He Would've Made a Good President

Last year, we saw two sad examples of countries where contested election results lead to violence and instability - in Kenya and Zimbabwe. Both cases fortunately garnered public attention and concern for the vulnerable populations.

What is not as often reported is when the transitions go smoothly. Well, in December, Ghana elected a new President, and the winner was not from the same party as the outgoing president. The election was close, but in the end resulted in no reported violence and a smooth transition.

Last year, I actually had the privilege of meeting Ghana's presidential candidate, Nana Akufo-Addo. Mr. Akufo-Addo was from the same party as the outgoing president and was considered the front-runner. The event was a fundraiser in New York. Mr. Akufo-Addo came off as brilliant and deeply committed to improving Ghana. Although my first impression was that he would have made a great president, it is reassuring to see that though he lost, he stepped aside gracefully.

On the other hand, I know nothing about the winner, John Atta Mills, besides what is in the article. Hopefully he is as competent and trustworthy as Nana Akufo-Addo seemed.

There are some serious problems and crises in Africa that need to be addressed. But examples like this should help inform the world that there are many examples of good government to show that the problem is not with the African people, but certain people on the continent and certain conditions that lead to the crises we see.

Just Say We're Sorry

The leadership in Iran has, among other things, requested that the US apologize for its past crimes in Iran. While I do not think we should ever apologize because of pressure / force, I do think we should apologize when history shows that our behavior was deplorable.

Our decision to overthrow a democratic (possibly socialist but unlikely to be communist) government lead by Mohammed Mossadegh and install the Shah in 1953 is one of a series of similar and disgusting acts we committed during the Cold War. In too many cases, we chose to support undemocratic, repressive governments instead of allowing democratic socialist or communist governments. I have been meaning to write about this for a while, but cannot quite get my ideas structured right. Basically though, we had a policy that supported economic liberty (at least in the form of unrestrained capitalism) over political liberty. In fact, in some cases, Iran being one of them, we supported repressive capitalist governments over potentially free socialist governments.

So how could Obama apologize without empowering Iran too much? One way would be to apologize for all examples where we did this at once - Iran, Cuba, Chile, Congo, etc. Obama could also ask that the Iranian government issue an apology for taking over the US embassy and holding hostages.

The bottom line is that our foreign policy was bankrupt, and an apology would signal that we are ready to move away from that hypocritical policy and actually promote our ideals of political and economic liberty.

Promoting Democracy

I will be honest, when President Bush said he wanted to expand democracy across the world, I was excited. After all, who could oppose the expansion of freedoms to more people across the world? And who can argue that democracies do not improve the lives of those that live under them? It was especially refreshing to hear it come from a Republican, since I often associate Republican foreign policy with realpolitik.

In the end, Bush's rhetoric fell far short. He supported president Musharraf in Pakistan despite Musharraf's anti-democratic practices, he called for votes in Palestine only to ignore the results when Hamas won, and he did precious little in pro-American countries like Saudi Arabia to achieve real democratic reforms. In total, it made Bush look like a hypocrite - someone who wanted to use principles of spreading democracy to justify his war in Iraq.

An article in the Times shows that Obama is using less democratic rhetoric while making bigger pushes for actual change. For now it is way too soon to see if he is more willing to require our "friends" to change or to recognize elections that do not go our way and whether he can actually achieve these goals even if he is willing to do more. It is something we definitely need to pay attention to.

Second Bill of Rights

In reading the intro to a book I am thinking about buying, I was made aware of President Franklin Roosevelt's 1944 State of the Union in which he lays out the foundation for Second Bill of Rights. In this case, he wasn't looking to change the Constitution, but to proclaim that free people have rights that extend beyond what are laid out in the original 10 amendments to the Constitution. Here is an excerpt from his speech.

We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth- is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

This speech gets close to my (still developing) philosophy. There are a couple that I do not completely agree with: right to a remunerative job and the right of a farmer to raise and sell his products at a living return. First, although my understanding of economic concepts is a bit rusty, experience seems to show that eliminating unemployment is unlikely, especially without increases in inflation. Instead, I think people should have a right to a minimal standard of living and a commitment from the government that it will help them find a job if possible. Secondly, I do not know why farmers should have a special right to continue working in their field. If there is an oversupply or inefficiency, than we should not allow that condition to continue just out of nostalgic feelings for our more agricultural days.

As FDR lays them out, these are rights to be enjoyed by all Americans. I would take this one step further - that all humans have these rights. I think this is the point that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights tries to make (although notice how concise FDR was able to be). If we look around the world, we see people living lives that no human should have to endure. Just a basic sense of decency and compassion should make it easy to understand why all humans should have the right to security, food, shelter, education, and health care as much as they have a right to participate in their government, to practice a religion of their choice, to assemble, to speak, and to have equal protections under the law.

In the end, I wish this were the Democratic platform. I do not believe in socialism or communism. I do not believe in redistribution. But I do believe that every human has the right to basic living standards - that if a society is just, it exists to protect everyone and ensure equal participation in the freedoms that exit - including the markets that exchange goods as well as those that exchange ideas. Without adequate nutrition, education or health care, full participation in the society cannot be assured.

Obamanomics: Stimuli

As the new stimulus package is debated, you will hear each side talk with certainty about how tax cuts or government spending are better fiscal policies to stimulate the economy. In fact, each side will claim that the research shows that one is better than the other.

In introductory macroeconomics classes you are taught simple supply and demand equations, with tax cuts or government spending affecting overall economic activity. Depending on whether your teacher is conservative (like my high school econ teacher) or liberal (like my college econ professors), you will see multiplier affects that show tax cuts or government spending having a greater impact (respectively). In those classes, the multiplier effect is given to you by the teacher. This is why for a couple short years after high school, I believed that supply-side was the better policy.

The truth however is that what research there is shows wide variation in results. Some research does show a greater multiplier effect for tax cuts than government spending, while others show the reverse. (This Freakonomics article talks about one reason why the research is so unclear - that not as much fiscal policy research is done as monetary policy research.) In fact, a quote from an essay Christina Romer (Obama's selection to head his Council of Economic Advisors) wrote (taken from a David Brooks column) suggests that in surveys of past recessions, fiscal policy seemed to have little effect in ending the recessions.

So what are we to make of all this uncertainty? One, fiscal stimuli are more of a political tool than an economic one. They show that the government is working to make things better (even if it is somewhat cosmetic). Obama, by including tax cuts and government spending, is hoping to please people on both sides without proclaiming that one works better than the other. Two, the stimuli should at least go to things that we need. And this is the best part about Obama's stimulus package. If it is used to improve our electricity grid - a necessity if we are to actually try to change our energy supply - to improve our roads and public transportation, and to rehab our schools and public housing, it will be money spent that can both create some temporary jobs until the recession is over but also accomplish tasks that have for too long been put off.

It may not help end the recession, but it should make the transition easier while making us stronger for when it ends.