Missing Work to Run for President

Imagine that you walk into your local grocery store one evening and notice a senator from your state bagging groceries. Puzzled, you approach the senator and say to him, "I think it's great that you have come back home to experience the working conditions of the common man firsthand, but weren't you elected so as to serve your state in Washington?" With a twinkle in his eye, the senator responds, "I can do both!" and returns to his work. The senator's industriousness and perhaps even his intentions are admirable, but you cannot help but wonder if he can REALLY do both.

Most of the candidates from the major parties who have declared their candidacy for the presidency have other jobs to do: they are mainly senators and representatives, but there's also one governor (Bill Richardson). While I do want Americans to have an abundant choice of candidates to support, I wonder if it is fair to the people who elected senators like Hillary Clinton and Sam Brownback or representatives like Dennis Kucinich or Tom Tancredo or a governor like Bill Richardson to have their elected servants focus their time and energy on winning another office instead of fulfilling the duties of the offices to which they were already elected. If these candidates who already hold office are so neglectful of the office they already hold, can they really be expected to perform better as president? Of course, all this is assuming that a presidential campaign is so demanding that it is impossible to do it on a part-time basis. To test this notion out, I thought it would be interesting to look at the missed votes numbers for those members of Congress who are also running for office. GovTrack makes it easy to track candidates' missed votes, and I'm going to make it a little easier for my readers to track the candidates with the help of a little table:

Presidential Candidates 2007 Congressional Voting Records
Democrats	Republicans
Joe Biden	Sam Brownback
Hillary Clinton	Duncan Hunter
Christopher Dodd	John McCain
Dennis Kucinich	Ron Paul
Barack Obama	Tom Tancredo

I'm afraid not too much can be read into this data as it is, however. These senators and representatives might well have missed votes for reasons that have nothing to do with their presidential campaigns, for instance. Also: it's not even election year yet! While Hillary Clinton's Congressional attendance rate for the year is amazing right now, it might look very different in 2008...much more like John McCain's, perhaps. I'll be keeping an eye on this data in the future and may well blog about it again later on in the campaign.

Ron Paul's Big Changes

For someone who is trying to learn about politics as I am, Ron Paul is fascinating. Here is a candidate for president who says and advocates things that virtually no other candidate does -- thirty minutes spent listening to Paul exposes me to more new ideas than hours spent listening to most of the other candidates. That isn't to say that the other candidates don't have good ideas, too, but their ideas tend to be composed within the context of the systems that are already in place in America. Ron Paul just isn't like that -- more often than not, he seems to advocate the tearing down of the systems that are already in place. He wants to change the way America operates on a very fundamental level. Paul has gained a measure of fame and support for his opposition to the war in Iraq, but the rest of his platform is really far more unique!

An example of Paul's "fringe" views in legislative action is the recently proposed H.R. 2755, a bill which would essentially destroy the Federal Reserve System. I was interested enough in economics to take three economics classes in college as electives, but I cannot say any of those classes gave me any reason to think the Federal Reserve was a "bad" thing. How can you dislike the thing that is controlling the money supply and regulating banking? Don't we want to be protected from inflation and irresponsible banking policies? Ron Paul, as a rule, doesn't like to see government impose rules and regulations, so I strongly suspect his answer to my previous question would be a resounding, "No!" Paul supports a return to the gold standard, which I presume he believes will protect America from inflation far better than the Federal Open Market Committee has ever done. I'm honestly open to the idea of a return to the gold standard (it's something I plan to read up on more), but I'm worried by the prospect of the federal government backing out of the world of banking. It's a fact that banks are vulnerable to closure. It's a fact that banking crises have devastated savings and wreaked havoc on economies in the past. In fact, I'm from a state which experienced such a severe banking crisis in the 19th century that it was left without ANY locally based financial institutions as a direct result of that crisis. I'm not sure to what extent Ron Paul would allow federal interference in the private world of banks, however; he might just plan to protect American savings more than I am implying. One thing is most definitely true: Ron Paul is the only major-party candidate for president who wants to repeal the Federal Reserve Act! I might be hesitant to institute such a big change, but I totally think it is a healthy thing for us to question our institutions and our monetary policy as Ron Paul is encouraging all Americans to do. The economics classes I took presented the gold standard largely as a thing of the past, a relic in an era of fiat money. They were correct in at least one sense: the major economies of the world do not adhere to the gold standard any more than the United States currently does. However, Ron Paul is most definitely not alone in supporting the gold standard, as any Google search will quickly reveal! These ideas deserve to be heard and considered.

I am most enthusiastic about Ron Paul's commitment to individual liberty. One example of this in action is Paul's legislative attempt to repeal the Military Selective Service Act! Philosophically, I'm totally with Paul on this issue -- it is a liberty issue, plain and issue. Pragmatically, I do wonder what the world would be like today if there had been no draft in World War I and World War II. To an extent, I think the draft had an effect of delaying patriotism in an odd way; that is, since men knew they would be drafted eventually they did not seek to volunteer. Had there not been a draft, I expect there would still have been many enlistments, especially in World War II after Pearl Harbor; indeed, I am consistently surprised from my reading of military memoirs from the great wars at how many people really did volunteer to fight just because they felt it was the right thing to do at the time. However, it's hard to imagine massive mobilization of American resources for those wars without the draft. Indeed, war by its nature tends to infringe on liberty; unfortunately, war's tentacles wrap around all they come into contact with. Luckily, I think we've reached a point where the draft really is an anachronism; the United States can boast of a skilled, professional armed forces of soldiers whose service cannot be quickly replaced by random Americans. I think we're ready for an end to selective service in this country.

Grinding Away in Iowa

If I ever decide to run for president myself, I will be sorely tempted to run an Internet-only campaign. It's not so ridiculous anymore: pop a few videos up on YouTube, open a MySpace account, start a campaign blog and website...who says campaigning has to be unpleasant or that you need to leave your house to do it? It would be the Rocking Chair Campaign 2.0; William McKinley would be proud, God rest his soul. Even I wouldn't vote for me.

The serious presidential candidates aren't campaigning from rocking chairs in 2007, especially not Sam Brownback. The senator from Kansas has embarked on a grueling four-day, 27-stop tour across the state of Iowa next week as he strives to build support before the August Iowa straw poll. I honestly cannot imagine visiting 27 different towns and presumably doing something in each one to help one's campaign over the course of just four days. Brownback isn't supposed to simply show up, either; he is supposed to also appear appealing to the voters who will be meeting him all day long. I'm not sure how much I'll be writing about Brownback in the future because up to this point I haven't found his campaign to be among the most exciting or interesting, but I have to give the man some credit here. He's putting in the miles, the hours, and the elbow grease in Iowa in order to compete in a straw poll other GOP candidates have deemed to be not worth competing in. I suspect some of the small towns Brownback will be visiting next week won't be visited at all by the top candidates. Of course, Brownback is from a midwestern state himself and probably considers Iowa a state he could win next year; his frenetic campaigning there doesn't mean he would exert the same energy to campaign across small-town Massachusetts, for instance. Nonetheless, if I were from a small town in Iowa I'd appreciate the effort Brownback is making to reach out to me.

Aristotle's Class Consciousness

That the rich and the poor should have a naturally antagonistic relationship seems to have been accepted as a matter of course by Aristotle. Since rich and poor exist in most societies, their opposition to one another plays an influential role in establishing the nature of the government. Where the rich hold upper hand in a state an oligarchy can be established; where the poor are powerful a democracy can be formed. Aristotle feels that neither the poor nor the rich are the best suited to rule, however, because the poor will always be seeking to take the riches of the wealthy while the wealthy must always be worried about fending off the poor. The middle class, being neither poor enough to want to steal from the rich nor rich enough to be targeted by the poor, is less encumbered with wealth and not overwhelmed with need, and so is naturally better able to govern. Aristotle also praises the form of government that is midway between oligarchy (essentially rule of the rich) and democracy (usually rule of the poor) which he calls polity -- it is a blending of elements of oligarchy and democracy that can, like all of the forms of government Aristotle discusses, take various forms.

I feel uneasy with some aspects of Aristotle's class analysis, though I acknowledge there are universal truths to be found in his words as well. Aristotle too often seems to dismiss the poor as either criminals in fact or would-be criminals who are simply awaiting favorable circumstances to seize the wealth of others. That the poor should be more likely to steal than others makes sense; desperate circumstances can bring out the worst as well as the best in men. Crime statistics bear this out, but the numbers are not so overwhelming that the poor should as a class be assumed to be criminals, in my opinion. The criminals among the poor do not necessarily target the rich, either, as the rich have the greatest means to protect themselves; middle class and even other impoverished people are frequently victims of convenience for the criminals who live near to them. Additionally, the phenomenon of corporate, white-collar crime seriously brings into question the notion that any person can ever be assumed to be content with what he or she has merely because he or she has "enough" from our perspective. The middle class cannot be trusted to act fairly just because of their position in society. Of course, I completely give Aristotle a pass for not knowing about insider trading and other forms of modern white-collar crime, and I absolutely acknowledge that Aristotle was writing about the world as he knew it in his time, not in ours. At the same time, I do think he could have been fairer to the poor and more skeptical of the middle class.

Book link: Aristotle's Politics

First Presidents

The coming presidential election will likely be unique in the fact that one of the frontrunners, Hillary Clinton, is a woman and one, Barack Obama, is an African-American man. If either are elected president, it would make history -- you can rest assured if there is still a United States anything like the country that exists today in a few hundred years that every student will hear about the first female or the first African-American male president. At the same time, though, a Clinton or Obama election probably doesn't mean that much in the larger scheme of things. It certainly wouldn't mean racism or sexism had been eradicated; ironically, racism and sexism may help Obama or Clinton to an extent if women and/or African-Americans support "their" candidate en masse. Nonetheless, I think it's OK to feel a little excited over the prospect of making history. The message that a Clinton or Obama victory would send to the country is essentially positive from my point of view: it would demonstrate that America is not so overrun with sexism or racism that a woman or an African-American man cannot rise to the very top of politics. There is a serious problem with letting history and positive messages influence your right to vote, though, and it must be addressed: those who vote for a candidate on the basis of that candidate's race or gender may have to endure four or more years of policy influenced by that candidate. Unless every single woman or African-American man you know is capable of being a good president, it makes no sense to "trust" Obama's race or Clinton's gender; the only responsible approach to voting is to research each candidate and decide on whom to support on the basis of ideology and character. If the best candidate happens to be an African-American man or a woman, then and only then should America have its first African-American male president or its first female president.

Not too long ago I read an article about the 2007 French presidential election which included snippets of various interviews with "people off the street" prior to voting. That election pitted Nicolas Sarkozy against Ségolène Royal; Sarkozy eventually triumphed after two rounds of voting. One thing that interested me about the article is that several people mentioned that Ségolène Royal's gender would influence their vote; this group included a man who felt it was time for a woman to be president as well as a woman who felt a woman could not be trusted as president! I think it is safe to say that there were also Frenchmen who supported Sarkozy because they would not vote for a woman and Frenchwomen who voted for Ségolène Royal because she was a woman. Surely the same patterns will be observed in the American presidential election in 2008, too: some will vote for Obama because he is black, some will not vote for Obama because he is black, some will vote for Clinton because she is female, and some will not vote for Clinton because she is female. This is inevitable, I'm sure, but I hope that the majority of voters will keep an open mind concerning who to support and observe Obama and Clinton's words and actions closely in order to decide on their worth as candidates.

The Youtubing of American Politics

YouTube has quietly become one of the best ways to find information on presidential candidates. A channel, YouChoose 08, has been setup to feature "official" videos uploaded by the campaigns, and the campaigns have by and large done well in embracing this opportunity by uploading speeches and debate clips and...commercials (but at least not everything is a commercial!). YouChoose 08 is a good starting point, but it is simply the tip of the iceberg...there's a lot more political content to be found on YouTube. A search on virtually any candidate's name will reveal even more speeches, debate clips, and commercials, but these will not necessarily be biased in favor of the candidate they feature. Indeed, they may be designed to discredit a candidate, as is this video entitled "Joe Biden's Racist Slip." Additionally, YouTube provides an outlet for people to comment on the candidates, which they may do both in video form or as text comments to existing videos. The greatest thing about YouTube is that viewers have total control over what videos they watch -- they don't have to put up with the Internet equivalent of sleazy attack ads if they don't want to, and they have the freedom to gravitate towards candidates' speeches in front of small audiences rather than to the candidates' more polished debate performances designed for a national audience. From a "learning politics" point of view, YouTube plays an important role in archiving political video for future study and review. I might miss what a candidate says on C-SPAN or "Meet the Press", but if that candidate's words make a strong impression on just one person it might be uploaded to YouTube where I can view it at my leisure.

In the long run, sites like YouTube may bring more personal accountability to politics. This large archive of video will make it possible for any Internet user to "go back in time" and see how candidates' positions and attitudes have changed over time. It is easier to accept a candidate's flip-flopping if you cannot watch hours of video of that candidate endorsing at various times both sides of an issue! Eventually, candidates may attempt to suppress unfavorable videos that have been posted online, but I have confidence that the Internet is vibrant enough to resist those attempts.

There will be a very interesting debate on July 23d in South Carolina which will be a collaboration between old and new media. CNN will broadcast the debate among Democratic presidential candidates and provide a host for the debate; the questions, however, will come from YouTube. Questions asked by an audience are not necessarily more interesting than questions asked by a host, especially if the audience questions are filtered so only "safe" ones are allowed, but I like that this setup allows anyone from anywhere to get the chance to ask the candidates a question. It's a chance for an individual to interact directly with the candidates in front of the entire country, even if they are not physically in the same place as the candidates. I'll be watching this debate with interest.  If you think you might be interested in asking one of the candidates a question, go to http://www.youtube.com/debates#utm_campaign=en.

Iowa Straw Poll

Recently, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani announced that they would not be participating in this year's Iowa straw poll. While the event itself is of limited importance in national politics, skipping the poll not only bucks political conventional wisdom but also leaves Iowans feeling like second-class citizens. In general, the straw poll in Ames, Iowa is best thought of as a good way...or the only way...for a presidential candidate to get a foot into Iowa before the Iowa caucuses. Winning the poll is not vital -- Pat Robertson, for instance, won the straw poll in 1987, but it was Bob Dole who won the Iowa caucuses and George Bush who ended up the Republican nominee and ultimately president. Participating, though, probably is vital: not participating in the poll sends a message to Iowa Republicans that is hardly favorable for the skipping candidate. Not participating in the straw poll means not campaigning in and not pouring massive amounts of campaign funds into a small state, but campaigning and spending campaign funds is what candidates do! If they are not campaigning and spending in Iowa, that means they've chosen to campaign and spend elsewhere which is doubtful to impress Iowa voters. Thus, I am skeptical that Giuliani will be able to ignore Iowa voters in the runup to the August 11th straw poll and yet, as he says he will, still realistically compete in the caucuses.

While Giuliani and McCain have attracted the most press, Jim Gilmore has also announced that he won't be participating in the straw poll either. On first glance this is incomprehensible; shouldn't a minor candidate for Gilmore be trying to compete everywhere he can? In fact, this may be a sensible decision. The Iowa straw poll is expensive -- there is no way on Earth that Gilmore can spend as much as Mitt Romney. However, Gilmore isn't going to be able to outspend Romney anywhere, so I don't see why Gilmore couldn't have run a stripped down campaign in Iowa. It doesn't cost a lot to say, "Please vote for me in Ames." The participation of other second-tier candidates is also in question, but it seems Tancredo and Tommy Thompson will certainly be competing. Perhaps one of those second-tier candidates can rise from obscurity in Iowa, though Romney is the heavy favorite to win the poll.

I am particularly sympathetic to Iowa because I am from a small state myself. Unlike Iowa, my small state doesn't usually play a big role in either the nominating or the electing of the president and, as a result, we receive limited attention from the candidates. Iowans have ingeniously managed to make themselves more important than they should be by virtue of the fact the Iowa caucuses occur so early on in the presidential season. Taken together, the Ames straw poll and the caucuses create an election season in Iowa that simply wouldn't exist otherwise. To be fair, the caucuses are a heck of a lot more important than the straw poll -- the poll itself could be described as a fundraising operation for the Iowa Republican party because people who want to vote in the poll must pay (or a campaign must pay for them) for the privilege whereas the caucuses play a role in determining both the Democratic and the Republican nominees. The important thing is that for a time Iowan voters are treated as if their vote counts a great deal. It's unfortunate that every state cannot have its own moment in the sun, but I am glad that Iowa and New Hampshire do have such influence in the nomination process. Ultimately, the majority does rule in America so it is only natural that the candidates will focus more on larger population areas as the presidential season progresses; the nomination process, however, reminds America that a vote cast in Iowa is in every way equal to a vote cast in any other state.