Many American political parties exist, at least in name, but only the Democratic and Republican parties field candidates that regularly win high offices. In contrast, more than a dozen political parties are quite active participants in Israeli elections. This big contrast is largely due to the vast differences between the political systems in Israel and in the United States, but nonetheless I still wonder why it is that the American voting public seems to meekly accept that they only have two options while Israeli voters seem to, if the sudden and frequent emergence of new parties and alliances is any indication, continually clamor for more and more choices. There are at least three factors at work here: the weakness of America's would-be "third parties," the chameleon-like nature of the two major parties, and a political climate that is unfriendly to new and emerging parties.
The history of American political parties is a fascinating one which I am still learning, but most minor parties seem to fall into one of two categories. Some parties are or were dominated by a very charismatic leader and have been unable to emerge out of the shadow of that leader. For example, George Wallace was able to move the American Independent Party into prominence in the 1960s, but after the Alabama firebrand returned to the Democratic Party the AIP's popularity dwindled. Nonetheless, the party still exists some forty years after its glory days, primarily as an affiliate of the Constitution Party. The other group of parties has been severely handicapped by vicious infighting. The Reform Party is a recent example of one such party: after a promising start, it quickly became apparent that the party base was not quite broad-minded enough to provide a political home for Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, Pat Buchanan, and Lenora Fulani all at the same time. Both the American Independent Party and the Reform Party were the leading fringe parties in American politics for a time, but neither remained political forces for long in large part due to their internal weaknesses.
The Republican and Democratic parties each have their own platforms, but over the years these parties have shifted positions on various issues many times and incorporated many diverse viewpoints into their organizations. Thus, it happened that the party of abolition was the Republican Party and the party of the "Solid South" during the Jim Crow era was the Democratic Party, but the Democratic Party in the 20th century became the major party most closely associated with the Civil Rights Movement while the Republican Party became the new home of some former segregationists like Strom Thurmond. The Democratic Party largely absorbed the Populist Party just as it was emerging as a force to be reckoned with in American politics in the 1890s, while the Republican Party has more recently welcomed neoconservatives and Christian conservatives into its ranks with open arms. As a general rule, both Republicans and Democrats seem to tend to run more to the right in conservative areas and more to the left in liberal areas. Thus, there are pro-choice Republicans who run for office in New York City and California like Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger and also pro-life Democrats like Gene Taylor and Ben Nelson who campaign in Mississippi and Nebraska. The very fact that the Democratic and Republican parties don't adopt very many stances on issues which they hold to solidly and consistently has been key to both their longevity and their nationwide appeal. Since both Democrats and Republicans fiercely resist being pushed into an ideological corner, it is that much harder for a fringe party to present a platform to the American people that is both unique and appealing.
Ultimately, the biggest reason there are only two major political parties in the United States is because those two parties already have the resources needed to compete in races big and small and across the nation, and those resources are substantial. Small parties have to start from the ground up and face resistance at every turn. Their key to growth is winning votes, but it is hard for them to win votes without money and hard for them to raise money without already having votes. The most visible of offices is the Presidency, but few third-party presidential candidates can even manage to get on the ballots of all fifty states. The political climate in the United States makes it extremely difficult for a minor party to ever emerge out of obscurity, so it is hardly a surprise that the few parties that avoid internal chaos and whose messages are not co-opted by the major parties still find it almost impossible to make a dent in the American political scene.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Bellicose Presidential Candidates Gone Wild!
In a time of war and apprehension, it is natural that presidential candidates should seek to impress upon the public the idea that they will be leaders who will keep the country safe. Since a good offense can sometimes beat a good, bad, or mediocre defense, it also makes sense that some candidates should promise safety through uncompromising aggression against America's enemies. In the past week, though, it seems like several candidates have gone off the deep end in their attempts to present themselves as being "tough on terror."
Exhibit A: Barack Obama has threatened to use the military option to go after al-Qaeda in Pakistan even without the support of Pakistan's government. He has also threatened to cut off aid to Pakistan if the Pakistanis do not provide better assistance against al-Qaeda in their country. Obviously, it is very disappointing that Pakistan likely is where some of the al-Qaeda leadership is hanging out and that there seems to be nothing that can be done about the situation because the central government of Pakistan simply does not exert enough control in Waziristan and other tribal areas to launch an extensive manhunt in those areas. Obama's frustration is understandable. However, even if we suppose that the United States can take out al-Qaeda in Pakistan, perhaps even Osama bin Laden finally, I suspect that using the military option would ultimately lead to bad outcomes for all. It's never a good thing to prop up weak governments with foreign aid as the United States has a long history of doing, but this process makes sense in Pakistan, where a change in government could easily lead to terrorists or those sympathetic to terrorists controlling a nuclear nation. A foreign invasion, even if only very specific targets were attacked by the United States, would weaken an already weak government further. It would certainly be counter-productive to destroy one group of terrorists while at the same time helping another set of terrorists rise to power.
Exhibit B: Tom Tancredo has stated multiple times that he believes a proper response to a major terrorist attack against America would be to nuke Islam's holiest cities, Mecca and Medina. This is tantamount to a declaration of war on Islam as an entity -- instead of a war on terror, we would have a war on a religion practiced by a billion people worldwide. Indeed, there are many Muslims who are American citizens and have made or plan to make the required pilgrimage to the holy cities of their religion; Tancredo wants to represent these people, and all American citizens, but he is willing to use Americans' holy places as political pawns because the faith of many Americans is also the primary faith of terrorists. The nuclear destruction of Mecca and Medina is something that could never be forgotten in our lifetimes; it would create ill-will against the United States that would last as long as Islam endures as a faith. It would surely create terrorism for generations rather than squelch it; just the threat alone may spark more terrorism because it suggests America is as against Islam as terrorist propaganda claims. Perhaps Tancredo is right to think that the threat of nuclear attack could dissuade terrorists just as it can deter aggressive nations, but the trouble is terrorists can act in small groups or even as individuals even more easily than they can as members of large networks like al-Qaeda -- all it would take is one determined, small group of people or, perhaps, just one person to make America either reveal its threat to be empty or bring about a nuclear nightmare.
Exhibit C: Unlike Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton wants to have the option to use nuclear weapons against terrorists wherever they may be. Clinton's tactic of the moment is to present Obama as inexperienced and clueless when it comes to foreign policy, so she is hoping people will believe Obama has violated some golden rule of foreign policy which declares that the nuclear option should never be taken off the table because it makes a good deterrent. Deterrence is good, but is it really unacceptable in foreign policy to be honest and to try not to appear to be a lunatic? In practice, using nuclear weapons on terrorists would simultaneously kill ten or a hundred terrorists as well as thousands of citizens of some country we are not at war with. Obviously, the war situation could change, especially in nuclear Pakistan, but if one is just considering the state of the world as it is I think it is quite reasonable to say that a nuclear strike on terrorists is not immanent. The most effective deterrent is surely the threat of a military action that might actually be engaged upon; threatening monstrous actions is only effective if we are monsters.
All three examples I've mentioned have a common thread: each candidate has essentially threatened military action against an ally. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have perhaps not been the greatest allies America has ever had, but it is a fact that the United States is not at war with either nation. I am disturbed at the notion that because terrorists do not belong to any nation the sovereignty of nations can be violated at will if terrorists happen to be residing in those nations. Terrorists are lawless, but nations have a responsibility to abide by their agreements and treaties. Yes, abiding by treaties may make fighting terrorism more difficult, but not abiding by treaties makes it more difficult to maintain friendly relationships and trading partnerships with other nations. The path that might lead to more dead terrorists in the short run could very well also lead to global instability and war in the long run.
Exhibit A: Barack Obama has threatened to use the military option to go after al-Qaeda in Pakistan even without the support of Pakistan's government. He has also threatened to cut off aid to Pakistan if the Pakistanis do not provide better assistance against al-Qaeda in their country. Obviously, it is very disappointing that Pakistan likely is where some of the al-Qaeda leadership is hanging out and that there seems to be nothing that can be done about the situation because the central government of Pakistan simply does not exert enough control in Waziristan and other tribal areas to launch an extensive manhunt in those areas. Obama's frustration is understandable. However, even if we suppose that the United States can take out al-Qaeda in Pakistan, perhaps even Osama bin Laden finally, I suspect that using the military option would ultimately lead to bad outcomes for all. It's never a good thing to prop up weak governments with foreign aid as the United States has a long history of doing, but this process makes sense in Pakistan, where a change in government could easily lead to terrorists or those sympathetic to terrorists controlling a nuclear nation. A foreign invasion, even if only very specific targets were attacked by the United States, would weaken an already weak government further. It would certainly be counter-productive to destroy one group of terrorists while at the same time helping another set of terrorists rise to power.
Exhibit B: Tom Tancredo has stated multiple times that he believes a proper response to a major terrorist attack against America would be to nuke Islam's holiest cities, Mecca and Medina. This is tantamount to a declaration of war on Islam as an entity -- instead of a war on terror, we would have a war on a religion practiced by a billion people worldwide. Indeed, there are many Muslims who are American citizens and have made or plan to make the required pilgrimage to the holy cities of their religion; Tancredo wants to represent these people, and all American citizens, but he is willing to use Americans' holy places as political pawns because the faith of many Americans is also the primary faith of terrorists. The nuclear destruction of Mecca and Medina is something that could never be forgotten in our lifetimes; it would create ill-will against the United States that would last as long as Islam endures as a faith. It would surely create terrorism for generations rather than squelch it; just the threat alone may spark more terrorism because it suggests America is as against Islam as terrorist propaganda claims. Perhaps Tancredo is right to think that the threat of nuclear attack could dissuade terrorists just as it can deter aggressive nations, but the trouble is terrorists can act in small groups or even as individuals even more easily than they can as members of large networks like al-Qaeda -- all it would take is one determined, small group of people or, perhaps, just one person to make America either reveal its threat to be empty or bring about a nuclear nightmare.
Exhibit C: Unlike Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton wants to have the option to use nuclear weapons against terrorists wherever they may be. Clinton's tactic of the moment is to present Obama as inexperienced and clueless when it comes to foreign policy, so she is hoping people will believe Obama has violated some golden rule of foreign policy which declares that the nuclear option should never be taken off the table because it makes a good deterrent. Deterrence is good, but is it really unacceptable in foreign policy to be honest and to try not to appear to be a lunatic? In practice, using nuclear weapons on terrorists would simultaneously kill ten or a hundred terrorists as well as thousands of citizens of some country we are not at war with. Obviously, the war situation could change, especially in nuclear Pakistan, but if one is just considering the state of the world as it is I think it is quite reasonable to say that a nuclear strike on terrorists is not immanent. The most effective deterrent is surely the threat of a military action that might actually be engaged upon; threatening monstrous actions is only effective if we are monsters.
All three examples I've mentioned have a common thread: each candidate has essentially threatened military action against an ally. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have perhaps not been the greatest allies America has ever had, but it is a fact that the United States is not at war with either nation. I am disturbed at the notion that because terrorists do not belong to any nation the sovereignty of nations can be violated at will if terrorists happen to be residing in those nations. Terrorists are lawless, but nations have a responsibility to abide by their agreements and treaties. Yes, abiding by treaties may make fighting terrorism more difficult, but not abiding by treaties makes it more difficult to maintain friendly relationships and trading partnerships with other nations. The path that might lead to more dead terrorists in the short run could very well also lead to global instability and war in the long run.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
The Fair Tax
Opposing the income tax is a proud tradition in America, but I'm not sure there is such a thing as a "good" tax. That is, taxes generally lead to unpleasant outcomes of some kind and tend to make some unlucky individual lives much worse. We have taxes because the alternative to having them seems worse for society as a whole, but the direct effects of taxation are never pleasant for anyone. If we consider all the types of taxes that have ever been levied on the citizenry of the world by good and bad governments, I don't think the progressive income tax is the worst of the lot. However, I'd be very reluctant to call the American system of taxation in its present form the best because I refuse to believe there is no alternative to having a tax code that is so complex and confusing that it causes anguish to millions of individuals and creates an industry devoted to finding loopholes intended to subvert its progressive nature. Much good could come from reforming the present tax system, but some convincingly argue that a fundamental change in the way taxation works would actually be the best thing to do given what they consider to be the inherent flaws of the current system.
Perhaps the most sophisticated and widely supported alternative tax plan is the "Fair Tax." Individuals as diverse as Mike Gravel and Mike Huckabee (notice the obvious pattern there, even if their politics are very different!) have publicly voiced their support for a national, progressive sales tax which is basically what the Fair Tax claims to be. Traditionally, most sales taxes are not considered to be progressive because they are thought to heavily impact the poor whose budgets can least manage to absorb higher prices for goods and services. The Fair Tax attempts to avoid being regressive by offering prebates to all Americans; these are monthly payments designed to cover the sales tax costs on basic necessities. In effect, no one who signs up for the prebate will end up paying any net tax on basic necessities, though the necessities will still be subject to the national sales tax like other goods and services.
The Fair Tax has two features that seem particularly appealing when compared to other systems of taxation. First and foremost, the Fair Tax gives individuals much greater choice in determining how much tax they pay because it taxes consumption rather than income. The vicissitudes of life naturally encourage people to continually seek to augment their incomes, so the progressive income tax and the capital gains tax end up punishing people who are striving to put their kids through college or retire with financial security; the Fair Tax would not interfere with personal financial goals like this because savings and investments would not be taxed. The extent that people have the freedom to consciously consume less depends on their income, but there is an important and intentional "loophole" in the Fair Tax system which makes taxation slightly more voluntary: the sale of used goods would not be taxed, including used homes. Thus, if you ever want to escape paying taxes on something, you'd need only buy it used and you would not pay any at all. Not everything can be bought used, of course, and this is part of the reason why I don't think the Fair Tax is truly a progressive tax although it is certainly not as regressive as a straight sales tax. Secondly, the Fair Tax would in the blink of an eye end the IRS as we know it and do away with complicated yearly tax forms for individual consumers. This would constitute a major reduction in both government expenses and citizen anguish.
The Fair Tax is far from perfect, however. If taxing income discourages work and saving, taxing consumption ought to discourage spending which is also not "good" for an economy. Advocates for the Fair Tax argue that the hidden costs created by the current tax system are reflected in the actual prices of goods and services today; thus, they argue that the elimination of these hidden costs would more than offset the effect of the new sales tax. I'm skeptical that the hidden costs are more than the sales tax price effect, but this is nonetheless a good counter-argument which has at least some validity. Perhaps a more damning argument against the Fair Tax is that it is too harsh on those in difficult circumstances. An income tax will only demand a portion of the income a person has earned recently, but a sales tax will tax whatever money happens to be spent by a person whether or not that money is savings or recently earned income. Thus, someone in desperate straits who is forced to dip into his or her savings to handle emergency spending will be taxed just the same as someone spending at the same rate but earning a healthy yearly income. Again, it could be argued that this person will in fact suffer no less under the present system due to the hidden costs of the income tax, but it is no credit to the Fair Tax that it fails to rectify the errors of our present system, and even the smallest across-the-board increase in price would be tough for some people to absorb. Another thing I'm concerned about is the ability of the Fair Tax to fund the government. Unfortunately, both individual consumption and government spending are unpredictable; understandably, then, there is much disagreement concerning what the rate of the Fair Tax would have to be to meet the government's spending requirements. A Fair Tax that is high would certainly not be fair in practice, and would certainly encourage the growth of black markets for goods and services.
Ultimately, I cannot say that the Fair Tax is worse than the current system of taxation; rather, I think the former is actually better overall in theory. However, the present system has the significant advantage of being a known quantity. If consumption is affected too much by the Fair Tax, then the result of its enactment will be insufficient government revenue and an economic downturn, so it's hard for me to just trust the predicted numbers that some economists have come up with without researching their methodologies. If you, too, want to do some research, there is a fantastic web site (http://www.fairtax.org) put out by the Americans For Fair Taxation that has a tremendous amount of information on the Fair Tax. That web page -- and Mike Gravel -- inspired this post, and I suspect it will inspire me to write a couple more in the future.
Perhaps the most sophisticated and widely supported alternative tax plan is the "Fair Tax." Individuals as diverse as Mike Gravel and Mike Huckabee (notice the obvious pattern there, even if their politics are very different!) have publicly voiced their support for a national, progressive sales tax which is basically what the Fair Tax claims to be. Traditionally, most sales taxes are not considered to be progressive because they are thought to heavily impact the poor whose budgets can least manage to absorb higher prices for goods and services. The Fair Tax attempts to avoid being regressive by offering prebates to all Americans; these are monthly payments designed to cover the sales tax costs on basic necessities. In effect, no one who signs up for the prebate will end up paying any net tax on basic necessities, though the necessities will still be subject to the national sales tax like other goods and services.
The Fair Tax has two features that seem particularly appealing when compared to other systems of taxation. First and foremost, the Fair Tax gives individuals much greater choice in determining how much tax they pay because it taxes consumption rather than income. The vicissitudes of life naturally encourage people to continually seek to augment their incomes, so the progressive income tax and the capital gains tax end up punishing people who are striving to put their kids through college or retire with financial security; the Fair Tax would not interfere with personal financial goals like this because savings and investments would not be taxed. The extent that people have the freedom to consciously consume less depends on their income, but there is an important and intentional "loophole" in the Fair Tax system which makes taxation slightly more voluntary: the sale of used goods would not be taxed, including used homes. Thus, if you ever want to escape paying taxes on something, you'd need only buy it used and you would not pay any at all. Not everything can be bought used, of course, and this is part of the reason why I don't think the Fair Tax is truly a progressive tax although it is certainly not as regressive as a straight sales tax. Secondly, the Fair Tax would in the blink of an eye end the IRS as we know it and do away with complicated yearly tax forms for individual consumers. This would constitute a major reduction in both government expenses and citizen anguish.
The Fair Tax is far from perfect, however. If taxing income discourages work and saving, taxing consumption ought to discourage spending which is also not "good" for an economy. Advocates for the Fair Tax argue that the hidden costs created by the current tax system are reflected in the actual prices of goods and services today; thus, they argue that the elimination of these hidden costs would more than offset the effect of the new sales tax. I'm skeptical that the hidden costs are more than the sales tax price effect, but this is nonetheless a good counter-argument which has at least some validity. Perhaps a more damning argument against the Fair Tax is that it is too harsh on those in difficult circumstances. An income tax will only demand a portion of the income a person has earned recently, but a sales tax will tax whatever money happens to be spent by a person whether or not that money is savings or recently earned income. Thus, someone in desperate straits who is forced to dip into his or her savings to handle emergency spending will be taxed just the same as someone spending at the same rate but earning a healthy yearly income. Again, it could be argued that this person will in fact suffer no less under the present system due to the hidden costs of the income tax, but it is no credit to the Fair Tax that it fails to rectify the errors of our present system, and even the smallest across-the-board increase in price would be tough for some people to absorb. Another thing I'm concerned about is the ability of the Fair Tax to fund the government. Unfortunately, both individual consumption and government spending are unpredictable; understandably, then, there is much disagreement concerning what the rate of the Fair Tax would have to be to meet the government's spending requirements. A Fair Tax that is high would certainly not be fair in practice, and would certainly encourage the growth of black markets for goods and services.
Ultimately, I cannot say that the Fair Tax is worse than the current system of taxation; rather, I think the former is actually better overall in theory. However, the present system has the significant advantage of being a known quantity. If consumption is affected too much by the Fair Tax, then the result of its enactment will be insufficient government revenue and an economic downturn, so it's hard for me to just trust the predicted numbers that some economists have come up with without researching their methodologies. If you, too, want to do some research, there is a fantastic web site (http://www.fairtax.org) put out by the Americans For Fair Taxation that has a tremendous amount of information on the Fair Tax. That web page -- and Mike Gravel -- inspired this post, and I suspect it will inspire me to write a couple more in the future.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Fred Thompson, Popular Man of Mystery
I had never heard of Fred Thompson before his potential candidacy became a big story. As it turns out, I actually have seen Fred act, but I didn't recognize his name and face initially. Since Thompson having emerged as one of the GOP frontrunners even without officially announcing that he would be running for president, I wonder to what extent my experience is shared by those who have become early Fred Thompson supporters. The notion that Thompson owes much of his support to rabid Law & Order fans seems farfetched, although Fred obviously does have excellent name and face recognition among that group of people. My pet theory is that Thompson, with much help from the media, has become the living equivalent of a "None of the Above" vote. Some Republican voters are clearly deeply dissatisfied with their current set of candidates, so their support for Thompson, an unannounced candidate, is both a vote of protest and hope.
When Thompson officially becomes a candidate, he will probably lose some of the edge he currently has on his rivals. Those who like Fred in theory may well not like him so much in practice. Those who now consider him to be the Ultimate Conservative may wonder just why they flocked to him rather than Sam Brownback or Mike Huckabee a few months down the road. It'll surely be interesting to see Thompson's substance as a candidate once the buzz around him has exhausted itself. It is probably a shrewd move on the part of the Thompson camp to delay an official announcement and prolong that buzz. Additionally, I'm afraid we may soon lose two or more Republican candidates in the aftermath of the Iowa Straw Poll later this month, so when Thompson emerges as an official candidate the Republican field may be considerably smaller. Then again, who knows for sure that Thompson won't deliver the ultimate buzz-killer on his own volition by announcing that he has decided not to run?
When Thompson officially becomes a candidate, he will probably lose some of the edge he currently has on his rivals. Those who like Fred in theory may well not like him so much in practice. Those who now consider him to be the Ultimate Conservative may wonder just why they flocked to him rather than Sam Brownback or Mike Huckabee a few months down the road. It'll surely be interesting to see Thompson's substance as a candidate once the buzz around him has exhausted itself. It is probably a shrewd move on the part of the Thompson camp to delay an official announcement and prolong that buzz. Additionally, I'm afraid we may soon lose two or more Republican candidates in the aftermath of the Iowa Straw Poll later this month, so when Thompson emerges as an official candidate the Republican field may be considerably smaller. Then again, who knows for sure that Thompson won't deliver the ultimate buzz-killer on his own volition by announcing that he has decided not to run?
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Biden's Bluntness
Anyone who has ever known a person whose charm far exceeded his or her personal standards of behavior would be reluctant to vote for a person based on personality alone. People even say that they long for candidates who are willing to say what they truly think and are not obsessed with how the voting public thinks of them. I wonder, however, how many of those people would really vote for a candidate who says what he thinks even in situations where simple politeness would dictate that he not openly express what he is thinking. Although I thought Joe Biden's overal performance in the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate was fairly impressive, I also thought his characteristic bluntness hurt his standing as a candidate as much if not more than it helped him.
It is actually a good move, in my opinion, for a politician to be direct when answering direct questions as in a debate. When Biden talked about the impracticality of Richardson's Iraq plan, for instance, his bluntness served him well. Biden was also direct and aggressive in talking about gun control and Darfur; he seemed passionate about these issues. Biden's bluntness is not limited to the issues, however, and I think this is a problem for him. He was the only candidate to make a sarcastic remark regarding Jackie and Dunlap's video question about Al Gore, though a lot of people probably cringed at the over-the-top and stereotypical personas of the infamous Internet duo at first (I know I did, though the question turned out to be quite cute and inoffensive). When a question was asked in a similarly over-the-top way about gun control, Biden questioned the questioner's mental competence and implied, albeit jokingly, that the questioner might be planning to attack him because of his answer! The phrase "loony with an semiautomatic" might have flashed through my mind after I watched the video, but I still think it is wrong to assume someone is nuts just because he calls his favorite weapon his "baby" and even more wrong to suggest such a thing publicly in front of an audience of millions. Biden also reacted negatively to another silly question at the end of the debate; evidently, he felt it was beneath his dignity to be forced to say something nice about the candidate to his left. Granted, it was a kindergarten exercise, but the CNN/YouTube debate was all about allowing direct connections between members of the public and the candidates to be formed. Such connections are difficult to make when the candidates do not deal with members of the public in a respectful manner, even if the questions the public ask are sometimes a little on the silly side. Personally, I wouldn't want to vote for a candidate that could be expected to mock or insult me if I interacted with him personally, even if I agreed with that candidate on a lot of issues. I think Biden would be respectful when speaking towards the average American, but the government must be fair when dealing with ALL people: the just and the unjust, the wise and the foolish, and the flawless and the flawed must all be looked upon with the same eye and be judged according to the same set of rules.
It is actually a good move, in my opinion, for a politician to be direct when answering direct questions as in a debate. When Biden talked about the impracticality of Richardson's Iraq plan, for instance, his bluntness served him well. Biden was also direct and aggressive in talking about gun control and Darfur; he seemed passionate about these issues. Biden's bluntness is not limited to the issues, however, and I think this is a problem for him. He was the only candidate to make a sarcastic remark regarding Jackie and Dunlap's video question about Al Gore, though a lot of people probably cringed at the over-the-top and stereotypical personas of the infamous Internet duo at first (I know I did, though the question turned out to be quite cute and inoffensive). When a question was asked in a similarly over-the-top way about gun control, Biden questioned the questioner's mental competence and implied, albeit jokingly, that the questioner might be planning to attack him because of his answer! The phrase "loony with an semiautomatic" might have flashed through my mind after I watched the video, but I still think it is wrong to assume someone is nuts just because he calls his favorite weapon his "baby" and even more wrong to suggest such a thing publicly in front of an audience of millions. Biden also reacted negatively to another silly question at the end of the debate; evidently, he felt it was beneath his dignity to be forced to say something nice about the candidate to his left. Granted, it was a kindergarten exercise, but the CNN/YouTube debate was all about allowing direct connections between members of the public and the candidates to be formed. Such connections are difficult to make when the candidates do not deal with members of the public in a respectful manner, even if the questions the public ask are sometimes a little on the silly side. Personally, I wouldn't want to vote for a candidate that could be expected to mock or insult me if I interacted with him personally, even if I agreed with that candidate on a lot of issues. I think Biden would be respectful when speaking towards the average American, but the government must be fair when dealing with ALL people: the just and the unjust, the wise and the foolish, and the flawless and the flawed must all be looked upon with the same eye and be judged according to the same set of rules.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Debate Time Distribution
At this point in the presidential campaign, debates play an important role in introducing the presidential candidates to the American people, but they are often accused of being more or less rigged in favor of the more established candidates. According to Talk Clock, a recurring feature on Chris Dodd's blog, the candidates which are leading in the polls are already being allowed to speak the most during the debates. Talk Clock has monitored three debates (two Democratic and one Republican) so far and published the number of minutes each participating candidate spoke at each debate. In the New Hampshire Democratic debate, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards spoke the most, with Edwards speaking nearly a minute longer than the next most garrulous candidate. In the New Hampshire Republican debate, McCain, Giuliani, and Romney spoke the most, with Romney speaking nearly four minutes (!) longer than the next candidate on the totem pole. In the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards once again spoke the most, and Edwards spoke more than a minute longer than the next most garrulous candidate. In each case, the three leading candidates spoke more than the lower-tier candidates did; I doubt very strongly that this is a coincidence. Is it right that debate time should be such a close reflection of poll numbers this early on in the presidential campaign? At what point should the debate organizers themselves be considered complicit in the marginalization of some candidates and the glorification of others?
It certainly is not easy to run a fair debate even if that is what the debate organizers and debate moderator truly want to do, which I don't think they usually do. The candidates themselves frequently contrive to take more time for themselves; some, by contrast, often answer questions relatively succinctly and thus do not even take up their allotted time! Still, it is the candidates who are asked the most questions and the candidates who are allowed to break the rules that end up speaking the most. It seems far too much of a coincidence for the main-tier candidates to get the most speaking time in three different debates. The disparity in minutes spoken becomes staggering when one compares the candidate that speaks the most with the candidate that speaks the least; it's in the neighborhood of 8-10 minutes for all three debates. Clearly, some candidates are getting more opportunities to speak their message than others are.
One rationale for asymmetric debates categorizes candidates based on their electability. Ultimately, the American people will choose a president between two major party candidates -- most of the Democrats and Republicans in the race now will be eliminated long before November 2008. Since the ultimate choice that really matters won't involve most of the candidates, highlighting the contending candidates now is best for the voters. The problem with this approach is that poll numbers at this early point in time mean little, so it is difficult to gauge who exactly is a true contender and who will fizzle out perhaps before election year has even begun. Fred Thompson has emerged as a major Republican candidate in polls even though he has not even begun his campaign officially yet; I strongly doubt that he could get as many real votes as he is getting poll votes if the primaries began today without his having campaigned or participated in any debates. In other words, I don't even think a lot of the people who answer political polls take the process that seriously -- by extension, I don't think polls mean enough to be used to determine who should speak in the debates.
Another argument focuses on the entertainment factor. No, debates aren't primarily entertainment vehicles, but ultimately they are most informative when they can hold the viewers' attention. The CNN/YouTube Democratic debate was particularly entertaining in part due to the format which eschewed asking many questions to all the candidates in favor of letting one or two respond to particular questions. This debate avoided the flurries of similar answers that usually occur when subjects on which most candidates share similar views are raised, but at the cost of letting each candidate have his or her say on each subject. That cost is significant, in my opinion; even though the YouTube debate was my favorite of the debates I've watched so far this year, I cannot hold it up as a model debate because it was more entertaining than it was fair.
I hope that the Dodd campaign will continue to monitor the debates. Holding the debate organizers and moderators accountable for debate time distribution is an important first step to having fairer debates, which I certainly hope we will see in the future.
It certainly is not easy to run a fair debate even if that is what the debate organizers and debate moderator truly want to do, which I don't think they usually do. The candidates themselves frequently contrive to take more time for themselves; some, by contrast, often answer questions relatively succinctly and thus do not even take up their allotted time! Still, it is the candidates who are asked the most questions and the candidates who are allowed to break the rules that end up speaking the most. It seems far too much of a coincidence for the main-tier candidates to get the most speaking time in three different debates. The disparity in minutes spoken becomes staggering when one compares the candidate that speaks the most with the candidate that speaks the least; it's in the neighborhood of 8-10 minutes for all three debates. Clearly, some candidates are getting more opportunities to speak their message than others are.
One rationale for asymmetric debates categorizes candidates based on their electability. Ultimately, the American people will choose a president between two major party candidates -- most of the Democrats and Republicans in the race now will be eliminated long before November 2008. Since the ultimate choice that really matters won't involve most of the candidates, highlighting the contending candidates now is best for the voters. The problem with this approach is that poll numbers at this early point in time mean little, so it is difficult to gauge who exactly is a true contender and who will fizzle out perhaps before election year has even begun. Fred Thompson has emerged as a major Republican candidate in polls even though he has not even begun his campaign officially yet; I strongly doubt that he could get as many real votes as he is getting poll votes if the primaries began today without his having campaigned or participated in any debates. In other words, I don't even think a lot of the people who answer political polls take the process that seriously -- by extension, I don't think polls mean enough to be used to determine who should speak in the debates.
Another argument focuses on the entertainment factor. No, debates aren't primarily entertainment vehicles, but ultimately they are most informative when they can hold the viewers' attention. The CNN/YouTube Democratic debate was particularly entertaining in part due to the format which eschewed asking many questions to all the candidates in favor of letting one or two respond to particular questions. This debate avoided the flurries of similar answers that usually occur when subjects on which most candidates share similar views are raised, but at the cost of letting each candidate have his or her say on each subject. That cost is significant, in my opinion; even though the YouTube debate was my favorite of the debates I've watched so far this year, I cannot hold it up as a model debate because it was more entertaining than it was fair.
I hope that the Dodd campaign will continue to monitor the debates. Holding the debate organizers and moderators accountable for debate time distribution is an important first step to having fairer debates, which I certainly hope we will see in the future.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
The Best Debate So Far
I was impressed by the quality of the recent CNN/YouTube Democratic debate. To an extent, the use of user-created videos to ask questions of the candidates was a gimmick, especially since external controls were used on both the selection (which video questions were played on CNN) and the direction (which candidate was asked which questions) of the questions. Nonetheless, just the fact that all video questions asked throughout the debate were submitted by members of the general public was a triumph for democracy. Ultimately, though, a debate's quality depends less on the questions asked and more on the substance of the dialogue and the performance of the debaters. The unusual format of the debate and oddball nature of some of the questions asked did not generally discomfit the candidates who as a group performed quite well. Most importantly, this debate brought to the forefront some of the divisions on the Iraq issue that exist among the Democrats.
Although the Democratic party has tried to establish itself as the anti-war party, the candidates do not agree on how the military situation in Iraq should be handled. Bill Richardson went on the offensive in this debate by boldly declaring that the troops should be brought home in six months -- all of them. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton argued that this was simply not feasible from a logistical point of view, an argument which Richardson unfortunately was not invited to respond to. Furthermore, Biden stated his support for a residual force in Iraq to remain even after most troops had returned home. He has come out publicly with perhaps the most detailed Iraq plan of any of the candidates, and he sounds far more in his element discussing Iraq than almost any other issue. Richardson, though, managed to do the remarkable: he distinguished himself quite markedly from Clinton and Biden by presenting a plan which would accomplish two things their plans would not: bring the troops home in six months and leave no residual force in Iraq. I see that as a message that could really appeal to military families, especially among those who are concerned that Dennis Kucinich would bring the troops home but at the same time also greatly weaken the military in order to fund his ambitious social programs. Richardson, in short, has provided himself as a safe alternative between Joe "Let's Bring Some of the Troops Home" Biden and Dennis "Show Me the Money" Kucinich. Personally, I still like the Biden plan because it shows concern both for American and Iraqi interests and addresses both political and social issues, but if fighting continues in Iraq unabated more and more people (including myself) are likely to start supporting "quick and dirty" measures which will end American casualties but leave even more chaos than already exists in their wake.
This debate was also important to me personally because it helped me understand the Hillary Clinton campaign a little bit better. What an individual viewer actually gets from a debate is often very personal; that is why there are supporters of every candidate who participated in the YouTube debate that firmly believe their candidate won the debate. Some things are harder to get than others; for me, making sense of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate has been hard. The woman is a good debater in that she speaks very well, but the day after the debates I almost never find myself thinking about what Mrs. Clinton spoke about the day before. The CNN/YouTube debate was a particularly able vehicle for Clinton because it gave her an opportunity to answer a wide variety of questions, some that probably would not have been asked in other venues. She answered them all readily and eloquently, even those which questioned her femininity, her liberality, or her ability to lead her country diplomatically. Finally, the obvious struck me: Hillary Clinton is actively trying to use the debates to create an aura of intelligence and competence about herself, not to detail her political plans exhaustively. This tactic is only worthy of strong disparagement if the candidate is trying to be something she is not; I actually do think Clinton is an intelligent and competent person, and in fact her ability to answer random questions on the fly as she did in the debate is testament to her intelligence and competence! Theoretically, an intelligent and competent president should be able to face unexpected situations as they arise very well; likewise, a "tough" and "uncompromising" president should be able to lead the War on Terror very effectively (yes, Rudy Giuliani is an "aura" candidate too!). So, voting for an aura rather than just a set of policies might not be such a bad thing...it might, however, be unsettling to find out what a candidate's policies actually are only after he or she has been voted in, so I wouldn't recommend judging any candidate solely on his or her debate persona!
Although the Democratic party has tried to establish itself as the anti-war party, the candidates do not agree on how the military situation in Iraq should be handled. Bill Richardson went on the offensive in this debate by boldly declaring that the troops should be brought home in six months -- all of them. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton argued that this was simply not feasible from a logistical point of view, an argument which Richardson unfortunately was not invited to respond to. Furthermore, Biden stated his support for a residual force in Iraq to remain even after most troops had returned home. He has come out publicly with perhaps the most detailed Iraq plan of any of the candidates, and he sounds far more in his element discussing Iraq than almost any other issue. Richardson, though, managed to do the remarkable: he distinguished himself quite markedly from Clinton and Biden by presenting a plan which would accomplish two things their plans would not: bring the troops home in six months and leave no residual force in Iraq. I see that as a message that could really appeal to military families, especially among those who are concerned that Dennis Kucinich would bring the troops home but at the same time also greatly weaken the military in order to fund his ambitious social programs. Richardson, in short, has provided himself as a safe alternative between Joe "Let's Bring Some of the Troops Home" Biden and Dennis "Show Me the Money" Kucinich. Personally, I still like the Biden plan because it shows concern both for American and Iraqi interests and addresses both political and social issues, but if fighting continues in Iraq unabated more and more people (including myself) are likely to start supporting "quick and dirty" measures which will end American casualties but leave even more chaos than already exists in their wake.
This debate was also important to me personally because it helped me understand the Hillary Clinton campaign a little bit better. What an individual viewer actually gets from a debate is often very personal; that is why there are supporters of every candidate who participated in the YouTube debate that firmly believe their candidate won the debate. Some things are harder to get than others; for me, making sense of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate has been hard. The woman is a good debater in that she speaks very well, but the day after the debates I almost never find myself thinking about what Mrs. Clinton spoke about the day before. The CNN/YouTube debate was a particularly able vehicle for Clinton because it gave her an opportunity to answer a wide variety of questions, some that probably would not have been asked in other venues. She answered them all readily and eloquently, even those which questioned her femininity, her liberality, or her ability to lead her country diplomatically. Finally, the obvious struck me: Hillary Clinton is actively trying to use the debates to create an aura of intelligence and competence about herself, not to detail her political plans exhaustively. This tactic is only worthy of strong disparagement if the candidate is trying to be something she is not; I actually do think Clinton is an intelligent and competent person, and in fact her ability to answer random questions on the fly as she did in the debate is testament to her intelligence and competence! Theoretically, an intelligent and competent president should be able to face unexpected situations as they arise very well; likewise, a "tough" and "uncompromising" president should be able to lead the War on Terror very effectively (yes, Rudy Giuliani is an "aura" candidate too!). So, voting for an aura rather than just a set of policies might not be such a bad thing...it might, however, be unsettling to find out what a candidate's policies actually are only after he or she has been voted in, so I wouldn't recommend judging any candidate solely on his or her debate persona!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)