The Cold War was an extraordinary period in American history in that the perceived ideological threat posed by Communism and the perceived existential threat posed by the Soviet Union actually made foreign policy a driving concern of the American voter as well as the government. In more normal times, Americans tend to be more insular and self-absorbed -- that certainly seems to be true today following the interventionist presidency of George W. Bush. The recession and lingering unemployment have also given cause for Americans to look more inwards. However, the rest of the world continues to move regardless of who is watching. Even as we speak, troops are moving...Russian troops pouring into Ukraine, intent on wresting control of at the very least the Crimea. Should Americans care? Should the US government do anything?
What Russia's actions illustrate to me above all else is the broken state of the international system. The United Nations can hardly deter war when China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council with veto powers. The very powers likely to be involved in wars are empowered to prevent the rest of the world from uniting against them. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is perhaps a more effective alliance, but its very name indicates its provincial outlook -- it was not intended to be a truly global alliance and it is not. The only thing that seems to be saving us from global war is restraint and smaller alliances between countries. When a major power stops showing restraint, as Russia has done, and it attacks a country that is not a member of an effective alliance such as Ukraine, the major power can seemingly do whatever it wants.
What I find so galling about the Ukraine War is how Russia's naked self-interest and lust for territory are its only real motivations for invading Crimea. That Crimea has a large proportion of Russian speakers is irrelevant -- they could have a referendum on joining Russia if that's what they truly want and no Russian troops would have needed to be involved. Indeed, I would gladly have supported such a referendum; why shouldn't the residents of the Crimea determine their own fate without compulsion? Let there be an orderly and fair political process, and let everyone have a seat at the table, including the Tatars and Ukrainians who live in Crimea. Now, though, there can be no genuine political solution free of compulsion because the Russian military has involved itself. Any so-called Russian patriots in Crimea at this point may just be regular people who don't want to be killed. There seems to be little to no evidence that the Ukrainian central government is oppressing Russians in Crimea either -- Crimea is already autonomous within Ukraine, and the chaos in Ukraine after the removal of President Viktor Yanukovych has left a transitional government preoccupied with simply functioning at a basic level at this point. Russia merely has taken the opportunity to grab territory because it saw its neighbor was weak and vulnerable. Whether Russia outright annexes Crimea or creates a vassal state as it has done in Transdniestria makes little difference; this is an old-fashioned war waged for an old-fashioned reason: greed.
I don't expect American voters to demand action against Russia any time soon. The consequences of two major powers going to war with each other are potentially devastating. For the same reason, I expect President Obama and the US government to act with caution as well, merely cutting some economic and political ties to Russia. No doubt many other countries will do the same. The problem, though, is that none of this seems good enough. Russia knew the world would have a reaction of some sort, but it didn't care -- there is no effective deterrent to military actions by the great powers at this point. When war isn't punished, I fear there will be more of it. That's certainly been the lesson of history, learned painfully over and over again. In hindsight, President Obama's conciliatory gestures towards Russian president Vladimir Putin seem indefensible. Scrapping the United States' negotiated missile defense agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic because of Russian objectives seems particularly foolish -- beefing up the defenses of our allies unfortunately located near Russia may be the only way to curb Russian expansionism and prevent much bloodshed in the future. It's a sad state of affairs all around. It seems that American preoccupation with foreign policy, as in the Bush years, as well as American indifference towards foreign policy, as we have under the Obama administration especially with regards to the non-Islamic world, lead equally to catastrophe.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Respect for the Gridlockian
With control of Congress divided between the two parties, not much is happening in Washington, DC at the moment. Most people don't seem to be very happy about that: as of February 2012, only 10% of Americans approve of Congress. Gridlock, it seems, has very few champions. This is probably because voters are in general an unhappy lot. People participate in politics to bring about change -- protecting the status quo (knowing full well that the country and the world are fraught with problems) just doesn't motivate many people to volunteer for or donate to campaigns, let alone cast a ballot on Election Day. Right now, people are unhappy with Congress for different reasons. Staunch partisans want members of the other party to bow to their party's will. Moderates want Congress to work together to find happy compromises that will drive the partisans insane. Everyone (well, at least 90% of everyone), though, is unhappy at a government that is stuck in place and not instituting change of some kind.
Still, I wonder a bit why gridlock has such a universally poor reputation. Are people just inherently drawn to change and evolution, regardless of political philosophy? Part of it, no doubt, is that the chattering classes (be they historians, bloggers, or journalists) who help shape the nation's consciousness have reason to long to live in "interesting times" -- the more change, the better! It's just not interesting to talk about things staying the same. To actually be a regular American during the tenure of a "great historical figure" tends to be disastrous, though; Lincoln and FDR were bold presidents who dealt forcefully with crises (and whose parties had control of Congress during their presidencies), to be sure, but their presidencies were hellish times of death and hardship. The gridlocked Clinton presidency, on the other hand, was a time of prosperity. Even now the economy seems to be as improving even as Washington is perhaps as gridlocked as it ever has been (not that the two necessarily have anything to do with each other). If you're deeply invested in a particular political philosophy, gridlock can only be an impediment to the glorious future you want to see legislated into existence...on the other hand, though, if you're less of a believer and more of a skeptic when it comes to government and politics in general, I'm not sure why you'd necessarily view gridlock as being inherently bad.
So, could there be room in politics for a true "Gridlockian" movement? Perhaps not at the moment, but I think there are reasons why such a movement should exist. To support gridlock is to truly be a "conservative" not in the standard political sense but in the sense of wanting to keep things the way they are. Preserving the status quo may never be sexy, but in practice it means keeping the rules of the game the same. It means not forcing people and businesses to adjust to a steady stream of new taxes and new regulations -- instead, you just need to learn the rules on the books once and keep following them. Stability and knowing what to expect from government aren't bad things, though the perpetuation of bad and unjust laws is a unfortunate side effect of "stability." Still, even something as scary and complicated as the tax code is easier to navigate if you don't have to relearn it constantly. Gridlock doesn't exactly mean that the government doesn't do ANYTHING, either. Instead, it just means that government does less and is more restrained in its choices of action; theoretically, a gridlocked government should still be able to tackle the Really Important Stuff provided that Congress and the president both agree that it's Really Important Stuff. For instance, I have absolutely no confidence that a gridlocked government would not go to war unnecessarily; war is always in the Really Important Stuff category so there'll always be room for a dangerous meeting of the minds. On the other hand, it also seems to be a given that some Really Important Stuff will never be acknowledged by one or the other party as Really Important Stuff due to the ideological blinders that all partisans wear.
What I like best about gridlock is that it limits the power of both the presidency and Congress. It's the checks and balances system in practice. Truthfully, we shouldn't need gridlock for the executive and legislative branches to check each other's power, but the perniciousness of the party system has made it so. Rick Santorum was just being honest when he said he voted for No Child Left Behind against his personal beliefs in order to be a "team player" -- political parties insist that individual legislators and executives to leave their principles behind when the party requires it. As long as that is the case, there is most definitely a place for gridlock and gridlockians in my opinion.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Santorum's Way
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 and economic 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 (including Latin America), the former senator from Pennsylvania has also defended foreign aid as an important component of America's 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," more a man of 2004 than of 2012. That said, he is making an effort to appeal more to small government, fiscally minded conservatives: he's recounted his vote for No Child Left Behind, trumpeted his opposition to the bank and auto bailouts (conveniently, he was no longer in the Senate when the bailout bills were passed), and cautioned against increasing government spending, even though he's perhaps also the Republican candidate most likely to defend unpopular government spending such as foreign aid. A legislative record that includes support for the infamous Bridge to Nowhere is tough to write off, though.
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.
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 and economic 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 (including Latin America), the former senator from Pennsylvania has also defended foreign aid as an important component of America's 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," more a man of 2004 than of 2012. That said, he is making an effort to appeal more to small government, fiscally minded conservatives: he's recounted his vote for No Child Left Behind, trumpeted his opposition to the bank and auto bailouts (conveniently, he was no longer in the Senate when the bailout bills were passed), and cautioned against increasing government spending, even though he's perhaps also the Republican candidate most likely to defend unpopular government spending such as foreign aid. A legislative record that includes support for the infamous Bridge to Nowhere is tough to write off, though.
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.
Monday, December 5, 2011
On the Wisdom of Dumping the Trump Debate
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.
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.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
The Republican Electorate's Wandering Eye
The race to determine the Republican nominee for president in 2012 has been eventful and suspenseful. Even with the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary just around the corner, there are still several candidates who have a decent chance of winning the nomination. Arguably, this is less a testament to the quality of the competitors than it is a reflection of a divided and indecisive Republican electorate. While Mitt Romney has been a constant force near the top of most polls, other candidates have had their moments and then fallen from grace. The latest development appears to be a sudden jump for Newt Gingrich and a corresponding fall for a Herman Cain candidacy beset by scandal and foreign policy gaffes.
As a political observer, I much prefer a nomination process like what we're currently seeing with the Republicans than, say, what we saw in 2000 with the Democrats simply because it makes for more interesting theater. In that year, Al Gore was essentially handed the nomination -- Bill Bradley was a spirited primary opponent, but voters seemed more interested in a coronation than a contest. As sitting vice president, Gore was the default choice, and he won. In 2012, Mitt Romney is the closest thing the Republicans have to a default option because of his name recognition and strong organization carried over from his 2008 campaign. Potential voters have balked at coronating the former Massachusetts governor early, however. Their reasons vary: some can't overcome Romney's support for a health insurance mandate at the state level despite his declared opposition to a federal mandate, others despise him for flip-flopping on on numerous issues (including abortion), and some undoubtedly are prejudiced against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of which Mitt is a member. If voters do end up eschewing the default option, though, where will they go?
That question still cannot be answered. Other candidates have warts of their own, of course, and I think the pivotal question of the Republican primary season concerns whether or not the anybody-but-Romney crowd can coalesce around just one person-who-is-not-Romney. To do so, they will have to compromise. Newt Gingrich has become the latest frontrunner, but I think he's undoubtedly been buoyed by the simple fact that the closets that hold the skeletons acquired during his long political career haven't been aired out in public for a while. They certainly will be now, and Gingrich's good debate performances may not be sufficient to protect him from all the scrutiny. There are uncomfortable similarities between Gingrich and Romney as well -- both, for instance, have gone on record as supporting individual mandates for health insurance in at least some circumstances, and both are mistrusted by social conservatives (Gingrich because of his well-documented personal behavior, Romney because of his extensive flip-flopping on social issues). It will be something of a bitter pill to swallow if anti-Romney voters end up selecting the alternative candidate perhaps most similar to Romney due to a lack of options. If not Gingrich, though, who can they turn to? Governor Perry hardly seems like a credible threat to President Obama due to his poor rhetorical skills -- it's true that George W. Bush had speaking issues as well, but he also had the luxury of taking on charisma-challenged candidates named Al Gore and John Kerry. No such luck for Rick Perry. Herman Cain's lack of political experience, charisma, and bold ideas made him the closest thing to a Tea Party candidate in the race, but the sexual harassment accusations levied against them appear reasonably credible and the fact that they are multiple makes the issue harder to dismiss...Cain has also very obviously been learning as he goes when it comes to foreign policy. Ron Paul is looking increasingly like a frontrunner and perhaps a likely winner in Iowa, but he can only win the nomination if primary voters focus almost exclusively on economic issues...he can hardly expect to convert Republicans en masse into non-interventionists and drug war skeptics prior to the primaries. At this point, it may be too late for candidates lagging behind the famous five to make a serious run of it -- Rick Santorum SHOULD be wiping up all the social conservative votes and Jon Huntsman SHOULD be siphoning moderate voters from Mitt Romney and slightly libertarian-leaning voters from Ron Paul, for instance, but because so few voters want to risk backing a losing horse they're probably destined to languish near the bottom of the polls. Bachmann seems to be in the same boat...she was a top tier candidate once upon a time herself, but now she's just as big of a long shot. The Ames straw poll feels like it took place years ago rather than just a few months back. Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer are beyond long shot status at this point -- not being invited to most of the debates seems to have doomed their candidacies, but both could resurface as third party or independent ballot options later on.
Ultimately, it may come down to whether or not Republican primary voters opt to pick their favorite candidate or the candidate they think is most likely to beat Obama. I can see Romney, Huntsman, and Paul attracting some voters who typically pull the lever for Democrats -- the other candidates will have a more difficult time doing that. However, nominating a Republican candidate who can't count on strong conservative support may dim general election turnout or help fuel third party and independent candidates. There's enough dissatisfaction on both sides to suggest 2012 might not just be about Democrats and Republicans.
As a political observer, I much prefer a nomination process like what we're currently seeing with the Republicans than, say, what we saw in 2000 with the Democrats simply because it makes for more interesting theater. In that year, Al Gore was essentially handed the nomination -- Bill Bradley was a spirited primary opponent, but voters seemed more interested in a coronation than a contest. As sitting vice president, Gore was the default choice, and he won. In 2012, Mitt Romney is the closest thing the Republicans have to a default option because of his name recognition and strong organization carried over from his 2008 campaign. Potential voters have balked at coronating the former Massachusetts governor early, however. Their reasons vary: some can't overcome Romney's support for a health insurance mandate at the state level despite his declared opposition to a federal mandate, others despise him for flip-flopping on on numerous issues (including abortion), and some undoubtedly are prejudiced against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of which Mitt is a member. If voters do end up eschewing the default option, though, where will they go?
That question still cannot be answered. Other candidates have warts of their own, of course, and I think the pivotal question of the Republican primary season concerns whether or not the anybody-but-Romney crowd can coalesce around just one person-who-is-not-Romney. To do so, they will have to compromise. Newt Gingrich has become the latest frontrunner, but I think he's undoubtedly been buoyed by the simple fact that the closets that hold the skeletons acquired during his long political career haven't been aired out in public for a while. They certainly will be now, and Gingrich's good debate performances may not be sufficient to protect him from all the scrutiny. There are uncomfortable similarities between Gingrich and Romney as well -- both, for instance, have gone on record as supporting individual mandates for health insurance in at least some circumstances, and both are mistrusted by social conservatives (Gingrich because of his well-documented personal behavior, Romney because of his extensive flip-flopping on social issues). It will be something of a bitter pill to swallow if anti-Romney voters end up selecting the alternative candidate perhaps most similar to Romney due to a lack of options. If not Gingrich, though, who can they turn to? Governor Perry hardly seems like a credible threat to President Obama due to his poor rhetorical skills -- it's true that George W. Bush had speaking issues as well, but he also had the luxury of taking on charisma-challenged candidates named Al Gore and John Kerry. No such luck for Rick Perry. Herman Cain's lack of political experience, charisma, and bold ideas made him the closest thing to a Tea Party candidate in the race, but the sexual harassment accusations levied against them appear reasonably credible and the fact that they are multiple makes the issue harder to dismiss...Cain has also very obviously been learning as he goes when it comes to foreign policy. Ron Paul is looking increasingly like a frontrunner and perhaps a likely winner in Iowa, but he can only win the nomination if primary voters focus almost exclusively on economic issues...he can hardly expect to convert Republicans en masse into non-interventionists and drug war skeptics prior to the primaries. At this point, it may be too late for candidates lagging behind the famous five to make a serious run of it -- Rick Santorum SHOULD be wiping up all the social conservative votes and Jon Huntsman SHOULD be siphoning moderate voters from Mitt Romney and slightly libertarian-leaning voters from Ron Paul, for instance, but because so few voters want to risk backing a losing horse they're probably destined to languish near the bottom of the polls. Bachmann seems to be in the same boat...she was a top tier candidate once upon a time herself, but now she's just as big of a long shot. The Ames straw poll feels like it took place years ago rather than just a few months back. Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer are beyond long shot status at this point -- not being invited to most of the debates seems to have doomed their candidacies, but both could resurface as third party or independent ballot options later on.
Ultimately, it may come down to whether or not Republican primary voters opt to pick their favorite candidate or the candidate they think is most likely to beat Obama. I can see Romney, Huntsman, and Paul attracting some voters who typically pull the lever for Democrats -- the other candidates will have a more difficult time doing that. However, nominating a Republican candidate who can't count on strong conservative support may dim general election turnout or help fuel third party and independent candidates. There's enough dissatisfaction on both sides to suggest 2012 might not just be about Democrats and Republicans.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
At a Crossroads at the Western Republican Debate
The Republican Party will soon begin the process of selecting its 2012 nominee for president in earnest. After numerous debates, countless speeches, and millions of dollars in advertising, one of the frontrunners remains Mitt Romney. He's been the great survivor of the race: he started on top and he still has a fine chance to finish on top despite some bumps along the road. Other challengers -- Trump, Bachmann, Perry -- have seemingly already seen their moments in the sun come and go. At the moment, Herman Cain seems to be coalescing the anti-Romney vote around himself, but no one knows if Cain will be able to avoid running into the same brick wall that the other Romney alternatives smashed into. With the debate season ending and the primary season soon to begin, the Western Republican Debate at Las Vegas offered the lagging candidates one more opportunity to upset the apple cart that Romney and Cain are coasting on.
By and large, they took that opportunity. Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan was criticized by all -- Ron Paul called it regressive, Michele Bachmann accused it of introducing a value-added tax to the United States, and Rick Perry claimed to have something flatter and fairer up his sleeves. Mitt Romney faced familiar criticisms from this election cycle as well as from the last one: Rick Santorum pointed out that voters had no reason to trust that the person who signed Romneycare into law in Massachusetts would work to overturn Obamacare as a president, Newt Gingrich adduced Romneycare as an example of government overreach and chided Romney for failing to address the rising costs of health care, and Perry continued to contrast the jobs created in Texas during his reign vs the jobs created (or not created) in Massachusetts under Romney while also attacking Mitt for hiring illegal immigrants to work on his personal property. It was a vigorous and sometimes unfriendly debate, but when the smoke had cleared I reflected on one reason why Romney and Cain are ahead: they're unflappable. Both men always respond when they're attacked, but they never seem to strain to answer every specific criticism...instead, they just say what they want to say, and they generally have plenty to say. Cain kept defending 9-9-9; Romney maintained his usual line on his health care plan being appropriate for Massachusetts but not the nation as a whole and tried to turn Perry's attacks back towards the Texas governor. Even though some of the attacks last night had substance, Santorum and Perry ended up looking bad (and even drew some boos) by being so aggressive towards candidates who exuded calmness and confidence.
I suspect Herman Cain was hurt in the debate more than Romney simply because Romney supporters have likely heard all the criticisms directed towards their candidate before. Cain supporters may not have quite made their minds up about 9-9-9 just yet and may well not have realized that their candidate supported TARP when it was proposed. Like Romney, Cain seems to have a tendency to walk back on past remarks: he not only has changed his mind on TARP, but he also insisted that his recent remarks regarding the possibility of bargaining with al-Qaeda in a hostage crisis had been misconstrued. (I think what really happened is that Cain dared to suggest in an earlier interview that there might be exceptions to the conventional wisdom of "never negotiating with terrorists" but realized he'd be skewered over it by the establishment if he stood by his remarks. In truth, there are no "nevers" in government, just in campaigns.) Cain is a good candidate for the times -- he has focused on business and economic issues at a time when the economy is struggling -- but if he loses trust among voters when it comes to his bedrock issues his other weaknesses (most notably his lack of comfort with foreign policy issues) make him very vulnerable. I suspect as well that his lack of political experience is something many establishment Republicans can't get past even though it undoubtedly helps him with Tea Party supporters who often have an instinctive distrust for career politicians already tainted by Washington.
If Cain falters, where does the anti-Romney vote go? Time is probably running out for Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann, two of the best attack dogs of this debate season. With Bachmann in particular, I've been surprised how her strong performances in several debates have generally failed to bring her polling dividends. I suspect she's been fact-checked to death: her tendency to speak off the cuff leads her to make frequent factual errors, many of them trivial, which in turn makes for excellent fodder for the media. Ultimately, who would really want to vote for a person if you can't trust what she is saying? If she's too lazy to do get her facts in order before she presents them, that makes one wonder if she's willing to do the hard work the presidency requires. Nonetheless, I thought her attacking of Rick Perry regarding the HPV vaccine mandate in Texas and her criticisms of Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan in the last two debates were pivotal moments -- the woman really does possess rhetorical skill and I have no doubt that she has influenced the outcome of the race no matter what happens from here on out. If she just combined those debating skills with discipline, I suspect she'd be bringing in more campaign dollars and doing better in polling right now. That said, she's also inconsistent...the time she wasted on vague populist appeals to moms and on bashing President Obama for cheap applause made her something of an afterthought in the Nevada debate. Santorum is also good at debating, but he can come across as mean and rude. More importantly, perhaps, he's the social conservative candidate at a time when social conservatism seems to be on the wane. That doesn't necessarily indicate the death of an ideology; rather, I think even social conservatives are more concerned with the economy right now than with other issues.
Newt Gingrich may have the best shot to "do a McCain" and leap into a frontrunner position from the middle of a crowded pack. He always comes across as knowledgeable in the debates, and he has anecdotes from decades of legislative experience to draw on at any time...he has a knack for sounding like a guy who has thought at length about whatever he's talking about and, in contrast to Bachmann, he actually seems to like doing his homework. To this point, the other candidates have had little reason to attack Gingrich...but there's where the problem could be. Romney slapped back at Gingrich's criticisms of Romneycare by pointing out Newt's previous support for the individual mandate -- that was effective, but there are more skeletons in Gingrich's closet. If his candidacy picks up steam, he'll have to discuss the ethics violation that cost him $300,000 and his trouble marital history. Many people still think "scandal" when they hear Newt Gingrich's name. Indeed, anyone having such a long legislative record is generally quite attackable on a number of fronts -- Gingrich's personal scandals just make it harder for him to survive intense scrutiny.
The two Texans in the debate, Rick Perry and Ron Paul, get my nod for "most improved debaters." Both men have had their moments of verbal fumbling in previous debates, but both looked sharper in Las Vegas. Not so long ago, Perry was THE frontrunner, but he's well-behind Romney and Cain in polling at the moment. Flat debate performances and the lack of an inspired message have dogged the Texas governor. These are still his biggest problems after last night -- I thought he performed better than in previous debates, but that's because he was so bad in those other ones! He's still struggling to find an effective message and is using attacks on other candidates (well, mainly just one: Romney) for cover. Increased oil and gas production could produce jobs and lower energy costs, but it's hardly the cure for all of America's economic problems seems ludicrous...nonetheless, "Drill, drill, drill" seems to be the sum total of Perry's jobs plan. While I do think Governor Romney's economic record and personal penchant for hiring illegal immigrants are valid points for criticism, Governor Perry looked a little desperate to find any attack that would really "stick" and resonate. While Perry is trying to regain support he has lost, Congressman Paul's steady polling suggests he is doing a great job of holding on to his core supporters but not bringing in enough new support to rival Romney and Cain. While some of Paul's views, particularly his noninterventionist approach to foreign policy, are outside of the Republican mainstream, I also think one reason Ron hasn't attracted more support is because he is not a great speaker: he has a marked tendency to ramble on and go on tangents instead of focusing on the subject at hand. In Las Vegas, we saw a more focused Ron Paul: he didn't mumble, he didn't ramble, and he answered questions with vigor and clarity. That doesn't mean the audience liked everything he had to say; for instance, there were boos when he mentioned detainees in Guantanamo being held without charge. The hardest votes for Paul to win belong to those who fear his policies would make the country and the world less safe, especially considering that many of other candidates pander to these voters excessively. I find it a pity that there isn't someone in the race who isn't a strict noninterventionist like Paul but would still be willing to cut defense spending in a targeted way. I don't really think that something like removing troops from Germany at this point would be that controversial among US voters, but the other candidates are so frightened of being accused of weakening America's defenses that all defense cuts are placed off the table. That makes deficit reduction that much harder. One good thing for Congressman Paul is that foreign policy is probably not going to be voters' top concern in this election (barring a catastrophe in the next year at least) -- if it were, I doubt Herman Cain would be flying so high right now. The challenge for Paul will be to make sure that Republican voters realize where they share common ground with him: a great example of this was Paul's defense of Nevadans' right to decide whether or not they want Yucca Mountain to be used as a nuclear waste storage site. Paul's views on cutting unnecessary and harmful governmental departments are shared by many non-libertarian conservatives as well.
One invited candidate failed to show up at the Western Republican Debate due to his disagreement with Nevada's attempt to hold its caucuses early which made it difficult for New Hampshire to hold its traditionally early primaries (by state law they cannot be held within a week of a similar contest). Sadly for him, I'm not sure that many people noticed his absence. Jon Huntsman's one state strategy centered around New Hampshire is marginalizing him in the rest of the country -- even worse, in that one state Mitt Romney is still likely to prevail! I'm sure the Granite State will take note of Huntsman's sacrifice, but Nevadans and Republicans from other states may not be impressed.
By and large, they took that opportunity. Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan was criticized by all -- Ron Paul called it regressive, Michele Bachmann accused it of introducing a value-added tax to the United States, and Rick Perry claimed to have something flatter and fairer up his sleeves. Mitt Romney faced familiar criticisms from this election cycle as well as from the last one: Rick Santorum pointed out that voters had no reason to trust that the person who signed Romneycare into law in Massachusetts would work to overturn Obamacare as a president, Newt Gingrich adduced Romneycare as an example of government overreach and chided Romney for failing to address the rising costs of health care, and Perry continued to contrast the jobs created in Texas during his reign vs the jobs created (or not created) in Massachusetts under Romney while also attacking Mitt for hiring illegal immigrants to work on his personal property. It was a vigorous and sometimes unfriendly debate, but when the smoke had cleared I reflected on one reason why Romney and Cain are ahead: they're unflappable. Both men always respond when they're attacked, but they never seem to strain to answer every specific criticism...instead, they just say what they want to say, and they generally have plenty to say. Cain kept defending 9-9-9; Romney maintained his usual line on his health care plan being appropriate for Massachusetts but not the nation as a whole and tried to turn Perry's attacks back towards the Texas governor. Even though some of the attacks last night had substance, Santorum and Perry ended up looking bad (and even drew some boos) by being so aggressive towards candidates who exuded calmness and confidence.
I suspect Herman Cain was hurt in the debate more than Romney simply because Romney supporters have likely heard all the criticisms directed towards their candidate before. Cain supporters may not have quite made their minds up about 9-9-9 just yet and may well not have realized that their candidate supported TARP when it was proposed. Like Romney, Cain seems to have a tendency to walk back on past remarks: he not only has changed his mind on TARP, but he also insisted that his recent remarks regarding the possibility of bargaining with al-Qaeda in a hostage crisis had been misconstrued. (I think what really happened is that Cain dared to suggest in an earlier interview that there might be exceptions to the conventional wisdom of "never negotiating with terrorists" but realized he'd be skewered over it by the establishment if he stood by his remarks. In truth, there are no "nevers" in government, just in campaigns.) Cain is a good candidate for the times -- he has focused on business and economic issues at a time when the economy is struggling -- but if he loses trust among voters when it comes to his bedrock issues his other weaknesses (most notably his lack of comfort with foreign policy issues) make him very vulnerable. I suspect as well that his lack of political experience is something many establishment Republicans can't get past even though it undoubtedly helps him with Tea Party supporters who often have an instinctive distrust for career politicians already tainted by Washington.
If Cain falters, where does the anti-Romney vote go? Time is probably running out for Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann, two of the best attack dogs of this debate season. With Bachmann in particular, I've been surprised how her strong performances in several debates have generally failed to bring her polling dividends. I suspect she's been fact-checked to death: her tendency to speak off the cuff leads her to make frequent factual errors, many of them trivial, which in turn makes for excellent fodder for the media. Ultimately, who would really want to vote for a person if you can't trust what she is saying? If she's too lazy to do get her facts in order before she presents them, that makes one wonder if she's willing to do the hard work the presidency requires. Nonetheless, I thought her attacking of Rick Perry regarding the HPV vaccine mandate in Texas and her criticisms of Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan in the last two debates were pivotal moments -- the woman really does possess rhetorical skill and I have no doubt that she has influenced the outcome of the race no matter what happens from here on out. If she just combined those debating skills with discipline, I suspect she'd be bringing in more campaign dollars and doing better in polling right now. That said, she's also inconsistent...the time she wasted on vague populist appeals to moms and on bashing President Obama for cheap applause made her something of an afterthought in the Nevada debate. Santorum is also good at debating, but he can come across as mean and rude. More importantly, perhaps, he's the social conservative candidate at a time when social conservatism seems to be on the wane. That doesn't necessarily indicate the death of an ideology; rather, I think even social conservatives are more concerned with the economy right now than with other issues.
Newt Gingrich may have the best shot to "do a McCain" and leap into a frontrunner position from the middle of a crowded pack. He always comes across as knowledgeable in the debates, and he has anecdotes from decades of legislative experience to draw on at any time...he has a knack for sounding like a guy who has thought at length about whatever he's talking about and, in contrast to Bachmann, he actually seems to like doing his homework. To this point, the other candidates have had little reason to attack Gingrich...but there's where the problem could be. Romney slapped back at Gingrich's criticisms of Romneycare by pointing out Newt's previous support for the individual mandate -- that was effective, but there are more skeletons in Gingrich's closet. If his candidacy picks up steam, he'll have to discuss the ethics violation that cost him $300,000 and his trouble marital history. Many people still think "scandal" when they hear Newt Gingrich's name. Indeed, anyone having such a long legislative record is generally quite attackable on a number of fronts -- Gingrich's personal scandals just make it harder for him to survive intense scrutiny.
The two Texans in the debate, Rick Perry and Ron Paul, get my nod for "most improved debaters." Both men have had their moments of verbal fumbling in previous debates, but both looked sharper in Las Vegas. Not so long ago, Perry was THE frontrunner, but he's well-behind Romney and Cain in polling at the moment. Flat debate performances and the lack of an inspired message have dogged the Texas governor. These are still his biggest problems after last night -- I thought he performed better than in previous debates, but that's because he was so bad in those other ones! He's still struggling to find an effective message and is using attacks on other candidates (well, mainly just one: Romney) for cover. Increased oil and gas production could produce jobs and lower energy costs, but it's hardly the cure for all of America's economic problems seems ludicrous...nonetheless, "Drill, drill, drill" seems to be the sum total of Perry's jobs plan. While I do think Governor Romney's economic record and personal penchant for hiring illegal immigrants are valid points for criticism, Governor Perry looked a little desperate to find any attack that would really "stick" and resonate. While Perry is trying to regain support he has lost, Congressman Paul's steady polling suggests he is doing a great job of holding on to his core supporters but not bringing in enough new support to rival Romney and Cain. While some of Paul's views, particularly his noninterventionist approach to foreign policy, are outside of the Republican mainstream, I also think one reason Ron hasn't attracted more support is because he is not a great speaker: he has a marked tendency to ramble on and go on tangents instead of focusing on the subject at hand. In Las Vegas, we saw a more focused Ron Paul: he didn't mumble, he didn't ramble, and he answered questions with vigor and clarity. That doesn't mean the audience liked everything he had to say; for instance, there were boos when he mentioned detainees in Guantanamo being held without charge. The hardest votes for Paul to win belong to those who fear his policies would make the country and the world less safe, especially considering that many of other candidates pander to these voters excessively. I find it a pity that there isn't someone in the race who isn't a strict noninterventionist like Paul but would still be willing to cut defense spending in a targeted way. I don't really think that something like removing troops from Germany at this point would be that controversial among US voters, but the other candidates are so frightened of being accused of weakening America's defenses that all defense cuts are placed off the table. That makes deficit reduction that much harder. One good thing for Congressman Paul is that foreign policy is probably not going to be voters' top concern in this election (barring a catastrophe in the next year at least) -- if it were, I doubt Herman Cain would be flying so high right now. The challenge for Paul will be to make sure that Republican voters realize where they share common ground with him: a great example of this was Paul's defense of Nevadans' right to decide whether or not they want Yucca Mountain to be used as a nuclear waste storage site. Paul's views on cutting unnecessary and harmful governmental departments are shared by many non-libertarian conservatives as well.
One invited candidate failed to show up at the Western Republican Debate due to his disagreement with Nevada's attempt to hold its caucuses early which made it difficult for New Hampshire to hold its traditionally early primaries (by state law they cannot be held within a week of a similar contest). Sadly for him, I'm not sure that many people noticed his absence. Jon Huntsman's one state strategy centered around New Hampshire is marginalizing him in the rest of the country -- even worse, in that one state Mitt Romney is still likely to prevail! I'm sure the Granite State will take note of Huntsman's sacrifice, but Nevadans and Republicans from other states may not be impressed.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Are the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street Two Sides of the Same Coin?
It's tempting to view the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements as popular responses to the mortgage crisis and its lingering aftereffects. Under this analysis, the movements differ most sharply in the targets of their rage: the Tea Party of course focused its ire at the government, which taxed them too much already yet failed to use its massive revenues responsibly, while Occupy Wall Street's anger is directed towards big business, especially the financial institutions which created the financial house of cards based on mortgages which came crashing down in 2008. There are certainly similarities in how the two movements have developed: in particular, it's interesting to watch mainstream Democratic politicians rush to express solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street protesters just as many establishment Republicans were quick to declare themselves Tea Party supporters. I wouldn't be surprised to see the president and other prominent Democrats symbolically "occupy" Wall Street during the 2012 campaign, probably long after the original protests have petered out...but I have my doubts that the OWS supporters are really going to turn out to be loyal Obama Democrats, just as I'm skeptical that the Tea Party would rally around Mitt Romney if he were to gain the Republican nomination for president.
What the Tea Party meant politically going into the 2010 midterm elections was fairly clear: Tea partiers were fed up with the status quo and were as eager to primary out incumbent Republicans who didn't share their principles as they were to vote out incumbent Democrats in general elections. Policy-wise, the Tea Party wants the government to tax less and spend less. The political impact that Occupy Wall Street will have in 2012 and beyond is much less clear, though perhaps that will change as the movement matures. Indeed, since OWS is at this point directing protests against businesses rather than the government, perhaps its biggest impact will be to change how financial institutions operate and value their relationships with their customers. Could a Bank of America walk back on its proposed fees for debit card users, for instance? I think a lot of Americans want the big banks to show humility given that many of them would not exist today without taxpayer support and considering that the larger American economy is still struggling. Many may not realize that some of the banks that are raising fees are also struggling themselves: Bank of America has lost money (billions) in three of the last four quarters, while Regions Financial last made an annual profit in 2007. Still, it's not unreasonable to expect banks to make money from their core lending operations and not nickel and dime the customers who provide them the capital they need to make loans. The more banks view their customers and the taxpayers at large as prey, the more mass resentment their behavior will spur.
What kinds of political changes would Occupy Wall Street like to see? Increasing regulations on the banks might be one plank in an OWS platform, but it's hard to imagine another big change in finance regulation being implemented so soon after the passing of Dodd-Frank. Arguably, the protests on Wall Street stand as an indictment of Dodd-Frank -- the protesters don't seem to think it was sufficient. Some, for instance, would like to see criminal charges brought against people they perceive to have "engineered" the crisis. Personally, I've always felt the financial crisis had more to do with incompetence and shortsightedness than criminal intent, and BOA's current financial situation just reinforces that view: bad banks are bad banks even if you bail them out. While we may never a Bernie Madoff type duly chastised and sent away to prison, there are going to be lawsuits galore...Bank of America for one is facing a whopping $10 billion suit from AIG even after agreeing to an $8.5 billion settlement with other embittered investors. Whether the big banks should continue to exist in their current form is another issue (I for one don't think they should), but they are being punished for their bad behavior to a degree. Another policy change that OWS supporters might rally around is increased taxes on businesses and the wealthy. This will also be a difficult change to affect, particularly as it pits the Tea Party and OWS directly against one another -- whenever you have one energized group of people who believe something is an absolute good and another energized group that believes it to be an absolute evil, there is no common ground to be found.
So perhaps OWS won't rewrite the laws...they could at least shake up an election or two, right? After all, the success of the Tea Party in 2010 hasn't actually lead to lower taxes -- it just managed to strongly change the makeup of the House of Representatives. What President Obama and the rest of the Democratic establishment have to be hoping for is that Occupy Wall Street support will translate into more votes for Democrats. Tea Party supporters found many incumbent Republicans to be too tainted by the system to deserve their votes -- I suspect OWS supporters will similarly look askance at mainstream Democrats they perceived as being beholden to Wall Street. However, they may find their own insurgent Democrats or even third party candidates to support. I'm particularly interested in seeing whether a candidate like Elizabeth Warren is embraced by the OWS movement. Her message seems to fit the mood of the movement and the fact that her background isn't in politics is reminiscent of some Tea Party candidates, but at the same time she does have ties to the political establishment...but for Republican opposition to her being named head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, she'd be a part of the Obama administration right now, and she's already out-fundraising an incumbent Massachusetts senator. If people like Warren become the political face of Occupy Wall Street, I think this will bode well for President Obama and other prominent Democratic candidates in the next election cycle.
What the Tea Party meant politically going into the 2010 midterm elections was fairly clear: Tea partiers were fed up with the status quo and were as eager to primary out incumbent Republicans who didn't share their principles as they were to vote out incumbent Democrats in general elections. Policy-wise, the Tea Party wants the government to tax less and spend less. The political impact that Occupy Wall Street will have in 2012 and beyond is much less clear, though perhaps that will change as the movement matures. Indeed, since OWS is at this point directing protests against businesses rather than the government, perhaps its biggest impact will be to change how financial institutions operate and value their relationships with their customers. Could a Bank of America walk back on its proposed fees for debit card users, for instance? I think a lot of Americans want the big banks to show humility given that many of them would not exist today without taxpayer support and considering that the larger American economy is still struggling. Many may not realize that some of the banks that are raising fees are also struggling themselves: Bank of America has lost money (billions) in three of the last four quarters, while Regions Financial last made an annual profit in 2007. Still, it's not unreasonable to expect banks to make money from their core lending operations and not nickel and dime the customers who provide them the capital they need to make loans. The more banks view their customers and the taxpayers at large as prey, the more mass resentment their behavior will spur.
What kinds of political changes would Occupy Wall Street like to see? Increasing regulations on the banks might be one plank in an OWS platform, but it's hard to imagine another big change in finance regulation being implemented so soon after the passing of Dodd-Frank. Arguably, the protests on Wall Street stand as an indictment of Dodd-Frank -- the protesters don't seem to think it was sufficient. Some, for instance, would like to see criminal charges brought against people they perceive to have "engineered" the crisis. Personally, I've always felt the financial crisis had more to do with incompetence and shortsightedness than criminal intent, and BOA's current financial situation just reinforces that view: bad banks are bad banks even if you bail them out. While we may never a Bernie Madoff type duly chastised and sent away to prison, there are going to be lawsuits galore...Bank of America for one is facing a whopping $10 billion suit from AIG even after agreeing to an $8.5 billion settlement with other embittered investors. Whether the big banks should continue to exist in their current form is another issue (I for one don't think they should), but they are being punished for their bad behavior to a degree. Another policy change that OWS supporters might rally around is increased taxes on businesses and the wealthy. This will also be a difficult change to affect, particularly as it pits the Tea Party and OWS directly against one another -- whenever you have one energized group of people who believe something is an absolute good and another energized group that believes it to be an absolute evil, there is no common ground to be found.
So perhaps OWS won't rewrite the laws...they could at least shake up an election or two, right? After all, the success of the Tea Party in 2010 hasn't actually lead to lower taxes -- it just managed to strongly change the makeup of the House of Representatives. What President Obama and the rest of the Democratic establishment have to be hoping for is that Occupy Wall Street support will translate into more votes for Democrats. Tea Party supporters found many incumbent Republicans to be too tainted by the system to deserve their votes -- I suspect OWS supporters will similarly look askance at mainstream Democrats they perceived as being beholden to Wall Street. However, they may find their own insurgent Democrats or even third party candidates to support. I'm particularly interested in seeing whether a candidate like Elizabeth Warren is embraced by the OWS movement. Her message seems to fit the mood of the movement and the fact that her background isn't in politics is reminiscent of some Tea Party candidates, but at the same time she does have ties to the political establishment...but for Republican opposition to her being named head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, she'd be a part of the Obama administration right now, and she's already out-fundraising an incumbent Massachusetts senator. If people like Warren become the political face of Occupy Wall Street, I think this will bode well for President Obama and other prominent Democratic candidates in the next election cycle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)