Obamanomics Explained

I just finished reading this piece from the Times Magazine about Obama's economic positions. It's really enlightening if you have the time to read it.

What is comforting about the article is that it shows Obama has a firm grasp of economics. He seems to understand that markets are on the whole efficient, but often not fair, and that there exist obvious market failures. The key is in balancing all of this. Here are some of his plans:

- Obama is for tax cuts for middle- and low-income wage earners,

The Tax Policy Center, a research group run by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, has done the most detailed analysis of the Obama and McCain tax plans, and it has published a series of fascinating tables. For the bottom 80 percent of the population — those households making $118,000 or less — McCain’s various tax cuts would mean a net savings of about $200 a year on average. Obama’s proposals would bring $900 a year in savings. So for most people, Obama is the tax cutter in this campaign.

and tax increases for the highest earners (partly reversing the Bush tax cuts, and then increasing the taxes further). For those of you who are concerned the increases would stifle innovation and investment, consider that the proposed increases wouldn't come close to reversing the gains upper income earners have seen over the past few decades. Also realize that, "Most families [low- and middle-income] are still making less, after accounting for inflation, than they were in 2000." This might sound like pandering, but the reality of stagnant wages for middle- and low-income earners can't be ignored and isn't good for the country.

And it seems on the surface at least that recent history supports at least some redistribution. As the article points out, the negative effects of Clinton's tax increases never materialized and the trickle-down effects of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts also never seemed to occur. Granted, showing a direct causal relationship between a president's policies and economic outcomes is imperfect to say the least, but I would be willing to increase taxes on the rich and risk losing some efficiency in the market for at least some increase in fairness.

- Obama favors an increase in government spending on infrastructure. This I think has the most promise, if done wisely. While we don't need new highways as much as we did after World War II (which by the way, I hadn't realized was a result of witnessing how easily Germans could move good during the war), we have serious unmet needs relating to energy and the environment. With significant government funding, we could increase sustainable energy and the infrastructure that supports it (ie power lines, which are unfit to meet probable changes in our production according to this article). What makes this so attractive is that it could provide jobs for the part of the workforce that is suffering from the loss of manufacturing and related industries overseas. I don't believe in protectionism and I realize that re-educating workers isn't the solution many pretend it is.

To the extent that he sticks with these policies, and manages to move on them, it seems that Obama by far represents our best hope in managing our economy.

It's Our Fault

Last summer, I hoped that the presidential race would be between two people who could rise above petty, name-calling partisanship and talk about the real issues. If you asked me the two people most likely to do that, I probably would have said Obama (or maybe Richardson) and McCain. Well, here we have a race between Obama and McCain, and neither are particularly living up to those standards. The debate isn't any more intelligent than it would have been if it had been between Clinton and Romney. I have basically tuned most of it out by now because of that.

Reading David Brooks' column, I do find it hard to blame them. The media remains fixated on covering the horse race and the insults back and forth - and the public seems to revel in that as well. It seems as though it isn't the candidates that are at fault for our system, but us. There are no transcendent candidates. None. But maybe you knew that already.

Sad News from Zambia

Reuters has reported that the President of Zambia, Levy Mwanawasa has died. What I will remember most is that he was one of the few African leaders who criticized Zimbabwe's Mugabe, realizing that a leader who blatantly ignores democracy makes not just himself look bad, but also all those who support him. But he was also the leader of a landlocked African country trying to sustain growth and escape poverty. I visited Zambia last year and it is an incredibly beautiful country with some of the most friendly people. Hopefully his successor will keep moving Zambia forward.

Worse Off?

I just saw an ad by John McCain where he says we are worse off than we were four years ago. Of course I agree, but I am surprised that McCain is willing to admit that. I mean he must realize that he is in part responsible for that, right? He is a Republican who voted with the administration those four years. And how does his party feel about him saying Bush made the country worse off?

Of course this is the line that McCain must walk. He needs to distance himself from a wildly unpopular president, while not going too far to alienate the party faithful.

More on Zimbabwe

In my last post on Zimbabwe, I wrote about Mbeki's poor leadership. Now, the talk is all about sanctions - the West is pressing for sanctions. The African Union doesn't support sanctions on Zimbabwe, and I can't say that I blame them.

Sanctions are not as effective as you would think based on how often they are trotted out as the solution to a problem. Granted, they seem to have worked in Libya (eventually), and are playing a role in Iran and North Korea, but were ineffective in Cuba and Iraq (during Saddam). In the end, in a situation like Zimbabwe, sanctions are likely to hurt the people way more than the leaders. And as long as the government has a monopoly on power and are adept at winning illegitimate elections, there is little hope of the disgruntled people tossing their leaders out.

But this is the West's only option at the moment. Criticism of Mugabe form the West has little effect because he can just dismiss the comments by saying the word "colonialism". But the African Union has much more power. If they were to refuse to recognize Mugabe's election and then isolate him, that would likely be enough to force a change. So far, they haven't officially recognized his election, but they haven't called it illegitimate and asked for a re-vote, and they have called for power sharing. Calling for power sharing between a leader that used violence to stay in power, and a reformer who "lost the run-off" isn't a workable solution.

Many of course point to Kenya. Although there was much praise of the Kenyan agreement, it remains to be seen whether it will in fact work. Besides, in Kenya you had ethnic battles between the parties. That doesn't seem to be the driving factor in Zimbabwe. Removing Mugabe is unlikely to cause the sort of disruption that would have resulted in Kenya if one side was removed from power.

In the end, the African Union isn't willing to take the big steps necessary to make meaningful change. There are some leaders who want to (like Levi Mwanawasa in Zambia), but not enough. Instead, they try to placate people like Mugabe, who ruin their country and then refuse to stand for a legitimate election. It would be much easier for the international community, and the West in particular, to allow the African Union to manage their own affairs if they actually showed strength.

A Balanced Budget?

I'll be quick on this one. McCain says he plans to have a balanced budget. While he cuts taxes. Right. Now, to be fair, one can achieve a balanced budget with tax cuts under certain circumstances - when the cuts are not significant and when costs can be contained. Neither of these seem to hold here. His tax cuts are significant, including making the Bush tax cuts permanent and repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. On top of that, he has no chance of keeping a lid on spending. Even if he had a Republican Congress, which is unlikely, it doesn't seem reasonable to think he'll be better than Bush at keeping them from increasing his budget. On top of that, he plans to somehow, magically keep entitlement spending down. Completely absurd.

Dear Conservative

Dear Conservative Friend / Family Member,

I always hoped that my liberal postings would rile you up and force you to respond. In fact, my posts are more often than not written for / to you. But I think I was being too subtle. So now, I am going to write some posts directly to you.

On a recent road trip with two such conservatives (you know who you are) we had two lively debates. One was about urban poverty and the other about the Iraq War. My position on the war has changed to believing that being there was a mistake and that now is a good time to start withdrawing. The two conservatives disagreed, of course.

I'll admit that pulling out will be delicate. There is the possibility that violence could escalate again. I don't want to spend too much time debating this point though because whoever is President when troops begin to come home will have to watch what happens in Iraq and respond accordingly.

The main issue I want to debate is about whether we should have invaded, and when we should in the future. Each situation will be different from the one before it, but I think we can come up with reasonable guidelines while still being flexible enough to change if we have to. Our country would be much better off if we used our foreign policy to actually express our core principles. Too often in the past our foreign policy has been either morally bankrupt or completely hypocritical.

When it comes to deciding whether to invade, the primary reason has been and should remain whether the other country poses an imminent threat. Afghanistan obviously falls into this category. Iraq does not. Even if you allow for the fact that many intelligence services believed Saddam had a weapons program, nobody really thought there was an imminent danger to the US; a long term concern maybe, but not an imminent threat.

I know some would argue that you shouldn't wait until he has the weapons - which is when he will be more dangerous. I agree. But I think it is clear in retrospect that we could have waited longer. We could have given the weapons inspectors more time - given containment more time to work. Deciding when someone is an imminent threat isn't a science, but I don't think anyone believes we were at that point with Saddam.

It seems for some, a reason to continue believing the invasion was right is that we need a democratic role model in the Middle East. Granted, we need to acknowledge that this wasn't one of the main reasons for the invasion, but became the main reason when WMD's didn't materialize. Even so, the argument should be taken seriously. In fact, for a long time, I was right behind Thomas Friedman favoring this argument. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for me anymore. We talk a good game when it comes to democracy, but we don't follow though. We tolerate Saudi Arabia - a very oppressive monarchy, and we ignore the results of Palestinian elections because we don't like who they chose (without even wondering why they chose them). If we are going to support democracy, we have to do it everywhere if we are to retain moral credibility.

Someone said in regards to this argument that Iraq was low hanging fruit. Maybe, but was it the lowest? Could we have supported a democracy in the Middle East without losing more than 4,000 American soldiers, tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees? I think we could have done a better job in Afghanistan (where Al Qaeda is making gains again), supported Lebanon - including stopping Israel's disastrous invasion, recognized Hamas' victory in Palestine - while keeping them on a short leash, and been tougher with Saudi Arabia. All of this could have been done without the disastrous consequences we see in Iraq.

This gets to my main point. Besides invading when there is an imminent threat, I think the only other time we should get involved is when the situation is bad enough that we can't likely make it worse and could conceivably make it much better. Iraq, at the time of the invasion, wasn't a model of human rights and democracy, but wasn't as bad as many other places around the world and certainly not as bad as it was before, and directly after, the first Gulf War. Under this reasoning, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but we would get involved in places like Rwanda, the Balkans, Sudan, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. I think if we were fighting to create more democracies and protect those under horrible dictatorships, as some (with memory problems) argue Iraq is about, there are better places to start.

What may end up happening over the next decade is Iraq could improve slowly, mirroring in some ways South Korea. If that happens, people might forget these disastrous years, as many forget the ups and downs of the Korean War. In fact, tens of thousands of Americans and South Koreans died, and we are still paying to have troops in South Korea. Yet this draws little protest and South Korea is seen as a success.

If this is the case, then I probably won't have a strong response. While I still believe that the costs to the Iraqis so far has been great - partly because of our mismanagement, I think that through containment and time, we might have achieved the same goal for the Iraqi people at a smaller cost to them and us.

So what do you think, unnamed conservative friend / family member? Care to weigh in?

Poor Zim

I can't express how disappointed I am with the situation in Zimbabwe. There seemed for a brief moment in December the possibility that Zim would get a fresh start and a new leader. While it isn't surprising that Mugabe and company are holding onto power, something I expect they'll try even after he dies, it is so disheartening to see how poorly Mbeki, president of South Africa and mediator for this process, is handling it. For so long, African nations have sought to solve their own problems. Often, it is African Union troops on peacekeeping missions, and leaders from Africa are chosen as mediators. With the history of colonization, I completely understand this desire.

While I support empowerment, with it comes responsibility. If you want the role of fixing the problems in your family, you need to show that you can actually do it. Of course there will be times when it turns out that the African Union will not have the resources to have a peacekeeping mission that meets the needs of the situation. In those instances, the African Union can ask for UN support (as in Darfur). But this is wholly different.

What Mbeki is showing, by his refusal to criticize Mugabe, is that Africa will not stand up against dictators, that it does not support the rule of law or full democratic rights. And worse, he is showing that he, the president of the most powerful country in Africa, is unable to solve problems that arise in Africa. He is making it that much harder for the next person to claim that Africa can and should solve its own problems. (Although it is good to see Mwanawasa in Zambia taking a stand against Mugabe.)

True, to be fair, I should also get into the debate about the limits of sovereignty. The answer though is that there are limits to sovereignty. And those limits need to be when human rights or the rule of law are violated. Otherwise, one shouldn't pretend that they live by those standards. Those standards have to rise above all else.

I have no hope that this situation will resolve itself in any satisfactory way. Mugabe has no incentive to give anything up. He can resist the international community and Mbeki is preventing strong reactions form inside Africa. The worst part of this is that the people of Zimbabwe aren't just suffering from lack of suffrage, but their economy is a complete mess with high unemployment and inflation. They need new leadership now more than ever.

Major Transformation?

I don't usually agree with Paul Krugman. Mostly, it is because I see him as a partisan hack - someone who will fight just as hard for Democratic causes as some Republicans do for theirs. The worst part is that he does this with full self-recognition and without excuse. In a reference to my previous post, he seems completely incapable of being objective (during the primaries he was one of the few people who tried to suggest that Obama's people were being more negative that Hillary and her staff).

Anyway, the point is that this column of his is great. It gets to a serious issue about Obama - that we don't really know whether Obama is a moderate or a serious liberal. His talk about reconciliation and working across party lines suggests moderation, but many of his policies are more liberal. That we are entering the general election phase of the campaign, where candidates move towards the middle, doesn't help me reconcile this.

The fact is that Obama, if elected, and if joined by a strong Democratic majority, could transform American policies. He could increase access to health care, change our foreign policy (and thereby improving our image as well as improving outcomes), make serious progress on curbing carbon emissions, and restore funding to social programs. Alternatively, he could either be ineffective or choose a more moderate path, like Clinton did. His voting record doesn't suggest the latter will be an issue - as long as he really doesn't by into the positions he is / will be taking during the general election. Either way, there is tremendous potential, and we'll have to wait to see if he can realize it.

(By the way, Krugman was of course supporting Hillary, who seemed just as moderate as Bill was. So while I think the column was great, I am surprised that Krugman is expressing these points.)

Am I Objective? Are You?

Hearing about findings like these isn't at all new or surprising. But it should still give us pause. The study that John Tierney is talking about shows that people excuse behavior in themselves or people on their "team" that otherwise they would criticize. What this shows is a propensity to lose the ability to be objective.

We can all point to perfect examples of this. One need only listen to a Red Sox fan complain about the Yankees, or a Yankees fan complain about the Red Sox, to see this. But this behavior is to be expected in sports.

This behavior is just as common in politics, but here the impact is worse. Who cares if fans forgive Steinbrenner for making baseball less interesting by stealing all of the best players? But what happens when Republicans forgive Bush for avoiding service in Vietnam, when they wouldn't forgive Clinton for it. Or when Democrats forgive Obama for refusing public financing of his general election campaign? The inability to be objective when analyzing people in our party allows them to get away with inconsistencies or hypocrisies they otherwise shouldn't.

Here is what Tierney has to say about it:

Politicians are hypocritical for the same reason the rest of us are: to gain the social benefits of appearing virtuous without incurring the personal costs of virtuous behavior.

Of course it makes sense to punish the opposition for trying to get away with this, but why is it in our interest to reward people in our own party who are good at this?

Now, if you asked me to name some people who seem to lack the ability to be objective, I might point to Republicans close to me (my dad and my brother come to mind). And while I would stand by that, it is also pretty clear I have the same problem. This was very apparent during the democratic primaries. I found myself enraged at Hillary's behavior but felt Obama was behaving honestly. The truth is of course somewhere in the middle.

Like many things, the solution lies in admitting you have a problem (how cliche, right?). This means admitting that Obama's support for the agriculture bill was appalling, and his decision to blithely reject public financing could ruin that very institution. It means admitting that the Democrats haven't had many great ideas in the past to deal with Iraq. But on the flip side, it means Republicans should find it much easier to admit that the Iraq War has been a terrible diversion (in resources and attention) and that tax cuts and increased spending should not happen at the same time. And most importantly, it means looking at the history of American foreign policy and being able to point to places where we not only made mistakes, but acted in ways that contradict our core values.

Goodbye

I saw Tim Russert once at a Borders in the Maryland suburbs. He was putting out copies of his book Big Russ and Me. I didn't approach him. I didn't say hi, I didn't tell him how much I liked his show. I just stared from a short distance. I watched as an elderly woman asked where the cook books were. He laughed a bit and said he didn't work there. Then I watched as a slightly awkward man did what I wouldn't; he told Tim Russert how much he admired him. And Mr. Russert gave him a big smile and thanked him. I am resistant to talking to famous people. I generally believe that they don't want me to interrupt them while they are trying to live their private lives. I don't know if that is right or not, but I do regret not saying something to him that morning.

I was on vacation with my dad and brother when I heard the news of Tim Russert's death and I am surprised how much it affected me. I think I am saddened for two reasons, one selfish. First, I am sad because it seemed that he was such a genuinely nice and excited person. Since his death, stories abound of his love of politics, Buffalo, his Dad, his son, his wife, and his faith. To see someone so full of life and joy die at a relatively young age is heartbreaking.

But selfishly I am upset because of the void that he is leaving. Tim Russert was great at his job, and his job was extremely important to our democracy. He had the absolute perfect blend of smarts, hardwork, on camera presence (although not in the traditional sense), and geniality. He did what most other interviewers say they do - he asked the tough questions of all the big names in American politics. He did it in a way that wasn't combative, so people couldn't be excused for dodging questions and responding aggressively. And because he worked so hard and because he was so smart, he could bring up old quotes from politicians and try to catch them in their hypocrisy.

I must admit that I didn't watch the show as religiously as I wanted to. Many Sunday afternoons I would think about what I did that morning and wonder if it was worth missing Meet the Press. The bottom line though is that I didn't make it part of my routine. But at least I drew comfort knowing that the show was on and that some politicians were being grilled about their positions.

The only possible comfort I can take from this is that maybe Tim Russert's death will allow people to fully realize what we are missing when he is gone. In doing so, we might search not for one replacement, but for many replacements. Maybe we'll lose one Tim Russert but gain a dozen people just like him. I imagine that's what he would want.

Farm Bill

I don't really have the energy to go into this right now, but I just need to say that the farm bill passed by Congress, vetoed by the President, and then overrode by Congress, is a disgrace. It rewards the undeserving and doesn't help those in need. Agribusiness does not need government welfare, but developing countries need us to end our subsidies.

It is frightening that so many people in Congress can get something so wrong. I must therefore recognize one person who got it right - John McCain. I feel I might not get the chance to say many nice things about McCain in the upcoming election. Here though, the made the right choice. Furthermore, President Bush also made the right decision to veto the bill.

The NY Times Editorial on the bill sums up my feelings pretty well.

League of Democracies

I heard that McCain has been supporting this idea of creating a League of Democracies. The support for this institution, which would replace the United Nations, rests on the assumption that the UN in ineffective because the non-democratic countries interfere with our ability to do good. The problem is that this assumption just doesn't ring true.

At a reading for her latest book, Samantha Power made a profound but obvious statement. She said the UN will only be as effective as its strongest member - the US - wants it to be. The fact is that many times, we have used the UN to avoid doing the right thing and has rarely stood in our way of acting when we truly wanted to. In Rwanda, we manipulated the UN to prevent us from acting (by preventing the UN from acting). And of course in Iraq we acted without UN approval.

Granted, on the margins, there are times when our desires are frustrated. Our ability to bring sanctions against countries like Iran and Sudan has been hampered. In the case of Iran, other democracies were standing in our way. And with Sudan, there are much more effective efforts we could undertake without the UN if we really wanted to.

On the other side though, a League of Democracies is unlikely to be more favorable towards Israel than the UN is, considering that although Israel is a democracy, the situation with the occupied territories doesn't exactly live up to democratic standards.

What conservatives like McCain actually want is a new institution that is better at doing what we want it to. We want an institution that will levy sanctions when we say to, let us invade when we want to, help avoid military efforts when we want to, and pretend that the situation in Israel is fine as it is and deserves no rebuke. A world body like this is a pipe dream. Our only hope is to actually live up to our standards, not our self interest. Maybe then other countries would be more willing to follow suit.

Race in the Primaries

Hillary has recently been describing how Obama lacks support among working class white voters. Without that support, he might not win the nomination, or so the argument goes. I admit that this argument does scare me a bit. What is even more troubling are the polls that say that 25 percent of the voters in West Virginia said race was a factor - and 75 percent of those supported Hillary. Apparently Kentucky was much the same.

While Hillary along with many commentators have been suggesting that sexism has been worse than racism on the campaign trail (considering the comments that have been yelled at Hillary), there seem to be many voters actually making their decision based on racism.

What really bothers me about all this though is that Hillary doesn't seem at all concerned that there might be people supporting her out of racism. Actually, she is concerned that Obama might not be able to win, but not concerned that there is racism. For a while I was thinking that the classy thing for her to do would be to stand up and say, "Any voters supporting me because you won't vote for a black man, stay home. I mean it, if there is any racism in your heart, I don't want your vote."

The truth is, I feel even more strongly about this now. I don't see it as the classy thing to do (which I wouldn't expect from Hillary), but as the moral thing to do. Both she and McCain need to say that they don't want the votes of racists. Period. Instead, Hillary is doing the opposite. She is using the working class white - possibly racist - voters in Appalachia (because apparently this is a regional problem instead of that affects all whites of a certain income level) to further her argument that she is the better nominee.

Before I wrap up, I should take a moment to discuss the two different ways one can vote based on race (or gender). In one case, the voter's decision would be an affirmative vote, casting a ballot for someone because of their race. In the other case, you are voting against someone because of their race. To me, the difference is that in the former, the decision is one of identity and in the latter the decision is based on hate. And to me, that makes all the difference.

To conclude though, I keep coming back to this one feeling about Hillary (and Bill, too). She (they) care only about achieving their goals of ambition and power. While this isn't an uncommon trait among politicians, it feels like the magnitude is far greater in them. And so in the end, their drive and ambition obscures what might otherwise be their impulse to sacrifice (ie forgo power) in the course of doing what is right. Maybe McCain will be willing to do such a thing.

When to Talk

As Obama starts to turn his attention to McCain, there has been a lot of talk about whether or not we should, well, talk to our enemies. Bush chimed in from the Knesset in Israel, showing that in his speeches he is only capable of arguments that are black and white, and incapable of nuance and distinction. This will end up being one of Bush's legacies - his speeches that attempt to leave no room for debate by casting the choice as either or and leaving his opponents trying to defend indefensible positions. Appeasement, when compared to Hitler, is of course indefensible.

McCain seems to be falling into the same trap. His comments on talking to our enemies leave no room for nuance and understanding (something I used to associate with him). It is only a little consolation that both McCain and Bush understand nuance to some degree, even if they don't admit it publicly. Bush's administration has in fact negotiated with North Korea, Iran and Libya.

My hope is that the public is tired of the thoughtless bravado of Republican leaders. Maybe people have finally realized that there is more to the debate about Iraq than either being a defeatist or a patriot. Maybe there are more options to be considered in regards to Iran than sanctions and tough talk with the eventuality of a missile strike.

What is funny in retrospect is that as Bush was in the Knesset bashing talks with enemies, the Israeli government was talking with Syria. Does that mean that Israel is like Chamberlain? This isn't to say we definitely need direct talks with our enemies (I hate using "enemies" over and over again, but I am tired). There is a good opinion piece about reasons to be cautious with negotiations. If you think you might come off as bad as Kennedy apparently did, it might not be a good idea to have direct talks.

It seems like in every situation, Bush and McCain are wrong about foreign policy. Bush wants to make some sort of peace deal between Israel and Palestine, but wants to do it without Hamas. As much as we hate Hamas for its violence, it has a lot of popular support. A peace deal that only includes Abbas, as much as we support him, isn't really a peace deal. And in Iran, our tough talk only strengthens the hard-liners in the country.

The bottom line is, we need a huge shift in our foreign policy. McCain at times seems to be saying that he would bring something different, but I have yet to see how. And this recent debate shows how McCain is more like Bush than unlike him.

In a Word, Sophistry

As the primaries start to wind down to a conclusion (or so I hope), I have been trying to summarize Hillary's campaign in my head. One word that comes to mind of course is negative, and that was certainly part of her campaign. She definitely seemed to have no problem "going negative". In fact for a while it seemed like she thought McCain would make a better president than Obama.

But what has stood out even more than that, especially recently, has been her sophistry. She has been so good about trotting out clever arguments that are either false or disingenuous of why she should be crowned the nominee by the super-delegates.

Recently, she has been trying to tell the country that Florida and Michigan's votes should count. Granted, most of what she is saying here is true. It could hurt the Democrats if Florida and Michigan are not seated at the convention. And yes, in a democratic society, every vote should count. But she didn't seem to have a problem with the party punishing these two states before they voted. She made no comments about how unfair this is and she didn't campaign in either state. So of course her sudden concern for democratic principles comes off disingenuous.

We were also treated to arguments about how her voters are more important. Since working class whites were supporting her and not Obama, and since we need working class whites to win the election, then she should be the nominee regardless of how the pledged delegate count turns out. This argument is of course clever, but Obama could make the same case for the type of voters that have been supporting him.

Before that her campaign was saying the states she won were more important. Since she was winning states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida (swing states) and New York and California (big states), she deserved the nomination regardless of pledged delegate counts. This argument again sounds nice, but doesn't actually fly. Unless Obama is fundamentally unelectable, these states will go Democrat in the fall.

These two arguments when used together are even more clever. The voters in these important states are likely to not vote for Obama. Therefore, we need Hillary if we want the White House to be occupied by a Democrat. There is a certain part of me that is scared by this argument. In the end though it is made only to advance her goals, and not genuine and objective concerns. In fact, the super-delegates don't seem to have bought this argument.

Finally, she has argued that the popular vote is more important than pledged delegates - reminding everyone of the 2000 election. In her count, she is using Michigan and Florida and ignoring states with caucuses. The argument sounds good - that direct democracy is the best, but if she actually believed this, she should have said this before.

In her arguments, what matters is not objective reason and consistency. What matters is how she can lay claim to the nomination. Arguments only have to sound good and possibly convince people to be used.

As her sophistry continues, it strikes me how willing she is to take down anything in her ambitious path. She had no problem telling the country that McCain was more prepared than Obama to be president. She sees nothing wrong with weakening the power of the party to set a nomination schedule according to its choice and prevent states from running loose. And on top of that, she is willing to subvert the whole nomination process if it means she might win (for someone who has been one-half of the democratic party leadership since 1992, she seems awfully surprised at how broken the nomination process is).

All along, I have defended Hillary against attacks like this from Republicans. Maybe they were right after all.

She Gets My Vote

There have been two great Opinion pieces lately that have forced me to make a decision. First this piece by David Brooks lays out all the things that bother me about Hillary in a way that is more concise and well-written. Here are some highlights:

Let’s take a look at what she’s going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance: The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping. For another three months, we’ll have the Carvilles likening the Obamaites to Judas and former generals accusing Clintonites of McCarthyism. For three months, we’ll have the daily round of résumé padding and sulfurous conference calls. We’ll have campaign aides blurting “blue dress” and only-because-he’s-black references as they let slip their private contempt.

For three more months (maybe more!) the campaign will proceed along in its Verdun-like pattern. There will be a steady rifle fire of character assassination from the underlings, interrupted by the occasional firestorm of artillery when the contest touches upon race, gender or patriotism. The policy debates between the two have been long exhausted, so the only way to get the public really engaged is by poking some raw national wound.

[Edit]

Why does she go on like this? Does Clinton privately believe that Obama is so incompetent that only she can deliver the policies they both support? Is she simply selfish, and willing to put her party through agony for the sake of her slender chance? Are leading Democrats so narcissistic that they would create bitter stagnation even if they were granted one-party rule?

Then, Nicholas Kristof writes on the same theme:

Instead, the battle is getting bloodier. Mrs. Clinton spoke this week about the contest continuing for “the next three months” — and those would surely be a toxic three months. There’s already grumbling that Mrs. Clinton’s real strategy is to destroy Mr. Obama’s chances of winning the general election so that she can compete in 2012.

The bottom line is that people feel like Hillary is hurting Obama's chances in the general election. If she is going to continue, as many feel she should, and if she has the good of the party (and by extension the country) at heart, then she needs to completely change the tone.

But there is something I need to do. Absent of any changes from the Clinton campaign, I have decided that I will vote for her if she wins the nomination. Both Brooks and Kristof in their columns talk about the fact that the primary has become so divisive that some Democrats might stay home come the general election. From the Kristof column:

“It’s amazing how bitter it’s getting, and it can only get worse in the months ahead,” said Gov. Philip Bredesen, a Democrat of Tennessee, who has not taken sides. “I’d love to have a Democratic president, but I’d also love to have a Democratic Congress. If you’ve got people mad and staying home, that can’t possibly help candidates running for the Senate, candidates running for House seats, and for the State Legislature.”

I admit that I have felt that angry at times. And it is true that if Clinton wins the nomination without winning the popular vote or a majority of pledged delegates, I will resign from the party. But I will still vote for her come the general election. I won't like it, but I'll do it. I wish Clinton would change her tactics so that others who are upset like me won't even consider staying home in November. But that just seems unlikely. For whatever reason (selfishness, narcissism, myopia, hatred of Obama), she seems to only know how to fight to win no matter what the costs. Lucky for her, I do care about what is good for the country, and am willing to vote for her despite her amazing faults.

Hillary v. Bill

There have been at least two instances lately when Hillary has tried to distance herself from some of Bill's policies, saying she disagreed with them at the time. Whether we believe her is very important for how we understand her candidacy.

First is of course NAFTA. Here, the Obama campaign is using her schedules to show she supported the treaty. But she claims she actually didn't agree with it at the time. Now, I could understand if she opposed it, but defended it publicly because that was Bill's decision. But I am not sure I believe her. This strategy reeks of typical Clinton behavior; she takes credit for the good things during her husband's administration but says she opposed all the bad things.

The second example has to do with Rwanda. Again, she claims she was actually on the correct side of this issue, in favor of getting more involved. As in the case above, there isn't much evidence (but there is some - one person who will back it up) to support this. And in fact, if it was the case, why hasn't this come out before?

I want to be able to give someone the benefit of the doubt. But since there is scant evidence, and I don't much trust Hillary's candor, I have a hard time believing. Wouldn't it be great though if both Democratic candidates were serious about preventing genocide? That is probably why I am a little more inclined to believe her about Rwanda. I want to believe that it is more likely that she was shocked by what was going rather than unaffected.

Primaries Roundup

So there has been a decent amount of activity lately in the primaries. I want to cover as much as I can, so I'll be brief. Obama gave a speech on race last week. What it showed once again is Obama's ability to understand the nuance of issues. His ability to recognize anger on both sides of an issue, to see gray areas, would be a welcome change to a president that can only see the world in the Manichean lens of good and evil.

I shouldn't be surprised though that Bill Kristol doesn't want to talk about race. He thinks we would be better off just making progress without talking about it. Granted, I'll be the first to say too much talking prevents progress. But ignoring issues and pretending they will fix themselves is absurd. Only by recognizing where there are still problems (racial steering in the housing market for example). And to say that a discussion about race will only divide us doesn't make sense in light of the type of speech Obama gave - one that sought to unite and recognized both sides and then suggested what we can do about it.

Hillary released her schedules from her time as first lady. Again, the information seems to show that her experiences were both greater than what Obama was doing at the time, while also less than what she makes them out to be. Although at times it is hard to get a clear sense for what she did since of those who were there, some work for Hillary and say she is being accurate and the rest seem to work for Obama and say she is exaggerating. It would be great if someone objective came forward and said something. This story seems to confirm my thoughts though: she did go to the Balkans during the violence, but she wasn't actually ducking sniper fire. Valuable experience, but not quite as she describes it. True, this does sound like a problem most politicians have.

Richardson has endorsed Obama. This means a lot to me since I supported Richardson's run (before he announced an immediate withdrawal from Iraq). It also says something that a close friend of the Clinton's, someone who was appointed to two high-level positions under Bill, would decide to support Obama. The fact that James Carville would call Richardson a Judas is not surprising for two reasons. One, Carville is just plain crazy. Two, it shows that the Clinton people expect loyalty over objectivity. Apparently, if Richardson doesn't want to support Hillary based on her campaigning, then he should out of loyalty. Well, we saw from Bush what happens when you value loyalty too much.

Finally, it seems McCain gave more consideration to changing parties than he has let on. I don't blame him - although it is amazing how easily liberals forget about how socially conservative he is (myself very much included). I wonder though if this will help him or hurt him - meaning will he gain more moderate votes than he loses in conservative votes?

Ethnic Nationalism

I started sharing magazines with a coworker of mine. I give him copies of my old New York Review of Books (which I haven't done yet) and he gives me old copies of Foreign Affairs. One of the first articles I read was this one about ethnic nationalism (or ethnonationalism). Although at first glance it seems like your standard troupe suggesting that different cultures cannot get along, it is actually very well argued and the tone is reasonable.

Basically his argument is that Americans tend to underestimate the power of ethnonationalism and assume it is an idea created by humans. The author admits that is is a fake construct, but that doesn't diminish its power. He then sites all the examples of ethnic conflict that eventually lead to peace following mass murder and / or mass migration. He argues that the peace is caused by homogenization and separation of the populations. His examples are hard to refute - although some of them I lack enough knowledge to be able to know if his analysis is accurate (he goes back to post World War I changes).

If his analysis is right, it doesn't bode well for some current or recent conflict situations. We look at places like Iraq, Kenya, Rwanda, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, and the Balkans, and wonder if they'll be able to hold together in their current state. And in fact, in Iraq, there has already been significant displacement, especially in Baghdad. Neighborhoods are much more homogeneous now after minority residents were forced to leave or killed. It makes you wonder if some of the decrease in violence is attributable to this.

I don't want to be a pessimist. I don't want to believe that the only way to stabilize places like Sudan or the Congo is through separation. At the same time, there is a reason we supported Kosovo's declaration of independence (and it's not just because of guilt). Maybe the answer isn't clean one way or the other, but needs to be decided on a case by case basis. For example, Rwanda is relatively stable for now, and Kenya appears to be getting back on track.

I think though our first step should be to get involved and try to help the populations stay together. Then if it isn't working, to allow for separation and make the mass migrations as painless as possible. But since we haven't been trying very hard in places like Congo, Sudan, and Somalia, we don't know whether the only option is ethnically homogeneous states.