Saturday, November 8, 2008

D'Oh...

The normally silver tongued Obama came out of the gates with a stumble. Though not major, the misstep was embarrassing due to its poor taste. Here are some good rules to follow if you intend to be a bipartisan statesman:

1. Never make a joke at the expense of someone's spouse.
2. Make fun of seances.
3. Don't make fun of Nancy Reagan if you want to make conservative friends. You may as well say you hate the Gipper.
4. Don't ignore Fox News, unless it is someone from Fox and Friends.
5. If you are the President-Elect, be sure to point out there is only one President.
6. If you must answer questions about the First Dog (cringe), make sure you mock the questions with faux seriousness and excessive deliberation.
7. Don't answer serious questions with less seriousness and deliberation than you would use to answer questions about the First Dog (cringe).

Obviously not a complete list, but it is a start. The scorecard: 3 good moves, 3 bad, 1 arguable (maybe it is good to ignore Fox).

Friday, November 7, 2008

Why McCain Lost: He Ran Away from Himself

Though those who know me well would quickly acknowledge that I am pragmatic centrist, some have mistakenly taken me as a raving liberal (mostly for my defense of socially liberal policies). I am not alone as a pragmatic centrist, I firmly believe I am typical of most of America.

"Pragmatic centrist" was one way to describe Sen. John McCain prior to his 2008 Presidential bid, or at least a viable narrative of his career. Sen. McCain attempted to forge practical solutions to his pet problems. For example, McCain-Feingold (though much of it found to be unconstitutional) strived for practical, tangible, understandable measures to manage the perception of inappropriate campaign finance methods.

McCain developed a reputation of ignoring his party leadership when he thought they were wrong, lending credence to the mythology of a man unconstrained by partisan fetters. He also sought alliances throughout the Senate to develop paths to success through any party.

But McCain as the "pragmatic centrist" McCain learned a very important lesson from his 2000 Presidential try: one will not be a Republican nominee by being a centrist. McCain's understanding of the essentiality of gaining approval from the right wing of the Republicans led him to turn right during the primary. His fear of the effect of his maverick reputation compelled him to continually campaign to the right, away from the center, and away from his nature.

McCain is not Reagan, not Romney, and (thankfully) not Palin. McCain was attractive as McCain: the right-leaning pragmatist who would abandon ideological solutions if they didn't make sense.

Though the failing economy didn't help his chances, and blaming his loss on the economy makes conservative ideologues feel better, McCain lost because he didn't understand his role. He didn't understand his relationship to the Republican party, he didn't understand his strategic message, and he didn't understand the tactical steps to pursue a winning strategy. 

Nothing typified his confusions more than his VP pick. Mrs. Palin seemed unprepared, too conservative, too divisive, too inexperienced, too little of nearly every required attribute. Palin proved he didn't understand his audience (hint: it wasn't the extreme right).

Personally, McCain is inspiring and admirable. Unfortunately for him, he couldn't effectively communicate his pragmatic, centrist, principled political instincts to the right demographic. But he deserves congratulations, if for nothing else than his honorable and gracious concession.

 

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

A Singular Historical Moment



















Two events are sometimes sufficient to draw an arc through history. For me, prior to November 4th, the death of Dr. M. L. King marked a point of despair and hopelessness in American history. It marked the end of the organized, non-violent struggle for social and civic justice. The attached picture, just moments before Dr. King's death, shows hope, leadership, and promise in the faces of Dr. King and his key aides. It is the one I think of when I think of Dr. King's death. 

On the night of November 4th, 2008, Dr. King's death was transformed into something different for me. It marked another beginning, a realization of Dr. King's dream. Dr. King's vocation to live and nurture the Christian social gospel planted seeds of hope throughout the country, one of which blossomed the night of the 4th.

For those who worked with Dr. King, seeing President-Elect Obama must have been ineffably fulfilling, an unimaginable reward for often thankless labor. Perhaps no image captured the toll of that struggle or completed the historical arc more clearly than Rev. Jesse Jackson's tears.

Monday, October 27, 2008

One Week To Go

With smear-mail clogging the great arteries of the information circulatory system in a last gasp effort to sway the illusive "undecided voter," it seems wise to pause and take inventory of this election.

In this election cycle we have seen a woman run for the Democratic Party's nomination, and nearly win it.

We have seen a woman nominated as the Republican Party's choice for Vice President.

We have seen an African-American man become the Democratic Party's nominee for President of the United States of America.

We have seen as genuine of an American hero as could exist, surviving the horror's of torture at an enemy's hand become the Republican Party's nominee for President of the United States of America.

Positively, early voting suggests the 2008 general Presidential election will be the most participated election in American history.

Negatively, substantive debate lags the ideals we hold for an intellectually grounded, morally responsible, penetrating engagement that seeks to hold responsible those who don't serve the public's interest.

But perhaps this election means more in a less national scale. For example, after expressing little interest in my story of receiving a rare tour of the West Wing of the White House on grounds that it was occupied by one of the least competent Presidents, she asked me about the White House. She asked about the Oval Office. She asked about the President's desk and what it was like to see it. Puzzled, I asked why she was interested all of a sudden. She replied, "Because I am hopeful again."

Regardless of whether I agree her hope is warranted, it is fundamental to the American spirit. To see a Presidential candidate tapping into such a primordially American ethos underscores the great tradition hope has played in our country. 

Hope has been the greatest casualty in the modern era of politics. From Nixon, Clinton, and Bush our generation inherited distrust, criminality, gridlock, and cynicism.

So, if nothing else, hope is making a comeback. 

It is good to see.

Saturday, June 28, 2008

The Fairness Doctrine?

In coming days, many of us will start to hear increasing clamor about the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

Opponents say that the 1940's era rule that was repealed by the FCC in the 1980's will abridge free speech by forcing broadcasters to include competing assessments to balance their coverage of any given topic. Specifically, they claim and fear that the doctrine will compel broadcasters, especially popular talk radio hosts, to include content (opinions, analysis, etc.) they disagree with but comply with the government's standard of counterbalance.

Supporters claim the rule should be employed to combat what has become a fundamentally unfair and unjust political propaganda apparatus. The argument has many forms but one common one is that media consolidation in the hands of a surprisingly small number of corporate owners has homogenized media content and suppressed substantive competition from divergent analysts, especially if they don't conform to a bombastic presentation style.

As is usual in politics, both sides have a legitimate point and many of the important issues will probably remain unaddressed.

But let's try to get a lay of the land here. First, this doctrine does in fact put speech under government control. That should be troubling to us all even if it does allay concerns about the role of talk radio. Second, the doctrine is being resurrected as a political tool against what has become the media outreach efforts of the Republican apparatus. Now, these two facts alone should warrant our opposition to the proposal. Democrats should pursue other means of eroding Republican political power.

What is not being discussed is just as important. Media consolidation is a worrying trend with many outlet and broadcast types being owned and operated by a smaller number of groups. So, while the actual outlets (satellite radio, traditional radio, cable TV, etc.) proliferate, ownership and content are becoming disturbingly homogenized. The effect is that in a quest for profits, too much content is controlled by too few. Freedom thrives at the intersection of divergent analyses, and media consolidation suppresses that tendency of freedom, that cornerstone of democracy. Additionally, the faith that the goals of profits and substantive public debate are convergent is at best woefully optimistic and at worst willfully misinformed.

Additionally, sensationalist, bombastic, controversial broadcasters grab the attention of media consumers with all of the appeal of hard-hitting journalism but none of the rigor. The resultant product is an all-too-common regurgitation of political party talking points in the name of corporate profits. All the while the regulatory function of the FCC to act in the public's interest is lost. So, the principle freedom of the Bill of Rights is being employed for profits and not public interest.

Does that imply that broadcasters such as Limbaugh and Hannity don't serve the public? No. In fact, they do, just not primarily. Having opinion sharing programs is good. The problem is that their goal is listenership and listenership is driven by style and presentation rather than sober fact finding (e.g. C-SPAN ratings aren't really competitive with, well, anyone's). I am reminded of an example from Hannity's radio program In the wake of the Iraq invasion and faced with lack of evidence of WMD, Sen. Rick Santorum went on Hannity to audaciously declare that the U.S. actually did find WMD. Hannity offered no critical questioning. Of course, Santorum was refuted (painfully if the number of reports documenting the lack of evidence is used as the measure). The style of that interview led one to believe that the truth of WMD's being found was being suppressed, but the facts of that exchange pointed to Sen. Santorum's obvious wrongness, if not prevarication.

There are of course other related issues. For example, where were the concerns over free speech when the public, peaceful, political demonstrations have been relegated to government controlled "free speech zones," well away from where anyone can see or interact with them? Where were Republicans' outrage over the use of gerrymandering and political appointments to advance party agenda?

Let's be frank, the Democrats are willing to infringe on our civil liberties to advance party power, but to about the same degree as their Republican counterparts.

A real "fairness doctrine" should demand accountability for this type of political machination from whatever its source. Shame on the Democrats willing to suppress free speech and shame on the Republicans willing to exploit it.

Friday, June 20, 2008

The Dark Pall of Gitmo Just Got Darker

My previous post may have been too generous to our government's treatment of detainees at Gitmo and elsewhere. 

In testimony this week before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Rights, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson testified that over 100 detainees have died while in U.S. custody, more than 25 of those have been identified as murder.

The McClatchy news service released a report detailing detainee treatment at Kandahar, Bagram, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere. 

Several key points from the piece: a multitude of aggressive interrogation techniques were used that in conjunction (if not individually) constitute torture; many intelligence officials admitted that very little quality intelligence was being acquired overall due to the fact that many of those captured had tenuous connections to Al Qaida or were mere foot soldiers; of the over 700 people passing through Gitmo only 6 people have been charged, that's a 99% failure rate; and finally, a small cadre of lawyers referring to themselves as the "war council" provided the legal reasoning (however specious) to underwrite the administration policy and eschew future legal culpability.

RADM Mark Buzby was quoted as saying, "It's all about developing the [intelligence] mosaic...there's value at both ends of the spectrum..." A sagacious observation.

The mosaic that is developing shows a small circle of federal officials who view our country's laws and the principles on which they are based as impediments to executing a Global War on Terrorism. These men are anathema to our constitution and our democracy.



Sunday, June 15, 2008

The Guantanamo Problem

Oh, what to do with Gitmo? The U.S. finds itself in the midst of true quagmire. 

On one hand we have apprehended, by many accounts, some pretty unsavory players on the world scene who have been shown to go back and inflict the kind of harm on American and other forces that we have feared they would. On the other hand, there are some truly dubious reasons put forth for keeping some of the detainees locked up, without access to any representation, without any endpoint to their detention, and under the hope that onlookers trust the process put forth in the Military Commissions Act.

The problem here appears to turn on credibility: do we trust a military tribunal system in whose interest the long-term detention of combatants without a flag seems to be, especially given the detainees' potential ability to provide valuable, if not actionable intelligence. Or do we trust a legal system who is willing to afford those caught perpetrating the most wanton aggression against our countrymen its legal defenses? One group seems ignorant to the basic tenants of the fundamental processes of our democracy while the other ignorant of the prima facie weirdness of offering enemies of our state deferential protections.

But the problem is more fundamental than trust in our government to act effectively in good faith and in our defense. The problem of Gitmo is the central problem of the so-called War on Terrorism: what the hell is "terrorism" anyway and how do we treat it? Is it a criminal enterprise or asymmetric military operation? Are the captured criminals or prisoners of war?

The Military Commissions Act (perhaps just window dressing on a desire to maintain open-ended detention) struggles to deal with stateless combatants and offers a plan to determine their eligibility for inclusion in its processes that barely understands the complexity and gravity of its own purpose. The effect is a quasi-jurist prudence that seeks to try and convict the captured for crimes but not afford them the legal protections essential to American democracy. Also, it regards supposed criminals as warriors who can only be dealt with by military processes.

The result is a juxtaposition of military and civilian institutions that fails to ground itself in the best principles of either. Fueling the polarized interpretations of the processes and institution of Gitmo are the broad spectrum of real possibilities: open-ended detention of potentially innocent prisoners; release of clearly guilty prisoners who rejoin the fight against America; persons of truly unknown status who have no access to disinterested, competent representatives; and obvious combatants who are afforded unprecedented civilian legal rights.

So, this week the Supreme Court  handed down a decision that was sure to be riddled with contradictions, as Scalia's dissent and many commentaries have indicated. But the opposite decision would have been little better. Basically, the Court had to choose between allowing for the disappearing of citizens or a process that puts combatants right back on the battlefield. 

In the end, the country continues to suffer from poorly conceived policy.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

The Loss of Tim Russert

I remember watching Tim on Meet the Press just as my political interests began to emerge as a senior in high school. As an adult, Meet the Press became the highlight of my week following politics, especially if there was an interview with a current newsmaker. There are only two shows on television that I set an alarm for and Meet the Press was one of them. My wife couldn't understand my interest, the way I watched with rapt attention, or why the show was unique because of Tim Russert. He embodied the model of good journalism: well-informed, tenacious in his pursuit of truth in the public's service, as fair and balanced as anyone could aspire to be.

His journalism was an asset to us all and his absence will leave the institution of American journalism and American democracy feeling the loss.

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

The Democrats' Gambit

The Indiana and North Carolina primaries are much worse for Hillary Clinton than their prima facie significance. First, Sen. Clinton was only able to eek out a small margin of victory in Indiana despite demographics similar to Ohio and Pennsylvania and despite Obama still fighting off the lingering Jeremiah Wright controversy. Those who say that Obama might benefit from some neighborly celebrity haven't noticed Chicago television news cameras and helicopters holding vigil near the embattled pastor.

Second, let's be honest, Sen. Obama beat the spread in North Carolina, scoring a double-digit thumping with broad support across the state, including overwhelming African-American support.

Clinton, and more importantly the Democratic superdelegates, have a major strategic decision to make: How do we manage Hillary Clinton's departure from the nomination process? Whatever the final plan, here are a few key components for consideration.

1. Hillary is not going tot be the nominee. She and her supporters must come to believe that because it is the truth under current democratic party rules. 

2. Hillary is out of money and accumulating a sizable debt. She must continue the charade of campaigning to maintain the illusion that she is still accepting money for a future presidential bid. The fact is she is trying to payoff her loans to her own campaign.

3. After numerous promises to see the nomination process through, for her to resign from the contest at this point might prolong the acrimony between supporters of each of the democratic candidates. Democrats must quickly begin the process of reconciliation and doing anything to add fuel to the fire of the feeling that the nomination was not fairly earned.

4. Sen. Clinton, given the extent to which she has gone to attack, undermine, and cast doubt upon Sen. Obama, must go just as far to restore faith to the nominative process or she sacrifice all belief in the minds of others that Clintons' are only a member of any political party to the extent that it advances their ambition.

So here is the gambit: Democratic superdelegates are betting that they can sacrifice time against Sen. McCain to allow Hillary pay off some debts and hopefully make nice with the democratic base without losing substantial ground to the Republican nominee. This may be a riskier gamble than may appear at first blanch given the relative inexperience of the junior Illinois senator, as his recent gaffes may indicate. 


Monday, April 28, 2008

The Rev. Wright Issue

Many have denounced Jeremiah Wright's comments as un-American, un-Christian, inappropriate for any sermon, racist, among many other criticisms. He did little to dissuade his detractors from declaring themselves justified and vindicated through his April 28th appearance at the National Press Club. The wake of the appearance brought the expectedly bland responses.

George Will summarized the Wright controversy as a nearly limitless source of political capital for McCain, which with every unfolding of the controversy seems unavoidably true. Additionally, he provides a mind-numbing analysis of Wright's rhetorical logic that tortures his Press Club words into denying that American government is representative.

Eugene Robinson takes on Wright's central claim that the controversy centers on "the black church" and not Wright himself. He concludes that Wright is wrong, that the controversy is about Wright, that he threw Obama under the now proverbial bus, and that Obama should return Wright's favor.

But there is an inconvenient truth out there: Wright has a point, in fact several. Let me lay out just a couple.

1) Wright criticizes the media for exhibiting a near-willful misunderstanding of his comments, fundamentally failing to provide requisite context, and failing to provide relevant, accurate facts. He is, to some extent, correct. His comments where he purportedly invoked God to damn America came in the midst of a sermon on the infallibility of God and the the fallibility of government. The sermon crescendoed when he claimed that God could damn America if it saw itself as God-like in its power. This is a fundamental Judeo-Christian belief that finds its roots in numerous biblical parables. One could argue that it is the dominant theme of the Old Testament (if not the entire bible).

2) Wright claims that the controversy revolves not around Wright but "the black church." First, E. Robinson is correct when he claims that Wright does not represent the entirety of the black church. But I don't think that is what Wright meant. In my view, when Wright says that the controversy is about the black church, he means that the black church (whatever that term means in any given usage) must be brought into the conversation when discussing the import of Christianity to the American social, political, and religious landscape.

One could offer further defenses of some of the now-celebrity comments. That being said, there are certainly many comments that are without evidence or merit, such as the accusation that the US government invented HIV/AIDS to exterminate African-Americans.

But what is more remarkable than Wright's comments is how unwilling many are to understand his positions, even listen to the entirety of his sermons. For example, in the context of the fallibility of governements, Rev. Wright argued that the government allowed the drug trade to continue to the US as a means for the Contras to supplement their income and help shoulder the cost of US provided arms. That is at least in the ballpark. In fact, the history of US involvement in South America should prompt us all to take a second look.

This controversy opens yet another opportunity to talk to each other, to understand each other, and substantively agree or disagree. Unfortunately, the current flash in the pan highlights our unwillingness to seek substance in debate.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

VA Pays for Waterboarding


According to the Navy Times, Veterans Affairs decided to pay for medical treatment of a veteran who underwent waterboarding as a part of Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) training. The vet will receive counseling for PTSD and medication.

When will people have the courage to denounce the use of torture? Advocates of its use have but one dubious utilitarian argument for its justification: the information that it could potentially produce will potentially save more lives than the ones it will ruin. In its most callous formulation the previous argument substitutes a single American life for "saved lives." After all, if one has committed to torture, then one has committed to the abject devaluation of at least one life to glean information that only might be true, may not be valuable, and may save none. In other words, what makes torture such a horrible transaction is that the price of admission to the event must be paid with no knowledge of the contents of the mind of the person the torturer has committed to breaking. The economics of torture sets the cost to be the minds of men on the basis of a hunch, a guess, a grotesque hope that something valuable will be learned to retroactively justify that rueful price.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Too Long a Hiatus

For those of you who don't know, I have a new baby. Unfortunately, she seems alien to a natural talent for sleeping, so we have been trying to cultivate skills where those talents may have resided.

Stop back periodically to check for updates.

Hope to write to everyone soon.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Obama and McCain: Fellowship of the Race

After a win in SC that is as stunning in its margin as it is revelatory of the voting public's thinking (very bad news for Hillary), Obama moves on to Super Tuesday states. McCain is running hard in Florida to achieve a lead and some momentum going into Feb. 5th.

But their fates are linked in so many ways. As one goes, so does the other.

If McCain wins FL, then he quickly becomes the ostensible front runner of the GOP. Democrats are increasingly concerned with electability and believe that McCain would capitalize on national dislike of Hillary Clinton and his appeal among independent and moderate Democratic voters to beat Clinton. So, if McCain wins FL, look to better than expected results for Obama, especially among the superdelegates who see the writing on the wall.

From the opposite perspective, if Obama wins the nomination, Republicans know that his appeal among independents and moderates would probably overwhelm Romney. McCain does well against Obama in a general election and may reap the benefits in FL of Republican realism. So, McCain may actually get a bump going into the FL primary.

The double-effect of excitement over a win in SC and the realism that Obama is the competitive Democrat against McCain serves Obama very well going into Super Tuesday. But McCain must win for it to happen.

Once again, FL has the potential to significantly impact a presidential election.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

American Healthcare: Our Shame

By most estimates, at least 47 million Americans are without health-care coverage. Millions more are at risk of losing their coverage because, quite simply, they can barely afford it and losing it is better than losing their home. Thousands more will be severely financially impacted by a serious illness because their premiums and co-pays amount to more than they can pay or insurance companies issue a post hoc denial of benefits.

An important question in the debate is whether this is the best we or any society can do. Obviously the answer is "no." But another question strikes even deeper and at the heart of American politics, if not identity. It is: Are the best interests of a business always coincident with the best interests of an individual? The answer to that question seems almost obviously "no" in some cases, therefore "no" in the general case.

Health care and social assistance is a $1.6 trillion industry. That number is staggering. It accounts for a significant portion of the services that compose 55% of our economy. According to the 2000 World Health Organization report of health care around the world, our expenditure is #1 in the word, we are ranked #37 overall (right behind Costa Rica), and #72 for the level of health we achieve (right ahead of Bhutan and right behind Argentina). So, while the industry has been recording record profits and unprecedented wealth, we have been achieving the dizzying heights of wellness of countries like Bhutan.

Health care has been left in the hands of the free market for at least the last 35 years, since the Nixon administration, and in that time we have seen an escalation in the price of nearly every medical/wellness/social service or product while the health care/services industry has ballooned to almost unfathomable prosperity. All the while the numbers of people left without care they can afford or without care at all continue to swell. Don't forget, all those who were lucky enough to receive care/service have joined the ranks of the Bhutanese.

So, what are the arguments against universal health care (lest we forget that all best health care systems are government run and do more with less money)?

Position #1: Government sponsored health care is tantamount to socialism.
Response #1: OK, is government run firefighting tantamount to socialism? What about the Postal Service? If they are, is that a reason to privatize all fire departments? There are services that citizens need that most agree should not be withheld if they can't afford it, like fire fighting. The previous is a good working criteria for what services should be public. Hell, I'll pay for my postage if that means that people can see a doctor.

Position #2: A free market solution will save us money and give us the best care.
Response #2: The free market solution has not served us well to this point, why again should I place my faith in it? The best business model is to collect as much money while providing the least amount of care. That is what we have now. We are charged significantly for care we don't receive. Granted, world renowned experts practice in the US. Unfortunately, most of us can't afford them. Remember, US free market solution has given us Bhutanese level of health, now those are results.

Position #3: The government would be bankrupted.
Response #3: See Response #2 on how well the free market is doing. Admittedly, much would have to be done by way of tort reform to limit damages against the government. But with people given wellness and sickness care from cradle to grave, overall medical expenditures would come down as health improves (much the same way numbers of fires go down when we improved fire prevention and response infrastructure: detectors, sprinklers, etc.) There is plenty of fat to be cut out of our current federal budget. After all, how many Osprey's does the USN/USMC really need? Or, do we really need a federal department to tell old ladies to take their shoes off at the airport?

Position #4: People could afford health care if they just spent wisely.
Response #4: That is true but it is not true for all or even the majority of people without access to care. American economics is complicated but there is an alarmingly and increasingly applicable catch-22 that many don't want to admit. Our economy is as robust as it is because people spend beyond their means and many businesses need that to be true. Put differently, if Americans spent and saved wisely by living within their means, our economy would collapse. Put yet another way, the American economy presupposes consumers will be saddled with debt for goods that consumers will have to spend a lifetime working off. And let's face it, health care can't be repossessed so why should it be funded with a loan. (Note: the politics/economies of debt is worthy of further of discussion that will occur in a future post)

We can do better as a country. We are willing to sink trillions of dollars into wars every 15 years but we can't seem to come up with the money or will to take care of our infirmed? If war metaphors are the only way to motivate action, then where is the war on preventable illness, or infant mortality? So, instead of falling prey to the rampant demagoguery out there, give me the argument for why all of my countrymen should not have health care. I am happy to oblige with a response.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Our Future in Iraq

The war in Iraq has been costly in terms of life and money, that much is beyond dispute. The question that our nation is facing is what to do from this point. Unfortunately, the answer will not easily break down along political party lines because the road to whatever success we can derive from this experience will cost the country more time, more lives, and more commitment to Iraq.

There are some facts that we must face up to: 1) as Colin Powell warned President Bush before the start of the Iraq war, "if we break it, we own it;" the problems in Iraq are ours to fix. 2) Precipitous withdraw from Iraq, i.e. leaving before the "job is done," would be disastrous for the region. 3) Clear, realistic goals must formulated and met before our departure.

Many experts agree that significant troop levels must be maintained in Iraq through at least 2012, probably to 2018, to continue to succeed in suppressing insurgency and sectarian violence. Costs for continuing to rebuild critical infrastructure such as electrical generation and distribution, clean drinking water, government buildings and other logistics support resources, and oil production and distribution facilities will likely be hundreds of billions of dollars. But these costs are a big political and economic pill for politicians and the public to swallow.

But sticking it out in Iraq might be more beneficial in the long run than many estimate or the economic costs suggest. First, it could usher in a new era in American foreign policy. Many decry American foreign policy because it is too interventionist when it comes to the internal workings of foreign nations that disagree with American interests and their pursuits. At the same time, many criticize American foreign policy for not intervening enough to aid in solution to problems that the U.S. helps to create. Staying in Iraq could demonstrate to a skeptical part of the world that we are willing to help clean up the mess that we created by our covert and overt involvement in the region since the early 1950's. Practically, that means helping to rebuild critical infrastructure, avoiding excessive interference with the democratic process in Iraq (even if we do not like the outcomes), a commitment to not turn Iraq into an excuse for military presence in the region, and high-level negotiations with surrounding countries to promote diplomatic trust and exchange.

Second, staying there for the long haul could teach a painful but invaluable lesson to the Congress: that feeble, ambiguous resolutions and hopes for the best are not ways to live up to the responsibility of being the preeminent constitutional power. While the President is the Commander-in-Chief of military forces, he is not the sole underwriter of projects as momentous as invading a country, deposing its sovereign government, and attempting to instigate the growth of a democracy. The Congress should have insisted on its oversight role in the planning for Iraq before authorizing war. The fact it didn't does not excuse it from dealing with the consequences of poor planning by precipitously withdrawing from the mess it authorized. The Congress should generate a non-partisan coalition to seriously assess short and long term military and civil plans for the region.

Lastly, the American public can learn that it too is responsible for Iraq in that its consent was not informed but inflamed by the emotions of 9/11. The public is the ultimate adjudicator of this country's leadership and to let ourselves be swept away by nationalist fervor, factional myopia, or thirst for revenge abdicates our responsibility to hold leaders responsible. The public should pause when feeling cavalier about foreign invasions because though public sentiments may change quickly, the policies underwritten by them do not. The public should seriously consider the presidential candidates' military and civil plans for Iraq before casting their ballots.

Ultimately, this is a case of not believing the truth of the dictum, caveat emptor. Though the decision to buy into this war in Iraq was almost undoubtedly unwise, limited successes and practical lessons for future policy and civic responsibility can of course be drawn. The real question is whether America has the resources to cover the check we wrote to buy this war, this occupation, this future.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

The Presidential Aristocracy

In a recent Money Magazine (Jan 2008) article, the financial standing of the leading presidential candidates are summarized. Here are some of the findings:

Name
Net Worth
- Hillary Clinton: $34.9 million
- John Edwards $54.7 million
- Barack Obama $1.3 million
-Rudy Giuliani $52.2 million
-John McCain $40.4 million
-Mitt Romney $202 million
-Fred Thompson $8.1 million

The sketch may surprise those who believe that their candidates represent them to the extent they reflect them. In 2000, G.W. Bush achieved popular support in part because people believed he would be the best invitee to a backyard BBQ despite being a multimillionaire.

Others may feel inspired by the products of our American capitalism. Through hard work and entrepreneurial savvy, many of these figures achieved remarkable wealth.

Others still may be suspicious of the vast fortunes that appear to be a prerequisite for realistic aspirations to the Presidency on grounds that financial success contributes to economic aristocracy that leaves the less well-off excluded from leadership roles.

Generally, our responses to this information are as numerous and complex as our relationship to wealth and poverty in our country. Should the general public be surprised if they knew, should they care? Does it make any difference in their leadership, positively or negatively? Is this a new issue or has it been with our democracy since its inception?

Some have written that the public shouldn't be surprised or concerned by the fact that U.S. presidents have traditionally been very wealthy, basically arguing that if it was good enough for the proverbial founding fathers then why shouldn't it be good enough for us. Others have said that no evidence of undue influence on the president or harm to the democratic process has been generated, so the concern is the product of class warfare propagandists.

But the American democracy has evolved. Originally, white male land owners were the participants in our democracy, while others were just not entrusted with the power of voting. As women and African-Americans were granted the rights of the republic, our democracy changed. It became more open and inclusive, its historical orientation around the axis of property-owner rights shifted to an orientation around civil rights and participation.

As inclusiveness has improved, the average economic status of the participants has decreased. The double effect is that first, the face of the potential voter has increasingly become the face of the middle-class laborer or the previously disenfranchised and second, the economic disparity between the elected official and the average potential voter has widened.

Also, as the American economy has grown, those of means have been increasingly able to employ economies of scale to finance their political aspirations. For the average American to develop the same economic power, they would need to be supported by vastly larger donor-supporter pool to even begin their campaign.

The upshot is the increasing cost of political campaigning at all levels and the widening economic disparity between the average American and its politicians makes national politics (if not other levels) nearly exclusively for the super-wealthy. In itself this may not be problematic, but as our economy shifts away from the manufacturing and other manual laboring toward a service-based (especially financially service-based) economy, the political class increasingly loses contact with those outside of itself.

So, on one hand America has been moved by the force democratic inclusiveness and on the other American democracy is stretched by economic stratification. In the absence of grassroots participation, democracy will migrate with the money and many will be left with the mere hope that the political-economic elite are wise and benevolent enough to protect the less fortunate. Therefore, widespread increases in grassroots democratic processes at the individual, city, state, and national political level generates a renewed representative force that limits the influence of wealth and the stratification of democratic processes. The average American can no longer afford to abdicate their civic responsibility to be an informed participant.


Thursday, January 3, 2008

Iowa's Caucus at History's Crossroads

After unbridled and unabashed attempts at political prognostication in Iowa, the results are in. For the first time in recent history of the United States an African-American has won a presidential caucus/primary, invoking Bobby Kennedy in a stirring victory speech that highlighted a vision of the future as much as it drew upon the spirits of 60's politics.

On the Republican side, a preeminent no-name just a few months ago, Mike Huckabee won decisively over the rest of the field, also giving a populist and notable victory address. Tapping into broad populist themes and the Christian evangelicals' opposition to abortion, he was able to forge an attractive alternative to the perceived all-too-slick Mitt Romney and all-too-city Rudy Giuliani.

The victories are indeed momentous and highlight some of the tectonic shifts underway in both the Democratic and Republican parties. For the Democrats, the Iowa caucus reflects the twilight of Clinton-style politics, if not the Clinton candidacy, which shakes some central pillars of the recent Democratic establishment.

Bill Clinton epitomized pandering, saying anything that was necessary to garner political support regardless of its truth, regardless of its legitimacy, and regardless of its impact. With each falsehood, cynicism grew among the American voters. Hillary Clinton, a divisive public figure continuing that tradition, voted to authorize the war in Iraq and has subsequently claimed that she did not on grounds that her vote really was designed to encourage more diplomacy. Democrats in Iowa have demonstrated they want a candidate they can believe and believe in, and they don't believe what Hillary (or Bill) Clinton say.

Additionally, Democrats spoke in 2006 that they want their representatives to stand for something. After being voted into the majority in congress, congressional Democrats squandered support by not standing up against Republican rhetoric and pressure, and find themselves disapproved of by 75-85% of the voting population. Iowan Democrats are sending a message: the era of Clinton-style pandering and misinformation has corroded the spirit of the electorate and Democrats want to believe in an honest, courageous leader who can rejuvenate their political spirit by standing up for well-reasoned policy.

Republicans hardly fare better. After years of courting evangelical Christian voters using the issue of abortion as a unifying issue, Republicans find the party has been consumed by evangelicalism, at the expense of traditional Republican orthodoxy. The result is that Huckabee, a minister who stands against abortion but who rejected some tenants of conservative orthodoxy as Arkansas's governor, has shocked pundits with a meteoric rise. Conservative talk radio has broadly rejected Huckabee on grounds that he is not a "true" conservative and the RNC cannot fathom a Huckabee candidacy.

A few lessons about the state of the Republicans can be drawn from Huckabee's win in Iowa. First, modern conservatism and the Republican party may soon not be synonymous. Republicans of the near future may soon have substantive debates over key issues that have been disallowed in the recent Republican party. Huckabee has diverged with modern conservatism on tax policy, health care policy, immigration policy, among others. Republicans are beginning to struggle with party diversity and the logistical difficulties it presents.

Second, modern conservatism worked hard to link the issue of abortion to conservative politics to court Christians and broaden the Republican base. Now, evangelicals, at least in Iowa, are asserting their power in the conservative movement and Republican party. Republicans are beginning to learn that evangelicals are coming to the polls at an increasing price to the party, that there may have to be compromise in areas that Republicans have assumed is beyond discussion. Iowan evangelicals are sending a clear message: they will not be pawns for RNC strategies without some substantive political recompense, and they are claiming a candidate.

Though the Iowa caucus has been historic (in both turnout and outcome), pregnant with possibility for political change and a renaissance of civic participation, the rest of the country has yet to prove they are up to the challenge. But for there to be real change in any political process, the electorate must inform themselves and participate. Most Americans would be shocked at what has been done in Washington D.C. in their name if they knew just basic civics and the smallest portion of their representatives record and significant legislation. Iowa's caucus may indeed mark change: change in participation, change in knowledge, change in party politics, change in expectations, among others. But if Iowa is to be more than ephemeral and fleeting optimism, then the winners tonight must continue their success and the electorate must carry the mantle of civic responsibility.