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.

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.

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.

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.

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.