For several months now we've been in that awkward part of the presidential campaign where it's pretty clear that several prominent candidates will be running but yet no one wants to make that first move of declaring their candidacy. Leave it to the brash and bold junior senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, to shake things up by becoming the first major candidate to announce their candidacy in either party. From the early looks of things, it certainly seems like the race for the Republican nomination is going to end up very crowded. The ideologically diverse GOP electorate seems uninterested in a Jeb Bush coronation, and various factions have their own dream candidates: social conservatives are rooting for Huckabee and Santorum, hawks want Lindsey Graham, libertarian-leaning voters favor Rand Paul, and many of those nebulous "mainstream Republicans" think Rubio, Walker, or Jindal would be preferable to yet another Bush. Because the race is going to be so crowded and competitive, I think announcing early and grabbing a lot of press attention was a very wise thing to do on Ted Cruz's part. The challenge that Senator Cruz faces is explaining who he is and why he should be preferred above all those other guys. That's going to be a tough task, but Cruz might just be unique, savvy, and idiosyncratic enough to pull it off.
I thought Cruz did a fine job overall in his announcement speech at Liberty University. Judging from that speech, I think Cruz will run a different campaign than he was expected to run. For starters, he clearly wants to compete for the religious and social conservative vote -- choosing to announce at Liberty University, the Christian university founded by Jerry Falwell, is a good indication of that, as was his speech which emphasized the importance of faith in his life and his opposition to gay marriage and abortion. This was a shot against the bow of Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum...I wonder if Cruz is hoping that a social conservative tilt early in his campaign might dissuade one or the both of them from running. Choosing to kick off a presidential campaign at a institution called "Liberty" has interesting connotations as well. In particular, Cruz mentioned his opposition to government surveillance of US citizens in his announcement speech. As a senator, Cruz supported the USA Freedom Act that would have reformed the NSA and limited its ability to conduct certain kinds of mass surveillance. I would not call Cruz libertarian-leaning, really, when you consider his whole range of policies, but he has the potential to be a leader on this one issue. Apart from Rand Paul, I'm not so sure any other candidate from either party will even talk about mass surveillance during this campaign. Another notable thing about Cruz's Liberty University speech was his presentation of himself. He told his personal life story in a compelling way and it's actually a great American story: the son of a Cuban immigrant fleeing a dictator (Batista, not Castro) and a pioneering female computer programmer makes good, becomes a senator, and is now running for president.
Still, finding a niche isn't going to be easy for Ted Cruz. It's just very difficult to bridge the hostile, competing camps that currently occupy the Republican Party. For instance, the good will Cruz might generate among the liberty wing of the party by his support for reforming the NSA can easily be offset by his opposition to gay marriage and abortion and support for stricter immigration policies. On the other hand, Cruz's mix of policies could enable him to thrive as a second choice candidate. By that I mean he might not be the ideal candidate preferred by any particular wing, but he could be the candidate a lot of voters from different wings might settle for. For instance, voters who might prefer Rand Paul when it comes to civil liberties but are more hawkish than the Kentucky senator could find themselves attracted to Candidate Cruz because his opposition to the surveillance state is combined with support for a robust foreign policy. His greatest strength of all is probably his purity and sheer bloody-mindedness: he has only been a senator for a couple of years and his time in office has been marked by steadfast and total opposition to the policies endorsed by President Obama. For someone with limited political experience, he's been remarkably adept at grabbing headlines both with legislation and theatrics; he's shown he is quite willing to battle Obamacare, Common Core, and amnesty until the end of time, largely regardless of consequences. He scares some because of that unwillingness to compromise -- it's probably safe to say that his administration would be no more successful at achieving bipartisan understanding than the less firebrand Obama. Thus, if there is a genuine hunger for political compromise in the country, Cruz's candidacy is doomed for sure, but there is also something appealing about knowing who a candidate is and where he or she stands.
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Monday, January 19, 2015
At What Price Scalise?
Congressman Steve Scalise of Lousiana has recently gotten himself into the news for the wrong reasons. It has been revealed that in 2002 the then state legislator addressed a racist group known as the European-American Unity and Rights Organization closely associated with former head of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan David Duke. Duke was probably one of the last politicians to gain national prominence running openly and unabashedly as a racist, but his political career consists essentially of one loss after another: quixotic runs for president (both as a Democrat and as a Republican), multiple bids for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and a try for Louisiana governor that culminated in his loss to the notoriously corrupt Edwin Edwards. His one taste of victory occurred in 1989 when he was elected to the Louisiana House of Representatives. That was it for Duke, yet it was enough to give him a strangely enduring place in American politics that, thanks to Steve Scalise, seems set to continue well into the indefinite future.
What Scalise said that day over a decade ago was probably not racist or offensive. Judging by the way the political winds are blowing, Scalise's position in the House is probably secure. He has the backing of Speaker Boehner, and his friends of all races are largely sticking by him and vouching for his character. He has apologized for addressing the group and denied sharing its views. The case against him at this point is purely guilt by association and as with any political scandal the looming question is how perfect voters have the right to expect their politicians to be. Everyone has skeletons in their closet, the argument goes. "The spotlight shines so bright that no one would meet muster, and such close scrutiny just dissuades good people from running." I've heard it all a thousand times, and I'm not entirely unsympathetic to that view. Still, I find myself wondering sometimes whether our standards as voters aren't too low. Think about it: at any given point in time, there is one president, one hundred senators, and four hundred and thirty five representatives. We could similarly break the numbers down for each state, though New Hampshire's four hundred member House of Representatives must probably inevitably include a few clunkers given the state's small population. My point is there aren't that many people in power at the highest echelon. Can't we elect the ones who don't address racist organizations, don't accept bribes, and don't cheat on their spouses? They needn't be perfect, just a little more circumspect, moral (if not moralistic), and self-controlled than the average schlub.
The real pity for the Republican Party is that Steve Scalise's political survival bolsters its naysayers and undermines its own efforts to reach out to minorities. I've long been struck at how the Republican Party is frequently portrayed as being unabashedly and extremely racist by liberal bloggers. The more nuanced argument to this effect is that Republican policies hurt minorities and benefit whites even if the average Republican politician or voter isn't necessarily racist. That, of course, is subject to debate, but it is a serious argument one could quite thoughtfully make. The less nuanced argument is that Republicans are, in fact, largely racist and deliberately pursue policies to further a particular race agenda. This one I have a much harder time following. Racial rhetoric is simply not a regular feature of mainstream American politics today. There is, for instance, no longer a publicly pro-segregation or anti-integration wing of either party. The Republican Party remains mainly white, but in recent years many minority Republicans have been elected to high office: Tim Scott, Bobby Jindal, Raul Labrador, and Marco Rubio are a few names that immediately spring to mind. As far as I can tell, these politicians have largely been embraced by their party; Jindal and Rubio remain in the mix as potential presidential candidates. Rubio and Rand Paul are among the Republicans who have sought to appeal to minority voters directly, most notably on the issues of immigration reform and drug laws respectively. Thus, it seems to me that the Democratic Party is vulnerable to a degree because the grassroots rhetoric of some liberal activists about racist Republicans, at least at its most vitriolic and hysterical, often doesn't seem to remotely match reality. Undoubtedly, there are minority voters whose political views are actually closer to the Republican Party that nonetheless continue to vote for Democratic candidates simply because they feel like they can't trust Republicans. Those are voters that Republicans could win, but every time something happens like the Steve Scalise debacle it strengthens the perception that open racism remains a norm in the modern Republican Party. That's the true price that must be paid for Steve Scalise. Representative Scalise might be a good person and an excellent politician, but he has damaged his party.
In closing, let me play devil's advocate for just a moment. Could Scalise have possibly framed his speech in a POSITIVE light? It is an expectation that an elected official will, while holding on to his or her own views, also strive to represent all members of his or her constituency. Taking that idea to its logical conclusion, we must admit that Scalise has a duty to represent racists in addition to everyone else in his district. In that context, addressing a racist group might be forgivable, one of many onerous duties a politician might perform. I can't quite go along with this argument, though. Unless one were to spend much of one's speech condemning the very group one is addressing, simply speaking in front of a group affords it legitimacy and respect. It would raise understandable fears that such a politician might secretly share a few, or some, or many, or all those views espoused by the group even if he or she was not willing to openly admit it. While a politician has a duty to serve his or her racist constituents just as any other constituent should be served, he or she certainly does not have any duty to promote or respect hateful views. Representative Scalise has done well to distance himself from the European-American Unity and Rights Organization, but he should never have allowed himself to get so close to it to begin with.
What Scalise said that day over a decade ago was probably not racist or offensive. Judging by the way the political winds are blowing, Scalise's position in the House is probably secure. He has the backing of Speaker Boehner, and his friends of all races are largely sticking by him and vouching for his character. He has apologized for addressing the group and denied sharing its views. The case against him at this point is purely guilt by association and as with any political scandal the looming question is how perfect voters have the right to expect their politicians to be. Everyone has skeletons in their closet, the argument goes. "The spotlight shines so bright that no one would meet muster, and such close scrutiny just dissuades good people from running." I've heard it all a thousand times, and I'm not entirely unsympathetic to that view. Still, I find myself wondering sometimes whether our standards as voters aren't too low. Think about it: at any given point in time, there is one president, one hundred senators, and four hundred and thirty five representatives. We could similarly break the numbers down for each state, though New Hampshire's four hundred member House of Representatives must probably inevitably include a few clunkers given the state's small population. My point is there aren't that many people in power at the highest echelon. Can't we elect the ones who don't address racist organizations, don't accept bribes, and don't cheat on their spouses? They needn't be perfect, just a little more circumspect, moral (if not moralistic), and self-controlled than the average schlub.
The real pity for the Republican Party is that Steve Scalise's political survival bolsters its naysayers and undermines its own efforts to reach out to minorities. I've long been struck at how the Republican Party is frequently portrayed as being unabashedly and extremely racist by liberal bloggers. The more nuanced argument to this effect is that Republican policies hurt minorities and benefit whites even if the average Republican politician or voter isn't necessarily racist. That, of course, is subject to debate, but it is a serious argument one could quite thoughtfully make. The less nuanced argument is that Republicans are, in fact, largely racist and deliberately pursue policies to further a particular race agenda. This one I have a much harder time following. Racial rhetoric is simply not a regular feature of mainstream American politics today. There is, for instance, no longer a publicly pro-segregation or anti-integration wing of either party. The Republican Party remains mainly white, but in recent years many minority Republicans have been elected to high office: Tim Scott, Bobby Jindal, Raul Labrador, and Marco Rubio are a few names that immediately spring to mind. As far as I can tell, these politicians have largely been embraced by their party; Jindal and Rubio remain in the mix as potential presidential candidates. Rubio and Rand Paul are among the Republicans who have sought to appeal to minority voters directly, most notably on the issues of immigration reform and drug laws respectively. Thus, it seems to me that the Democratic Party is vulnerable to a degree because the grassroots rhetoric of some liberal activists about racist Republicans, at least at its most vitriolic and hysterical, often doesn't seem to remotely match reality. Undoubtedly, there are minority voters whose political views are actually closer to the Republican Party that nonetheless continue to vote for Democratic candidates simply because they feel like they can't trust Republicans. Those are voters that Republicans could win, but every time something happens like the Steve Scalise debacle it strengthens the perception that open racism remains a norm in the modern Republican Party. That's the true price that must be paid for Steve Scalise. Representative Scalise might be a good person and an excellent politician, but he has damaged his party.
In closing, let me play devil's advocate for just a moment. Could Scalise have possibly framed his speech in a POSITIVE light? It is an expectation that an elected official will, while holding on to his or her own views, also strive to represent all members of his or her constituency. Taking that idea to its logical conclusion, we must admit that Scalise has a duty to represent racists in addition to everyone else in his district. In that context, addressing a racist group might be forgivable, one of many onerous duties a politician might perform. I can't quite go along with this argument, though. Unless one were to spend much of one's speech condemning the very group one is addressing, simply speaking in front of a group affords it legitimacy and respect. It would raise understandable fears that such a politician might secretly share a few, or some, or many, or all those views espoused by the group even if he or she was not willing to openly admit it. While a politician has a duty to serve his or her racist constituents just as any other constituent should be served, he or she certainly does not have any duty to promote or respect hateful views. Representative Scalise has done well to distance himself from the European-American Unity and Rights Organization, but he should never have allowed himself to get so close to it to begin with.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
The Long Embargo
The United States' recent restoration of full diplomatic relations with Cuba marked the end of five decades of enmity. Though the United States' long embargo against the Caribbean nation has not been lifted just yet, many political commentators seem to expect it will be soon despite continued opposition from some quarters. For better or for worse, it is an embargo that has lasted throughout my entire lifetime, and to a certain extent it has dominated the way I think about Cuba as a nation. The low points of the US-Cuba relationship occurred well before I was born, and as such I can't say as an American that I've ever really considered Cuba to be particularly threatening or dangerous. I must confess that when I think of Cuba thoughts of universal health care, mass literacy,
classic cars, and cigars come to my mind just as easily as recollections of political prisoners and harsh repression. A tyrannical and intolerant regime it has, to be sure...but there are plenty of those on our unfriendly green planet. All in all, I've generally tended to think the embargo was hypocritical given that other countries which the US trades freely with (China being one obvious example) aren't exactly known for their respect for human rights either. With detainee torture and mass surveillance being high profile aspects of American national policy in recent years, a cynical commentator might well wonder whether the old enemies don't actually have more in common than they have differences. Still, if relations with Cuba are to be completely reset, it begs the question, "What was the point of it all?" Was it all a waste? Was nothing accomplished?
Certainly, Cuba remains a Communist country that routinely imprisons critics of the government, notwithstanding the 53 political prisoners it recently agreed to release as part of its negotiations with the US. It is no longer any sort of realistic military threat to the US, but then again it never really was in and of itself -- like so many other countries during the Cold War, Cuba was just another theater in the slow burning conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. Economic hard times and perhaps waning political idealism have made Cuba more likely to export doctors than violent revolution. Although there is no question that Cuba has changed in recent years, having taken small steps to liberalize the economy and permitting (uneasily and inconsistently) Yoani Sanchez to continue to blog, my personal opinion is that Cuba has changed less than the world around it has changed. Cuba is not a threat today primarily because the Soviet Union is no longer a threat. Cuba is no longer an exporter of revolution primarily because it can no longer afford to be. The epiphany desired by the US government for so many years has never occurred; Cuba has not really changed its ideology or its values over the years. Thus, the restoration of relations and possible eventual lifting of embargo is, in my view, more a manifestation of a new American tolerance than an indication of any sudden Cuban surrender.
The embargo's fatal flaw is that it lasted too long. The Castros' regime never collapsed or capitulated, but the embargo continued on and on, becoming more a permanent feature of American-Cuban relations than a potential bargaining chip. It became institutionalized and monumentalized, a part of the scenery rather than an obstacle to be cleared away. The greatest pity is that its ultimate legacy may be judged to be nothing more than unnecessary human suffering. The effectiveness of economic sanctions in general is hotly debated, and I don't believe there are any universally acknowledged success stories. Still, I think they must have their place because the one truly effective way a nation can express its displeasure with another nation is too horrible. The other alternative is to do nothing and to just accept whatever happens in the world, but that is a policy that only rewards the violent and the rapacious. That said, embargoes are probably too extreme and unwieldy a tool in most instances. The piecemeal sanctions against Russia have seemingly had a large impact on the Russian economy in a short amount of time, but they could be easily reversed if Russia were willing to rethink its Ukrainian adventurism (alas, I'm not holding my breath). Tariffs and quotas are primarily associated with economic protectionism, but I think they can also be interesting political tools to help sort out more minor disputes -- by using them, a baseline for trade can be established and commercial links between countries maintained, but there will always be present an underlying realization that the trade between the two countries could be increased, perhaps greatly so, if only political understanding could be achieved. As I see it, economic sanctions can only encourage political change -- they, unlike wars or coups or assassinations, cannot directly effect change. As such, I suspect their performance is always going to be somewhat disappointing.
Certainly, Cuba remains a Communist country that routinely imprisons critics of the government, notwithstanding the 53 political prisoners it recently agreed to release as part of its negotiations with the US. It is no longer any sort of realistic military threat to the US, but then again it never really was in and of itself -- like so many other countries during the Cold War, Cuba was just another theater in the slow burning conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. Economic hard times and perhaps waning political idealism have made Cuba more likely to export doctors than violent revolution. Although there is no question that Cuba has changed in recent years, having taken small steps to liberalize the economy and permitting (uneasily and inconsistently) Yoani Sanchez to continue to blog, my personal opinion is that Cuba has changed less than the world around it has changed. Cuba is not a threat today primarily because the Soviet Union is no longer a threat. Cuba is no longer an exporter of revolution primarily because it can no longer afford to be. The epiphany desired by the US government for so many years has never occurred; Cuba has not really changed its ideology or its values over the years. Thus, the restoration of relations and possible eventual lifting of embargo is, in my view, more a manifestation of a new American tolerance than an indication of any sudden Cuban surrender.
The embargo's fatal flaw is that it lasted too long. The Castros' regime never collapsed or capitulated, but the embargo continued on and on, becoming more a permanent feature of American-Cuban relations than a potential bargaining chip. It became institutionalized and monumentalized, a part of the scenery rather than an obstacle to be cleared away. The greatest pity is that its ultimate legacy may be judged to be nothing more than unnecessary human suffering. The effectiveness of economic sanctions in general is hotly debated, and I don't believe there are any universally acknowledged success stories. Still, I think they must have their place because the one truly effective way a nation can express its displeasure with another nation is too horrible. The other alternative is to do nothing and to just accept whatever happens in the world, but that is a policy that only rewards the violent and the rapacious. That said, embargoes are probably too extreme and unwieldy a tool in most instances. The piecemeal sanctions against Russia have seemingly had a large impact on the Russian economy in a short amount of time, but they could be easily reversed if Russia were willing to rethink its Ukrainian adventurism (alas, I'm not holding my breath). Tariffs and quotas are primarily associated with economic protectionism, but I think they can also be interesting political tools to help sort out more minor disputes -- by using them, a baseline for trade can be established and commercial links between countries maintained, but there will always be present an underlying realization that the trade between the two countries could be increased, perhaps greatly so, if only political understanding could be achieved. As I see it, economic sanctions can only encourage political change -- they, unlike wars or coups or assassinations, cannot directly effect change. As such, I suspect their performance is always going to be somewhat disappointing.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
The Inevitability of Hillary
The 2016 US presidential campaign has begun -- we just don't realize it yet. The candidacy announcements, campaign stops, and debates are still a ways in the future, but the campaign is nonetheless in a crucial phase as we speak because candidates are involved in the relatively invisible process of deciding whether or not they stand a reasonable chance of winning the highest office in the land. For Democratic contenders, this decision is going to be a particularly difficult one to make due to the looming presence of Hillary Clinton. The former first lady, senator, and secretary of state is not an announced candidate. Not unlike many other former presidential candidates, Mrs. Clinton has sought to discourage speculation as to any possible candidacy and dampen expectations. Nonetheless, she is widely expected to seek the Democratic nomination. Given her early poll numbers, name recognition, and distinguished resume, she has all the markings of a front-runner. This puts other potential Democratic candidates in a difficult position. Is it worth challenging such a strong candidate? Is it counterproductive to the party to expose internal divisions when a juggernaut like Hillary could just romp to an easy election win?
Would-be candidates face a similar quandary whenever an incumbent president is seeking reelection. It is widely considered to be bad form to primary an incumbent and, judging purely from past electoral results, there is good reason for partisans to frown on such challenges. After all, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush all proceeded to lose in general elections after they'd been forced to fight for the nominations of their party against determined opposition. However, in my view, these candidates didn't really lose because they were challenged -- they were challenged (and ended up losing in the general election) due to their perceived vulnerabilities. That's really what the primary season does: it exposes weaknesses as well as strengths. While we're talking about history, I'd like to mention Al Gore and his candidacy in 2000. He was also an anointed candidate; he had the name recognition and the resume, and his position of vice president offered him the ideal launching pad for the presidency. He was challenged, weakly, for the Democratic nomination by Bill Bradley as other prominent Democrats refrained from throwing their hats in the ring. Gore made short work of his challenger but proceeded to lose the general election (even if the end result is still disputed by many, there is no question that the election was extremely close). Would the Democratic Party really have been hurt if other candidates had emerged to challenge for the nomination? Even if the end result for the nomination did not change, might Gore have emerged stronger if he'd had to fight harder? I certainly think it's possible. Denying Mrs. Clinton her "baptism by fire" in the primaries may not prepare her very well for the rigors of the general election.
When it comes to Hillary Clinton's possible nomination, I think the Democratic Party should also be wary of an ideology I like to call "Yourturnism." Hillary is the favorite of Yourturnists for a few reasons. First, she's the most prominent Democrat likely to run in 2016 -- thus, it's seemingly "her turn" to win. She's next in the batting order. Secondly, Secretary of State Clinton was the losing Democrat in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries. Given that there is a degree of disappointment with President Obama's performance as president in some quarters, some think Clinton should have won that nomination back in 2008 and think it's her turn now to run again and fix an error of history by winning. Thirdly, Hillary Clinton would be the first female American president were she to win the election, a momentous event in the history of the United States, and an impressive follow-up to the election of the first African American president. The trouble with Yourturnism is that it ignores the fickleness of politics. The zeitgeist candidate is not the candidate who looks the best on paper -- it's the candidate who will connect with the public and gets the result at that moment in time. Barack Obama's willingness to challenge the more established Hillary Clinton in 2008 set off a chain of events that led to Obama winning two presidential elections as a Democrat. Assuming that Senator Clinton would have achieved the same end result is an unreasonable leap of faith. Martha Coakley, though a prominent Democratic politician in a Democratic state, still could not convince the voters to give her her turn as Massachusetts senator rather than elect the unlikely Republican Scott Brown. Mitt Romney's second chance at the presidency was, ultimately, no more successful than his first. Hillary Clinton's prominence and resume won't win her an election on their own. Perhaps even more insidiously, a successful unchallenged Clinton nomination could lead to more Yourturnist candidates in the future. Imagine a string of uninspired candidates, convinced that it is their time to be handed the presidency because of their position in their party, their resumes, or their demographic, dominating spiritless nomination contests and proceeding to sink like a bag of rocks in the general election. That doesn't sound so bad...for Republicans! Ultimately, I think Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic party, and the electorate as a whole would be best-served by a true primary season with multiple top-tier contenders, especially considering we're almost certain to have an interesting contest on the Republican side of things.
Would-be candidates face a similar quandary whenever an incumbent president is seeking reelection. It is widely considered to be bad form to primary an incumbent and, judging purely from past electoral results, there is good reason for partisans to frown on such challenges. After all, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush all proceeded to lose in general elections after they'd been forced to fight for the nominations of their party against determined opposition. However, in my view, these candidates didn't really lose because they were challenged -- they were challenged (and ended up losing in the general election) due to their perceived vulnerabilities. That's really what the primary season does: it exposes weaknesses as well as strengths. While we're talking about history, I'd like to mention Al Gore and his candidacy in 2000. He was also an anointed candidate; he had the name recognition and the resume, and his position of vice president offered him the ideal launching pad for the presidency. He was challenged, weakly, for the Democratic nomination by Bill Bradley as other prominent Democrats refrained from throwing their hats in the ring. Gore made short work of his challenger but proceeded to lose the general election (even if the end result is still disputed by many, there is no question that the election was extremely close). Would the Democratic Party really have been hurt if other candidates had emerged to challenge for the nomination? Even if the end result for the nomination did not change, might Gore have emerged stronger if he'd had to fight harder? I certainly think it's possible. Denying Mrs. Clinton her "baptism by fire" in the primaries may not prepare her very well for the rigors of the general election.
When it comes to Hillary Clinton's possible nomination, I think the Democratic Party should also be wary of an ideology I like to call "Yourturnism." Hillary is the favorite of Yourturnists for a few reasons. First, she's the most prominent Democrat likely to run in 2016 -- thus, it's seemingly "her turn" to win. She's next in the batting order. Secondly, Secretary of State Clinton was the losing Democrat in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries. Given that there is a degree of disappointment with President Obama's performance as president in some quarters, some think Clinton should have won that nomination back in 2008 and think it's her turn now to run again and fix an error of history by winning. Thirdly, Hillary Clinton would be the first female American president were she to win the election, a momentous event in the history of the United States, and an impressive follow-up to the election of the first African American president. The trouble with Yourturnism is that it ignores the fickleness of politics. The zeitgeist candidate is not the candidate who looks the best on paper -- it's the candidate who will connect with the public and gets the result at that moment in time. Barack Obama's willingness to challenge the more established Hillary Clinton in 2008 set off a chain of events that led to Obama winning two presidential elections as a Democrat. Assuming that Senator Clinton would have achieved the same end result is an unreasonable leap of faith. Martha Coakley, though a prominent Democratic politician in a Democratic state, still could not convince the voters to give her her turn as Massachusetts senator rather than elect the unlikely Republican Scott Brown. Mitt Romney's second chance at the presidency was, ultimately, no more successful than his first. Hillary Clinton's prominence and resume won't win her an election on their own. Perhaps even more insidiously, a successful unchallenged Clinton nomination could lead to more Yourturnist candidates in the future. Imagine a string of uninspired candidates, convinced that it is their time to be handed the presidency because of their position in their party, their resumes, or their demographic, dominating spiritless nomination contests and proceeding to sink like a bag of rocks in the general election. That doesn't sound so bad...for Republicans! Ultimately, I think Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic party, and the electorate as a whole would be best-served by a true primary season with multiple top-tier contenders, especially considering we're almost certain to have an interesting contest on the Republican side of things.
Monday, March 3, 2014
Preventing Putin
There is an "Amerocentric" view of foreign policy that inhabits American political thinking and comes in two different strains. The liberal strain looks on the problems of the world and connects them to harmful acts past and present committed by America; for instance, Iran's government is repressive today because the United States government played a role in overthrowing Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. This attitude can be summarized simply as, "Other countries do bad things because America has done and continues to do bad things." The conservative strain looks on the problems of the world and connects them to American inaction and hesitancy; for instance, Kim Jong-un is a threat to the world because the US has not been forceful enough with North Korea. This attitude can be summarized simply as, "Other countries do bad things because America hasn't acted with sufficient strength to make them behave." What connects the two strains is the position of the United States: both viewpoints assume that anything that happens anywhere in the world has something to do with America. I don't think that's REALLY true -- other countries are independent actors who have their own unique objectives and fears. While they are certainly affected by America given the political and military strength of the United States and the connected nature of the global economy, American decision making is also affected by the actions and attitudes of other countries. Still, there is a seductive quality about Amerocentrism; it suggests that the world could be different and could be better than it is today if only the United States had acted differently. To a limited extent, I think that really is true. With that in mind, I thought it would be interesting to consider if the United States through its foreign policy really could have prevented the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
What got me thinking along these lines was an article I read which quoted Senator Corker as essentially blaming President Obama for the Crimean crisis because Obama had backed down from attacking Syria after evidence emerged of Bashar al-Assad's forces having used chemical weapons against Syrian rebels. Russian president Vladimir Putin of course ended up brokering a deal in which Syria agreed to turn over its chemical weapons for destruction to prevent the US from directly entering the war. Seemingly, this worked out well for everyone apart from the Syrians rebels: the United States achieved its goal of preventing chemical weapons from being used in the Syrian conflict while avoiding having to commit forces to yet another conflict in the Middle East, Syria avoided a direct US military intervention, and Russia played the unusual role of peacemaker and scored diplomatic points. According to Corker, however, this willingness to shy away from military force even after verbal threats had been made to dissuade Assad from using chemical weapons made Obama seem weak in Putin's eyes, emboldening Putin to attack Ukraine with no fears of an effective response. Of course, all this begs the question as to whether or not Putin would have invaded Ukraine had the US been more forceful in Syria. Personally, I don't think it would have made a difference. Intervening in a small country like Syria is far less risky than fighting any type of war against a major power. Any leader would have been extremely reluctant to go to war with Russia over Ukraine simply because Russia has a large and powerful military, not to mention nuclear weapons. Putin is well aware of this, and his calculations probably would not have changed even if the US had attacked Syria. Additionally, Putin has now wasted all of the diplomatic capital he earned by brokering the Syrian deal -- he and Russia will simply be viewed as expansionists for decades to come, particularly by Russia's direct neighbors. I doubt the United States expected Russia to be so willing to injure its position on the world stage so quickly after a triumph; indeed, I suspect the Obama administration felt that a Russian diplomatic "win" would if anything encourage Russia towards a more active but peaceable diplomatic role in the world. While that view proved not be correct, I think it COULD have been had Russia had different leadership...it was not inherently unreasonable. Another point I would add is that President Obama WAS willing to intervene, albeit a little gingerly, in Libya, so Russia could hardly have assumed there was a 0% chance of an American military response because Obama was so adamantly opposed to entering new conflicts. Syria or no Syria, Putin knew the likelihood of American military involvement was low because of Russian military strength.
President Obama could also have been accused of emboldening Moscow by backing away from the proposed missile defense shield President Bush had agreed to help build in Poland and the Czech Republic. Ostensibly, the whole thing was about protecting Europe from Iranian missiles, but it doesn't take a hardened realist to see that it could also be used to protect Europe against Russian missiles if needed as well. Obama backed away from the deal in no small part due to continued Russian objections. Seemingly, the US gambled that a more conciliatory attitude towards Russia would build trust and help relations. It's hard to argue that now. Although it would be naive to not recognize that defensive weapons can also be useful in an offensive war, the US never had any compelling reason to make it any easier for Russia to strike Europe militarily. Given that it is now clear that Russia is on an expansionistic course, I consider this to be one of President Obama's largest foreign policy blunders. However, for now Russia has just attacked Ukraine, and it has done so by pouring in troops rather than missiles. Missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic would not have protected Ukraine per se, though had Obama not wavered I think Russia might have been more reluctant to invade.
So, if we decide not to blame Obama for this mess, perhaps we can blame President Bush. After all, he was president when Russia fought a war with Georgia; there was no US military intervention in that conflict, either. Undoubtedly, Russia's successful war with Georgia enhanced its military morale and played a role in Russia's current willingness to commit its forces in Ukraine. Could, then, the Ukraine crisis have been prevented by a forceful response to the attack on Georgia? Here we have a situation where there is no good scenario. The world is reluctant to engage Russia militarily now because Russia is a great (and a nuclear) power. The world was equally reluctant to engage Russia in 2008 because Russia was a great (and a nuclear) power then too. Fighting World War III in 2008 would, if successful, have indeed prevented Russia from invading another country in 2014 in all probability, but at tremendous cost. Short of war, could Russia have been so punished that it would not invade Ukraine? That's a more interesting question and I don't know the answer to it. Perhaps President Bush and the rest of the world did let Putin get off too lightly. The Georgian situation was very different, though, in that the Georgian military did make a move to recapture South Ossetia, a separatist region backed by Russia. It's impossible to find a single virtuous actor in the whole conflict. The Ossetians and Abkhaz have treated Georgians abominably in the breakway areas, the Georgians have failed to respect the Abkhaz and the Ossetians' rights to self-determination, and the Russians have played the whole situation to their own advantage time and time again. From what I've read, I think there is something to the notion that Russia goaded Georgia into an attack through repeated provocations and pretty much planned the whole thing exactly as it unfolded. Be that as it may, Russia had some justification for going to war -- Georgia may have been manipulated, but it still acted foolishly and aggressively. Under the circumstances, it's not surprising Russia was not more isolated as a result of its military action in Georgia.
There's one other reason to tweak Bush: the Iraq war. What does that have to do with Russia or Ukraine? Perhaps more than one would expect. What really stands out to me as being unusual is the complete lack of casus belli in the Ukraine conflict. In retrospect, we can see the war in Iraq was also waged without a real casus belli -- the promised weapons of mass destruction the Bush administration warned the world about never materialized in Iraq. Thus, there doesn't seem to have been any immediate reason to strike at Iraq when we did. Admittedly, the concept of casus belli exists in our minds -- Saddam Hussein's past invasions and massacres were perhaps in and of themselves reasons for deposing him, and it makes no sense to have a "statute of limitations" for mass murder -- but the United States and its allies did not claim to be attacking Iraq because of Hussein's past misdeeds. A clear and present danger was claimed...falsely. For domestic consumption, Russia is currently claiming that it needs to "defend" Russians (really Russian-speaking Ukrainians) in Crimea and perhaps in eastern Ukraine as well. The problem is there are no dead Russians in the streets of Sevastopol, no Russians being rounded up into camps, and in general no signs of persecution or abuse of Russians. Crimea is already autonomous, and Russian speakers are in fact the majority in Crimea and much of eastern Ukraine rather than a persecuted minority. What needs to be defended then? Russia has pointed to legislative efforts to make Ukrainian the only official language of the country. The trouble is this effort failed -- nutty legislation gets proposed and then rejected all over the world all the time. Russia has also claimed that fascists have taken over Ukraine and evidently want to hurt the inherently non-Fascistic Russian residents of Ukraine. This plays well with how Russians view Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian nationalist who opposed the Soviets and showed a willingness to work with the Nazis against their common enemy for a time. Bandera, though, was really just a nationalist -- he was as uninterested in being ruled by the Nazis as he was in being ruled by the Soviets, and he ended up a prisoner in Germany. To me, Bandera is reminiscent of Dabrowski and the other Poles who fought for Napoleon in the hopes that it would lead to an independent Poland as well as Aung San who was willing to collaborate with the Japanese to throw the British out of Burma (like Bandera, Aung San's nationalism made him ultimately turn against his former sponsors). In all these cases, nationalists were willing to collaborate with evil to further their nationalistic aims. That's certainly not praiseworthy, but the notion of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" remains a cornerstone of modern foreign relations so it's hardly surprising behavior. In truth, the new government in Ukraine is diverse and I can't see how it could be called fascist in any serious sense. There is much concern over the Ukrainian nationalist party Svoboda having fascist leanings, but it doesn't control the government. I can remember well how much alarm the Russian "ultra-nationalist" Vladimir Zhirinovsky used to inspire in the United States. Despite playing a prominent role in Russian politics for many years, neither he nor his party have ever taken over the country. There's no reason to assume Svoboda will ever be able to take control over Ukraine -- at any rate, they certainly aren't running the country now. Russia has no reasonable pretext for acting as it has in Ukraine. In a sense, the US did establish a precedence for this in Iraq, and those countries that did oppose the Iraq invasion did so rather ineffectively, making it seem that major powers can get away with invading smaller countries for any reason they want. Putin no doubt expects the world's response to his invasion to be equally as weak and ineffective.
In conclusion, I doubt that the United States could have prevented Russia from invading Ukraine by doing any ONE thing. However, I think the invasion might not have happened had the US not invaded Iraq but had punished Russia more severely for its actions in Georgia, had stayed the course with regards to missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic, and had ignored Russian overtures in Syria (I would suggest that perhaps the US could have brokered its own deal with Syria without Russian involvement as an alternative to going to war). It's this chain of events -- the Iraq War making it seem that great powers can get away with anything combined with American weakness in response to Russian expressions of strength -- that has helped get us where we are today. Unlike the Amerocentric thinkers, however, I don't think the story ends there. Other countries have been too complacent as well...Putin's war machine is partly funded from the coffers of a fossil fuel hungry Europe after all. And perhaps there's no greater culprit overall than the failure of the international system that I mentioned in my previous post. Great powers simply can get away with too much in the current geopolitical environment. That's dangerous and has a tendency to lead to more and more war. If Putin isn't stopped in Ukraine, I wonder where he will be stopped...and who else will be tempted to follow in his footsteps.
What got me thinking along these lines was an article I read which quoted Senator Corker as essentially blaming President Obama for the Crimean crisis because Obama had backed down from attacking Syria after evidence emerged of Bashar al-Assad's forces having used chemical weapons against Syrian rebels. Russian president Vladimir Putin of course ended up brokering a deal in which Syria agreed to turn over its chemical weapons for destruction to prevent the US from directly entering the war. Seemingly, this worked out well for everyone apart from the Syrians rebels: the United States achieved its goal of preventing chemical weapons from being used in the Syrian conflict while avoiding having to commit forces to yet another conflict in the Middle East, Syria avoided a direct US military intervention, and Russia played the unusual role of peacemaker and scored diplomatic points. According to Corker, however, this willingness to shy away from military force even after verbal threats had been made to dissuade Assad from using chemical weapons made Obama seem weak in Putin's eyes, emboldening Putin to attack Ukraine with no fears of an effective response. Of course, all this begs the question as to whether or not Putin would have invaded Ukraine had the US been more forceful in Syria. Personally, I don't think it would have made a difference. Intervening in a small country like Syria is far less risky than fighting any type of war against a major power. Any leader would have been extremely reluctant to go to war with Russia over Ukraine simply because Russia has a large and powerful military, not to mention nuclear weapons. Putin is well aware of this, and his calculations probably would not have changed even if the US had attacked Syria. Additionally, Putin has now wasted all of the diplomatic capital he earned by brokering the Syrian deal -- he and Russia will simply be viewed as expansionists for decades to come, particularly by Russia's direct neighbors. I doubt the United States expected Russia to be so willing to injure its position on the world stage so quickly after a triumph; indeed, I suspect the Obama administration felt that a Russian diplomatic "win" would if anything encourage Russia towards a more active but peaceable diplomatic role in the world. While that view proved not be correct, I think it COULD have been had Russia had different leadership...it was not inherently unreasonable. Another point I would add is that President Obama WAS willing to intervene, albeit a little gingerly, in Libya, so Russia could hardly have assumed there was a 0% chance of an American military response because Obama was so adamantly opposed to entering new conflicts. Syria or no Syria, Putin knew the likelihood of American military involvement was low because of Russian military strength.
President Obama could also have been accused of emboldening Moscow by backing away from the proposed missile defense shield President Bush had agreed to help build in Poland and the Czech Republic. Ostensibly, the whole thing was about protecting Europe from Iranian missiles, but it doesn't take a hardened realist to see that it could also be used to protect Europe against Russian missiles if needed as well. Obama backed away from the deal in no small part due to continued Russian objections. Seemingly, the US gambled that a more conciliatory attitude towards Russia would build trust and help relations. It's hard to argue that now. Although it would be naive to not recognize that defensive weapons can also be useful in an offensive war, the US never had any compelling reason to make it any easier for Russia to strike Europe militarily. Given that it is now clear that Russia is on an expansionistic course, I consider this to be one of President Obama's largest foreign policy blunders. However, for now Russia has just attacked Ukraine, and it has done so by pouring in troops rather than missiles. Missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic would not have protected Ukraine per se, though had Obama not wavered I think Russia might have been more reluctant to invade.
So, if we decide not to blame Obama for this mess, perhaps we can blame President Bush. After all, he was president when Russia fought a war with Georgia; there was no US military intervention in that conflict, either. Undoubtedly, Russia's successful war with Georgia enhanced its military morale and played a role in Russia's current willingness to commit its forces in Ukraine. Could, then, the Ukraine crisis have been prevented by a forceful response to the attack on Georgia? Here we have a situation where there is no good scenario. The world is reluctant to engage Russia militarily now because Russia is a great (and a nuclear) power. The world was equally reluctant to engage Russia in 2008 because Russia was a great (and a nuclear) power then too. Fighting World War III in 2008 would, if successful, have indeed prevented Russia from invading another country in 2014 in all probability, but at tremendous cost. Short of war, could Russia have been so punished that it would not invade Ukraine? That's a more interesting question and I don't know the answer to it. Perhaps President Bush and the rest of the world did let Putin get off too lightly. The Georgian situation was very different, though, in that the Georgian military did make a move to recapture South Ossetia, a separatist region backed by Russia. It's impossible to find a single virtuous actor in the whole conflict. The Ossetians and Abkhaz have treated Georgians abominably in the breakway areas, the Georgians have failed to respect the Abkhaz and the Ossetians' rights to self-determination, and the Russians have played the whole situation to their own advantage time and time again. From what I've read, I think there is something to the notion that Russia goaded Georgia into an attack through repeated provocations and pretty much planned the whole thing exactly as it unfolded. Be that as it may, Russia had some justification for going to war -- Georgia may have been manipulated, but it still acted foolishly and aggressively. Under the circumstances, it's not surprising Russia was not more isolated as a result of its military action in Georgia.
There's one other reason to tweak Bush: the Iraq war. What does that have to do with Russia or Ukraine? Perhaps more than one would expect. What really stands out to me as being unusual is the complete lack of casus belli in the Ukraine conflict. In retrospect, we can see the war in Iraq was also waged without a real casus belli -- the promised weapons of mass destruction the Bush administration warned the world about never materialized in Iraq. Thus, there doesn't seem to have been any immediate reason to strike at Iraq when we did. Admittedly, the concept of casus belli exists in our minds -- Saddam Hussein's past invasions and massacres were perhaps in and of themselves reasons for deposing him, and it makes no sense to have a "statute of limitations" for mass murder -- but the United States and its allies did not claim to be attacking Iraq because of Hussein's past misdeeds. A clear and present danger was claimed...falsely. For domestic consumption, Russia is currently claiming that it needs to "defend" Russians (really Russian-speaking Ukrainians) in Crimea and perhaps in eastern Ukraine as well. The problem is there are no dead Russians in the streets of Sevastopol, no Russians being rounded up into camps, and in general no signs of persecution or abuse of Russians. Crimea is already autonomous, and Russian speakers are in fact the majority in Crimea and much of eastern Ukraine rather than a persecuted minority. What needs to be defended then? Russia has pointed to legislative efforts to make Ukrainian the only official language of the country. The trouble is this effort failed -- nutty legislation gets proposed and then rejected all over the world all the time. Russia has also claimed that fascists have taken over Ukraine and evidently want to hurt the inherently non-Fascistic Russian residents of Ukraine. This plays well with how Russians view Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian nationalist who opposed the Soviets and showed a willingness to work with the Nazis against their common enemy for a time. Bandera, though, was really just a nationalist -- he was as uninterested in being ruled by the Nazis as he was in being ruled by the Soviets, and he ended up a prisoner in Germany. To me, Bandera is reminiscent of Dabrowski and the other Poles who fought for Napoleon in the hopes that it would lead to an independent Poland as well as Aung San who was willing to collaborate with the Japanese to throw the British out of Burma (like Bandera, Aung San's nationalism made him ultimately turn against his former sponsors). In all these cases, nationalists were willing to collaborate with evil to further their nationalistic aims. That's certainly not praiseworthy, but the notion of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" remains a cornerstone of modern foreign relations so it's hardly surprising behavior. In truth, the new government in Ukraine is diverse and I can't see how it could be called fascist in any serious sense. There is much concern over the Ukrainian nationalist party Svoboda having fascist leanings, but it doesn't control the government. I can remember well how much alarm the Russian "ultra-nationalist" Vladimir Zhirinovsky used to inspire in the United States. Despite playing a prominent role in Russian politics for many years, neither he nor his party have ever taken over the country. There's no reason to assume Svoboda will ever be able to take control over Ukraine -- at any rate, they certainly aren't running the country now. Russia has no reasonable pretext for acting as it has in Ukraine. In a sense, the US did establish a precedence for this in Iraq, and those countries that did oppose the Iraq invasion did so rather ineffectively, making it seem that major powers can get away with invading smaller countries for any reason they want. Putin no doubt expects the world's response to his invasion to be equally as weak and ineffective.
In conclusion, I doubt that the United States could have prevented Russia from invading Ukraine by doing any ONE thing. However, I think the invasion might not have happened had the US not invaded Iraq but had punished Russia more severely for its actions in Georgia, had stayed the course with regards to missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic, and had ignored Russian overtures in Syria (I would suggest that perhaps the US could have brokered its own deal with Syria without Russian involvement as an alternative to going to war). It's this chain of events -- the Iraq War making it seem that great powers can get away with anything combined with American weakness in response to Russian expressions of strength -- that has helped get us where we are today. Unlike the Amerocentric thinkers, however, I don't think the story ends there. Other countries have been too complacent as well...Putin's war machine is partly funded from the coffers of a fossil fuel hungry Europe after all. And perhaps there's no greater culprit overall than the failure of the international system that I mentioned in my previous post. Great powers simply can get away with too much in the current geopolitical environment. That's dangerous and has a tendency to lead to more and more war. If Putin isn't stopped in Ukraine, I wonder where he will be stopped...and who else will be tempted to follow in his footsteps.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
Obama and Putin in a Post-Foreign Policy Era
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Don't Fear: It's Mitt Romney!
Of all the politicians currently seeking the Republican nomination for president, Mitt Romney is the one who I've come think of as the candidate who is most likely to both win the nomination yet proceed to lose against Barack Obama in the general election. His deep pockets, strong organization, and high recognition among voters let him hit the ground running -- he has been the frontrunner for the Republican nomination from day one. Although recent entrant Rick Perry has been leading Romney in the latest few polls, the newest kid on the block often polls well...the Texas governor will need some strong debate performances to maintain this momentum. If he doesn't, I think it's likely the polling will put Mitt right back on top again; after all, that's where he's been in most of the polls conducted over the past couple of years. Indeed, I have no problem imagining Romney beating Perry or Bachmann or Paul; it is his chances against President Obama that I wonder most about.
With the president's approval ratings continuing to weaken and the economy mired in a state of ugly stagnancy, Obama ought to be the type of opponent that Republican candidates would want to face head-to-head in a general election. That they likely don't relish this matchup against the incumbent more has much to do with Obama's Romney-like qualities: he's a smooth speaker, incredibly well-funded, and supported by an extremely strong campaign organization carried over from 2008. Obama and Romney have something else in common, of course: both were executives who became associated with health care reform plans that instituted individual mandates requiring the uninsured to purchase health insurance in order to avoid fines. Obama as president signed 2010's Affordable Care Act into law which remains his major legislative achievement thus far into his first term. In 2006, Romney as governor of Massachusetts signed an Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care. While Romney publicly opposes the ACA, he has not repudiated the Massachusetts bill, arguing instead that it was the right solution in Massachusetts though it wouldn't necessarily be a good fit for other states. While this point of view may appeal to states' rights supporters, Romney has essentially been forced to defend the concept of the individual mandate which is probably the most disliked aspect of both Obamacare and Romneycare. While the other Republican candidates have the rhetorical room to attack the individual mandate as an affront to personal liberty, Romney is now too linked with the individual mandate to criticize it too deeply. For all his stated dislike for Obamacare, Governor Romney is philosophically defending an important aspect of the legislation whenever he argues the individual mandate was necessary and helpful in Massachusetts. Obama's first term has not brought major change apart from health care reform -- I have no doubt that a President Romney would have sought to extend the Bush tax cuts, reform the financial sector in some way as a response to the mortgage crisis, and find Osama Bin Laden, for instance. Romney's inability to effectively attack Obama on health care seems incredibly damaging to his general election prospects given that the president has not really gotten all that much done in his first term.
This line of thinking is so convincing to me that I have to admit I've wondered from time to time why Mitt Romney is even bothering to run in 2012. Despite his popularity, he seems like exactly the wrong candidate at the wrong time -- he'd seemingly be in a stronger position running in 2016 or 2020 when Obamacare will probably not be such a volatile campaign issue, particularly if he continues to age well. Watching Mitt's early debate performances, however, has given me a different understanding of his campaign strategy and made me realize he may not be such a pushover in a general election after all. As the frontrunner, he has had the luxury of not having to attack his fellow Republicans. Instead, he has squarely focused on the economy -- he is trying to be the type of business, employment, and growth-friendly candidate that Barack Obama cannot be because the economy has been so bad during the Obama presidency. While other Republican candidates have gained much media attention for making controversial statements (Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain in particular), Romney has been better able to control his message which happens to be tailor-made for an underemployed, financially stressed electorate. He wants to appear safe and nonthreatening -- he wants people to be able to "Vote for Romney, vote for jobs!" even if they have some philosophical differences with the Republican Party or even if they think Barack Obama wasn't such a bad president apart from his economic policy or lack thereof (they might even LIKE the ACA!). While Romney may be forced to be much more aggressive in the next few debates due to the Perry surge, his measured campaign so far has clearly been tailored more towards moderates and not to strong conservatives. In a general election, there are several factions in the Republican party who may not turn out to vote for Romney in large numbers -- however, he may actually be able to steal some former Obama voters who are deeply worried about the economy. When you consider that the president has also alienated powerful factions in his own party because of his relatively moderate approach to governing, that Romney-Obama matchup doesn't sound like such a foregone conclusion after all. The Romney campaign, however, will outright require a bad economy to succeed (an odious thing to bank on!) -- if the unemployment and growth pictures brighten, Mitt will have a much harder time differentiating himself from President Obama. Even if circumstances do favor Romney, the former governor will face a difficult balancing act between on one hand trying to assuage the fears of conservatives who dislike his record and on the other hand trying to use that same record to attract disaffected Obama supporters who would not normally vote Republican. Perhaps the most interesting thing about a Romney-Obama race is that it would very much be about picking the lesser of two evils for many voters -- both conservatives and liberals could be sorely tempted to vote for a third party candidate or stay home on Election Day since Romney and Obama both have records of disappointing their bases.
With the president's approval ratings continuing to weaken and the economy mired in a state of ugly stagnancy, Obama ought to be the type of opponent that Republican candidates would want to face head-to-head in a general election. That they likely don't relish this matchup against the incumbent more has much to do with Obama's Romney-like qualities: he's a smooth speaker, incredibly well-funded, and supported by an extremely strong campaign organization carried over from 2008. Obama and Romney have something else in common, of course: both were executives who became associated with health care reform plans that instituted individual mandates requiring the uninsured to purchase health insurance in order to avoid fines. Obama as president signed 2010's Affordable Care Act into law which remains his major legislative achievement thus far into his first term. In 2006, Romney as governor of Massachusetts signed an Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care. While Romney publicly opposes the ACA, he has not repudiated the Massachusetts bill, arguing instead that it was the right solution in Massachusetts though it wouldn't necessarily be a good fit for other states. While this point of view may appeal to states' rights supporters, Romney has essentially been forced to defend the concept of the individual mandate which is probably the most disliked aspect of both Obamacare and Romneycare. While the other Republican candidates have the rhetorical room to attack the individual mandate as an affront to personal liberty, Romney is now too linked with the individual mandate to criticize it too deeply. For all his stated dislike for Obamacare, Governor Romney is philosophically defending an important aspect of the legislation whenever he argues the individual mandate was necessary and helpful in Massachusetts. Obama's first term has not brought major change apart from health care reform -- I have no doubt that a President Romney would have sought to extend the Bush tax cuts, reform the financial sector in some way as a response to the mortgage crisis, and find Osama Bin Laden, for instance. Romney's inability to effectively attack Obama on health care seems incredibly damaging to his general election prospects given that the president has not really gotten all that much done in his first term.
This line of thinking is so convincing to me that I have to admit I've wondered from time to time why Mitt Romney is even bothering to run in 2012. Despite his popularity, he seems like exactly the wrong candidate at the wrong time -- he'd seemingly be in a stronger position running in 2016 or 2020 when Obamacare will probably not be such a volatile campaign issue, particularly if he continues to age well. Watching Mitt's early debate performances, however, has given me a different understanding of his campaign strategy and made me realize he may not be such a pushover in a general election after all. As the frontrunner, he has had the luxury of not having to attack his fellow Republicans. Instead, he has squarely focused on the economy -- he is trying to be the type of business, employment, and growth-friendly candidate that Barack Obama cannot be because the economy has been so bad during the Obama presidency. While other Republican candidates have gained much media attention for making controversial statements (Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain in particular), Romney has been better able to control his message which happens to be tailor-made for an underemployed, financially stressed electorate. He wants to appear safe and nonthreatening -- he wants people to be able to "Vote for Romney, vote for jobs!" even if they have some philosophical differences with the Republican Party or even if they think Barack Obama wasn't such a bad president apart from his economic policy or lack thereof (they might even LIKE the ACA!). While Romney may be forced to be much more aggressive in the next few debates due to the Perry surge, his measured campaign so far has clearly been tailored more towards moderates and not to strong conservatives. In a general election, there are several factions in the Republican party who may not turn out to vote for Romney in large numbers -- however, he may actually be able to steal some former Obama voters who are deeply worried about the economy. When you consider that the president has also alienated powerful factions in his own party because of his relatively moderate approach to governing, that Romney-Obama matchup doesn't sound like such a foregone conclusion after all. The Romney campaign, however, will outright require a bad economy to succeed (an odious thing to bank on!) -- if the unemployment and growth pictures brighten, Mitt will have a much harder time differentiating himself from President Obama. Even if circumstances do favor Romney, the former governor will face a difficult balancing act between on one hand trying to assuage the fears of conservatives who dislike his record and on the other hand trying to use that same record to attract disaffected Obama supporters who would not normally vote Republican. Perhaps the most interesting thing about a Romney-Obama race is that it would very much be about picking the lesser of two evils for many voters -- both conservatives and liberals could be sorely tempted to vote for a third party candidate or stay home on Election Day since Romney and Obama both have records of disappointing their bases.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
A Test for Interventionism in Libya
The most agonizing decision an officeholder could have to make must be whether or not to send one's nation to war. When, after all, is there truly a good time to wage war? Warfare can only possibly yield good results when humanity is considered in the aggregate. For the civilians caught in the crossfire, the fallen troops on both sides, and the grieving families who will never see their loved ones again, even the most virtuous war can be disastrous. The idea, then, that war should be waged only when absolutely necessary -- such as when the nation is directly attacked by another country -- is reasonable. The country whose foreign policy is guided by this fundamental idea will not fight petty wars of aggression. At the same time, however, this country will also not fight for "the greater good" and that can be a hard burden to bear in and of itself.
I tend to see America's hypervigilance and aggressive interventionism during and after the Cold War period as a direct result of our experiences in World War II, a war we were very reluctant to enter and ultimately only did enter after suffering a direct attack. Our reluctance, alas, did not spare hundreds of thousands of military lives. There is still a feeling among many people to this day that we were far too reluctant to act, having given the Axis powers precious time to strengthen their positions and consolidate territorial gains and allowing them to perpetrate massive crimes against humanity. Granted, both the government and the public were working from a position of limited information -- the disgusting details of the Holocaust became common knowledge only after the war, for instance. Having viewed the destruction and death of World War II, it was only natural that policymakers should ask themselves, "What can we do to stop this from happening again?" It may seem bizarre that the desire to prevent future madmen from trying to conquer the world or annihilate their own people could in any way lead to the US supporting such things as coups against elected governments in Iran and Guatemala, but fear and an obsession with protecting one's interests at any cost can lead you down some strange paths. Ultimately, I see the excessive interventionism of the Cold War era as resulting from American determination to not allow the Soviets to gain an upper hand as the Nazis did. We certainly saw bogeymen where they probably didn't really exist at times (and compromised our principles in the name of fighting Communism), but at least we were responding to a real threat. If criticism of interventionism has risen in the post Cold War era, I would say it's largely because the policy no longer resonates with much of the public...there may be individual brutal leaders, but there's no Axis (the "Axis of Evil" was merely a list of rogue states, not a true alliance of inimical powers) , no Soviet Union intent on spreading the revolution, and no one trying to conquer the world. The questions of who we are fighting and what we are fighting for have become much more difficult to answer.
This brings us to Libya, the conflict du jour. As a fan of representative government, I've been frankly excited to watch the revolutions in North Africa from afar. I've never really believed that free speech and democracy are only compatible with certain cultures (one explanation offered for the host of dictatorships and monarchies in the Middle East and North Africa) -- rather, I think the desire to have one's voice heard and influence one's society are fundamental aspects of human nature. It's too soon to tell what sort of government the Tunisians and Egyptians will end up with, but they've reminded the world that even corrupt and despotic governments can be called to account by their people. Alas, Colonel Qadaffi in Libya has reminded the world of a more bitter truth: the ruthless and well-armed have a distinct advantage in war. I fully understand why the UN backed intervention in Libya; when Qadaffi threatened to go "house by house" in Benghazi to crush the rebels, the specter of Nazi Germany is what appeared in my mind's eye. Thus, I tend to see Libya as a test: interventionists say that war can prevent bloodshed, genocide, and, ultimately, more war...Libya is another chance to prove it. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq overthrew brutal governments, but created tremendous instability and led to huge numbers of civilian casualties. Will Libya be any different?
I certainly see a difference in how the United States is approaching Libya as opposed to Iraq. It has studiously so far avoided taking a leadership role in the conflict past the initial stage in which Libya's anti-air capabilities were destroyed; it has appeared to be as much France's or the UK's war as it has America's. This may not last -- America has more military resources than its allies and the more it commits to the operation the more it will be blamed for when things go wrong. The coalition approach was attempted in Iraq as well, but ultimately the US was the driving force behind the war, so much so that it's extremely difficult to imagine that war being waged without US direction and involvement. For a purely "humanitarian war" (which Iraq of course was not...and in practice any successful war will yield certain strategic advantages for the victors, humanitarian or not), I think it's important that multiple countries agree it is the "right" thing to do, the more global consensus there is the better. It's all too easy to decide a war is just when it is in one's own perceived best interests that it be waged. Perhaps the great reluctance of the allies to put ground forces in Libya is also a result of lessons learned in Iraq -- in addition to avoiding military casualties, this policy also places responsibility on the rebels to win the ground war, a significant challenge but one that might help ease perceptions that Westerners are trying to take over Libya.
There is at least one distressing similarity between the actions in Iraq and Libya as well: the hypocrisy of the intervening powers. The "Bush doctrine" of preventive war sounded to me like a recipe for perpetual warfare -- it allowed for war not only against Afghanistan and Iraq but also Iran, North Korea, Syria, and any number of future threats that would emerge. In truth, I doubt President Bush had any interest in taking on an enemy with the military capabilities of a North Korea. This makes one wonder, then, if it's safe to engage in dialogue with a bigger threat like North Korea, why is there any imperative to do battle with a weaker threat like Iraq? There is perhaps even worse hypocrisy coming from those who advocate humanitarian wars. France's close ties with the former Tunisian regime were exposed in the wake of the Tunisian revolution just as America's ties with Mubarak's Egypt were placed under the microscope when the Egyptian people rose up. When France and the US can have friendly relationships with dictatorial regimes when it is convenient and fight them in other circumstances, it's hard to discern any firm ideological framework for conducting "just wars." Syria and Bahrain are killing protesters as the world watches...they don't seem to fear becoming another Libya. Better to do some good than none at all, surely, but one has to wonder about the hidden reasons behind any intervention when the choice concerning where to intervene appears arbitrary.
The debate as to whether it is right to intervene or not is perhaps not resolvable; people will always believe different things. The key debate may actually become whether or not the United States and other nations can afford to intervene. The US, UK, and France are all seriously indebted nations. The US is facing a political debate regarding raising the debt ceiling so it can continue to borrow. The UK is currently undergoing austerity measures to get its fiscal house in order. France recently raised the retirement age to protect its pension system. All three nations (and, indeed, all nations) limit their domestic spending in order to pay for their militaries, diplomats, and intelligence agencies. It seems doubtful that this course is sustainable indefinitely.
I tend to see America's hypervigilance and aggressive interventionism during and after the Cold War period as a direct result of our experiences in World War II, a war we were very reluctant to enter and ultimately only did enter after suffering a direct attack. Our reluctance, alas, did not spare hundreds of thousands of military lives. There is still a feeling among many people to this day that we were far too reluctant to act, having given the Axis powers precious time to strengthen their positions and consolidate territorial gains and allowing them to perpetrate massive crimes against humanity. Granted, both the government and the public were working from a position of limited information -- the disgusting details of the Holocaust became common knowledge only after the war, for instance. Having viewed the destruction and death of World War II, it was only natural that policymakers should ask themselves, "What can we do to stop this from happening again?" It may seem bizarre that the desire to prevent future madmen from trying to conquer the world or annihilate their own people could in any way lead to the US supporting such things as coups against elected governments in Iran and Guatemala, but fear and an obsession with protecting one's interests at any cost can lead you down some strange paths. Ultimately, I see the excessive interventionism of the Cold War era as resulting from American determination to not allow the Soviets to gain an upper hand as the Nazis did. We certainly saw bogeymen where they probably didn't really exist at times (and compromised our principles in the name of fighting Communism), but at least we were responding to a real threat. If criticism of interventionism has risen in the post Cold War era, I would say it's largely because the policy no longer resonates with much of the public...there may be individual brutal leaders, but there's no Axis (the "Axis of Evil" was merely a list of rogue states, not a true alliance of inimical powers) , no Soviet Union intent on spreading the revolution, and no one trying to conquer the world. The questions of who we are fighting and what we are fighting for have become much more difficult to answer.
This brings us to Libya, the conflict du jour. As a fan of representative government, I've been frankly excited to watch the revolutions in North Africa from afar. I've never really believed that free speech and democracy are only compatible with certain cultures (one explanation offered for the host of dictatorships and monarchies in the Middle East and North Africa) -- rather, I think the desire to have one's voice heard and influence one's society are fundamental aspects of human nature. It's too soon to tell what sort of government the Tunisians and Egyptians will end up with, but they've reminded the world that even corrupt and despotic governments can be called to account by their people. Alas, Colonel Qadaffi in Libya has reminded the world of a more bitter truth: the ruthless and well-armed have a distinct advantage in war. I fully understand why the UN backed intervention in Libya; when Qadaffi threatened to go "house by house" in Benghazi to crush the rebels, the specter of Nazi Germany is what appeared in my mind's eye. Thus, I tend to see Libya as a test: interventionists say that war can prevent bloodshed, genocide, and, ultimately, more war...Libya is another chance to prove it. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq overthrew brutal governments, but created tremendous instability and led to huge numbers of civilian casualties. Will Libya be any different?
I certainly see a difference in how the United States is approaching Libya as opposed to Iraq. It has studiously so far avoided taking a leadership role in the conflict past the initial stage in which Libya's anti-air capabilities were destroyed; it has appeared to be as much France's or the UK's war as it has America's. This may not last -- America has more military resources than its allies and the more it commits to the operation the more it will be blamed for when things go wrong. The coalition approach was attempted in Iraq as well, but ultimately the US was the driving force behind the war, so much so that it's extremely difficult to imagine that war being waged without US direction and involvement. For a purely "humanitarian war" (which Iraq of course was not...and in practice any successful war will yield certain strategic advantages for the victors, humanitarian or not), I think it's important that multiple countries agree it is the "right" thing to do, the more global consensus there is the better. It's all too easy to decide a war is just when it is in one's own perceived best interests that it be waged. Perhaps the great reluctance of the allies to put ground forces in Libya is also a result of lessons learned in Iraq -- in addition to avoiding military casualties, this policy also places responsibility on the rebels to win the ground war, a significant challenge but one that might help ease perceptions that Westerners are trying to take over Libya.
There is at least one distressing similarity between the actions in Iraq and Libya as well: the hypocrisy of the intervening powers. The "Bush doctrine" of preventive war sounded to me like a recipe for perpetual warfare -- it allowed for war not only against Afghanistan and Iraq but also Iran, North Korea, Syria, and any number of future threats that would emerge. In truth, I doubt President Bush had any interest in taking on an enemy with the military capabilities of a North Korea. This makes one wonder, then, if it's safe to engage in dialogue with a bigger threat like North Korea, why is there any imperative to do battle with a weaker threat like Iraq? There is perhaps even worse hypocrisy coming from those who advocate humanitarian wars. France's close ties with the former Tunisian regime were exposed in the wake of the Tunisian revolution just as America's ties with Mubarak's Egypt were placed under the microscope when the Egyptian people rose up. When France and the US can have friendly relationships with dictatorial regimes when it is convenient and fight them in other circumstances, it's hard to discern any firm ideological framework for conducting "just wars." Syria and Bahrain are killing protesters as the world watches...they don't seem to fear becoming another Libya. Better to do some good than none at all, surely, but one has to wonder about the hidden reasons behind any intervention when the choice concerning where to intervene appears arbitrary.
The debate as to whether it is right to intervene or not is perhaps not resolvable; people will always believe different things. The key debate may actually become whether or not the United States and other nations can afford to intervene. The US, UK, and France are all seriously indebted nations. The US is facing a political debate regarding raising the debt ceiling so it can continue to borrow. The UK is currently undergoing austerity measures to get its fiscal house in order. France recently raised the retirement age to protect its pension system. All three nations (and, indeed, all nations) limit their domestic spending in order to pay for their militaries, diplomats, and intelligence agencies. It seems doubtful that this course is sustainable indefinitely.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Are Donald Trump and Sarah Palin in the Same Boat?
On the surface, no two 2012 Republican presidential hopefuls could be more dissimilar than Donald Trump and Sarah Palin. Palin is a former governor and mayor, a former candidate for vice president, a political commentator, and the honorary chair of one of the more influential political action committees of the 2010 midterm elections, SarahPAC. Trump, by contrast, has never held a political office in his life and his previous flirtations with politics in the past have been as confusing as they have been frequent: he donates to Democrats and Republicans alike, has changed his own political affiliation several times, and even publicly considered seeking the nomination of the Reform Party for president back in 2000. What this unlikely pair do have in common is their status as celebrities. Both are reality TV stars, authors, and in-demand speakers and talk show guests. Although many presidential candidates long to have the kind of name recognition that Palin and Trump have, celebrity status can be a two-edged sword. People may know who Trump and Palin are, but many don't take them seriously due to previous gaffes and well-publicized escapades...they are without a doubt overexposed and their dirty laundry has been aired all over America. It also goes without saying that the personal brands of Trump and Palin would be enhanced by their choosing to run for president; how can the public figure out if Trump and/or Palin are actually running to win or just trying to sell more books and merchandise or set themselves up to host a talk show?
All in all, I think Sarah Palin has the better chance to establish herself as a serious presidential candidate if she does ultimately opt to run in 2012. She has genuine political accomplishments, and she can probably overcome the poor public perception created by her past gaffes simply by avoiding future ones. Indeed, I think a strong performance by Palin in a debate or speech is to an extent magnified because the public always expects her to create a media firestorm with a poorly chosen phrase or two. Her biggest hurdle will be to explain away her decision to suddenly resign as Alaskan governor, especially when she will likely have to face other former governors in the race who didn't "quit on the job." I have serious doubts about whether Palin has the work ethic or even the desire to pursue the presidency at this point -- she's never been a policy wonk and may have discovered she enjoys politics better from the sidelines after all. Even if she is taken seriously as a candidate, Palin will have difficulty making any one issue all her own given that she hasn't managed to do this in the years she's been in the political spotlight. I don't think she can afford to be as cautious a "maverick" as she was in 2008; she'll need to take an energetic approach and get specific about policies she supports since she is no longer new to voters. Indeed, I'd even advise her to court a little controversy...how about adopting a pro-marijuana legalization stance, for instance? Given her past remarks about marijuana being a "minimal problem," that could mark a logical evolution of her views. It won't please some social conservatives -- not even a "leave it to the states" approach would -- but it would definitely differentiate her from the rest of the pack and probably prove an asset in a general election since many legalization advocates are disappointed Democrats.
Donald Trump has the harder road to hoe. He's been more visible than Palin in the past few months as an "unofficial" candidate for president. Despite his utter lack of political experience, he does bring a few things to the table besides name recognition: he's charismatic and an entertaining speaker, a successful businessman who has managed to look failure in the face multiple times and seemingly emerged stronger from it each time, and he is incredibly bold. He's already shown himself willing and able to touch issues no "serious" candidate wants to touch. What other candidate but Trump is talking about raising tariffs on China? Most politicians and economists would consider such a move disastrous even as they themselves decry Chinese currency manipulation, but I think protectionism has long been more popular among the general public than among the elite. There are plenty of people who, like Trump, think a tougher trade policy with China will both create American jobs and force China to ease its currency controls. If Trump keeps the pressure on China, he'll get votes because of it...I have no doubt about that Alas, Trump's boldness is perhaps not always an asset: Trump has also been daring in questioning whether or not Barack Obama was born in the United States and thus whether or not he is actually eligible to be president. This could potentially attract another crowd of voters without a home to Trump's doorstep, but I have a feeling it will turn off a lot more people than it will attract in the long run. Unless Trump can deliver some solid evidence to support the so-called "birther" allegations, he's just peddling a conspiracy theory and unnecessarily angering a lot of people who might not dislike Obama the man but do dislike Obama the president. I think about it this way: if Obama had had two American citizen parents and had spent his whole life in the United States, would Republicans like Obamacare and the stimulus any better? Would they feel more confident about his approach to fiscal issues such as the debt and taxation? If there really is a genuine issue about Obama's citizenship, it's for the courts to handle...presidential candidates should talk politics and there's plenty of policy issues for Republicans to attack Obama on. Then again, perhaps Trump really does know what he's doing: according to a recent poll of the New Hampshire electorate, Trump is running second only to Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination! Polls like that are exactly what conspiracy theories are made out of (could there be a "Trumper" movement to massage poll results in order to get Trump to actually run so that more newspapers will be sold, more ads will be clicked, and more debates will be watched? I have to admit it would make the race more entertaining to follow).
I definitely wouldn't discount the possibility that neither Palin nor Trump will run for president. Trump has already boosted his personal brand without making anything official, and even if he really does want to get into politics he could forgo a run for president and run for something in New York instead, building his credentials for a future presidential run. In truth, perhaps Palin and Trump have something else in common...perhaps neither of them actually want to be politicians! After all, you can be a star and a media sensation without a single person being willing to vote for you. It'll be interesting to see what they both ultimately decide to do.
All in all, I think Sarah Palin has the better chance to establish herself as a serious presidential candidate if she does ultimately opt to run in 2012. She has genuine political accomplishments, and she can probably overcome the poor public perception created by her past gaffes simply by avoiding future ones. Indeed, I think a strong performance by Palin in a debate or speech is to an extent magnified because the public always expects her to create a media firestorm with a poorly chosen phrase or two. Her biggest hurdle will be to explain away her decision to suddenly resign as Alaskan governor, especially when she will likely have to face other former governors in the race who didn't "quit on the job." I have serious doubts about whether Palin has the work ethic or even the desire to pursue the presidency at this point -- she's never been a policy wonk and may have discovered she enjoys politics better from the sidelines after all. Even if she is taken seriously as a candidate, Palin will have difficulty making any one issue all her own given that she hasn't managed to do this in the years she's been in the political spotlight. I don't think she can afford to be as cautious a "maverick" as she was in 2008; she'll need to take an energetic approach and get specific about policies she supports since she is no longer new to voters. Indeed, I'd even advise her to court a little controversy...how about adopting a pro-marijuana legalization stance, for instance? Given her past remarks about marijuana being a "minimal problem," that could mark a logical evolution of her views. It won't please some social conservatives -- not even a "leave it to the states" approach would -- but it would definitely differentiate her from the rest of the pack and probably prove an asset in a general election since many legalization advocates are disappointed Democrats.
Donald Trump has the harder road to hoe. He's been more visible than Palin in the past few months as an "unofficial" candidate for president. Despite his utter lack of political experience, he does bring a few things to the table besides name recognition: he's charismatic and an entertaining speaker, a successful businessman who has managed to look failure in the face multiple times and seemingly emerged stronger from it each time, and he is incredibly bold. He's already shown himself willing and able to touch issues no "serious" candidate wants to touch. What other candidate but Trump is talking about raising tariffs on China? Most politicians and economists would consider such a move disastrous even as they themselves decry Chinese currency manipulation, but I think protectionism has long been more popular among the general public than among the elite. There are plenty of people who, like Trump, think a tougher trade policy with China will both create American jobs and force China to ease its currency controls. If Trump keeps the pressure on China, he'll get votes because of it...I have no doubt about that Alas, Trump's boldness is perhaps not always an asset: Trump has also been daring in questioning whether or not Barack Obama was born in the United States and thus whether or not he is actually eligible to be president. This could potentially attract another crowd of voters without a home to Trump's doorstep, but I have a feeling it will turn off a lot more people than it will attract in the long run. Unless Trump can deliver some solid evidence to support the so-called "birther" allegations, he's just peddling a conspiracy theory and unnecessarily angering a lot of people who might not dislike Obama the man but do dislike Obama the president. I think about it this way: if Obama had had two American citizen parents and had spent his whole life in the United States, would Republicans like Obamacare and the stimulus any better? Would they feel more confident about his approach to fiscal issues such as the debt and taxation? If there really is a genuine issue about Obama's citizenship, it's for the courts to handle...presidential candidates should talk politics and there's plenty of policy issues for Republicans to attack Obama on. Then again, perhaps Trump really does know what he's doing: according to a recent poll of the New Hampshire electorate, Trump is running second only to Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination! Polls like that are exactly what conspiracy theories are made out of (could there be a "Trumper" movement to massage poll results in order to get Trump to actually run so that more newspapers will be sold, more ads will be clicked, and more debates will be watched? I have to admit it would make the race more entertaining to follow).
I definitely wouldn't discount the possibility that neither Palin nor Trump will run for president. Trump has already boosted his personal brand without making anything official, and even if he really does want to get into politics he could forgo a run for president and run for something in New York instead, building his credentials for a future presidential run. In truth, perhaps Palin and Trump have something else in common...perhaps neither of them actually want to be politicians! After all, you can be a star and a media sensation without a single person being willing to vote for you. It'll be interesting to see what they both ultimately decide to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)