inflation that all politicians seem to have, I think the poll numbers would lean more heavily in favor of President Obama and the Democratic Party's approach to solving health care simply because people know the system is broken and want SOME solution -- even a thoroughly imperfect one -- that works for everyone.

Ideally, from my point of view, the solution wouldn't come from the government but from the private sector. Thus far, though, the private sector's solution has sucked. The health insurers have already had a shot to provide health care to all, but it hasn't worked for a couple of reasons. The first is that one's need for health care has little to nothing to do with one's ability to pay for it (or for health insurance). That makes health insurance unlike auto and home insurance right off the bat -- if you can afford to maintain a car or a home, you can likely also afford insurance so that system basically works for most people. Because of this basic fact about the costs of health care, we already have heavy government involvement via Medicaid and Medicare to essentially insure those who cannot insure themselves. Secondly, the insurers have failed the customers they do have by making it hard (if not impossible) for some to get insurance and sometimes denying coverage when it is needed. Technically, the insurers may well be justified from a business point of view for their actions (and, indeed, some might not even be able to stay in business were it not for those actions!), but these practices hurt too many people. Health care is a life and death matter; unethical business practices may always be bad, but when it comes to health insurance their consequences can utterly ruin finances and end lives. If health insurance is all the private sector can offer, then the private sector has failed insofar as health care is concerned.

However, there is another private approach to health care that gets scant attention. Free clinics have long provided free or extremely cheap care to the poor uninsured, and Shriners Hospitals provide free health care to children with specific conditions. Neither solution is universal, but the fact that both exist show the potential of health care as charity. The free clinic model basically requires the existence of a parallel health care industry because the doctors and nurses who volunteer at free clinics get paid for their work on paying customers elsewhere. Simply turning every hospital into a free clinic isn't acceptable -- doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals do some of the most important work in our society and deserve to be well paid for it. However, with a massive infusion of private money in the form of donations and endowments, it is conceivable that health care could become much more a nonprofit service. Sadly, though there are plenty of nonprofit hospitals that exist today, they tend to do very limited amounts of charity care and aren't necessarily cheaper than for-profit hospitals. Still, if enough people got on board with such an idea, health care could be changed fundamentally. Imagine, for instance, that in order to receive profits from an endowment a hospital would have to reduce the average costs per patient per procedure or treatment year over year. Slowly, costs would come down if the endowment's profits were large enough (the endowments would have to be massive and likely heavily weighted towards reasonably safe, fixed-income investments...stock market fluctuations have been the bane of even the large university endowments at institutions like Harvard lately and the Shriners' endowment has also been severely affected). As I see it, there would also need to be a move towards making other aspects of the health care industry nonprofit as well as part of keeping those overall costs down. This revolution is, alas, quite unlikely to happen now simply because health care is too big of a business, but it probably could've occurred earlier in our nation's history. I definitely feel that the private sector "dropped the ball" on health care long ago by foisting the health insurance non-solution on us all; the likely consequence of our collective decision is more government involvement in health care funded by compulsion rather than voluntarily.

Even so, I can't help but feel we haven't really explored the possibilities of private solutions to the health care crisis. For instance, I wonder why sports stadiums often bear the name of sponsors but hospitals don't. Soft drinks may not be the healthiest thing in the world for you to drink, but who wouldn't want to get treated at Pepsi Memorial if you knew your treatment was being partially subsidized by some corporate overlord intent on spreading good will? Given that we have peer-to-peer lending that lets people loan small amounts of money to regular folks through sites like Prosper (unfortunately, federal and state government regulations have really hurt sites like these), why don't we have sites for peer-to-peer health care or even health insurance funding to help those in need bear the costs of the present system? I hate that the health care debate has been reduced to private health insurance vs government interference...there could be all kinds of solutions being proposed and attempted. I wonder if part of the problem is that a lot of people feel that health care SHOULD be a government thing. Henry Ford, for instance, wanted publicly funded roads and refused to support private roadbuilding initiatives though he certainly had the dollars to make a big impact if he had wanted. Major philanthropists may be reluctant to invest in health care knowing that the poor and needy in other countries tend to be considerably worse off than in America -- there's some truth in that, but ultimately suffering needs to be addressed wherever it exists. Hopefully, any health care reform that does occur, be it a private or a public initiative, will effectively reduce suffering...that is the most important thing at the end of the day.

Obama's Brand of Pragmatism

2009-07-19T16:30:00.002-05:00

I never expected Barack Obama to be the type of president who would sit on his hands once elected into office. Still, I didn't quite expect him to be as active as he has been. Compared to the G.W. Bush and W.J. Clinton administrations, the pace the Obama administration has set thus far has been downright frenetic. To be fair, I think most administrations tend to be more active in their first year, but I think it's safe to say that Obama has been trying quite hard to follow up on the issues he campaigned on and to deliver at least some of the change he spoke so much about last year. That's honestly commendable -- he is doing the job the voters sent him in to do -- but at the same time I have to admit I've been surprised to find out that Obama is pragmatic in a different way than I had anticipated.

Here's what I expected to happen after last year's election. Following the transition of power, I felt the president would focus squarely on the most pressing issue of the day which was and still is the economy. I expected other projects -- especially expensive projects -- to be pushed to the background while the government tackled the crisis at hand. To an extent, that did happen as the president crusaded for a large stimulus package which Congress passed despite some Republican opposition. Strangely, though, after the stimulus was passed, the government turned its attention to other things. In my view, this was premature...you can't build a house on an unsteady foundation. With the markets still in chaos, massive numbers of people out of work, and foreclosures rising, I'm not sure the country is really ready to absorb the costs of cap and trade and health care reform. President Obama seems to take a very long-term view of things; he has seemed to me to have anticipated the end of the recession from the very start of his administration. Even the stimulus package was full of long-term investments in things like education and green energy. Politics, however, is often a short-term game. Obama's poll numbers have been going down of late as it has became apparent that the economy isn't going to improve quickly. The extent to which any government can really turn around an economy is limited, especially in a quasi-free market economy, but I wonder if we wouldn't have been better off had Obama followed a different course and played the role of cheerleader more, reassuring the American public, businesses, and investors that everything was going to be better soon and giving them concrete reasons to be optimistic. Instead, the new initiatives Obama has supported have actually scared a lot of people -- there's a great deal of concern about the government's ability to pay for health care reform, about new taxes, and about rising utility costs in response to cap and trade. Of course the opposition would always foment fear no matter when these drastic changes were proposed, but I think the fear effect has been magnified due to the timing. So Obama hasn't quite been as pragmatic as I expected with regards to the economy.

On the other hand, the president has shown another type of pragmatism which has helped make him an effective leader so far. Obama by nature is a negotiator, someone who wants to hear different points of view and who is open to at least listening to others' ideas. He might not necessarily be a politician who can bridge the gap between the two major parties, but he has shown a lot of ability to work with Congress. In his eagerness to collaborate with legislators, though, Obama has also shown a willingness to abandon some positions he embraced during his campaign. For instance, he hasn't been been strongly advocating against making health insurance compulsory for all Americans or against taxing health benefits, both things Congress is considering. His motives may be pure -- he really wants health care reform as soon as possible and so is willing to compromise in order to get things done quickly -- but he's also abandoned a lot of voters who expected him to stand up for the vision for health care he laid out during the campaign. Not keeping your word isn't exactly admirable in my book. If Obama didn't really believe health insurance shouldn't be forced on anyone, he should never have differentiated his position from Hillary Clinton's (an open supporter of compulsory insurance). If Obama didn't think taxing health benefits was unacceptable, he shouldn't have differentiated his position from John McCain's. Probably the majority of voters just want health care reform and don't care about these details -- they'll judge Obama on his effectiveness at getting things done. Ultimately, it IS up to Congress to do the legislating anyway. Still, I expected Obama to use his influence to shape the process and debate more. In the end, he does have to sign the actual piece of legislature that reaches his desk; it doesn't appear that Congress has any concern that he won't sign whatever they deliver, however. I'll certainly take any specific positions Obama endorses during the next election with a giant grain of salt -- clearly, Democratic members of Congress' views are far more important when it comes to actually implementing change.

Should Everyone Vote?

2009-02-20T15:37:00.003-06:00

Democracy and freedom don't always go together well. Many believe that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people must make demands of its citizenry if it is to be truly fair and representative. Thus, there are those who support mandatory conscription so that the burden of defending the country falls on everyone, there are those who advocate forced community service so that everyone shares the work of improving their local communities, and there are those who believe voting should be compulsory so that every citizen plays an active role in selecting the government. On the other side of the aisle, there's the "fun and games" crowd who don't see democracy as a bringer of burdens but instead as a bringer of opportunities. I'm an irresponsible member of this latter group, I must confess. I'm not so extreme that I would call for the end of all taxation, but in general I prefer the government to refrain from ordering its citizens around if it is at all possible. The cost of freedom is that there will be both "good" citizens who take their privileged position in a free society very seriously and "bad" citizens who do not spin, weave, fight, volunteer, or vote. Could this freedom that allows some to opt out of some of the "duties" of citizenship be harmful for democratic countries?

Of the three possible duties of citizenship that I mentioned earlier, compulsory voting is the least demanding. While forced service typically requires a serious time commitment that will necessarily disrupt lives, forced voting merely requires the citizen to take some time on the day of an election to cast a vote. At most, this action will disrupt the citizen's day, not his or her entire life. Although a burden, it is not a particularly noxious one and I do not consider it as morally questionable as many other intrusive government mandates. Still, that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do -- there should be a very good reason for forcing people to do anything.

The obvious benefit of compulsory voting is that it strongly encourages people to participate in politics. Democracy can give people a voice in determining how their country's affairs are run, but if they never use that voice to express their opinions they can't help shape their nation. Indeed, these silent citizens may ultimately find themselves entirely at the mercy of an unfriendly yet duly elected government -- that's not necessarily a better thing than living under a tyrant! In countries where voting is not compulsory, like the United States, people may opt out of voting for reasons some would deem frivolous: "I don't want to face the crowd at the voting booth." "I'm tired and just don't feel like it." "My DVR is broken and I'll miss my favorite TV show if I go vote." Still others may not vote because they are unsure of how the system works or feel too intimidated to vote due to racism or other discrimination. In compulsory voting countries, not going to the polls likely means paying a fine at a future date or facing some stiffer penalty -- perhaps even imprisonment -- so it is not a decision to be taken lightly. In Australia, well over 90% of the electorate votes. In the United States, the percentage is more like 60%...still a majority, though!

Even if we do grant that the reasons why some people do not vote might indeed be frivolous, we should consider the possibility that there are some perfectly valid reasons not to vote. For instance, what if you simply don't have a preference for a particular candidate? In Australia, voters without a candidate they can in good conscience support must make mandatory appearances at the polls but may submit blank ballots. That's a waste of both time and paper, but it is certainly preferable to being forced to actually cast a binding vote. Mandatory voting may also lead to people completely uninterested and uninformed about politics to cast blind votes for candidates they know little about. When it comes to voting, I think ignorance definitely is an excuse not to vote -- I know when I wasn't really following politics I didn't have a clue as to the policies of various politicians. I couldn't have made an informed decision in the booth, and at the time I wasn't really interested in devoting the time necessary to get informed. Once again, the proper action of the uninformed and uninterested would be to simply submit a blank ballot in a compulsory voting nation, but it seems like that doesn't always occur -- "donkey votes" in Australia seem to be an example of what can happen when disgruntled and uninterested voters participate in elections. (Of course, disgruntled voters are allowed to participate in noncompulsory voting countries as well, and often do!) There's another group of people who I also personally think should consider not voting even though they are some of the most informed people around: journalists who try to report the news in an unbiased fashion. Of course, journalists are first and foremost citizens who have just as much right to vote as anyone else, but I would definitely respect the journalist who chooses freely to refrain from directly participating in politics so as to better report the news "purely." I've noticed with alarm that increasingly even reporters show political bias and seem to be willing to try to twist the news in order to support a certain political outlook -- journalism is a profession that needs to stive for purity on the reporting side of things if it is to keep the nation informed. Ideally, one should be able to balance one's journalistic ethics and one's personal political beliefs, but if someone senses a conflict between the two and decides to opt out of voting in order to be a better journalist, I think that person has made a noble decision.

I've basically used Australia as my example of a compulsory voting nation throughout this post. It is a country where compulsory voting has been in place for a long time and the practice seems to have both governmental and widespread popular support there. Many in the United States, the UK, and other countries look at the Aussies' voter participation rates with envy, but it isn't necessarily easy to pinpoint how this increased participation has actually changed Australian politics relative to other democracies. For instance, I long thought that one bonus of forcing everyone to vote would be the rising of many smaller parties to cater to the desires of the enlarged electorate. Australia, however, pretty much has a two-party system though the Greens are more successful there than any third party in the United States and they also have some regional parties who are active in local politics. Compulsory voting also doesn't seem to have led to political disaster -- while I'm no admirer of Prime Minister Rudd's Internet filtering scheme, Australia remains a relatively free and first world country. Even if compulsory voting does happen to encourage more uninformed people to vote blindly, it is quite possible for the uninformed to vote for different candidates...they won't necessarily all veer towards the demagogue, for instance. So, when it comes to Australia, I'd like to see voting made noncompulsory there more for the sake of individual freedom -- the state shouldn't be ordering people to exercise their rights as citizens and inconveniencing the lives of those who don't want to vote -- than because it has been politically harmful.

It's worthwhile to note that compulsory voting doesn't necessarily always take the form it does in Australia. In 2002, for instance, Saddam Hussein claimed to get 100% of the Iraqi vote with 100% voter participation. If you can neither choose whether or not to vote nor choose a candidate to vote for, then that is the result -- a meaningless election that people participate in essentially for ceremonial purposes. Granted, voting in Saddam Hussein's Iraq was more of a sham than a compulsory affair, but compulsory voting means absolutely nothing if there isn't also free choice. Up to this point, Australia has done a good job of protecting the freedom of the vote even as it has denied the freedom of the voter; its elections are still free. In other countries, however, compulsory voting is used to disguise the fact that elections are anything but free and fair. The Iraqi experience is not reason enough to absolutely condemn the Australian system, but one of the reasons I feel the way I do about the government making actions compulsory is because I know that the most brutal governments routinely treat their citizens like pawns.

To Spend or to Cut

2009-02-03T15:21:00.002-06:00

As governments around the world struggle to deal with a global recession, a pressing decision must be made. It's not the decision to intervene or not that I'm speaking about -- if governments completely ignore serious crises, I don't know why they even need to exist. Even the most laissez-faire of elected governments are reluctant to play their fiddles while Rome burns, and authoritarian governments must fear popular uprisings when economic times grow difficult. From the Netherlands to the United States to China, governments are trying their best to rescue their economies from the hell of recession. Their most troubling decision is how to go about "fixing" economies normally (even in China) powered by a more or less free market. One way to go about this is to embark on ambitious stimulus spending programs designed to create short-term jobs, boost struggling economic sectors, and spur economic growth; another way is to cut taxes to put more money in people's pockets so that they may spend, save, start businesses, and invest on their own. While it is certainly possible to both spend and cut, there is a great deal of disagreement as to which policy is better for the economy.

Spending has the most positive immediate impact but also the most negative long-term impact. It is a double-edged sword that should be used carefully; I personally tend to think the stimulus bill being debated in the U.S. Congress has a little too much spending in its present form. While a well-run stimulus program can immediately put people back to work especially in areas like construction, the bigger it is the bigger the deficit that future governments will have to heal with either inflation or higher taxes. The money that flows freely today from government coffers comes with a price tag. On the other hand, it is irresponsible and cruel to ignore the sufferings of the people. To not spend in the name of fiscal conservatism as unemployment rises higher and higher would deservedly destroy confidence in government. Confidence is actually a key factor when we talk about stimulus spending. It's not like the government is going to permanently employ all the people it plans to put back to work in the short-term via stimulus spending; to do that, it would need to start nationalizing businesses and move away from a free market economy. Rather, what capitalist governments hope to do through stimulus packages is to give their economies a nudge so that private industry can ultimately take over again. Government just needs to get the ball rolling so that banks will feel more confident about lending, capitalists will feel more comfortable starting businesses, existing businesses will feel reassured enough to start rehiring and expanding, the labor force will not grow hopeless, and savers and investors will not utterly forsake the financial system. The danger here is that government will try to push rather than nudge. It's practically impossible to draw the line on "too much stimulus spending"; there's always someone else who needs a job, someone else whose living conditions could be improved, some other business that needs to be propped up, someone else who needs a loan or needs help making payments on one. Still, that line must be drawn somewhere, and it should be drawn at a point where the costs of the stimulus can be borne without unreasonable hardships being placed on future generations and administrations...I suspect even the current generation and administration will have to deal with inflation. On the flip side, the government could spend so little that there is no increase in confidence and no cascading effect, but I think it's wiser to err on the side of caution and start out small. If one conservative stimulus plan fails to have the desired effect, then pass another one that incorporates what worked from the first plan and expands it. Although the situation is dire, rushing to push a plan "too huge to fail" doesn't seem wise to me.

Republicans in both houses of Congress have opted to rally around the banner of cutting taxes to encourage growth. Though Democrats overwhelmingly support stimulus spending as well, there is also some bipartisan agreement that tax cuts and credits could be desireable as well. Much like spending, cutting taxes can be done in rather targeted ways. For instance, senators Boxer and Ensign want to cut corporate taxes on American businesses who are willing to reinvest their earnings "back home", an idea that President Obama also voiced support for during his presidential campaign. Mikulski and Brownback (yes, the former presidential candidate) want to give American buyers of new cars in 2009 a one-time tax deduction on their purchases -- a blatant attempt to prop up a struggling industry that is vital to the American economy. I kind of like both these ideas, but Boxer and Ensign's plan provides a good example of one advantage of the tax cutting strategy. Ultimately, private businesses are going to lead us out of recession -- encouraging companies to start reinvesting in their businesses now can create permanent jobs as opposed to the temporary jobs created by infrastructure stimulus spending. Another nice thing I like about tax cuts is that they can always be reversed back to their previous level; for instance, Mikulski and Brownback's plan specifies up front that the new car deduction is a one-time only deal. With stimulus spending, the government takes on a mountain of debt instantly and must carry it around indefinitely, dealing with it only at some unspecified moment in the future. That said, not all tax cut proposals are nearly so targeted as the two I just mentioned. Reducing taxes on individuals is also a popular idea at the moment, but it puts the onus on the public to stimulate the economy on their own. They have to spend more to encourage businesses to hire more, they have to save more to encourage banks to lend more, and they have to buy homes and stocks to reverse the deflation that has been evaporating wealth so rapidly of late. It's a more indirect way of doing things, and, although I approve of the government empowering individuals to make their own decisions with their own money, I think it's a slower approach that won't provide the same confidence boost that stimulus spending will.

It's easy to be seduced into thinking the differences between spending and tax cutting are more profound than they really are. Both can easily lead to huge deficits because tax cuts can reduce future government revenues. It's probably more important to use both tools wisely than to favor one tool over the other. I personally think some stimulus spending is definitely needed but that targeted tax cuts should probably be emphasized more. Obviously, the global economy is scary right now and I think the governments of the world have an obligation to at least try to do something. I have a feeling I'm going to think the stimulus plan that will ultimately be enacted in the U.S. isn't cautious enough, but I'll be as happy as anyone if it really truly does help the situation. The mountain of debt we are likely to have to deal with in the future will be a lot easier to handle if the future economy is prosperous.

Donating to the Government

2009-01-03T15:42:00.003-06:00

Though blessed with lower taxes than those faced by many in western Europe, Americans never seem to get tired of complaining about taxation. Indeed, one could somewhat facetiously argue that the American nation was founded by people who simply didn't want to pay their taxes. When it comes to paying taxes, attitudes haven't changed much in the past couple of centuries. Given that there isn't corresponding popular enthusiasm for cutting government services, some brand the American electorate as selfish and wanting to have it both ways. I, personally, have a different view.

The United States is in some respects unique in that individual freedom and personal choice are a fundamental part of our very culture. We have no kaisers or kings past or present to honor; instead, we honor the individual. We expect to have the ability to self-determine the general path in life we will follow, and we expect to be able to influence the actions of our government. I would argue that one of the reasons taxation is such a contentious issue is that it doesn't let Americans be Americans: the average citizen is too shut off from the process of government spending. In an age of unpopular economic bailouts, the alienation between citizen and government when it comes to controlling the federal purse strings is becoming only more deeply felt.

Politicians have made matters worse by tending to discuss spending only very superficially during campaigns. Even Barack Obama more or less promised the world to his supporters during the presidential election -- unrealistic promises, even if a candidate is sincere, set the voters up for disappointment when they discover what the government is really spending their money to do. I think there is a feeling among politicians that budgetary matters are "boring" and should only be broached to the public in a few tried-and-true ways (like promising the world or promising to cut taxes...Obama actually used both approaches!). Boring they might indeed be, but they're also expensive for the taxpayer. As long as politicians can both frame the debate on spending during elections and make the decisions on how to spend while in office, it will remain difficult for John Q. Public to play a prominent role in deciding how his tax dollar should be spent.

I don't hold out much hope for politicians to change a game plan that still works awfully well for them so one solution might be to democratize spending. Let the people work out a budget or approve a budget in some way or another. I've said before that I think this would be interesting to see, and I think it would change America in many ways...but I worry that voters may not have the knowledge (or be willing to do the research) needed to make wise decisions when it comes to subjects like military spending, funding the space program, and distributing foreign aid. In truth, we probably wouldn't do a worse job of it than the politicians do -- it would just be different, in some ways better and in some ways worse. If all we really want to do is give the people a greater opportunity to set spending policy, though, there's a much easier solution that wouldn't require a dramatic change in the way America does business.

What I think should happen is that the U.S. government should put a big sign up in its theoretical front window that says, "Donations Welcome!" I've heard people like Warren Buffett state publicly that they aren't taxed enough ,and I have always wondered why people like that couldn't pay more to the government if they wanted to do so. Just letting billionaires send off blank checks to the government doesn't accomplish much, though -- if anything, it probably just encourages frivolous spending. What I really would like to see is the ability to give donations to the government with strings attached. For instance, a "Pay Down The Deficit" or "Shore Up Social Security" fund could be created. People could make voluntary contributions into these funds with the understanding that the government would have to use them for their intended purpose. I would fully expect individuals like Buffett to contribute the most in the beginning, but if this plan proves effective in actually yielding results I think average people would consider donating a few dollars to a worthy budgetary cause as well. The biggest negative to this plan that I can see is that it might seem to make government even less fiscally responsible -- they could effectively outsource some of their spending to the public without facing the unpopularity caused by raising taxes and so would have less reason to budget public funds responsibly. However, this plan will make people feel more involved in the spending process, and I would expect them to start expecting more of their elected officials as a result. In other words, if the people manage to massively reduce America's debt and the politicians end up massively increasing it again, I think a lot of politicians wouldn't get reelected. Politicians would be held more accountable for their spending decisions if they weren't the only spenders in town.

Perhaps ideally all government revenue could be raised voluntarily through donations rather than compulsorily through taxation. Sadly, I don't expect to live to see such a perfect system enacted in my lifetime partly because it would be dangerous -- imagine how even more precipitously government revenues might drop in a recession -- and partly because it'll always be very hard for people to put aside their individual dreams and goals for the public good. On one hand, people do want public schools and public roads and other things the government provides; on the other, these same people want to own homes and send their children to college and take their spouse out to dinner at a nice restaurant on their anniversary. At least in our present system it isn't foolish to pay your taxes -- if the government relied solely on donations, though, those who donated would be forced to do with less than those who acted more selfishly. Still, I think a lot of people might be surprised at just how generous the public can be if given the right opportunity.

The Corruptibility of One Man

2008-12-10T14:35:00.002-06:00

All things being equal, I think a government which entrusts power into the hands of a few is more corruptible than one that entrusts power into the hands of the many. Although Pompey and Crassus were able to bribe their way to the Roman consulships of 55 B.C. at great cost, the sheer expense of the operation helps explain why vote buying hasn't subverted more representative governments than it has since then (it's still around, though, commonly in the guise of political machines). Nero and Caligula would certainly argue that dictatorship is the better shield for the commitment of great crimes. Nonetheless, corruption seems to always be with us to some degree regardless of form of government, time, or place. Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, accused of attempting to sell Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat for profit, seems to be a perfect example of a modern, corrupt American politician.

The Blagojevich story doesn't make me despair over the state of the American Republic, but it does suggest to me some of the vulnerabilities of our system. Part of the problem is how Blagojevich came to power in the first place. Political machines are still very much a part of Illinois politics, and they ensure that there is not a level playing field in elections. Candidates beholden to the machine and cooperative with it benefit from its power; on the other hand, those who refuse to feed the machine are often consumed by it. The whole Blagojevich mentality is rooted in the idea of favors and payback -- I'll do what you want if you do what I want, I'll help you now if you help me later. That's how political machines work; everyone owes somebody something, from the voter in the booth to the crook in the governor's mansion. Ideally, favors do to some extent "trickle down" to the common populace, but there is really no benefit for a political machine to enact policies that help everyone, including those not part of the machine. The other side of the problem is the concentration of power in one man, the governor. Blagojevich certainly never had absolute power by any stretch of the imagination -- indeed, he is very likely to pay dearly for his abuse of office. Still, he had enough power to subvert representative government. The fault is mainly his, but I also wonder about the wisdom of letting one official appoint another official to serve in an office that is normally filled by election. Should Blagojevich -- or any other one individual -- be in a position to appoint a senator? The 17th amendment to the Constitution, which also established the popular election of senators, gives governors this power, perhaps in order to ensure the efficient running of the Senate. Unfortunately, efficiency has a price. There will always be corrupt men like Blagojevich who will seek positions of prominence, but their corruption will be always be limited by the power vested in the offices they hold. Too much power vested in a single office makes the inevitable corruption more damaging when it occurs. Improperly assigned powers have the same effect.

Still, I wouldn't call the American system broken. It actually seems to be working fairly well in this case -- the allegedly corrupt official, Blagojevich, has been found out. He will have to face up to his crimes. I'm not sure what it will take to reform Illinois politics, but at the very least the Blagojevich experience should make future machine pols a little more cautious about how they go about their business. The governor might have been entrusted with too much power, but his power was not unchecked. In the name of hampering corruption, I think it's possible to make government too weak -- one advantage of the checks and balance system is that it does allow for a fairly strong yet still limited government. Ultimately, however, I would rather see vacant Senate seats filled by special election rather than by executive appointment. That would let the appointing of senators be strictly a duty for the voters in all cases, and it would close a door to corruption for the Blagojeviches of the world.

Some Final Thoughts on the 2008 Presidential Election

2008-11-06T00:18:00.003-06:00

The election of Barack Obama as the next president of the United States has been greeted with both exuberance and despair, but it was hardly the most surprising of results. Polls had shown the Illinois senator to be leading his Arizonan rival consistently for weeks prior to Election Day. Even more importantly, Obama ran the far superior campaign. Obama did what I think every presidential candidate should do: he openly expressed his political ideas at every opportunity offered to him. As basic as that sounds, certain prevaricating politicians often seem to me to not to have any real ideas at all, merely positions which shift with the political wind. At times, Obama was lambasted for being if anything too open -- for instance, John McCain was shocked that Obama would openly speak of conducting military operations against al-Qaeda in Pakistan. The president-elect was also open about his plan to "spread the wealth" of America around by raising taxes on the wealthy and on corporations in order to fund social programs and reduce the taxes of the non-wealthy. There are aspects of Obama's policies that I like and aspects that I don't like, but I've always appreciated how willing Obama was to lay out his positions openly and also how he was always willing to defend those positions philosophically. Obama's campaign was about Obama, as it should have been. Unfortunately, McCain's campaign was also about Obama, and there was no reason that it needed to be that way.

The McCain '08 campaign will probably be remembered as a very negative one which focused to a large extent on Obama's character, but McCain was also "negative" in the sense of being reactive and I think that's what hurt him the most. McCain was in permanent "compare and contrast mode" from start to finish in the general election. "Obama's tax policy is about spreading the wealth; mine isn't. Obama isn't pro-life; I am. Obama isn't experienced; I am." Compare and contrast definitely has a place in political argument (and Obama made good use of it), but what McCain too often forgot to do was make the philosophical case for his policies. He presented himself strongly as being against Obama's ideas, but he didn't always seem to be really for his own ideas. I ultimately think that McCain did do a good job articulating his tax policy, but I can't really think of any other issue that McCain really made his own (earmarks, perhaps). Even when it came to foreign policy, ostensibly the Republican's strength, McCain seemed to prefer to lambast his opponent's willingness to meet with unfriendly foreign rulers rather than explain why he personally favored a more standoffish, "carrot and stick" diplomatic approach. McCain always seemed to be reaching out to people who already knew that they agreed with him -- he was always preaching to the converted. Because McCain spent so much of his time criticizing Obama, I think his campaign was actually perceived as being dirtier than it really was; even valid criticisms of Obama's policies strike a dischordant note if they aren't balanced with positivity. The silliest thing about the McCain strategy is that Hillary Clinton followed quite a similar path to defeat in the Democratic primaries. I doubt I'll ever understand why McCain would try to copy a losing strategy instead of challenging Obama in a new and different way. That said, this was a tough year to run as a Republican -- voting the incumbent party out is a basic way for the electorate to express their disgust with their current government, and a lot of people are pretty digusted with the Bush administration right now. I'm not so sure Obama will be the president who will clean up Bush's messes, especially when it comes to civil liberties, but just the fact that the Republican didn't win this election makes it more likely that those messes will be cleaned up eventually...perhaps even by another Republican!

How will Obama handle the presidency? I actually think people SHOULD feel apprehensive about how their representatives will behave once in office, but there is probably too much fear of an Obama presidency in certain quarters. Not every conspiracy theory can possibly be true, right? In fact, if Obama simply governs as a reasonable moderate of a liberal persuasion, he'll erase much of the ill-will his political opponents feel towards him. How Obama's tax and spending policies will affect a weakening economy is my biggest concern, but, honestly, I'm interested in finding out even though I'm also scared. I've lived through the Clinton tax hike followed shortly by the Clinton tax cut followed by the Bush tax cut so I'm curious to see a real world test for the "bottom-up" taxation strategy Obama has consistently supported. I think it would probably be wiser (or at least safer) to not repeal any Bush tax cuts but yet to also go ahead with a small middle class tax cut if spending can be cut in other ways. Of course, the amount of any tax hike is going to be very important -- if it is small and targeted enough, it may not exactly encourage hiring or investment or the starting of new businesses, but the costs will probably be absorbed by the affected parties and life will go on after an initial bout of hemming and hawing. My greatest hope is that an Obama administration will be able to avoid any new, unnecessary wars (my main fear under a McCain administration)...I think we've got a decent chance of this, but Obama is not exactly a non-interventionist by any stretch of the imagination. Considering that the economy is likely to be Obama's biggest concern over at least the first year of his administration, I wonder how many of his other goals he'll be able to achieve. Will plans for universal health insurance fall to the wayside...again? Will alternative energy investments be neglected, in part due to falling gas prices? As I see it, the advantage Obama has by having a Democratic legislature in his corner is somewhat offset by the pressing nature of the recession -- like most presidents, I expect Obama will have trouble delivering on his campaign promises. It'll definitely be interesting to see how things play out. I don't see Obama as a "do-nothing" type of president, but he'd have to be Superman to get everything he wants done in this kind of economic environment.

One thing we're definitely not any closer to in America is a third party. The 2008 election was an Obama and McCain show, with no room for anything else. I really wish at least one of the three general election presidential debates could set aside some space for Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, and/or Cynthia McKinney. Several important issues were swept under the rug in this election cycle simply because the two major party candidates held similar views on them, including the bailout, illegal immigration, and America's relations with Israel (Joe the Plumber's analysis of Obama not withstanding). Nader and crew would have brought some different ideas to the table on these and other issues -- it's a pity that most of America never got to hear those ideas. That said, if America would get off its collective butt, go online, and start researching third party and independent candidates more we wouldn't be so reliant on the mainstream debates. Heck, Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin had a couple of debates of their own in the past month (with Barr also participating in one) that I didn't even hear about until days after the fact...I'm definitely part of the problem here, not the solution! Well, there's always next election, right?

Slavery and the Constitution

2008-10-27T15:30:00.002-05:00

I don't consider the U.S. Constitution to be a dated document. It was designed to be the framework for a government that would change with the times. While some of the language used may sound a trifle unusual to modern readers, there's little about the content that is firmly rooted in the century in which it was written. In my opinion, reading the Constitution remains the best way for anyone to learn about the American system of government as it was and as it still is. Still, although you won't find mention of pantaloons, powdered wigs, and muskets there, the body of the Constitution nonetheless was a product of a time and a place. Although the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery provides the definitive word on slavery's present legal status, there remain within the Constitution references to slavery which seem to acknowledge that the "peculiar institution" was an acceptable aspect of life in a supposedly free country.

Unfortunately, slavery is a black mark on many of mankind's early forays into representative government. Slaves could be found in the Athenian Democracy, the Roman Republic, and the Venetian Republic. It is as if it was relatively easy for people to take that first step and say, "Some people deserve rights and representation." To take the next logical step and extend equal rights and representation to all people, however, was extremely difficult, particularly when economic interests were involved. I can easily imagine some slavery defender of the past declaring, "But the slaves do the jobs that we don't want to do! Abolition will destroy the economy!" Americans can find some solace in the fact that slavery as an institution has been fiercely opposed from the very beginning of the United States. Even the writers of the Constitution disagreed vehemently on this issue. Still, it's impossible to call the pre-13th Amendment Constitution an anti-slavery document; you can at best say that slavery is inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution, but, considering that Section II of Article IV cavalierly affirms the rights of slave owners to have their "property" restored to them if an escaped slave moves past state lines, that argument can be taken only so far.

I suppose the Constitution must be considered a historical document as well as a political one. Just as slavery is an inextricable part of American history, so too it must be an inextricable part of the U.S. Constitution. Still, the most important thing to me is that slavery, though enshrined within the Constitution, was ultimately abolished by the Constitution as well. Although the battle for civil rights is an ongoing on, continuing to the present day, at least legal slavery was put to an end once and for all. The United States moved further along than Athens, Rome, and Venice did; it did take a while, but it's still something Americans can feel proud about.

Isn't All Taxation Income Redistribution?

2008-10-23T18:13:00.002-05:00

I think the most interesting issue of this year's presidential campaign has been taxation. While both John McCain and Barack Obama have presented themselves as being tax cutters, McCain has consistently supported across the board tax cuts whilst Obama has emphasized that tax cuts should be geared towards those who need them the most and, at the same time, taxes should be increased for those who can afford to pay more in his view. On a number of issues, Obama and McCain hold similar views, but there is a real difference in their attitudes towards taxation.

The McCain position is essentially that taxes are a necessary evil and that America's current tax rates are too high. Though no one will ever able to agree on the perfect tax rate, I think it's indisputable that high tax rates make things difficult for a lot of people, from the middle class family trying to eek by to the small or large business that needs money to expand and hire new workers. McCain, like President Bush, sees cutting tax rates as one of the best ways to spur new growth. Compared to Obama, McCain is more concerned with getting past the recession, not surviving it. Ideally, McCain's tax policies would help the American economy zoom through the recession and start thriving again quickly, but there's certainly no guarantee this will happen. There is also a philosophical component to McCain's position which is based on the idea of America being a land of the free and also a land of limited government. Reducing taxes reduces the imposition of government on the people; at the very least, it gives people with money more freedom to spend that money as they will. Furthermore, reduced tax revenue puts pressure on government to slim down which jives well with McCain's call for a government spending freeze and his long-running crusade against wasteful government spending. It doesn't necessarily go so smoothly with certain of McCain's other positions, however, notably when it comes to foreign policy: one indisputable lesson of Iraq is that wars cost a lot of money.

For Barack Obama, the end justifies the means when it comes to taxation. No one likes paying taxes, but there's a difference between the pang an American taxpayer feels when writing a check out to the IRS and the pain a burn victim feels as he is pulled out of the flames. Obama thinks that the good that can come out of government spending outweighs the ills of taxation; he believes that increasing access to health insurance and health care, cleaning up the educational system, and otherwise aiding the masses is more important than the free spending of the wealth one has earned. Furthermore, he doesn't seem to think that the ills of taxation are quite so severe as McCain believes. Lower taxes may encourage companies to expand, but big companies have also made the "golden parachute" into a household phrase. It's not only government that engages in wasteful spending; it's rife in the corporate world and among the wealthy as well. Obama essentially makes the argument that the rich and businesses should pay more in taxes because they can afford to do so -- profitable businesses will still be able to expand and make more profits and the rich will still be able to invest because there is so much wealth floating around, but by trimming the fat of the wealthy the country as a whole can benefit. I think whether this is really true or not is very situational. Some businesses and some people really probably can afford higher taxes without cutting back too much , but not everyone will be able to bear the increased burden so lightly. The recent financial crisis has demonstrated how easily even huge businesses can fail quite suddenly so we shouldn't treat a change in tax policy in any way but seriously. Let's also not forget that Obama is an anti-tax crusader himself when it comes to the middle class. First and foremost, I think Obama's tax cuts will make it easier for folks to survive the recession even if they have been hit hard by the mortgage crisis and credit crunch; I think it's more of a humanitarian gesture than an economic one. At the same time, those tax cuts should encourage consumer spending which is good for the economy and could help keep a lot of businesses afloat. Obama also seems to believe very much in the power of government spending to create jobs and boost the economy; for instance, he wants the government to take a leading role in the drive towards alternative energy sources and he also supports increased government spending on infrastructure (public works projects can create a lot of jobs and give a nice boost to the construction and related industries). To an extent, Obama wants to use government to provide the economic boost that McCain hopes his tax cuts will encourage the wealthy and businesses to provide. Personally, my biggest beef with Obama is that he is not more focused on the most important goals he wants to achieve when it comes to spending -- for instance, I really don't believe spending money on encouraging community service is something the government needs to be worried about right now.

Clearly, McCain and Obama aren't on the same page when it comes to taxation. On the other hand, they're not quite as different from one another as the McCain campaign wants people to believe. Obama has been repeatedly branded an income redistributor and a socialist (and perhaps by extension "un-American") of late because of his tax policies, but we've had the progressive income tax in America for a long time now. I don't think it's fair to call someone who wants to make an adjustment within a system of taxation that has existed through many such adjustments over many years an agent of radical change. In fact, McCain also wants to make adjustments to that system but in the opposite direction. McCain certainly doesn't seem to mind disproportionately relying on the taxation of the wealthy to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; he probably won't mind relying on it again if another war or two starts under his watch. Granted, McCain has spoken of the flat tax sympathetically in the past, but it doesn't seem to be a part of his current platform. As I see it, ALL taxation is income redistribution -- it always involves the government taking money away from individuals, away from families, and away from businesses and spending it in a way that the previous holders of the money can generally only influence indirectly. McCain may want to reduce the amount of income redistribution rather than increase it as Obama wants to do, but both presidential candidates are redistributers. I don't understand why the social spending advocated by Obama is often treated as if it was in some way worse than other government spending. Perhaps taxation for war spending seems less like income redistribution to some because the troops are fighting for everyone, but the fact remains that all war funds raised by taxation were taken forcibly and spent without the explicit approval of the taxpayer. While Obama does want a bigger government, I don't think any of his policies are really more socialistic in nature than some of the government's recent attempts to address the financial crisis -- AIG, for instance, has essentially been nationalized...a really, really, REALLY socialistic thing to do. I think Obama and McCain both make superb arguments for their respective views on taxation; I'd even go so far as to say their arguments have raised the level of discourse on this subject in American society for the time being. At the end of the day, though, they're both essentially income-redistributin', reluctant socialists, just like FDR and Ronald Reagan. McCain is being disingenuous by claiming to be something else.

The Detail Man and the Populist

2008-10-02T21:50:00.002-05:00

Tonight's vice presidential debate pitted two campaigns against each other that have moved in very different directions of late. Obama/Biden has been surging as banks have failed and the stock market has tanked. Meanwhile, McCain/Palin has been struggling as McCain quasi-suspended his campaign last week to supposedly focus on the financial crisis and Palin has come under fire because of a pair of uncomfortable interviews with Katie Couric. A great deal of scrutiny has been placed on Palin lately, with some pundits even going so far as to call on her to step aside from the campaign. Sarah Palin, thus, had much more to prove tonight; Biden, on the other hand, needed only to attack McCain and praise Obama to fulfill his duties. In my view, both succeeded in their missions.

Following the Republican Convention, Governor Palin has come across to me as more unprepared than incompetent. I suspect that even the most "experienced" of politicians must struggle to remember the specifics of bills and voting records; Palin has reminded me of a student who hasn't studied for a test rather than one who couldn't find a way to pass even if she had studied. Apart from this unpreparedness, I think she has also been a little too eager to spin rather than answer questions directly; she certainly should have been able to speak freely to Couric about where she gets her news from, for instance, but she probably got afraid that she'd mention some news source deemed too liberal by the conservative establishment. Of course, it's also likely that she gets a lot of news updates from her staff -- still, I imagine she's looked at a few national newspapers in her time that she could have mentioned...at least I hope she has. The one positive to emerge from Palin's bad press is that there were no expectations on her going into this debate. As long as she didn't sound too uncomfortable or say anything too ridiculous, she would exceed many people's expectations. I didn't really notice any glaring gaffes from her in tonight's debate. While she didn't address every topic raised directly, she had a lot to say and she did a fine job of projecting warmth and confidence. She didn't seem scared or unprepared; she sounded like a perfectly suitable vice presidential candidate, in fact.

That said, I think Joe Biden clearly won this debate. Palin may not have sounded unprepared, but Senator Biden was if anything overprepared. He has a habit of making reference to specifics in debates, but his discussion of particular bills, voting records, and even the constitutional role of vice presidents tonight suggested an almost encyclopedic knowledge of American politics. He was impressive, and Palin struggled to score points for her team on the issues because Biden seemed to be ready for just about any argument. In stark contrast to the sharp back and forths of the first McCain and Obama debate, this vice presidential debate was a considerably gentler affair, and the attacks were largely focused on the presidential candidates. Palin seemed to thrive in this gentler atmosphere; in particular, she did a very good job throughout the debate of appealing directly to the proverbial average American. For instance, she stated very directly that the blame on the mortgage crisis should be placed squarely on predatory lenders, not the regular folks who bit off more mortgage than they could chew. She tried to articulate some of the anger that the victims of the crisis feel by essentially declaring that the American people won't be fooled again and unregulated financiers will never be allowed to run amok again. Palin seems careful not to promise too much, though; as much as she wanted to demonstrate that she empathizes with the common man and woman, she largely steered clear of making specific policy commitments geared towards the masses. In that way, she may not seem to fit the classic model of a populist candidate, but she has definitely been more of a people-oriented than issue-oriented candidate so far. While Palin did an excellent job of presenting herself as a warm and caring person, she had a harder time defending her running mate against Biden who seemed to know about just about every congressional vote Senator McCain has ever made. She couldn't effectively respond to Biden when he mentioned McCain's past opposition to alternative energy or McCain's agreement with Bush on the "important issues," for instance. Her very pro-regulation stance in the debate seemed to be at odds with McCain's past positions, which Biden also criticized repeatedly. I'm not sure what to make of this other than possibly that the financial crisis has made McCain more in favor of regulation of the financial industry than he has been in the past.

I thought Palin made two effective attacks on Obama/Biden, and both were related to foreign policy. First, she attacked Obama's characterization of the American mission in Afghanistan as air-raiding villages and killing civilians. That remark, though made by Obama while he was explaining why he wants to change America's policy in Afghanistan (he's actually in favor of much MORE American involvement in Afghanistan), does paint a rather ugly picture of the American military. All wars are ugly, but unless Obama decides that he wants to cease involvement in Afghanistan I strongly suspect civilians will continue to be killed unintentionally there. Palin's second effective attack was actually directed against Joe Biden who seemed to be trying to paint himself as a dove who had never really supported the Iraq war. I heard the same Democratic debates that Palin referenced in her attack, and I also don't believe Biden and Obama were originally on the same page when it comes to Iraq. "Joe Biden" and "dove" don't belong together in the same sentence! Granted, it is true that Biden and McCain haven't supported the exact same strategies and/or tactics in Iraq, but Biden has never been a leader of the anti-war movement. Palin's other attacks weren't nearly so effective, and one was particularly poor. Her attempt to criticize Obama for voting against a war funding bill backfired badly on her when Biden pointed out that McCain had also voted against a (different) war funding bill -- neither senator really wanted to leave the troops stranded, but they both used their votes to make opposite political statements regarding timelines for withdrawal at different times. Neither of them has any business righteously chastising anyone on that issue...Biden, though, just might because he voted for funding even when Obama didn't. Palin was foolish to bring this topic up. Another bad moment for Palin came when she suggested it might be be nice if the vice president could have more power -- I don't think that's something even Republicans want after eight years of the shadowy Dick Cheney, and Biden was quite eloquent and erudite when he discussed the proper role of a vice president (and criticized the aforementioned shadowy Cheney).

While Palin's comfortable performance should reassure those McCain faithful who are skeptical of the Alaskan governor's fitness for office, Biden's better showing may win over some more undecided voters to his ticket. Most pundits say that vice presidential debates tend not to have much impact, and I'm not sure this one will be any different. Palin, though, was the "story" many people had on their minds before the debate; as such, her decent performance may very well prove to be more valuable for her campaign than Biden's superior performance is for his. Palin definitely didn't provide the disaster that I'm sure many Obama supporters were hoping for...the governor is probably going to get her first good night's sleep in a while tonight.

The Ole Miss Presidential Debate

2008-09-26T22:06:00.002-05:00

I always find presidential debates interesting, but I'm not sure I've anticipated one so eagerly before as I did tonight's debate at the University of Mississippi. After months of ads, fighting surrogates, lightweight political forums, and solo speeches, Barack Obama and John McCain finally met together on one stage for a face-off. The surprising behavior of McCain over the past few days made things all the more interesting. While I was very interested in hearing Obama and McCain spar over the economic crisis and foreign policy, I have to admit I was also quite interested in the more mundane political matter of whether or not McCain's campaign was still in a "suspended" state.

As far as I can tell, McCain's campaign was unsuspended as suddenly as it was suspended. I really cannot believe McCain would make such an aboutface without any explanation given during the debate. Still, that seems to be just what has happened. I heard no mention of a suspended campaign tonight; I didn't even hear anything about how McCain was desparately needed in Washington to help save the economy. Unless there is some further clarification forthcoming, I have to interpret McCain's behavior as all but admitting that the suspension of his campaign was indeed a mere political ploy. Theatrics. McCain deserves the title of maverick, but he has proven that he is first and foremost a politician.

That said, I tried not to let my surprise over McCain's behavior to color my view of the debate. In my opinion, both candidates performed well in Oxford. The format of the debate allowed Obama and McCain to question (or, more often, attack) one another after they responded to moderator Jim Lehrer's initial query. There was a lot of back and forth between the two candidates which I rather enjoyed. True, there was a fair bit of the sniping that often makes political debates very tedious to witness, but both candidates were able to get their shots in tonight without taking too much time away from expostulating their own views. McCain did seem to make a theme of pointing out Obama's "naivete" particularly when it came to matters of foreign policy. Obama tried, as he has consistently done in speeches, to link McCain with President Bush's policies. While Obama is in my view far superior at giving long-form speeches than McCain, I think McCain is a rather underrated debater; he was able to hold his own against Obama quite well in my opinion.

Probably the most interesting section of the debate to me was devoted to the economic crisis. While both Obama and McCain support the bailout in the short term, they have very different plans for encouraging economic recovery. Obama had harsh words for the philosophy of trickle-down economics that he says Bush and McCain espouse, noting that some people were experiencing economic crises of their own long before the Wall Street and banking giants started tumbling. Obama's bottom-up strategy is instead designed to alleviate economic pressure on those least able to recover from economic catastrophe, at the expense of a corporate America that exploits loopholes to evade paying taxes yet throws away huge amounts of money to greedy executives. McCain, in contrast, took pains to praise business, noting that lower taxes for businesses encouraged economic activity and provided jobs. He also emphasized the importance of cutting spending and even dwelled at some length on one of his favorite topics of years gone by, earmarks. To hear McCain speak, it sounds like he intends to veto any bill loaded down with earmarks. In practice, I imagine this would lead to a very adversarial relationship between the president and Congress -- if people think Congress is slow to move now, just wait until McCain starts vetoing every bill that carries a whiff of wasteful pork barrel spending. McCain has done a good job of doing what I suggested some months back; he has positioned himself more or less as a small government, lower taxes kind of guy. He's also attempted (less successfully in my view) to paint Obama as someone who will tax everyone and spend prodigally; Obama has strongly and consistently refuted the claim that he will raise taxes on everyone and did so again tonight. The spender label is harder to avoid. Obama seemed secure in his commitment to his ambitious but expensive energy and health care plans, though he did acknowledge at least in the case of his energy plan that the economic crisis could delay its implementation. Throughout the debate, Obama did well in tying the energy crisis to other issues, such as foreign policy and economic recovery. McCain definitely came across as the more fiscally responsible of the two to me even though I'm skeptical that he'll be quite the earmark vetoer he is painting himself as. On the other side, I find myself sometimes wishing Obama had more of a pragmatic air about him when it comes to economic issues. While I don't think Obama has any desire to tax middle and lower income people hard, I somehow can't imagine him cutting taxes on the rich and lowering the capital gains tax like Bill Clinton did -- having an idealist committed to social justice in the White House could bring about a lot of good things, but we do have a recession to beat as well. Although trickle-down economics is often used as a negative term, I actually think the underlying idea behind it has some merits if it is not taken to extremes. This has been a really long paragraph.

On to foreign policy. McCain does seem to have a natural advantage when it comes to foreign policy relative to his younger opponent. All those years haven't been wasted -- McCain, as a soldier and as a member of the United States government, has travelled the world. He knows foreign leaders. He's passionate about America's security. He's genuinely interested in foreign policy and defense issues. Obama can't compete with McCain when it comes to experience and perhaps not even in enthusiasm when it comes to foreign policy. What Obama does offer, however, is a rather different take on world affairs. He continues to advocate for a timely withdrawal of troops from Iraq. McCain, by contrast, is closely associated with the surge strategy in Iraq that has led to reduced violence but an increased troop presence in Iraq. I have to admit I personally was totally wrong about the surge -- I thought it would lead to a surge of violence in the short term, and Obama seems to have thought about the same thing. The success of the surge strategy is perhaps the brightest feather in McCain's foreign policy cap; in my view, the surge has definitely led to a better situation for all in Iraq. For Obama, though, the Iraq war will always be a mistake and a distraction no matter how successfully the war effort is waged; he regards Afghanistan as the primary theater of the war on terror and feels that al-Qaeda has grown stronger in recent years because we have not been committed enough to winning that war. Although Obama does seem to place more emphasis on diplomacy relative to McCain, I'm not sure I would classify one as a dove and one as a hawk. Obama essentially wants the surge to move from Iraq to Afghanistan; he wants the troops out of Iraq not so much because he expects peace to result as because he thinks the troops would better serve their country if they were deployed elsewhere. Obama certainly seems to take a harsher view of Pakistan than McCain does, for instance, and he definitely leaves the door open for military operations within Pakistan's tribal areas. Both Obama and McCain condemn Russia's invasion of Georgia and see it is a threat to the United States' allies in the region. McCain did seek to portray Obama as being not quite enough on Georgia's side, but I would say they're both pretty much on the same page there even down to NATO membership for former Soviet republics.

The most vigorous foreign policy argument between the two was over whether or not an American president should ever meet with a roguish leader like Iran's Ahmadinejad without preconditions. McCain attacked Obama for being willing to engage in such a meeting; in fact, McCain didn't just attack...he mocked. He acted like a condescending teacher trying to explain a ridiculously simple concept to some obtuse schoolboy. Honestly, though, I'm not sure I got the lesson either. McCain's argument seems to based on the idea that an American president who meets with an enemy leader without preconditions is somehow legitimising that leader in the eyes of the world. Ahmadinejad is definitely a villain in my view, but I don't see how he can be considered anything but legitimate -- he is an elected member of the Iranian government. Like it or not, he's part of the reality of Middle Eastern politics at the moment. I tend to think that wise diplomatic policy requires keeping in contact with all sorts of nations and governments. Sometimes the relations between countries will be more or less hostile, but if circumstances dictate that enemies should meet then so be it. I don't really think fears about legitimising an evil leader should prevent us from engaging in diplomacy that could possibly avert a war or prevent nuclear proliferation. We certainly have no reason to be overly friendly towards Iran. We shouldn't placate or appease the Iranians. We should be able to talk to them, though, and if for some reason there's an advantage to having a president meet up with Ahmadinejad without preconditions I just don't see what's so terrible about that. Obama did try to make the point that a meeting on the presidential level would not necessarily occur between the United States and Iran -- he emphasized instead the importance of lower level diplomatic meetings. Theoretically speaking, I don't see anything wrong with Obama's stance. Maybe I'm wrong about this just as I was about the consequences of the surge, but at the very least I think McCain could have made his point more clearly and more respectfully.

As puzzled as I continue to be about McCain's pseudo-suspension, I'm glad that this debate happened and I am looking forward to the upcoming October rematches. Both McCain and Obama are very much in this race -- yes, I think McCain will survive the weirdness of this week, especially given his strong debate performance tonight. I would classify the debate overall as a draw with McCain doing better than expected in the economic portion of the debate and Obama doing better than expected during the foreign policy segment.

There's No Suspending in Politics

2008-09-26T10:03:00.002-05:00

John McCain's decision to suspend his presidential campaign little over a month before an election will likely be controversial for as long as people study American history. Was it a political ploy or an act of patriotism? I doubt we'll ever know for sure. McCain is undoubtedly capable of making personal sacrifices for his country -- he's proven that beyond a reasonable doubt already. He is also quite passionate about issues that he believes in. Up to this point, McCain hasn't seemed to me to be all that passionate about economic issues, but the present American financial crisis is by all accounts an extremely serious one. If McCain truly believes that a bailout could possibly prevent another Great Depression, I can imagine him dropping everything and investing himself fully into making that bailout happen. At the same time, Senator McCain is also a man who has wanted to be president for many years. Because Barack Obama has opted not to suspend his own campaign, McCain will now be able to paint Obama as someone who cares more about his own political ambitions than the good of his country. An "unsuspended" McCain will be able to play the hero whilst Obama will be forced to continually defend his choice to campaign through the crisis. Even if McCain is deeply worried about the economic crisis, I'm sure he was quite aware of the political leverage he could gain by suspending his campaign.

That said, McCain has taken a big political risk. All this talk of suspending campaigns has reminded me of when Ross Perot left the race for several months in 1992, a move that happened to devastate a kid who was playing close attention to a presidential election for the first time. (The kid later grew up to be a political blogger even though he didn't pay much attention to politics for years after Perot's failed bid.) Perot's decision in all likelihood was not a political ploy -- it certainly hurt his campaign. McCain's suspension could similarly hurt him. Already there are some veiled (and not so veiled) suggestions about McCain's mental competency floating around, just as there were with Perot. McCain will probably be best served if he can unsuspend his campaign quite quickly. If he does not, then he runs the risk of becoming a somewhat forgotten figure or, worse, perhaps a pathetic one. The truth is McCain has no power to really suspend his campaign -- he can control himself and his staffers, but he cannot control the American electorate who are very much a part of every campaign. Voters certainly haven't stopped assessing the candidates, and they haven't forgotten that there's an election in November. They're still going to be deciding if they want to vote for McCain regardless of whether he is on the stump or in the Senate. There is no pause button in a political election.

I do think McCain's decision to suspend his campaign is a tacit admission of something I've thought for a long time: people who have other political responsibilities should NOT run for president. Both McCain and Obama have been neglecting their senatorial duties for two years so they could try to become president. What they are doing is acceptable in the current political culture, but I don't consider it to be the honorable choice by any means. It's fine and good that McCain is willing to stop his presidential campaign to help avert a crisis, but I wonder if having a fewer number of distracted senators over the past couple of years might not have helped us avoid some other future crises as well. Regardless of who wins or loses, this election is taking three senators and a governor away from their duties...I don't see how that can possibly be a good thing for the country.

I've just learned that McCain has decided to show up for tonight's debate in Mississippi. I'm surprised -- I was just about to predict in this post that McCain would not show up because that would seem to be a backing away from his principled stance. I guess I shouldn't be so surprised: McCain has been consistently unpredictable throughout his career and if anything he is growing even more mercurial with age. At any rate, though, I'm very glad that the two leading presidential candidates will finally have a real political debate.

Voting for Vice President

2008-07-05T13:44:00.002-05:00

I think it is safe to say that American politics has grown more democratic in spirit over time. The establishment of the popular election of senators, the development of the primary and caucus system, and women's suffrage are all examples of this trend. Two of these changes have come about as a result of amendments to the Constitution, and it could be argued that as America becomes more and more democratic it moves further and further away from the dogma of checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution. The conflict of ideas fought between those who believe that people should have more control over their government and those who believe that the power of the people must be checked in order for the stability of the nation to be maintained has shaped our political system...and made it all a little confusing as well.

The vice presidency is perhaps the most confusing federal office in the land. Although a vice president never has to win an election on his or her own merits alone, the office entitles its holder to become president should the sitting president die and to cast a tie-breaking vote in the case of a 50-50 deadlock in the Senate. While technically the vice president is elected, the voting public is essentially shut out of the process of nominating a person to fill this important office, and they only get the opportunity to vote for vice president in combination with a particular presidential candidate on a ticket. Considering that the vice president is the lesser office, the vice presidential candidate is always overshadowed by the presidential candidate; practically speaking, most people seem to vote for president, with the vice president being an afterthought if even a thought. This current situation exists largely by decision of the political parties -- they, in effect, have taken it upon themselves to check the power of the people, though their existence is not even acknowledged in the Constitution.

I don't mean to damn the political parties. They have played a role in the democratizing process I mentioned earlier; the fact that voters can essentially choose each party's nominee for president now is largely due to the beneficence of the parties. The party system was alive and well in the 19th century, though the players weren't exactly the same as they are today, but voters simply weren't allowed this nominating power -- they could vote in the general election, but choosing a party's nominee was a task reserved for the political establishment. Still, I think if the voters are good enough to nominate a presidential candidate they should also be able to nominate a vice presidential candidate as well. After all, the vice president could become president at any time and he or she acts as the 101st senator also. Although it may be lacking in day-to-day responsibilities, the office of vice president is not unimportant. I think it is time for it to be taken a little more seriously.

I'm sure that any vice presidential election would be overshadowed by the presidential election just as vice presidents today are overshadowed by presidents, but that's OK. I just would like to see vice presidents chosen not for political expediency but based on their perceived merits as candidates. Considering that they may become president, vice presidential candidates should have to prove themselves to the people they hope to represent, just as presidents and senators must. There should be primary and caucus voting for vice presidential nominees. There should be separate popular voting in November for president and vice president, just like the Electoral College does it. Theoretically, we could end up with a Republican/Democratic presidential combo this way, but in practice this probably won't happen very often, if at all. Adams/Jefferson part 2 wouldn't be the end of the world, anyway. What we might see an end to is the picking of weird vice presidential candidates in order to appease some wing of a party or to try to win a certain swing state or to compensate for some perceived shortcoming in a presidential candidate. Rather than having regional vice presidents or fringe politics vice presidents or vice presidents chosen because of their race or gender or age or experience, we'll have vice presidents that can actually represent the broader nation. With all due respect to Dan Quayle, Joe Lieberman, Geraldine Ferraro, and Dick Cheney, I do believe this would represent progress.

Will John McCain Move Beyond National Security?

2008-06-08T22:45:00.002-05:00

I've been thinking today about which of the remaining presidential candidates I feel like I know the best at this point in time. After some reflection, I realized that Barack Obama feels more familiar to me than John McCain. This surprised me a little -- after all, John McCain has run for president before. I wasn't following politics too closely in 2000, but I do remember that McCain's campaign for the Republican nomination was pretty much the most exciting thing about that election prior to election night. Obama, on the other hand, is someone I hadn't heard of until 2006. How can I possibly feel like I know Obama better than McCain?

I actually think the recent past explains my feeling of familiarity with Obama at the moment. After all, Obama's been in the limelight for the whole year. He's been battling Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, after all -- never mind that the battle was essentially over for all accounts and purposes months ago. McCain, on the other hand, has been somewhat out of the public eye following his dispatching of his Republican rivals. The one other lingering Republican, Ron Paul, failed to win enough votes to be a credible McCain challenger or even a political thorn in the side of the Arizona senator. Clinton and Obama's struggle for the nomination was theater -- hard to watch at times, for sure, but theater nonetheless. It has in recent months eclipsed McCain, a candidate who did nothing wrong other than win too easily. The ugliness of the Clinton-Obama fight may very well benefit Obama in the long run. While Obama probably wishes Reverend Wright had not become a household name, I think it's far better for him that the country became acquainted with Wright when it did rather than later. Likewise, it's good for him that he's already been called an elitist and that his Islamic ties have been revealed. The fact that this stuff is already out in the open means that McCain can only get a limited amount of traction out of any of these issues.

John McCain in contrast hasn't really been exposed in the media much so far. The Republican nomination process had its nippy moments, but it wasn't a particularly bruising affair. McCain was able to defeat his challengers essentially on one issue: national security. Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney all sought to sound like the kind of president who would keep America safe, but McCain's military and political experience made for a far more impressive national security resume than anything the security trio had to offer. I honestly think McCain could win the election in a similar fashion; national security is the issue for many people right now, and McCain has a strong experience advantage over Obama. Obama, however, won't be trying to out-do or out-tough McCain on national security issues like Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani attempted. He'll be arguing for different policies and different approaches. Thus, there will be a different dynamic to their matchup. The question voters ask themselves won't be, "Who is the best man to lead us through war?" but rather, "Which man has the best strategy and philosophy?" Ultimately, I think McCain will make his general election campaign about a lot more than just national security. The challenge for him will be choosing which issues to emphasize. Unlike a Tom Tancredo, McCain is not a one-dimensional candidate. Like a Tom Tancredo, McCain's stance on the issues can be polarizing even within his own party. I really don't expect McCain to make immigration one of the centerpieces of his campaign; neither do I expect campaign finance reform or pork-barrel spending to be strongly emphasized by McCain in the runup to November. Those are issues that McCain is passionate about, but they are controversial issues among his fellow Republicans. It would be safer for McCain to be the anti-tax candidate, the smaller government candidate, the personal liberties candidate...but does he really want to be any of those things? If not, he could find himself losing votes to Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. While McCain's vice presidential choice will likely appeal to some important base of the Republican party somewhat alienated by McCain, I'm not sure that alone will be sufficient to energize disaffected voters.

Although I hope we've got the most dirty politics of 2008 out of the way already, it is probably inevitable that McCain will be attacked on character issues just like Obama has been. McCain's marital history certainly makes for ugly reading; as much as I don't want to judge McCain the candidate based on what McCain the man did thirty years ago, I must admit that I think of Carol McCain just about every time I see Cindy McCain on TV now. I don't want to, but I do...that's the power of a sensationalistic story. I have no idea if McCain's personal life is going to become a big campaign issue or not, but I'm sure something similarly non-political will hit McCain over the head sooner or later. How well McCain is able to step out of his national security comfort zone to defend himself and win over skeptical voters could have a very big impact on the election.

Mike Gravel and the National Initiative for Democracy

2008-06-01T15:04:00.002-05:00

Mike Gravel recently announced his retirement from active politics after Bob Barr became the Libertarian Party's presidential nominee. There will be no independent run from the colorful former senator from Alaska this year -- it seems Gravel will be spreading his message through books, the Internet, and other media from now on. He undoubtedly deserves the rest after his truly marathon presidential run. I don't think there's any question that Gravel enriched the presidential process. Above all else, he made us think. There may not be another person on this planet who has exactly the same set of political views that Gravel holds yet the Alaskan never seemed to hesitate to state his opinion in a debate or interview. Iran? It's no threat! Illegal immigration? It helps the economy! Democracy? The people need to take charge of things themselves! I don't agree with Gravel on a lot of issues, but I love how he made me think about common issues from a new perspective. In fact, it was rather hard to ignore Gravel at any event to which he was invited -- he was combative to the point of rudeness in the debates, the cantankerous old man par excellence. He would have made a most unlikely president, but many people who would never have voted for him will nonetheless miss seeing him on the campaign trail.

Mike Gravel's mission to bring direct democracy to America in a big way will surely continue. The National Initiative for Democracy aims to let the people play a much larger role in establishing policy than they currently can. In effect, Gravel and the Initiative want the people to become another branch of government equal to Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court. There is something undeniably appealing about making decisions for yourself rather than trusting someone else to make those decisions for you. I would definitely have liked to have been consulted about going to war with Iraq, for instance. I certainly no longer believe that elected representatives are "more qualified" than average people to make political decisions -- I refuse to accept that I myself, my friends, and my family are part of the "rabble" than cannot be trusted whilst Larry Craig, David Vitter, and others of their ilk are members of an "elite" who will make sound decisions even in times of crisis. The Craigs and the Vitters do still have an advantage over the average person, though, and it is a big one: they're professionals. Politics is their job. They go to meetings, attend hearings, and have advisers who are experts in various fields -- if they are still ignorant about the issues, it is entirely their own fault. The average person cannot focus on politics to the same extent and as such would struggle to make well-considered decisions when it comes to issues he or she is not that familiar with. The idea of giving the people a direct voice in politics still has some merit, but direct democracy would probably be most effective when it comes to "big picture" issues that tend to affect everyone.

It's fun to think of how the people might change government if they had the chance. I imagine the federal budget might look a little different after it was given the direct democracy treatment. Somehow, I can't imagine health care and education being underfunded. That doesn't mean defense spending would necessary be decimated (I suspect it would be reduced, however) because national security is on a lot of people's minds as well. I have a hard time imagining popular approval for billions of aid to Pakistan, especially since many people think Pakistan is the reason Bin Laden is still on the loose. In general, I suspect more attention would be paid to internal problems and less to foreign policy issues in a direct democracy; this would undoubtedly have both good and bad effects. America would perhaps no longer be an interventionist, but it could find itself in a position of weakness and vulnerability in the international sphere. Who is to say that the people wouldn't adjust, though? If foreign policy experts make the case for aid to Pakistan in terms anyone could understand and market the message directly to the people, perhaps that aid would continue even in a direct democracy. It's harder to say if people would always vote for policies they perceive would be in their economic best interest regardless of how such policies would affect other people and the economy as a whole. Would, for instance, the masses vote for a 75% income tax on the rich to pay for bread and circuses for themselves? Aristotle would probably say, "Yes." I concede that this is a danger zone, but it isn't because regular citizens are inherently greedier than politicians. The real problem would be that economics is a subject a lot of people are pretty uncomfortable with -- direct democracy is likely to fail if people are forced to make decisions without either knowledge or experience to guide them.

Although Mike Gravel thinks the federal government has been corrupted by corporate interests, he is not exactly arguing for its extermination. Rather, he sees the people as being a complement to the government -- direct democracy would in effect coexist with indirect democracy. Ideally, the people will make the government better and perhaps vice versa as well. The important thing is that the voice of the people will be heard on a national level. How the National Initiative intends to make this happen is somewhat peculiar. It sees the government and the people as fundamentally opposed so it doesn't seem to think that elected officials would ever support any idea to give the people any of their power. So the Initiative is collecting signatures and donations at the moment. Their big plan seems to be to amend the Constitution without the support of Congress or the state legislatures. Personally, I think this is a flawed strategy that has no constitutional basis. A better approach, in my opinion, would be to lend support to candidates who support the principles behind the Initiative so that they can change government from within. Perhaps the reason this idea has been rejected is because supporters of the Initiative think that only corporatists can win offices these days; personally, I'm not quite so cynical. If 50 million people are willing to "vote" in a National Initiative, why wouldn't they be equally willing to support pro-direct democracy candidates in legislature and congressional elections?

As always, Gravil is making me think. Thanks for everything, Mike.

The Eternal Campaign

2008-05-01T10:25:00.002-05:00

The extended battle for the Democratic nomination has provided this election cycle with much of its drama. In a way, I think any such fight to the end is good because it ensures that voters in all states will at least have something of a choice as they should in a republic. However, there is definitely a different feel about this contest compared to the Republican nomination process. It wasn't so long ago that the last Republicans still standing were Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, and John McCain. Paul, in fact, is still in the race, but he has been gaining a bit more attention of late for his new book than for his campaigning. Considering that Paul is libertarian-leaning, Huckabee is a religious conservative, and McCain is a neo-conservative, these three candidates had little choice but to campaign on ideology. The Democratic presidential campaign, however, has been about character and personality almost from the very beginning. While the horse race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has been exciting, the early withdrawals of the other Democratic candidates has ultimately made the nomination into more of a popularity contest than a political debate.

My personal name for Hillary Clinton's political strategy against Barack Obama is "Death by a Thousand Cuts." For months now, Clinton and her campaign have sought to attack Obama on all matter of character issues. (I don't mean to imply that Obama and his campaign haven't been attacking Clinton from day one as well, but I do think Clinton has been more systematic in her approach! Additionally, I think Obama has intentionally tried to play the gentleman in the debates while Clinton has been very aggressive in them -- that definitely has affected my perception.) I've felt that this strategy has greatly weakened Clinton simply because most of the issues she attempted to hit Obama over the head with didn't seem to be all that important -- at least, not important enough to determine who to vote for. If anything, these flimsy attacks reflected poorly on the attacker. The Clinton campaign must have assumed that, sooner or later, some character issue raised by Clinton would really resonate with the voters -- it's only the law of averages at work. Arguably, Clinton is trailing Obama in the delegate race because none of the character issues raised really did "stick" to Obama as much as Clinton had hoped...certainly that was the case until relatively recently. In my view, Obama really did say something offensive when he suggested that the culture and political leanings of small town America are a direct result of economic factors -- from a sociologist such an analysis could be expected, but I think a presidential candidate seeking small town votes should be more respectful, particularly when it comes to the religious views of Americans. Obama's gaffe probably occurred too late to matter overly much, but I imagine Clinton must have been relieved that her patience finally paid off. Perhaps now Hillary will realize that it is far more effective to attack an opponent's obvious weaknesses than to try to invent weaknesses which don't really exist.

The paramount question surrounding the campaigns of Clinton and Obama has become, "When does this all end?" Obama has the delegate lead as well as the lead in the popular vote acknowledged by the Democratic Party. Clinton, though, seems to be only strengthening as a candidate despite the late date. I thought she clearly won the last debate, and more importantly she is also coming off of a primary win in Pennsylvania, though the margin of victory was less than some expected. For her to quit now would seem strange. How, though, can she ultimately win? A superdelegate-led victory or convention shenanigans would lend a distinctly un-democratic air to the Democratic Party, and neither scenario seems very likely to happen. Indeed, I've lately gotten the impression that Clinton has no serious intention of playing the role of the villain who snatches the golden sceptre right from the hands of the heir apparent. Instead, I think Clinton could be in this for the really long haul. Imagine, for instance, that Obama gets the Democratic nomination and loses to McCain in the general election. Clinton might get some blame for this, but if that does happen I strongly suspect that "security voters" (rather than Reverend Wright voters or bitter small town voters) will put McCain over the top. Clinton has tried to portray herself as more trustworthy on national security issues than Obama, but McCain's military as well as political experience will be tough for either Democrat to brush aside. If Obama does not win the general election, then I think Clinton would be in good position to contest the nomination again in 2012, and she's tenacious enough to want to do so. If Obama wins, then I think there's a good chance that Clinton will run in 2016, perhaps with Obama's endorsement. In short, don't expect an end to the Clinton campaign any time soon. It may outlast all of us.

New Homes for Old Pols

2008-04-16T15:10:00.002-05:00

Third parties have two pools of potential voters to recruit from. The first pool is people who either already belong to a party but are dissatisfied with it or consider themselves independents. These are voters who clearly have some degree of interest in politics and already have experience with the process. The second pool is composed of the disinterested masses who do not vote at all. People don't vote for all sorts of reasons -- some definitely do feel alienated and disenfranchised by the two party system and thus have reason to be interested in a third party alternative -- but I think the majority of people don't vote because they are busy with their daily lives and don't follow politics very closely. Those who have been reading this blog for a while know I belonged to that category myself for a long time. It is arguably easier to recruit an active voter to join a new party than it is to convince a non-voter to join the process. "Why don't you start voting so you can support a candidate like me who has virtually no chance of winning?" That's not a great selling point.

Since smaller political parties really do need to court current voters, nominating an established candidate formerly associated with another party can seem like a very appealing prospect. Established candidates have name recognition -- if you doubt that is a powerful thing, remember how great Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson did in the early presidential polls. Established candidates are also seasoned campaigners with useful experience, contacts, and perhaps even an existing organization. There is, however, a big potential downside to welcoming in such candidates. People don't always leave parties for purely ideological reasons. Sometimes they leave because they don't agree with the party leadership on organizational matters or simply don't get along with a particular person or group of people within the party. This being the case, it's possible that an established candidate can leave one party and join another armed with the very same set of ideas and beliefs. The new party, then, risks being hijacked by the candidate -- this seems to be just what happened to the Reform Party when Pat Buchanan joined it and ultimately became its presidential candidate in 2000.

Several of the potential presidential candidates competing for small party nominations are already well-known politicians. Alan Keyes has left the Republican Party and strongly hinted that he wants to become the Constitution Party's presidential candidate. We'll know more after the Constitution Party Convention next week. I don't know enough about the Constitution Party to judge whether Keyes fits there, but one Mississippi CP member is already saying, "No Thanks, Alan Keyes." At least the title of his blog post is polite. Mike Gravel has also left the Democratic Party and is now seeking the Libertarian Party's nomination. This is more than a little wild. Gravel surely has some libertarian leanings when it comes to foreign policy, individual liberties, and abolishing the IRS, but I've never thought of him as someone who wants to drastically reduce social spending like many Libertarians want to do. To tell you the truth, I thought Gravel was much more likely to join the Green Party than to become a Libertarian. Instead, another former Democrat has become the likely Green nominee: Cynthia McKinney, a former Congresswoman from Georgia. She gained some notoriety for hitting a police officer in 2006 -- I had an impression of her being a mentally unbalanced individual probably entirely due to the media coverage of this incident. She actually seems to be quite a good and downright levelheaded speaker, however, and she has done very well in the Green primaries so far. Judging from how the Greens have embraced her, perhaps McKinney's crossover makes the most sense.

In any case, Keyes and Gravel and McKinney are at least bringing some attention to three minor parties. McKinney will probably be a presidential candidate in the general election. We'll have to see about Keyes and Gravel. I imagine that there are a lot of people who right now perceive Keyes and Gravel as being Buchanan-esque hijackers and will oppose their nominations for the long-term good of their parties, but I think both Keyes and Gravel could win over a lot of people if their voices are allowed to be heard. I don't know enough about the other candidates from the smaller parties, but I'm willing to bet Monopoly money that at least a few aren't any more "ideologically pure" than Keyes or Gravel. Ideological purity and political parties just don't seem to go very well together.

Let Ralph Nader Run in Peace

2008-04-07T16:31:00.003-05:00

I don't care much for the team mentality that many Democrats and Republicans adopt. Voting for someone only because she belongs to your party or vilifying someone else only because he is of the other party are the acts of an automaton, especially considering that "Democrat" and "Republican" have become almost useless labels given the different factions that exist in each party and the geographical variations in ideology that seem to be accepted by both parties (for example, pro-life Democrats can be commonly found in conservative areas and pro-choice Republicans are prevalent in liberal areas). I personally think there are a lot of people like me who would vote for different parties if presented with different sets of candidates. We consider the differences among the candidates to be more profound than the differences among the parties, and we don't like the idea of voting for candidates we don't believe in on the assumption that they'll tow the party line once enshrined in office. The party faithful expect us to ultimately pick a side; indeed, sometimes they act as if they feel that their parties have some sort of right to our votes.

This attitude of entitlement is often displayed in Democrats who blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore's loss to George W. Bush in 2000. That intensely close presidential election left a bad taste in many mouths. Allegations of election fraud and government conspiracy still circulate to this day -- it's a pity that a fair and full recount of the vote in Florida was not allowed to take place given the importance of the occasion. Still, it's one thing to protest at what you perceive as a stolen election, a fraudulent result; it's quite another to tear into someone who is exercising his right to seek office and those who are exercising their rights to vote for the candidate of their choice. Nader has been enveloped in a cyclone of bitterness spawned perhaps above all else by sour grapes. Those who argue that Nader votes would have voted for Gore instead of Bush are in all likelihood right, but how can the preference of those voters for Nader over Gore be dismissed and pushed aside? Nader voters could have voted for Gore or Bush or someone else; they chose not to. Gore has no right to any votes that were not cast for him.

Since Nader has recently decided to seek the presidency once again in 2008, his critics have again arisen in protest, some angrily and some derisively. I strongly doubt that Nader will be the next president of the United States, but nonetheless I feel he deserves as much respect as any other candidate. His road as an independent candidate will be more difficult than that traveled by the Republican and Democratic nominees; indeed, it is probably harder for a Nader to win 2% of the vote than it is for a Republican or Democrat to garner enough votes to win the election. He has as much right to voice his ideas wherever he can find listeners as anyone else. I don't deny that someone who officially runs for president three times probably really likes national attention, but I suspect the other candidates like that attention to some extent as well. Nader is surely not the only one feeding an ego on the campaign trail, so I don't think he should be the singled out for ego-related criticism. It is shameful that running for office can be widely considered a shameful act.

The Company You Keep

2008-04-01T15:10:00.002-05:00

In the small town where I live, politics is still very personal. In a typical campaign season, it isn't only the candidates themselves who will canvas neighborhoods, going from door to door armed with a few prepared words and a flyer. Almost inevitably, the candidate's spouse or child or parent will be drafted into the effort as well. Some campaigns make it almost seem like their true "candidate" is not just the person running for office, the name on the ticket, but also that person's entire family and other associates. Too often for my taste local candidates seem to seek votes based on where they went to school, the churches they attend, and the roles their friends and family members play in the community.

National politics is more issue-oriented, but the idea that a candidate's worth depends in part on the people who are related to or otherwise associate closely with that candidate has nonetheless affected the current presidential race. There have been too many muckraking stories about the candidates' inner circles to list them all in a single blog post; few, if any, candidates avoided having their character called into question due to the actions of some person connected to them. I've often had difficulty deciding what to take out of these type of stories. They may be truthful but yet they are often surely promulgated in order to taint a particular campaign. Take the story that emerged last year concerning Rudy Giuliani's current wife as an example. She has been accused of repeatedly demonstrating a surgical stapling technique on live dogs to potential medical customers as part of her former job at U.S. Surgical. Following the procedure, the dogs would be put down having fulfilled their "purpose" in the sales presentation. This is an ugly story, but how does it help us judge Giuliani as a presidential candidate? I suppose one line of thinking is to assume that since Giuliani showed a lack of judgment by choosing to marry a monster he would also show a lack of judgment when making political decisions. I can't quite adopt that line of thinking -- otherwise sensible people often seem to make decisions that often seem questionable to the people around them when it comes to love and relationships. Would you choose not to promote someone who was superb at his job just because he married someone awful? I don't think I could do that personally. At any rate, Mayor Giuliani may not have even known about his girlfriend's past when he married her. I've never been married, but somehow I doubt "dog torture for profit" is a topic that comes up very often during a typical courtship. That's a bomb that gets dropped a few years into a marriage, I imagine. This story is quite typical of its type. On one hand, the details are ugly enough to sway some votes, but on the other hand the degree of separation between the candidate and the acts mentioned is great enough that most people would simply shrug it off. A few votes here and there can ultimately have a big impact on a race, though.

The latest candidate to run into trouble because of the company he keeps is Barack Obama. Obama's patriotism and racial views have come under question merely because the former preacher at Obama's church, Jeremiah Wright, has a history of making controversial political and racial statements. The attention accorded to Wright's statements created enough furor that Obama ultimately decided to deliver a speech to explain his close relationship with Wright and the differences in their views. It was an effective speech, I thought, but I very much wonder if it is wise to hold presidential candidates accountable for the words of everyone around them. Granted, Obama has acknowledged that Wright has been an important influence in his life, but they remain two very different men. To be honest, I don't really hear the acerbic words of the firebrand Wright reflected in Obama's speeches at all. Some of their ideas are similar, but the manner in which they are expressed are worlds apart. Manner inevitably influences interpretation. Contrast Wright's infamous sound bite "God damn America!" with Obama's message of "Let's change America and make it better" (my paraphrase). Both statements acknowledge that America isn't perfect, but Wright's message seems to focus on what he thinks is wrong with America today and what wrongs he believes that America has committed in the past while Obama instead focuses on what America could be in the future. Obama's view of the present and past seems a fair bit rosier than Wright's view as well.

I think judging the politicians based on their own actions and their own words is the best policy a voter can adopt. Like Obama, I have family members with racial views I don't personally subscribe to. I've never distanced myself from them -- in fact, I believe they have a right to those views, though I also exercise my right to argue with them from time to time. Indeed, I don't think I personally know anyone who agrees with me on most issues that are important to me. If the same rules applied to me as some would like to see applied to presidential candidates, then I would be saddled with an enormous host of views that I don't personally hold or even have any sympathy with. If the same rules applied to everyone, then anyone with a family member who does something wrong of his or her own free will should be accused of being a bad sister or a bad parent or a bad husband or a bad third cousin twice removed, and, by association, a bad person. I don't think you can judge people effectively based on the company they keep. At the very least, you would surely need to study the dynamics of each individual relationship to discover the nature of the sympathy of sentiments that exists between two people -- to understand to what extent Obama and Wright see eye to eye, we would need to listen in on their private conversations, not just their public speeches. Since we don't have that kind of access (nor should we), I think Barack Obama should be the #1 authority on what Barack Obama believes.

Privacy Policy

2008-03-24T16:35:00.004-05:00

AdSense has recently requested that all publishers using its service now include a privacy policy on their site. I wasn't too thrilled about this at first -- I'm just a blogger, after all. I'm not collecting names, addresses, or Social Security numbers here. I don't know the ages, the genders, or the tastes and preferences of my readers. Why do I need a privacy policy?

I've thought about it a little more now and have decided that a privacy policy isn't such a bad thing to have though I'm not so sure I should be allowed to write one. Google particularly wants users to know about cookies and web beacons and how those two things relate to ads. Cookies and web beacons are two things that people probably don't know enough about, so I'm happy to spread some knowledge around. Quite possibly I'll end up spreading some misinformation as well since I'm not an online privacy expert, but Google AdSense asked for it!

First, let me reiterate what I stated in the first paragraph. I'm not collecting personal information on my visitors. Although web analytics tools exist that could tell me where my visitors come from, what their IP addresses are, and other such information, I'm currently not using any such software with this blog. The only thing I can possibly know about you is what you choose to reveal of yourself via comments or email, and I promise to try to forget any such user-revealed information as soon as possible.

Third party advertisers on this site may be collecting information on you through the use of cookies and web beacons, but you can choose to what extent you wish to allow them to collect this information. Web beacons can take various forms -- some are even images that are too small to be seen -- but their basic use is to collect information on a web user when that user visits a specific site or even reads a particular email: stuff like your IP address, browser of choice, and the time at which you visited the site may be recorded. Cookies are also identifiers, but they can actually be quite useful even for regular users. For instance, shopping sites often use cookies to help keep track of your virtual shopping basket as you add and delete items prior to actually making a purchase. Other sites use cookies to identify returning visitors so that those visitors do not have to manually reenter their login name and password on every visit. As useful as those uses of cookies might be, some companies undoubtedly use cookies along with web beacons largely for their own benefit. Imagine, for instance, that an enterprising sock manufacturer is able to discover that people who click on Mike Gravel ads also have an inordinate fondness for red socks. The potential revenue opportunities would be endless...but do you really want to participate in unpaid market research in that way? And what if there are aspects of your online activities that you'd rather not be linked together? Government web sites can issue cookies as easily as corporate sites can...for that matter, spammers and other online criminals can track you as well! Luckily, all major browsers allow users to disable cookies if they so choose, and many offer more advanced cookie management features (look around the privacy options in your browser to discover these features). Personally, I have my browser set to delete all cookies at the end of each browsing session. This allows me to make use of the features of cookies that I like while I surf, but it prevents me from being tracked on a long-term basis. It's harder to avoid web beacons altogether, but you could at least try surfing behind a proxy to prevent your true IP address from being revealed.

Google AdSense uses the DART cookie to help decide what ads should be shown based on a user's previous web surfing activity. So, for instance, you might tend to visit Democratic-leaning web sites. On this nonpartisan blog, you might get to view Democratic rather than Republican ads because of your past visits whilst a more Republican-leaning surfer might see other ads catered more towards his or her surfing. This might all seem a bit Big Brotherish, but you don't have to let Google tailor ads for you in this way if you find it objectionable -- you can opt out of the program altogether.

More useful information can be discovered via Wikipedia: check out the articles on cookies, web beacons, and proxies to become better informed.

The Two Phases of a Presidential Election

2008-02-12T12:15:00.000-06:00

I've decided that I disagree with those people who complain that the presidential race starts too early. Iowa and New Hampshire may have begun the race in one form, but they also represented the end of the race in another form. Consider the winnowing of the race that started right after the first caucus and first primary. Even a few well-funded and well-supported candidates such as Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John Edwards are now finished. Even though many voters have yet to have their say in the nomination process of either party, their choices have become very limited. Indeed, this phase of the election is very much of a process -- we are now in the midst of determining just who will be the nominee of each party, and after that we will move on to determine who will be the next president. It wasn't always like this.

I must admit that the 2007 side of the election wasn't always enjoyable, even for a budding political junkie like myself. It was hard work watching all those debates and researching all the candidates. Personally, I skipped a few debates and neglected several candidates; I still regret not looking more at the candidacy of Chris Dodd. Nonetheless, I find myself sometimes wishing we were back in that phase of the election again -- I call it the ideological phase. Back then there wasn't a process underway, really; instead, there was a battle for attention as each candidate scrambled to get his or her message out. Although Mike Gravel and Ron Paul are still in the race, candidates with alternative viewpoints are heard much more often and much more loudly in that first phase of an election. That's not entirely due to the media -- the race itself draws attention away from candidates with limited support once primaries and caucuses begin to be won or lost. I can't even argue that winning the ideological phase is vital to later success in the election. John McCain's candidacy, in particular, seemed to really start thriving in the process phase. I do feel that the ideological phase is vital to the intellectual health of America's political debate, however, and I'm already looking forward to 2011.

That isn't to say that the general election will be bereft of ideological debate. If, for instance, John McCain ends up the Republican nominee and Barack Obama obtains the Democratic nomination, then we'll have two candidates expressing very different views on important issues like Iraq and health care. Still, we'll only have two voices, and I suspect that those voices will frequently be speaking of "experience" and "hope." Personally, I'm casting a vote for hope right now with a prayer: political gods, please grant us a strong third party or independent candidate that can get in the post-convention debates and help shape the dialogue!

Super Tuesday: Do People Vote in Groups?

2008-02-06T14:26:00.000-06:00

I tend to think of voting as being a very individualistic process. Each voter must ultimately cast his or her own ballot singly so it seems natural to me that each voter should also make his or her mind up concerning who to vote for more or less independently as well, though of course everyone is influenced by the people and circumstances that surround them. That isn't quite how most political pundits seem to see it, and perhaps not quite how most politicians see it either. The pundits talk on and on about groups whose support a candidate has earned or is attempting to win. The candidates themselves seem to vie for the support of groups by attending special events geared towards certain groups and sometimes by pandering directly towards a specific group in speeches or debate performances. Which is it...do people vote more often as individuals or as parts of groups?

Exit polling data from Super Tuesday seems to make it fairly clear that group affiliation does play a big factor in how many people choose to vote. Barack Obama won a startling 80% of the African American vote yesterday, but, as the linked article also notes, Hillary Clinton garnered a large degree of support from the Hispanic community. Although Mitt Romney didn't have the day he had hoped for, it certainly wasn't because Mormon voters didn't support him in droves. Some of these percentages are just too big to ignore. How could Obama possibly win 94% of the African American vote in Illinois or Mitt Romney win close to 90% of the Mormon vote in Utah? In my experience, nine out of ten people don't agree on much of anything -- these overwhelming majorities at least raises the possibility that there are a significant number of people out there who aren't voting for a president so much as they are voting for their own race or religion, especially when you consider that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama hold many similar political positions just as Mitt Romney and John McCain do. Mike Huckabee arguably benefited more than anyone else from religous voters because the Christian conservative vote powered him to primary victories in several Southern states, though Huckabee didn't win a huge majority of these votes. There are similar stories to be told concerning women supporting Clinton, young people supporting Obama, and older voters supporting Clinton and McCain, but we also don't see 80% of any of these groups supporting a single candidate. Clearly, group affiliation impacts elections, but most groups don't cluster overwhelmingly around a single candidate, so individuals acting relatively individually still have a big impact.

Perhaps one of the great cultural questions surrounding this presidential election has been whether or not candidates like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney could draw widespread support from outside their particular groups. Neither sexism, racism, nor religious chauvinism has prevented men from supporting Clinton, whites from supporting Obama, or non-Mormons from supporting Romney. If nothing else, this presidential election ought to encourage many people from diverse backgrounds to at least consider running for president in the future. Given that race and religion seems to have influenced the vote for Romney and Obama so much, it seems likely that there was also a sizable percentage of people voting for other candidates for whom Obama's race or Romney's religion were negative factors. Nonetheless, when all was said and done, Obama and Romney remained viable candidates after Super Tuesday...though Obama is now in a much stronger position than is Romney. At the end of the day, it seems like it can finally be said that anyone can be elected president, though the coming general election will likely also add another chapter to this story.

I can well understand why some people would look at the 80%+ support for Obama among African Americans and Romney among Mormons with dismay and disappointment. Such a plurality does suggest that an awful lot of people are still voting for whoever seems to be most like them, just as critics of democracy that fear the "rule of the rabble" have long predicted. The fact that other groups did not vote so much in "lock-step" is one positive, and I think there is another factor worth considering: namely, that Obama and Romney are actually strong candidates with wide bases of support. Obama's candidacy is not centered around the fact that his father was from Kenya, and Romney has not made his Mormonism the focus of his campaign. Both have a history of success in politics, albeit not particularly long histories; Romney has also been successful in the private sector. My feeling is that it is the quality and electability of these candidates that has enabled such large majorities to be built within their particular communities. It's not fair to say that most African Americans or most Mormons that are voting for Obama and Romney are primarily motivated by their candidate's group affiliation; it is closer to the truth to say that Obama and Romney's group affiliations are just another positive that have encouraged (not caused) African American and Mormon support for Obama and Romney, respectively. My evidence for this? Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun, Orrin Hatch. Good presidential candidates, all, but as I recall none of them made a big splash in the races they competed in. Sharpton won 17% of the African American vote in the 2004 South Carolina primaries, in contrast to Obama's comfortable majority in 2008.

Is Ron Paul Too Economical When Discussing Economics?

2008-01-31T17:57:00.000-06:00

I'm much more a saver than a spender at heart, so I'm quite reluctant to condemn anyone for being too economical. In Ron Paul's case, however, it isn't his frugality with money I'm concerned about, but rather instead his economical use of language. Paul is easy to understand when he talks about the war in Iraq and other wars like it. He expresses his ideas both forcefully and in terms most anyone can comprehend. Indeed, it is sometimes his opponents who are less clear in their language when they throw out phrases like non-interventionism in criticism of Congressman Paul. One of Paul's other favorite things to discuss is the economy and his idea of government's quite limited role in economic affairs. Given the gloomy economic outlook that many have right now, I think people are interested in hearing about alternative approaches to economic issues. Thus far, however, Paul hasn't seemed very effective at pushing forth his economic message in an easy to understand manner.

One of the things I like about Ron Paul is that he is a reader and a thinker. He has been quite good at appealing to the intellect of those who are willing to give him the time of day, and I think his lasting political legacy will be the interest in politics and economics that he has sparked in the minds of many people, including numerous young people and others who don't ordinarily pay much attention to elections. I doubt Paul relishes the role of teacher, but his unorthodox politics have essentially necessitated that he try to appeal to an audience that has not already been converted to his views (as Paul discovered in 1988, there simply aren't enough libertarians to elect a libertarian president on their own). In that sense, Paul has a much harder road to the White House than a religious conservative candidate whose supporters base their core political beliefs on their faith or a socially liberal candidate whose supporters have been voting for pro-choice, pro-education candidates their entire lives. Sure, Paul also has a base of true believers to call his own, but it's relatively small compared to the base of voters that will support a Mitt Romney or a Hillary Clinton. Paul has had no choice but to sway minds in order to win votes.

Swaying minds is much more difficult when one speaks above the head of one's audience, however, and I think this is a mistake Paul makes too often, especially during the debates when discussing economics. For instance, in the last Republican debate at the Reagan Library, Paul made a reference to the "guns and butter" tradeoff that governments must face when planning budgets and setting policies(the guns represent defense spending and the butter represents social spending). It is a classic dilemma that just about everyone who has ever studied economics is familiar with, but there are an awful lot of people who have never studied economics to any degree. Paul should realize that a lot of people have never given economics a chance; "guns and butter" is going to sound like gibberish to them, even though the concept being referenced is actually very easy to understand. Paul would be more effective if he went straight for the concept and left the confusing lingo behind. Talking like an economics textbook isn't wise in a country where economics textbooks rely on a captive audience of college students to account for most of their sales. Similarly, when Paul talks about monetary policy and the gold standard in vague terms he is also losing the attention of some of his audience. Some of the people who are listening to him have never even thought about what gives their currency value; some of them don't understand what the gold standard is; some probably think American money is still backed by gold and don't know what the big deal is about. To effectively reach a large audience with wide differences in education level and interests, Paul needs to do some explaining as well as expressing. That is hard to do during a debate, where speaking time is limited, but Paul needs as many people as possible to both hear and understand his message.

Although I've singled out Paul in this post, I think most politicians could probably be more effective if they avoided vague language and terminology that might be unfamiliar to much of their audience. For instance, I personally feel uncomfortable with the oft-repeated term "Islamofascism." My first thought on hearing that term is that Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists have formed a government that operates similar to how Mussolini's Italy did. The term is confusing to me because I primarily associate fascism with a certain time and place in history; I don't just think of it is as a political ideology. I was also taken by surprise by John McCain's recent attacks against the Alternative Minimum Tax, but only because I had no idea what that was until he started mentioning it. I was curious enough about the tax to google it, and I thus discovered that one of the controversies surrounding this tax is that a lot of people don't learn about it until after they start to owe it. What one politician thinks is a big issue is often something the people he or she is speaking to have never heard of; politicians sometimes need to inform before they can persuade.

Barack Obama, the Last Pro-Choice Democrat (on Health Care)

2008-01-26T15:39:00.000-06:00

One of the clear policy differences between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (and between Obama and John Edwards) is related to their plans for universal health care. Although both Democratic candidates for president have promised to make universal health care a reality if they are elected, they disagree philosophically on whether or not health insurance is something that should be mandatory -- a nice way of saying "forced" -- or not. Obama wants to correct the flaws in the present system which lead to people being unable to get insurance because of the high cost of premiums or because no health insurance company is willing to offer them insurance. From Obama's perspective, health insurance is something almost everyone wants, but it is also something which not everyone is currently being allowed access to. Thus, Obama thinks that government's role in health care reform should be to tear down the barriers which are preventing people from getting insurance. People who can't afford health insurance will be subsidized; people denied insurance from private companies will have access to a national health care plan, like everyone else. Obama draws a line at having government force people to have health insurance, although he does insist that all children be insured. Clinton and Edwards don't draw that line; in fact, they believe it would be wrong to let anyone go without health insurance, even if certain people don't want to have insurance.

I think the pivotal question here is whether or not people have the right to make decisions that might be wrong or dangerous to themselves and costly to society. As individuals, most people would undoubtedly prefer to have as many choices open to them as possible because they trust themselves to make good choices and don't want the government to tell them how to live their lives. As members of society, people tend to fear what other people who think differently than them might do, so it becomes more appealing from that perspective to limit other people's choices. Yet when we limit other people's choices through government intervention we also end up limiting our own choices as well. Anything that supposedly makes society better through the limitation of individual choice also makes our country less free. That doesn't mean we should never limit an individual's ability to make choices, of course, but I do think we should at least think about how taking choices away will affect the individual whenever we make policy decisions that will limit freedom.

Is there ever a legitimate reason to not want health care? I tend to think a fair number of people who would be insured by Clinton and Edwards probably won't be insured under Obama, but I also think the number of uninsured will fall dramatically. The continuing numbers of the uninsured will likely include wealthy Americans who aren't worried about the costs of health care, Americans who can afford health insurance but for whom it would be a significant and recurring cost they'd rather not take on, poor Americans who fall through the cracks of the system and don't get insured even though their insurance would be subsidized, and Americans whose beliefs and opinions prevent them from seeking either health insurance or health care of any kind. Each of these groups brings a set of problems to the table. The wealthy and other people who opt not to buy health insurance don't pool their funds to help pay for the health care of others. Taxes, though, will insure that this group does still pay something. The poor who don't get insured will be victims of bureaucracy, denied by government inefficiency what they were previously denied in the name of corporate efficiency. From a civil liberties perspective, it is the fringe group of people who don't want health insurance because of their beliefs or opinions who are most in danger of having their rights trampled on. Personally, I'm not too fond of hospitals, but that wouldn't stop me from going to one if I really needed help, and I do think most people who work in hospitals are trying to do the best they can to save lives and restore health. I also think health insurance is a good thing and I'm glad to have it. Still, I cringe at the thought of telling someone that they are wrong for distrusting doctors and hospitals or for having beliefs that discourage the use of modern medicine. Health care, after all, isn't just sweetness and light. People do die and suffer because of ill-treatment and incompetence in health care institutions, the insured and the uninsured alike. While I think health insurance and health care providers are the cause of much, much more good than they are of evil, I can't say that it is invalid or wrong or crazy to take the opposite view and not want to have health insurance as a result. Similarly, if you don't want to buy into a health insurance industry that has, by most accounts, not done a very good job of allowing access to health care for everyone, I cannot fault you for that. The reason people are clamoring for universal health care is because private insurance failed to deliver it to meet the needs of all; the leading Democrats seem to think government and private insurance can work together to make health care work, but I could understand why anyone might be skeptical of that notion. Thus, it seems to me that there are legitimate (although sometimes selfish and sometimes odd) reasons to not want health insurance. However, it is worth noting that while people may willingly opt out of having health insurance they may not be so willing to opt out of receiving health care (they may even be so injured that they can no longer make such a choice at all); in those cases, the cost of providing health care to a "free rider" will sometimes have to be born collectively by society as a result of an individual's choice.

All things considered, I do like Obama's approach towards health care reform better than the approaches of his Democratic rivals. I think he is right that most people do want health insurance and would choose to have it if it is truly available to all. I don't think it is government's responsibility to put a gun to people's heads and say, "Get insured!" Instead, I prefer government to be an advocate and an enabler rather than a tyrant. Simply making health insurance available to everyone who wants it will be a serious funding and bureaucratic challenge; why further complicate things by also forcing health insurance on people who don't want it? This would be a partial rather than a complete solution, however, because there will still be people who remain uninsured. In an imperfect world where people do not think or believe the same things, perhaps a partial solution is the best we can have.

Mike Huckabee and the Constitution

2008-01-18T11:52:00.000-06:00

Although the Constitution is by design a living document that can be amended, I think one of the main reasons it continues to hold such an important place in American political thought is its relative simplicity. The Constitution can still be read in one sitting, in stark contrast to the United States Code. It is still possible to commit each constitutional amendment to memory if you so desire. In my opinion, three factors have helped maintain the Constitution's simplicity. Firstly, those who hold the Constitution in high regard have traditionally been reluctant to alter the document unless they deemed it absolutely necessary, so they sought to implement government changes in other ways than through amending the Constitution. Secondly, chance has played a big role. I'm sure there have always been politicians who have wanted to alter the Constitution to suit their own aims or to mold it to fit to their personal philosophies; we're actually quite lucky that only one amendment, the 18th Amendment, had such a negative effect on the country that it was actually repealed. Most importantly, though, the Constitution is difficult to amend; while a constitutional amendment can be proposed by either Congress or state legislatures, it can only be ratified by a broad agreement of 3/4ths of the state legislatures, an impressive plurality.

Difficult as it is to amend, the Constitution in its present form is considered by at least one presidential candidate to be quite lacking in at least two areas. That candidate is Mike Huckabee, a champion of both a "right to life" amendment and a "defense of marriage" amendment. A president really can be little but a champion of any proposed constitutional amendment; if Huckabee really wanted to be directly involved in the process of amending the Constitution, he'd need to serve in Congress or in a state legislature. Nevertheless, Huckabee has used his position in the public eye to bring attention to two possible future constitutional amendments, and in so doing I think he has displayed his own attitude towards the Constitution. Indeed, Huckabee made his attitude quite explicit with his recent statement that he would like to "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards." Clearly, Huckabee has no qualms about amending the Constitution when he thinks it's the morally right thing to do, but I wonder just what Huckabee wouldn't be willing to amend the Constitution over. If the Constitution is amended to the point where it is merely a reflection of whatever ideology happens to be popular at the time, it will become both complicated and meaningless. Huckabee's whole attitude towards amending the Constitution seems to be too flippant to me -- if he really believes the Constitution needs to be amended, he should make a case individually for each amendment and tell us why a constitutional amendment is preferable to other means of achieving the same goal. As it is, I'm left with the impression that a President Huckabee would uphold the Constitution only after it has been thoroughly "cleaned up" to meet some higher standards. (I'm imagining the governor hovering over the Constitution right now with a pen in his hand and a container of Wite-Out at his side).

Still, Huckabee's attitude towards the Constitution shouldn't cause anyone to reject the amendments he supports out of hand. I certainly think it is possible to respect the Constitution and yet still want to change it; I can't imagine the Constitution without a Bill of Rights, and I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country with legalized slavery and where women could not vote, so in my opinion constitutional amendments have brought about many very positive changes over the years. If, however, not every change is important enough to warrant an amendment, how does one possibly decide on what is worthy of an amendment and what is not? My pet theory is that the best constitutional amendments enshrine the rights of citizens rather than limit their freedom by prohibiting something. So many state and federal laws tell citizens what they cannot do -- don't drive above a certain speed, don't trade stocks based on insider information, don't run around naked in public, don't do this, don't do that. If restrictions can make society as a whole better off without hurting the individual too much, then that's OK (though I do tend to think we have too many laws), but I don't want all this stuff cluttering the Constitution. It's interesting that the amendments that Huckabee supports are often referred to with very positive-sounding names. A "right to life" amendment sounds like an affirmation of what many consider to be a very basic human right. A "defense of marriage" amendment sounds like a guarantee of a couple's right to have a recognized marriage. However, in practice, a "right to life" amendment will prohibit abortion and a "defense of marriage" amendment will prohibit gay marriage -- those prohibitions are the driving force behind the support for both proposed amendments. Depending on how these amendments are worded, they could end up having some unexpected effects when interpreted by the courts. For instance, a "right to life" amendment could end up being the demise of the death penalty, something Huckabee certainly would not support. A "defense of marriage" amendment could also be the last word on polygamy in America. Still, both amendments are ultimately prohibitions, and I don't think either belong in the Constitution any more than the 18th Amendment did. The "right to life" amendment is definitely closer to what I would consider a good amendment than the "defense of marriage" amendment, but there would need to be a much broader consensus in this country on a whole bevy of life issues -- not just abortion, but also the death penalty, health care rendered in life and death situations, and access to prescription drugs -- before such an amendment could or should be passed. I don't think I'm alone when I say I struggle to take a strong stance on many of those issues -- they're controversial for a reason.

New Hampshire: Live Safe or Die

2008-01-09T10:05:00.000-06:00

I didn't think the polls could maintain a perfect record of predicting the primary/caucus victors for very long, but I didn't realize New Hampshire would give us the first real surprise victor of the 2008 primary season. Of course, this surprise victor was the expected winner a few weeks ago, so nothing too shocking has occurred. Nonetheless, Barack Obama seemed to have everything going for him after his caucus victory in Iowa. Recent New Hampshire polls showed him with a decent lead over his nearest Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, and his supporters across the country were energized and prepared for another celebration. Clinton, however, played the role of buzz-killer by winning the New Hampshire Democratic primary by a narrow margin over Obama. John McCain's victory in the Republican primary was predicted by the polls, but he was also in a tight two-way race with Mitt Romney. Both McCain and Clinton are comeback kids to an extent -- McCain struggled in early polls and led a fiscally irresponsible early campaign, causing some to count him out well before a single vote was cast, while Clinton has been overshadowed in recent weeks by the energetic and charismatic Obama. What was it about these two that won over New Hampshire?

The winners in Iowa, Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama, share a common weakness. Neither of them have a reputation for being well-versed on foreign policy; by association, this suggests they might not be the best people, to use a very hackneyed phrase, to keep America safe. This is much more of a real weakness for Huckabee, I think, because he has already made several public gaffes when speaking on foreign policy, with Pakistan being his real Achilles heel so far. Obama had a questionable Pakistan moment of his own earlier in the campaign, but he seems overall more comfortable with foreign policy issues than Huckabee. The big national security related question mark hovering over Obama is his inexperience, and Hillary Clinton has been very careful not to let anyone forget it. Huckabee is even more inexperienced in foreign policy -- it's just not something governors deal with to the extent that senators do. Huckabee and Obama's victories in Iowa, thus, probably had very little to do with foreign policy or national security; instead, Iowa voters seemed to have domestic and social issues first and foremost in their minds.

I don't want to paint the New Hampshire voter as being a reactionary force that was merely responding to the vote in Iowa, but I do think the New Hampshire primary voters had very different issues in mind compared to the voters in Iowa when they cast their votes. Most of the Republican candidates have tried to win their party's nomination by focusing on national security, but I've thought John McCain has had an edge over all the rest on this single issue from the start. I associate McCain's name with the troop surge in Iraq right along with the names of George Bush and David Petraeus. He's a military man. He's extremely experienced in dealing with national security issues. As tough an opponent he was to George Bush in 2000, McCain is in 2008 now quite suited to take on the Bush mantle. The only way Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, or Duncan Hunter can challenge McCain is through rhetoric -- none of those candidates has a record comparable to McCain's from a national security standpoint alone. In New Hampshire, though, Romney is well-known as the governor of Massachusetts, and he campaigned hard and spent freely in the state. It made sense for him to finish second. Giuliani, I think, was his own worst enemy -- his "big state strategy" was so public that it undermined his own hard work in New Hampshire. Still, Giuliani did narrowly finish ahead of Ron Paul, the only Republican to completely repudiate President Bush's foreign policy. Thompson and Hunter were also their own worst enemies, but for a different reason: they didn't give themselves much of a chance in New Hampshire because they didn't devote their time and energy into the state. Huckabee probably feels pretty pleased to finish 3d in a state that seemed pretty focused on national security considering how recently he made his series of foreign policy gaffes; however, I think that voters elsewhere will need to be more focused on domestic and social issues if he is to win the Republican nomination.

On the Democratic side of the race, there is quite a clash in views when it comes to foreign policy. Several candidates are running on a peace platform and promise an approach to American foreign policy that will be utterly unlike what was seen during the Bush administration. Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson perhaps ought to have appealed more to Iowan voters than the results indicated because they do very much believe that most all American problems can be solved at home, rather than abroad. They studiously avoid the politics of fear, but can be criticized for not focusing enough on national security issues. These three candidates were essentially afterthoughts in New Hampshire -- Richardson, experienced in foreign policy and a supporter of the military, did the best by winning nearly 5% of the vote, but he still finished a distant fourth here just as he did in Iowa. While Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards have all had harsh words to say about the war in Iraq since they began running for president, these three candidates don't advocate an immediate withdrawal from Iraq unlike Richardson, Gravel, and Kucinich. Obama and Edwards, though, are more focused on domestic issues, and neither have really presented themselves as a "national security" candidate in the Republican mold. Hillary Clinton, though, has done just that. She constantly points to her experience as evidence that she will be ready to lead through tough times. She essentially warns people about voting for Obama because he is so inexperienced that it might be unsafe to elect him. I think this message worked for Hillary in New Hampshire, but she doesn't have the edge over her fellow Democrats that John McCain has over the other Republicans. I just can't quite buy that being the spouse of a president gives experience comparable to actually serving in government; granted, Clinton was an active First Lady who was regularly in the spotlight, but most associate her with health care reform, not foreign policy or national security. When it comes right down to it, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are all inexperienced senators in my view -- McCain will win the battle of years of public service every time. The presidency is no award for service, however, and I don't think national security issues alone will decide the ultimate winner or even the eventual Democratic and Republican nominees.

The Lessons of Iowa

2008-01-04T09:48:00.000-06:00

Until yesterday the presidential race existed largely in the collective imagination of the American voting public. The few ways we had of gauging the support a candidate was receiving were none too reliable: polls can never be trusted completely, campaign donations do not always lead to votes, and people attending rallies are not necessarily true supporters. The Iowa caucuses changed all that; finally, Republicans and Democrats have made their choice for their favored candidate in a fashion that allows no argument (unless there was voter fraud). Whether or not Iowa will play an important role in choosing the nominees remains to be seen, but the important thing is that Iowa has played its role. People have voted. The race is truly underway now.

I expected Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee to win the Iowa caucuses as they did -- I must admit that I personally trust polls more than I should! Obviously, this is wonderful for both of those candidacies, but there were other important stories as well that emerged out of Iowa. The race for the Democratic nomination just got a lot more boring because Joe Biden and Chris Dodd dropped their presidential bids after their poor showings. I don't think either of those candidates really got a fair hearing from the Iowa electorate -- instead, what seems to have happened is that three Democratic candidates were assumed to have a chance at the nomination, and virtually everyone elected to support one of those three rather than risk backing a losing horse. While Obama won comfortably with help from a youth vote surge, John Edwards bested Hillary Clinton by only the narrowest of margins. The three-way race was exciting, but I think Iowa voters shortchanged themselves by only allowing themselves three choices. Iowa Republicans chose a different course: five candidates received 9% or more of the vote. The battle for third was arguably the most interesting: Fred Thompson received slightly more votes than John McCain. Given that there was one media report that Thompson was considering dropping out of the race, this third place showing is good for the man from Tennessee. Fourth and 13% of the vote is, frankly, awesome for a John McCain who did not make Iowa a priority for his campaign. John McCain is a serious contender again if he does well in the New Hampshire primaries next week as polls predict he will.

This is the first presidential election I've covered in this blog so I feel like I should consider the Iowa caucuses from a learning politics perspective. What can the caucuses tell us about the presidential race and politics in general? I think there are a few lessons to be learned from Iowa.

#1. Smooth speakers do have an advantage.

Many American presidents haven't been very charismatic speakers. Many politicians in general aren't particularly effective communicators despite the fact that speaking is an integral part of their job. I usually rationalize this by assuming that a candidate who doesn't speak flawlessly may seem more human than one who conveys too perfect a public persona. Iowa suggests something different: namely, that smooth speakers do have an advantage over the competition provided their politics also connect with voters. Why has Mike Huckabee succeeded where other religious conservatives have failed? The core values policies remain the same, but Huckabee is much more capable of transmitting his message in an appealing way to his base and everyone else than a Gary Bauer or a Pat Robertson (who, to his credit, did finish second in Iowa in 1988...I'm judging him on his charisma based on the 700 Club and other more recent TV appearances, so maybe he's actually awesome on the stump). Of course, another factor is that Huckabee isn't a one-dimensional candidate; he's comfortable discussing social issues and his support of the Fair Tax ought to garner him some support from non-evangelicals. The other really smooth Republican is Mitt Romney...who finished second. Barack Obama is probably the most gifted long-form speaker in the race this year, and I think his victory was also a testament to the power of good speaking. One of the reasons I'm disappointed that the second-tier Democrats have remained second-tier candidates (or dropped out) is that I sometimes find it hard to distinguish between Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama policy-wise. Clinton says she's more experienced, Edwards talks about class, and Obama promises hope and change...where is the policy there? Given the similarity of this trio, Obama's charisma and speaking ability has given him an edge on the competition. Once you have lent the Illinois senator your ears, Obama can differentiate himself from Clinton and Edwards by virtue of his more open foreign policy and his health care plan that promises near universal but not compulsory coverage.

#2. It's dangerous to ignore Iowa, but you might be able to get away with it.

Rudy Giuliani can be pleased over one thing about the Iowa caucuses: he totally destroyed Duncan Hunter. The problem is that although Hunter is barely a blip in most national polls and Giuliani has been a consistent frontrunner the two were essentially in the same boat in Iowa: both decided to focus their efforts elsewhere. Giuliani has a big state policy that could certainly earn him the nomination theoretically, but a big loss is never good press. There is a certain herd mentality in politics that makes a lot of voters not want to support a loser, so I have to wonder if Giuliani's new position as "Mr. 3%" is going to impact his electability in other states as well. Worse yet, the momentum other campaigns are getting threatens to overwhelm the Giuliani campaign. Nonetheless, Giuliani is working diligently in the background, focusing on big states like Florida. Giuliani might be feeling just a little bit bitter about another Republican who also failed to focus on Iowa: his name is John McCain. While McCain's debate performances have been strong, I assumed he would pay a heavy local political price for ignoring the Ames straw poll and not swarming Iowa as other candidates have done. Well, maybe McCain did pay a heavy price -- given that he finished 4th and was extremely close to catching Thompson for 3d, I have to wonder if McCain might not have won Iowa if he had taken a different strategy. I don't think any of the Democratic candidates ignored Iowa like McCain and Giuliani did. Indeed, I wonder if that is not one of the reasons that the big three Democrats totally stomped on the rest of the Democratic field. By not giving Iowans their due early on, McCain and Giuliani may have opened the door for ultimate caucus winner Mike Huckabee. I think Huckabee deserves his success, but considering that other deserving candidates have been almost totally ignored I don't think Huckabee's Cinderella story was inevitable by any means.

#3. Iowa cannot be bought.

What Mitt Romney tried to do with money Chris Dodd and Sam Brownback tried to do with their time and presence. Hillary Clinton counted on her organizational resources to carry her to victory in Iowa. None won. It's interesting that the Romney campaign's financial largesse did help lead Romney to victory in the Iowa straw poll and give him the early edge in the state, but it could not quite take him the whole way. Instead, a cash-strapped candidate whose campaign resonated more with the Iowa voting public ended up victorious by a significant margin. Clinton's vaunted organization could only deliver a third place finish in the caucuses...albeit an extremely strong third place finish. Although Dodd essentially made Iowa his home and Brownback visited every Iowa county, Iowans didn't flock in great numbers to either campaign. So, candidates can peddle their campaigns in Iowa till their wallets are empty, their organization is demoralized, and they themselves are physically exhausted and it still might not mean a thing: Iowans are fickle with their votes. Now I really question the wisdom of Chris Dodd's decision to focus so strongly on Iowa. It got him so little he would have some justification if he felt somewhat insulted at this moment -- I would strongly recommend that future candidates not pursue such myopic one-state strategies.

I'm sure there will be a lot more lessons to be learned from the coming primaries and caucuses. Although the media will be focusing on the New Hampshire primaries next week, don't forget the Wyoming Republican caucuses on Saturday. Little Internet birds have been whispering that Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul could do well, so that should be fun.

Was Tom Tancredo Ever Really Running For President?

2007-12-20T23:13:00.000-06:00

Tom Tancredo announced today that he would be quitting the presidential race. As with most things Tancredo, the Colorado Republican's decision has left me with some very mixed feelings. My big beef with Tancredo all along has been that he was so concerned with one issue -- illegal immigration -- that he neglected most all other issues. I don't think any one issue is important enough to elect a president based solely on his or her stance on that issue, so I've felt for a long time that Tancredo was the weakest candidate in the race. I've also felt for a while that Tancredo himself was not really that set on becoming president. Rather, I felt like he was using the prominence and media time afforded to him as a presidential candidate to talk about illegal immigration. He ran more of a crusade than a campaign, and he seems to believe that he was very successful in pushing an oft-ignored issue into the forefront of American political discourse. Perhaps Tancredo did do all he wanted to do, but I still feel unhappy that he would quit the presidential race just as it was entering its most exciting period. I don't see other longshot presidential candidates of principle like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich dropping out on the eve of the primaries -- those candidates are going to keep promulgating their ideas as long as they can remain in the public spotlight, and they will at least give their supporters an opportunity to cast votes on their behalf. Tancredo has denied his supporters that opportunity. Some of them will no doubt vote for their former candidate's endorsee, Mitt Romney, but I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few Tancredites are feeling dazed and confused tonight. Tancredo was certainly the most consistent and impassioned opponent of illegal immigration running for president; it's hard to say how much of the rhetoric other candidates spew about illegal immigration is not simply lip service rather than an exposition of genuinely held beliefs. Illegal immigration, after all, is one thing that very few candidates would actually come out and support for fear of angering a sizable portion of the electorate; Mike Gravel is an exception to this general rule, as usual.

I did think that Tom Tancredo had a role to play in this election even though he wasn't a particularly impressive candidate. Many people seem to dismiss the man as a hatemonger, a racist, and a nativist, but I don't think those characterizations are necessarily fair based on Tancredo's public presentation of his ideas. The nativist label actually does fit the man pretty well -- certainly Tancredo made it clear that he was all about preserving America's present culture and opposing immigration because it threatened that predominant culture. Although illegal immigration earned his deepest ire, Tancredo also was willing to state that he would like to see a moratorium on immigration in general. I don't think Tancredo generally expressed his nativist views in a particularly hateful way, but he no doubt echoed many arguments previously expressed by those opposed to Irish, Italian, Polish, Asian, and other immigration in America's not-so-distant past who did not always even try to hide their prejudices against certain ethnic groups. However, this nativism was only part of Tancredo's larger argument; to me, his most powerful criticisms of illegal immigration centered on economic issues. American "culture" is a very hard thing to pin down, but anyone can understand that an influx of cheap labor could be very bad for people who want to work for a decent (preferably high) wage. Likewise, the self-evident fact that illegal immigrants are people and as such have as much need for services as anyone else makes it easy to understand that illegal immigration can impact health care (and cost us money). Tancredo was excellent at linking illegal immigration to other issues like the cost of health care and the future of Social Security; in my opinion, it is that ability that is most lacking in the other candidates who claim to oppose illegal immigration. Thus, Tancredo's role in this election was to provide a voice for Americans who are worried about illegal immigration for a wide variety of reasons. The other candidates will continue to speak to those Americans, but I'm not sure any of them will be able to speak for them quite as Tancredo did.