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.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Will John McCain Move Beyond National Security?
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.
I actually think the recent past explains my feeling of familiarity with Obama at the moment. After all, Obama's been in the limelight for the whole year. He's been battling Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, after all -- never mind that the battle was essentially over for all accounts and purposes months ago. McCain, on the other hand, has been somewhat out of the public eye following his dispatching of his Republican rivals. The one other lingering Republican, Ron Paul, failed to win enough votes to be a credible McCain challenger or even a political thorn in the side of the Arizona senator. Clinton and Obama's struggle for the nomination was theater -- hard to watch at times, for sure, but theater nonetheless. It has in recent months eclipsed McCain, a candidate who did nothing wrong other than win too easily. The ugliness of the Clinton-Obama fight may very well benefit Obama in the long run. While Obama probably wishes Reverend Wright had not become a household name, I think it's far better for him that the country became acquainted with Wright when it did rather than later. Likewise, it's good for him that he's already been called an elitist and that his Islamic ties have been revealed. The fact that this stuff is already out in the open means that McCain can only get a limited amount of traction out of any of these issues.
John McCain in contrast hasn't really been exposed in the media much so far. The Republican nomination process had its nippy moments, but it wasn't a particularly bruising affair. McCain was able to defeat his challengers essentially on one issue: national security. Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney all sought to sound like the kind of president who would keep America safe, but McCain's military and political experience made for a far more impressive national security resume than anything the security trio had to offer. I honestly think McCain could win the election in a similar fashion; national security is the issue for many people right now, and McCain has a strong experience advantage over Obama. Obama, however, won't be trying to out-do or out-tough McCain on national security issues like Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani attempted. He'll be arguing for different policies and different approaches. Thus, there will be a different dynamic to their matchup. The question voters ask themselves won't be, "Who is the best man to lead us through war?" but rather, "Which man has the best strategy and philosophy?" Ultimately, I think McCain will make his general election campaign about a lot more than just national security. The challenge for him will be choosing which issues to emphasize. Unlike a Tom Tancredo, McCain is not a one-dimensional candidate. Like a Tom Tancredo, McCain's stance on the issues can be polarizing even within his own party. I really don't expect McCain to make immigration one of the centerpieces of his campaign; neither do I expect campaign finance reform or pork-barrel spending to be strongly emphasized by McCain in the runup to November. Those are issues that McCain is passionate about, but they are controversial issues among his fellow Republicans. It would be safer for McCain to be the anti-tax candidate, the smaller government candidate, the personal liberties candidate...but does he really want to be any of those things? If not, he could find himself losing votes to Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. While McCain's vice presidential choice will likely appeal to some important base of the Republican party somewhat alienated by McCain, I'm not sure that alone will be sufficient to energize disaffected voters.
Although I hope we've got the most dirty politics of 2008 out of the way already, it is probably inevitable that McCain will be attacked on character issues just like Obama has been. McCain's marital history certainly makes for ugly reading; as much as I don't want to judge McCain the candidate based on what McCain the man did thirty years ago, I must admit that I think of Carol McCain just about every time I see Cindy McCain on TV now. I don't want to, but I do...that's the power of a sensationalistic story. I have no idea if McCain's personal life is going to become a big campaign issue or not, but I'm sure something similarly non-political will hit McCain over the head sooner or later. How well McCain is able to step out of his national security comfort zone to defend himself and win over skeptical voters could have a very big impact on the election.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Mike Gravel and the National Initiative for Democracy
Mike Gravel recently announced his retirement from active politics after Bob Barr became the Libertarian Party's presidential nominee. There will be no independent run from the colorful former senator from Alaska this year -- it seems Gravel will be spreading his message through books, the Internet, and other media from now on. He undoubtedly deserves the rest after his truly marathon presidential run. I don't think there's any question that Gravel enriched the presidential process. Above all else, he made us think. There may not be another person on this planet who has exactly the same set of political views that Gravel holds yet the Alaskan never seemed to hesitate to state his opinion in a debate or interview. Iran? It's no threat! Illegal immigration? It helps the economy! Democracy? The people need to take charge of things themselves! I don't agree with Gravel on a lot of issues, but I love how he made me think about common issues from a new perspective. In fact, it was rather hard to ignore Gravel at any event to which he was invited -- he was combative to the point of rudeness in the debates, the cantankerous old man par excellence. He would have made a most unlikely president, but many people who would never have voted for him will nonetheless miss seeing him on the campaign trail.
Mike Gravel's mission to bring direct democracy to America in a big way will surely continue. The National Initiative for Democracy aims to let the people play a much larger role in establishing policy than they currently can. In effect, Gravel and the Initiative want the people to become another branch of government equal to Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court. There is something undeniably appealing about making decisions for yourself rather than trusting someone else to make those decisions for you. I would definitely have liked to have been consulted about going to war with Iraq, for instance. I certainly no longer believe that elected representatives are "more qualified" than average people to make political decisions -- I refuse to accept that I myself, my friends, and my family are part of the "rabble" than cannot be trusted whilst Larry Craig, David Vitter, and others of their ilk are members of an "elite" who will make sound decisions even in times of crisis. The Craigs and the Vitters do still have an advantage over the average person, though, and it is a big one: they're professionals. Politics is their job. They go to meetings, attend hearings, and have advisers who are experts in various fields -- if they are still ignorant about the issues, it is entirely their own fault. The average person cannot focus on politics to the same extent and as such would struggle to make well-considered decisions when it comes to issues he or she is not that familiar with. The idea of giving the people a direct voice in politics still has some merit, but direct democracy would probably be most effective when it comes to "big picture" issues that tend to affect everyone.
It's fun to think of how the people might change government if they had the chance. I imagine the federal budget might look a little different after it was given the direct democracy treatment. Somehow, I can't imagine health care and education being underfunded. That doesn't mean defense spending would necessary be decimated (I suspect it would be reduced, however) because national security is on a lot of people's minds as well. I have a hard time imagining popular approval for billions of aid to Pakistan, especially since many people think Pakistan is the reason Bin Laden is still on the loose. In general, I suspect more attention would be paid to internal problems and less to foreign policy issues in a direct democracy; this would undoubtedly have both good and bad effects. America would perhaps no longer be an interventionist, but it could find itself in a position of weakness and vulnerability in the international sphere. Who is to say that the people wouldn't adjust, though? If foreign policy experts make the case for aid to Pakistan in terms anyone could understand and market the message directly to the people, perhaps that aid would continue even in a direct democracy. It's harder to say if people would always vote for policies they perceive would be in their economic best interest regardless of how such policies would affect other people and the economy as a whole. Would, for instance, the masses vote for a 75% income tax on the rich to pay for bread and circuses for themselves? Aristotle would probably say, "Yes." I concede that this is a danger zone, but it isn't because regular citizens are inherently greedier than politicians. The real problem would be that economics is a subject a lot of people are pretty uncomfortable with -- direct democracy is likely to fail if people are forced to make decisions without either knowledge or experience to guide them.
Although Mike Gravel thinks the federal government has been corrupted by corporate interests, he is not exactly arguing for its extermination. Rather, he sees the people as being a complement to the government -- direct democracy would in effect coexist with indirect democracy. Ideally, the people will make the government better and perhaps vice versa as well. The important thing is that the voice of the people will be heard on a national level. How the National Initiative intends to make this happen is somewhat peculiar. It sees the government and the people as fundamentally opposed so it doesn't seem to think that elected officials would ever support any idea to give the people any of their power. So the Initiative is collecting signatures and donations at the moment. Their big plan seems to be to amend the Constitution without the support of Congress or the state legislatures. Personally, I think this is a flawed strategy that has no constitutional basis. A better approach, in my opinion, would be to lend support to candidates who support the principles behind the Initiative so that they can change government from within. Perhaps the reason this idea has been rejected is because supporters of the Initiative think that only corporatists can win offices these days; personally, I'm not quite so cynical. If 50 million people are willing to "vote" in a National Initiative, why wouldn't they be equally willing to support pro-direct democracy candidates in legislature and congressional elections?
As always, Gravil is making me think. Thanks for everything, Mike.
Mike Gravel's mission to bring direct democracy to America in a big way will surely continue. The National Initiative for Democracy aims to let the people play a much larger role in establishing policy than they currently can. In effect, Gravel and the Initiative want the people to become another branch of government equal to Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court. There is something undeniably appealing about making decisions for yourself rather than trusting someone else to make those decisions for you. I would definitely have liked to have been consulted about going to war with Iraq, for instance. I certainly no longer believe that elected representatives are "more qualified" than average people to make political decisions -- I refuse to accept that I myself, my friends, and my family are part of the "rabble" than cannot be trusted whilst Larry Craig, David Vitter, and others of their ilk are members of an "elite" who will make sound decisions even in times of crisis. The Craigs and the Vitters do still have an advantage over the average person, though, and it is a big one: they're professionals. Politics is their job. They go to meetings, attend hearings, and have advisers who are experts in various fields -- if they are still ignorant about the issues, it is entirely their own fault. The average person cannot focus on politics to the same extent and as such would struggle to make well-considered decisions when it comes to issues he or she is not that familiar with. The idea of giving the people a direct voice in politics still has some merit, but direct democracy would probably be most effective when it comes to "big picture" issues that tend to affect everyone.
It's fun to think of how the people might change government if they had the chance. I imagine the federal budget might look a little different after it was given the direct democracy treatment. Somehow, I can't imagine health care and education being underfunded. That doesn't mean defense spending would necessary be decimated (I suspect it would be reduced, however) because national security is on a lot of people's minds as well. I have a hard time imagining popular approval for billions of aid to Pakistan, especially since many people think Pakistan is the reason Bin Laden is still on the loose. In general, I suspect more attention would be paid to internal problems and less to foreign policy issues in a direct democracy; this would undoubtedly have both good and bad effects. America would perhaps no longer be an interventionist, but it could find itself in a position of weakness and vulnerability in the international sphere. Who is to say that the people wouldn't adjust, though? If foreign policy experts make the case for aid to Pakistan in terms anyone could understand and market the message directly to the people, perhaps that aid would continue even in a direct democracy. It's harder to say if people would always vote for policies they perceive would be in their economic best interest regardless of how such policies would affect other people and the economy as a whole. Would, for instance, the masses vote for a 75% income tax on the rich to pay for bread and circuses for themselves? Aristotle would probably say, "Yes." I concede that this is a danger zone, but it isn't because regular citizens are inherently greedier than politicians. The real problem would be that economics is a subject a lot of people are pretty uncomfortable with -- direct democracy is likely to fail if people are forced to make decisions without either knowledge or experience to guide them.
Although Mike Gravel thinks the federal government has been corrupted by corporate interests, he is not exactly arguing for its extermination. Rather, he sees the people as being a complement to the government -- direct democracy would in effect coexist with indirect democracy. Ideally, the people will make the government better and perhaps vice versa as well. The important thing is that the voice of the people will be heard on a national level. How the National Initiative intends to make this happen is somewhat peculiar. It sees the government and the people as fundamentally opposed so it doesn't seem to think that elected officials would ever support any idea to give the people any of their power. So the Initiative is collecting signatures and donations at the moment. Their big plan seems to be to amend the Constitution without the support of Congress or the state legislatures. Personally, I think this is a flawed strategy that has no constitutional basis. A better approach, in my opinion, would be to lend support to candidates who support the principles behind the Initiative so that they can change government from within. Perhaps the reason this idea has been rejected is because supporters of the Initiative think that only corporatists can win offices these days; personally, I'm not quite so cynical. If 50 million people are willing to "vote" in a National Initiative, why wouldn't they be equally willing to support pro-direct democracy candidates in legislature and congressional elections?
As always, Gravil is making me think. Thanks for everything, Mike.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
The Eternal Campaign
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
New Homes for Old Pols
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.
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.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Let Ralph Nader Run in Peace
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
The Company You Keep
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)