NSA Violations Undermine the US Abroad: Is this Obama's Legacy?

After the American Century

This is the 400th blog entry for After the American Century.

More revelations about the NSA's snooping are being discussed in the world press, and it is increasingly clear that the NSA has undermined US relations with allies. How much distrust it has created cannot be quantified, but every Danish person I have discussed this with dislikes what the NSA is doing, including colleagues, teenagers, pensioners, students, neighbors, and taxi drivers. All can see that some spying is needed for national security, but hoovering up all the data available seems not just expensive, not just overkill, not just excessive, but the actions of a rather paranoid international bully.  Sorry, my American readers, but this is the bad news the domestic press is not saying too much about.

Because the underlying reputation of the United States in the world has been adversely affected, news is beginning to appear about American businesses losing contracts abroad because of fears of NSA surveillance, fears that trade secrets are being stolen, fears that negotiations and bidding on lucrative contracts are being spied on, and so on. Many foreign businesses want to avoid saving data on US systems, because of these fears. Some estimates suggest that the IT industry alone may lose $180 billion in foreign business because of the NSA revelations. Little wonder that the largest technology companies wrote an open letter to President Obama protesting the NSA's over-reach.

Likewise, many ordinary people abroad wish they could stop using American-owned sites, such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, and all the rest, because the newspapers have confirmed that all these corporations are compromised. In the end, it matters little whether they intentionally shared date with the NSA or were hacked by the NSA. The lack of privacy is more than disturbing; it is driving a wedge of distrust between the US and the rest of the world.

The average person assumes that if the German Prime Minister is not safe from NSA snooping, if the Israeli Defense Minister is not safe, if the diplomats of the EU are not safe, then of course no one else is safe either. The assurances that  information gathered is not shared with other government agencies rings rather hollow. After all, Mr. Snowdon was able to obtain huge amounts of information about all sorts of things. There appear to be thousands of others with the same security clearance. Have none of these men and women ties to other US government agencies? Are all of them able to resist pressure to help out a friend in another government agency? Are none of them corrupt? Who can seriously believe that the federal access to information is limited to NSA?

Unhappily, this ongoing scandal may become what President Obama is remembered for. On the one hand, he spent hundreds of billions on a global paranoia project to gather more information on more people than ever before in history. On the other hand, he did not allocate sufficient funds or find sufficient expertise to put Obamacare into working order. This is bad leadership.

The conclusion I reached in June still seems valid. Then I wrote that "The problems of the Obama Administration are to a considerable degree of its own making. Presidential second terms are often difficult, and this one seems to be no exception. Think of Lyndon Johnson after his re-election, when antiwar protests dogged his every step. Think of Richard Nixon's second term, engulfed by Watergate. Think of Reagan's second term, and Irangate. Think of Bill Clinton's scandal-ridden second term and the attempted impeachment. And finally, think of George W. Bush's second term, when his approval ratings sank below 25%. Since 1963, not one  president found a way to escape controversy and unpopularity in a second term. Obama unfortunately seems headed toward a similar fate." President Obama's popularity rating has sunk by more than ten points since this time last year. Recent second-term presidents have often had ratings around 50% at the end of their fifth year. Obama's rating is 43% according to CBS, but only 40% according to Gallup.

What an irony it will be if the American economic recovery is compromised by the NSA and Obama's slow correction of its excesses. How ironic that a president who began his term with tremendous good will abroad has squandered it.

The sad spectacle seems to justify the title of this Blog itself. The American Century perhaps could be dated from 1918, when the US emerged from World War I as the wealthiest power, with the world's largest industrial plant. The US reached the apogee of its economic power in the early Cold War, but its hegemonic position has gradually eroded as a percentage of the world's economy since then. To some extent this was unavoidable, as other nations industrialized and digitized. But there is also a purely internal decline into dysfunctionality that is not primarily due to external foes. No outside power eviscerated public education. No foreign government forced the US to have unworkable immigration laws. No international agency failed to monitor and control its banks. No nefarious outsiders are responsible for the foolish tax policies of the Bush years or the problems created by the "sequester." No outsiders force Americans to purchase ever more weapons for personal use. These egregious and unnecessary errors are just part of a catalog of mistakes that would drag down any nation, if persisted in long enough. The United States seems intent on undermining and defeating itself. The excesses of the NSA are part of that pattern.

Ten Ways to Respond to Syrian Use of Poison Gas, Other than Bombing

After the American Century

This column was written before the possibility of removing the poison gas emerged, with the subsequent negotiations between Russia and the United States. Much happened in just a week.

The use of poison gas is completely unacceptable and risks transforming warfare into indiscriminate mass-extermination. Some people therefore think that President Obama is showing weakness because he is not just bombing Syria without consulting Congress first. They would like to see more cowboy diplomacy of the sort practiced by Ronald Reagan in Libya and by George Bush I in Somalia. By some strange logic, many of the Republicans who cheered on George Bush II in attacking Afghanistan and Iraq now want restraint in Syria. But war should be declared and funded by Congress.

The more serious problem is that officials inside the Beltway, both Republican and Democratic, have reduced the available options to (1) launch missiles or (2) do nothing. There is serious mental poverty in Washington when people cannot think of more options than that.

Here are ten other ideas about what might be done. No doubt some of these ideas are better than others, but none of them involves bombing a foreign government or killing people.

(1) Punish economically the states that supply the Assad regime with arms and military supplies. It should cost something to support gas warfare. American tourists might also be advised to avoid travel to such countries.

(2) Press the World Court in The Hague to investigate and charge Syrian scientists and government officials with crimes against humanity.

(3) Launch a global public relations campaign against Russia and China for supporting Syrian atrocities at the UN and thereby paralyzing any world response.

(4) Seize Syrian government assets, if any remain in the United States, and use them to feed the enormous number of refugees fleeing the civil war.

(5) Create a no-fly zone over Syria, so its air force cannot bomb the Syrian people.

(6) Work insistently with the Arab League to develop a coherent regional response to the crisis.

(7) Break all diplomatic relations with the Syrian government. Expel their ambassador and staff.

(8) Press the rebel groups to find common ground to create a political alternative. Otherwise, their victory over the current government would likely only lead to more civil war.

(9) Press NATO (i.e. the European so-called allies) to take a role in the crisis. Europeans seem to have forgotten that it was in their own World War I that poison gas was used indiscriminately.

(10) Hold ceremonies at the graves of soldiers who perished due to gas warfare in every European country that refuses to hold Syria accountable.

One could also drop vast quantities of laughing gas on Syria, and see if that changes the mood. (OK, that is not a serious proposal, but it shows the ability to bomb, while not doing it.)

These are some of the many things the United States might do in this crisis and that President Obama could do (in most cases, including the laughing gas) without consulting Congress. It is time to use more imagination and less force in meeting international crises. The military approach has not been so wonderfully successful that all other alternatives can be ignored.

What next for Snowden in the limbo of Moscow? Asylum or disapperance?

After the American Century                                                                                                                   

What will happen to Mr. Snowden, still  in  Moscow?

One possibility is that he retains one or two big revelations as bargaining chips, in hopes that he can use them to gain a safe harbor. Moscow does not seem to be exactly that sort of place, given the treatment of journalists there, and the continuance of the Tsarist tradition of sending critics to prison. Putin-land is surely not the ideal location for a whistle blower. He might want to trade secrets for security in Russia, but other nations could be interested, depending on what he might have.

South American destinations have been in the news, more likely Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru or Bolivia than Chile, Argentina, or Brazil. Considering these possibilities underlines the nature of the problem. A large and important country is not likely to burden itself with the difficulty of entertaining Mr. Snowden. A small country probably would not likely think the risk had any payoff. Only a small to medium-sized nation that is somewhat independent of the US, probably with a left-leaning government (Venezuela comes to mind), is a likely safe haven.  Back in the Cold War, there were a few nations in Europe that might have been possible. Yugoslavia would have been ideal and Finland or even Sweden might then have been possible.

Assume, for the moment, that Mr. Snowden does find permanent asylum. Then what? He will  be a fish out of water. He will need to learn the language and the culture. He will need a job, perhaps not a difficulty since he has real computer skills. He presumably will also need protection. Soon, his knowledge of US National Security will be out-of-date and of no interest to any foreign power. He will then be of only symbolic value to the host nation, someone that they can point to as proof that they are tolerant, freedom-loving, and critical of Uncle Sam. 

Presumably Snowden hoped for more when he decided to give up his well-paying job in Hawaii and become a whistle-blower. Surely he imagined that the revelations he brought would be so shocking that major powers would come to his rescue. Perhaps they are, albeit behind the scenes. One could imagine that Germany or France might quietly prefer to have a chance to talk with him. (Since writing this he has met with the Germans.) But if so, this is all likely behind thick veils of secrecy. 

Snowden might have expected a groundswell of popular support, which in part has materialized both inside the US and abroad. The US officially wants him captured and brought back to stand trial, but does Obama really want such a media circus? A trial would delight the Republicans and erode the unity of the Democratic Party, because those on the left would tend to see Snowden as a martyr. Indeed, the best thing for Obama might be to have Snowden end up in some banana republic where he could be depicted as a fugitive from justice, and where he could then gradually fade from public attention. 

Following this line of thought, it is perhaps not entirely disagreeable to Obama to have Snowden malingering in Moscow. Where are the Russian whistle-blowers, after all, but in prisons? Snowden without assistance can neither escape nor fade conveniently away. But the latter is actually what Putin and perhaps Obama might eventually prefer. Give the man a facelift, new identity, exile, and anonymity. If he disappears without a trace, he would have little incentive to reappear on the world stage.

Snowden's disappearance would not be justice, and it would would not reconcile the massive security he uncovered with the ideals of democracy. But it has a certain noir elegance worthy of a novel.

Obama's Priorities for the Second Term

After the American Century                                                                                                                                                         

On the night he was re-elected, President Obama said that he had four priorities for his second term. These were deficit reduction, tax reform, a new immigration law, and reducing dependence on foreign oil.  

Since then gun control has been forced onto the national agenda, and Obama has announced that he would like to impose more controls on the sale of automatic weapons. The Constitutional guarantee of the right to bear arms, written quite clearly into the Bill of Rights, will not easily be overthrown, however. Any major change will ultimately require the assent of 75% of the states. There are quite a few rural states where any such Constitutional amendment will be hard to push through. Remember the failure to pass the Equal Rights Amendment for women? I am sure Obama does, and he will not want to waste too much political capital on lost causes.

Let us look, instead, at the four announced goals, each in turn.

Deficit reduction. This problem did not exist in 2000, but was created by the un-financed Bush tax cuts and the un-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Now that the war in Iraq is over, and that in Afghanistan is winding down, one consequence ought to be some savings in military spending.  In general, however, it will be hard to reduce the deficit by cutting programs.  The only intelligent way to do this is to increase taxes back to the level of the Clinton years. This leads to the second goal:

Tax reform.  During the campaign Obama spoke of reducing taxes, making this possible by closing loopholes. I have heard this idea since I was old enough to understand what politicians were saying, but either clever accountants and lawyers keep finding new loopholes or this is just rhetoric, or maybe some of both. Meaningful tax reform would seem to require the progressive taxation that existed for decades before the Republicans began to slash away at it, from the Reagan years onwards. Warren Buffet, one of the wealthiest men in the US, has said that it is ridiculous that his tax rate is lower than his secretary's. He and a group of other super-rich Americans have called for higher rates on themselves. One hopes that a few Republicans in the House will heed this call for a responsible tax policy. One way or another, revenues must be higher and spending held in check, so that the national debt once again can begin to be paid off. Curiously, the most successful debt reduction since 1970 came during Clinton's presidency. Had Bush left his tax system alone, the US would not be in the fiscal mess it is in now. I expect some changes to be made, but given the Republican dominated House, I do not expect to see real "reform." I would love to be mistaken.

Immigration Reform. An estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now live in the United States. Given the presumed importance of secure borders and Homeland security, this is anomalous, to put it mildly. The majority of these immigrants are of Hispanic origin, and Obama has promised to provide them a road to legal status and ultimately citizenship. Since more than 70% of Hispanic votes went to Obama, he has every interest in delivering on this pledge. If the Republicans vigorously oppose him, they will drive the Hispanics even more firmly into the Democratic camp. This would seem to be an issue on which the Democrats cannot really lose, even if in the short term they lose in Congress. In the longer term, these 11 million or more people have to be dealt with fairly. Moreover, Hispanics are the largest minority, far more numerous than African-Americans. The good news is that the Republicans and Democrats seem to be negotiating with some success on this issue, and a new law might be passed. It appears that it will not deliver simple amnesty, but require payment of back taxes and the like before an illegal immigrant can get on the road to citizenship.

Reducing Dependence on Foreign Oil. US oil production has been rising since 2009, based on changes made during the Bush years, which allowed oil companies to use high pressure water and chemicals to force oil and gas out of the ground - so-called fracking. The environmentalists do not like this practice, which endangers the water supply, and for that reason the Obama team is making all the right noises about being responsible. But at a time when jobs are scarce and energy expensive, the Democrats are allowing this new form of oil and gas development. But the reality is that growing US oil and gas production encourages Americans to keep on consuming at a high level. True, Obama did get through Congress much higher minimum mpg limits for new cars, and American drivers will become more fuel efficient every year for a decade as a result. But alternative energies will have a harder time in a marketplace awash with new oil and gas, and otherwise hard-hit states like Pennsylvania that are getting jobs and growth from fracking are not likely to rush to adopt solar or wind power. Obama is a pragmatist, seeking short term "energy security" in oil and gas supplies, while still pushing alternatives in the longer run, Meanwhile, he has also been pushing for more energy conservation, where there is still plenty of opportunity for improvements.

If we take this as the Obama project for the second term, it seems likely he will succeed in his energy program and that he has a good chance with immigration reform- However, he will have a harder time with the deficit and tax reform, though in each case some progress might be made.

The legacy Obama will leave behind, undoubtedly, will be his transformation of the medical system. If its implementation is successful, "Obamacare" will become as integral to the American way of life as Social Security or Medicare.

Finally, there is the economy, which Obama, or any president, actually has less control over than most people think. I will return to this subject in a later blog.

"Obamaka'er" - Traditional Danish Cake for Obama

After the American Century                                                                                                                   

To celebrate Obama's victory, I had the local Danish bakery bake this cake. It is a specialty on the island of Funen where I live, and tastes best with coffee. It is stickey sweet, because that brown layer on top is not frosting but melted brown sugar.

The bakery assistant asked if I wanted any text on it, and I said "Obama," and gave no more details. Possibly they thought it was boy's birthday cake, which might account for the charming drawing they did in white icing.

This cake was about six square feet (3 x 2) and demanded a hungry crowd. I started with a choir of 30 adults, who ate half of it last night. This morning my class nearly finished the job. There is a little left, but I am on a diet. An "Obamaka'er" is not a low calorie option. If I eat it to excess I will need Obamacare.

Why Romney Lost: 8 Reasons

After the American Century                                                                                                                           

President Obama has been re-elected, winning the popular vote, the electoral vote, and a majority of the states. Obama ran a strong campaign, but he also benefited from his opponent's mistakes. Here are eight reasons why Mitt Romney lost.

(1) Romney's VP choice. Romney mistakenly selected Paul Ryan as his running mate. Ryan did not help Romney win a single swing state, not even his home state of Wisconsin. Ryan also lost Romney votes among seniors, because he wants to downsize or privatize social security, medicare, and other social programs. Finally, Ryan hurt Romney with women voters, where the Republicans were already weak. Ryan has a harsh and uncompromising position on abortion, which he is on record as saying never can be justified. He tried to soften this position a little during the campaign, but women's groups reminded voters that he had stated, often, that abortion was not justified even in cases of incest and rape. Romney would have been far better off with a more moderate running mate like Ohio Senator Portman. He probably could have delivered the crucial 18 electoral votes of Ohio, which Obama won by a small margin.

(2) Bad luck? Hurricane Sandy pushed Romney off the front page a week before the election, and also reminded voters that he and Ryan both want to cut funding to FEMA and to disassemble the agency as much as possible, asking the States instead to assume responsibility. This idea is just silly. Disasters seldom strike within a single state jurisdiction. Central planning and coordination are essential, as well as access to the vast resources of the federal government. Moreover, the sheer size and power of Sandy was a powerful reminder that global warming is real. Yet Romney, like Bush before him, makes no policy adjustments that admit this. Even so, Storm Sandy could have been a bit of good luck for Romney if Obama had handled it poorly. Instead, he did a good job, forcefully reminding the public of his managerial qualities. In the aftermath, the President got an endorsement from the leading moderate Republican, Mayor Bloomberg of New York, and a glowing commendation from Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey.

(3) Over-reliance on rich donors. Romney needed to battle the perception that he was the rich man's candidate, but instead he relied heavily on extremely wealthy donors, many of whom donated $1 million or more, in contrast to Obama's ability to attract literally millions of small donors. In the end, Romney did out raise the President, but there is only so much leverage you can buy in an election.

(4) Weak connection to the Bush dynasty. Romney never found a way to link up with the powerful Bush clan. As a result the only two living Presidents on the Republican side never campaigned for him. The Bushes disappeared completely from the Convention, as though they had never existed. In contrast, Obama had the excellent services of Bill Clinton who talked himself hoarse day after day, to large crowds. Romney had no such surrogate. He was one challenger boxing with two champions.

(5) Romney made unfortunate remarks. Who can forget his offer to bet Rick Perry $10,000? Almost everyone has forgotten what that bet might have been about, but not the amount. Likewise, Romney declared that he "liked to fire people." In London, he managed to insult the British. There are other examples, but three is enough to make the point. By comparison, I cannot recall any obvious mistake of this kind from Obama. As a final example, remember the little speech Romney made to donors, complaining about the 47% of Americans whom he viewed as parasites?  People such as veterans and retired people. A terrible mistake.

(6) Romney never released most of his tax returns.  When a candidate's worth is reportedly over $250 million, and he has funds in the Cayman Islands and in Swiss Banks, he needs to make an extra effort to make his financial affairs transparent. George Romney, the candidate's father, clearly agreed, for he was the candidate who began the practice of publishing his tax returns. That was in the 1960s, and the practice spread to virtually all other candidates since that time. For Mitt Romney to ignore his father's good example strongly suggests that he has something to hide. President Obama and all of Romney's challengers in the Republican primary released many years of tax information.  Romney stood out on this issue in the worst possible way. The young and the poor voted against him. They felt no kinship with a secretive, wealthy person.

(7) Immigration. Romney adopted an immigration program that alienated Hispanic voters. More than 70% of them voted for Obama. This position alone probably cost him Colorado and Florida, where the Cubans are no longer quite as unified or as dominant a pro-Republican force as they were during the height of the Cold War.

(8) Opposing the Automobile Industry Bailout.  Romney foolishly went on record four years ago, in a published newspaper article, where he said the Federal government should not bail out GM and Chrysler. As anyone can see in retrospect, this blunder was unpopular and just plain wrong, because the bailout worked, and both companies returned to profitability. In the closing days of the campaign, Romney made this mistake worse in an advertisement that spread false rumors about plant closings and sending US jobs to China.  This ad made the original mistake worse. The whole fiasco was avoidable. Romney did not need to write that article, and he certainly did not benefit from that stupid (the only word for it, "stupid") advertisement.  This mistake alone probably cost him Michigan and hurt him in Ohio, which has almost 1 million jobs related to the auto industry.

The election was close, and there were other factors to consider, such as Michelle Obama's great popularity or Joe Biden's ability to connect with blue-collar white men. But these eight things each made a difference, and Romney could have changed all of them except the hurricane. Even there he would have been far better off if he had not (earlier) advocated downsizing FEMA and refused to deal with global warming.

On the Democratic side, President Obama also made mistakes, but they were not as numerous or as memorable, except for the worst one: he should have prepared for that first presidential debate. Obama also prevailed in the end because Romney had flip-flopped so much on the issues over his seven years of running for the Presidency. He had advocated so many contradictory positions that he seemed to have no choice but to be vague about his program. In contrast, the President could point to solid achievements and an economy that clearly was improving due to the stimulus plans that he pushed through, despite Republican foot-dragging and opposition.

Yet whatever happened to the soaring rhetoric that Obama commanded in his first run for the White House? In 2008 he was charismatic and inspired. In 2012 he proved more pedestrian, apparently tethered to the earth by the practical demands of his office and the need to defend his record. In his victory speech some of that old magic returned, echoing the 2004 Democratic National Convention speech that first propelled him into the limelight. Now that he never will run for office again, perhaps he will unleash his rhetorical powers.

Bill Clinton, Bruce Springsteen, and Hollywood stars may give Obama the edge over Romney

After the American Century

In the final days of the campaign, President Obama has some high profile surrogate campaigners. The most effective is surely former President Bill Clinton, who has the gift of gab - making sense of complex issues for ordinary people. He is immensely popular, and filled a fieldhouse with 3000+ students in Ohio yesterday. Clinton was not the only draw for that crowd, who also came to see Bruce Springsteen. The singer has been on the sidelines for 2012, until now, after being a vocal presence for Obama in 2008. You can see/hear Clinton and Springsteen here. Springsteen will also be playing in Virginia, another hotly contested swing state.

Obama can count on support from many other stars, notably Beyonce, Jay-Z, Jon Bon Jovi, Jennifer Lopez, James Taylor, Will.i.am, Stevie Wonder, Alicia Keys, Mariah Carey, and many more, including some sports stars such as Magic Johnson and LeBron James. They can help motivate the public, especially the younger voters, who are strongly in favor of Obama.

When there are only 20 days left, having so many extra headliners to help out may make quite a difference. Compare Romney's situation. He has not asked the vastly unpopular George W. Bush to appear anywhere. He was not at the Republican National Convention, and his name was scarcely even mentioned. Nor has the senior Bush been out on the hustings for Romney. All the previous Republican presidents are dead.

Romney does have some famous musical performers to help him. There is country music star Lee Greenwood, but he is only famous to a niche audience, who mostly support Romney already. Otherwise, his supporters include Ted Nugent, Donny and Marie Osmond, Charlie Daniels, Lee Greenwood, John Rich, John Ondrasik, Joe Perry, Hank Williams Jr., Gretchen Wilson, and Randy Owen from Alabama.

Hollywood actors are also getting into the act, as it were. Romney has the backing of Clint Eastwood (talking to a chair), Robert Duval, Chuck Norris, Andy Garcia, Jon Voight, Patricia Heaton, James Caan, Sylvester Stallone, Tom Selleck, and, to my surprise, Kelsey Grammer.

From Hollywood, Obama's supporters include: Al Pacino, Gwyneth Paltrow, Robert De Nero, Demi Moore, Sean Penn, Sharon Stone, Samuel Jackson,  Sarah Jessica Parker, Matt Damon, Scarlet Johansson, George Clooney, and Meryl Streep, to name but a fraction of a very large total.

If I had to listen to musicians and to watch  films coming only from those who supported one candidate, Obama would certainly get my vote. I would, however, miss the Frasier re-runs.

Election 2012: Romney's flip-flops at the Second Presidential Debate

After the American Century     

In the second debate President Obama was far more focused and sharp. He continually called on Governor Romney to explain his policies in detail, and he several times drew attention to how he had flip-flopped on important issues, such as abortion, immigration, and assault weapons. Romney once was willing to accept abortion, now not. He once had a milder view of giving illegal immigrants a chance to become legal, but now he argues for draconian policies that will force illegal immigrants to voluntarily "self-deport." He once thought there ought to be limits on how powerful weapons might be before they no longer are protected by the Bill of Rights, but to get the support of the National Rife Association, he now thinks assault weapons capable of firing many bullets with extreme rapidity are just fine. Romney at the debate was suddenly claiming that he was supportive of solar and wind power, although his energy policy statement only mentions them briefly in order to attack them. Obama did not point that one out, unfortunately. The Romney energy policy statement says he would allow utilities to release more CO2 and that he would abolish the higher mpg standards for cars. Voters ought to know that.

Romney was caught in his contradictions, but not all of them. I find it incredible that his extensive investments in the Cayman Islands did not come up when discussing tax policy. I find it amazing that his secrecy about his own taxes did not come up. He has refused to release more than two years of his returns in contrast to all other candidates, including his own father, who began the practice a generation ago. All other candidates for the presidency since them have revealed their their tax payments.  It would be rather easy for Obama to ask him what he is trying to hide.

CNN polled immediately afterwards and found that Obama did win, though not as big a win as Romney had the first time. Having seen both debates, I doubt that the third one will change the dynamic much, unless one of the candidates makes a major mistake. One of the problems is that the voters seem ill informed. The actual positions (and contradictions) of the candidates can be discerned through their previous statements and actions. But the questions and discussion do not build on what is already known.

Rather, the debates are a bit like a passionate discussion in a seminar where most of the people present have not done the reading. So Romney or Obama can say most anything that sounds plausible and the average voter falls for it, especially, it seems, those undecided ones visible on television. I saw one group of ten interviewed, eight of whom still did not know which candidate they supported after the second debate was over. With such obvious and strong contrasts between them, I find this quite incredible.

The campaigns now will focus on particular voting groups.

Will Hispanics realize that Romney has embraced hostile immigration plans, and that the man who drafted the draconian Arizona law is Romney's advisor?

Will women, who have been shifting toward Romney after the first debate, become more concerned about Romney's (and Ryan's) very strong anti-abortion position, his desire to slash funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to abolish Obamacare?

Will young people understand that Romney's claims that he knows how to create jobs are based on nothing at all. He lost jobs in Massachusetts when the economy was far better than now. At Bain Capital he presided over a policy of slashing jobs to maximize returns on investments. Nothing in his record suggests that he cares about workers or the middle class, except when he needs their votes. 

If these three groups -- Hispanics, women, and younger voters -- understand what Romney's plans would mean for them, then they should turn out in large numbers and vote for Obama. But there is so much negative advertising in the swing states that the Romney flip-flopping may not be apparent and his vagueness on details may not be detected.

Election 2012: Obama's Energy Program

After the American Century

The United States has lacked a coherent energy policy since 1971, when Richard Nixon acknowledged in a special message to Congress that supplies of cheap energy were running out. Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, primarily pursued the supply side, believing that more production was the answer. Carter, who had been trained in engineering as part of his preparation to command a nuclear submarine, knew more about energy than any of those Republicans. He knew that the demand side was just as important, but for the most part failed to convince Americans to become more efficient, or to move the nation toward alternative energies. He put solar panels on the White House, but Reagan took them down.

In 2008, Obama presented himself as an environmentally aware candidate, but energy was a secondary matter in that election. With his focus on health care reform, energy was not the focus of his first two years in office. Nevertheless, in 2009 total US CO2 emissions fell by 7%, and in more recent years the policies of the Obama Administration have sustained this healthy  downward trend. It has subsidized development of solar and wind power, and it has imposed new gas mileage standards, so that by 2016 new American cars should average 35 mpg, or almost 50% more than they averaged in 2008. This change alone will save 2.2 million barrels of oil every day by 2025. This will not mean that US cars are as efficient as those in Europe or Japan in 2025, but at least the nation is moving in the right direction.

President Obama has also invested in energy R & D, particularly in electric cars and new forms of ethanol production that produce fuel from agricultural waste and wood rather than from corn. The Obama Administration has also subsidized energy saving through retrofitting of Federal buildings, training programs for builders, rebates for purchase of more efficient appliances, and subsidies to homeowners to install better insulation. Through such programs the country has toward more efficient energy use and lower carbon intensity. The Obama Administration's goal is “that 80 percent of electricity will come from clean energy sources by 2035.” (Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future, 6) 

Yet at the same time, the Democrats are issuing permits that permit more shale natural gas production and open new oil fields. This includes the controversial use of high pressure water and chemicals underground to force more gas and oil to the surface, which may endanger water purity. But that policy has the short run advantage of lowering US oil and natural gas dependence on unstable governments abroad. The policy is somewhat incoherent, but pragmatic, as Obama pursues the “technological fixes” available that can prolong the old energy regime even as they work to create a greener, more sustainable future. 

On the issue of energy, Obama is not my ideal candidate, but he is far better on this issue than that former oilman George W. Bush, and infinitely better than Romney promises to be. Romney would lower CO2 emission standards, scrap support for green energy, abolish the higher MPG standards, and generally try to pretend that energy is not a problem at all, but an opportunity for the free market to make a killing. Romney's plan would not lower the world's oil prices. It would keep the US dependent on oil and gas, letting other nations get further ahead in the development of wind and solar power. Worst of all, Romney would continue the Bush go-it-alone attitude on global warming. On that topic, like so much else, he is vague, with no clear program.

   

Election 2012: Can Romney Win? Four Swing States Hold the Key

After the American Century

With just weeks remaining, Romney seems to have a bit more momentum than Obama, largely due to the first Presidential debate. The challenger now has a chance to win, and it all comes down to just four states.

Study of the polls in swing states suggests that Romney will win Missouri and North Carolina. In addition to the states he already has nailed down, he requires just four more swing states:

Ohio        18 electoral votes  (less than 1% difference) UPDATE Oct 19: Obama up by 2.4%

Florida    29                           (less than 1% difference) UPDATE Oct 19: Romney up by 2.5%

Virginia  13                            (less than 1% difference) UPDATE Oct 19: still less than 1% gap

Colorado  9                            (less than 1% difference) UPDATE Oct 19: still less than 1% gap

If Romney takes all four of these, his electoral total will be 275 (270 needed to win.) There are other combinations and permutations possible, but these four states are those where he has the best prospects.

To put this another way, even if Obama holds on to New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which is not entirely certain, as they have become swing states in recent polls, as well as winning Nevada and Iowa, which have been swing states all along, the president will lose. He must win all of them plus at least  one of the four states listed above, if he wants to stay in the White House. As of Oct 11, the distance between Obama and Romney in each of these four states is less than 1% - and that is well inside the margin of error. In short, the polls say it is too close to call. 

We can expect that enormous sums will be spent campaigning in these four states, and that on election day there will be enormous get-out-the-vote efforts.  On election night this also means that the outcome will likely be decided in the Eastern Time Zone.  Only if the race is really close will we need to wait two more hours for Colorado's polls to close. 

In a worst case scenario, we might be headed into another election like that in 2000, where the winner is unclear. But as things stand on October 19, Obama would appear to have a clear victory within his grasp.

The New York Times reached pretty much the same conclusions as expressed in this blog, only later, on October 25.

Romney and the Middle East

After the American Century

There is no justification for killing people because of a film, nor is there any reason to label this film "American" when it was apparently made by a Coptic Christian, i.e. a man with Egyptian roots. Nor does it in any way express the views of the American people. Nor has the film even been seen by many people, much less been reviewed. That fanatics are prepared to blame the film on the US and to use it as a justification for killing people, attacking embassies, and violating the most basic of diplomatic rights, is totally unacceptable. But in the American political campaign, that is not the point. All Americans will agree.

This situation presented Candidate Romney with a simple test of his ability to respond to a crisis. He  failed this test. Admittedly, he has little foreign policy experience. His visit to Britain was a disaster, as he managed to insult his hosts with completely unnecessary crtiical remarks about whether the country was ready for the Olympics. All he had to do was smile and talk about the "special relationship" but he made a mess of it. 

This ineptness seems to have emerged again in his comments on the film that has provoked rage in the Muslim world. Romney was quick to condemn the murder of the US Ambassador and the attacks on US embassies. That was a no-brainer. But it took Romney four days to condemn the film itself, in vague terms.  He seemed reluctant to do so.

The Nation has investigated the origins of the film, and uncovered a network of Romney supporters and foreign policy advisers who have extensive contacts with anti-Muslim groups, with some indirect connections to those who made it. The Nation does not propose a conspiracy theory, nor do I. It is sufficient to point out that virulent stereotyping of Muslims, like that in the offending film, is rife on the far right. The current crisis will have the effect, intended or not, of motivating the most extreme, xenophobic voters. Romney seemed reluctant to condemn the film. His instinct was not to be a statesman.

On both sides – in the Muslim world and in the United States –  extremists who hate each other will seek to profit from the crisis the more severe it becomes. Moderation and dialogue is what the world needs, not demonizing stereotypes. We know that President Obama can keep calm and focused in difficult times. Would Romney be able to do that?

Election 2012: Bland Candidates but Vital Issues

After the American Century

There was a New Yorker cartoon some months ago showing a lawn sign with a caption that ran, as I now recall, "Well, OK, its ROMNEY." It captured the faint enthusiasm for Romney among Republicans, and also suggested his lack of affect, the pasteboard quality of his persona. His wife has tried to breath life into his stiff frame in her speech at the Republican Convention, but can his persona really be changed this late in the campaign?

We have entered a strange political twilight zone where apparently only bland politicians can stand for a year or even longer the overexposure of 24/7 media attention. A strong personality apparently is too much to take these days, and a man with weak convictions who flip flops on many issues and who seems to have no large emotions becomes the nominee. (Instead, the VP nominee, who arrives on the scene in the closing months, has the job of being colorful, dynamic, opinionated.) Imagine Romney laughing with his whole body, a real belly laugh. Or try to imagine him really sympathetic to a poor person. Imagine him telling a story so well that it becomes fascinating. Imagine him without his handlers speaking freely through an open microphone without making a blunder. Hard to do.

By the same token, the 2012 Obama seems more buttoned down and less inspirational than 2008 Obama. His pragmatism and unflappability have been assets in the day-to-day grind of being president, but the lofty rhetoric seems largely to have deserted him. He has more empathy than Romney, but that is not saying much. 

Ideally, candidates should inspire an election debate that focuses soberly on the issues. But instead, we are being subjected to a massive amount of advertising and spin. It is quite possible that this election will be one of the most important in decades, but it may be decided by negative advertising and impression management.

The debates are one of the few times where the voters get a glimpse of these two men in a (somewhat) unscripted discussion. In the second debate, they took off the gloves and had some pointed exchanges. Both were articulate and well prepared. They were by no means bland that night. Their encounter helped to underline the choices the United States must make during the next four years, choices that will have an impact much further down the road.

Will the country return to taxation high enough to pay its debts, or will it follow the Republican program of un-financed tax cuts?

Will the US really regulate banking or not? Right now it does, but Romney would roll that back.

Will the US keep the new health program created by the Obama Administration, or will Republicans dismantle it?

Will the country commit to green energy or remain locked in the carbon fuel economy, and fall further behind the curve and let other economies reap the benefits of being first movers?

Will the US again invest in education or will it fall behind the best systems in Asia and Europe? Already the US is behind in public schools, as measured by the PISA tests, but the challenge is beginning to come at the university level, too.

Will the US definitely reject the use of torture, rendition, and imprisonment without trial, which were routinely denounced under Bush but have become more "normal" under Obama?

These are vital choices that will determine whether the US remains competitive and strong in this new century. Unfortunately, Americans do not seem entirely to realize the situation, and they are being encouraged to think that the election is about such issues as Obama's birth certificate, gay marriage, teaching evolution, immigration, and the supposed "socialism" of the Democratic Party.

Negative Ads Dominate Campaign, Obscuring the real issues

After the American Century

Last week in Virginia, just one week, more than 4,000 negative campaign ads were on radio and television. They came from both the Obama and Romney campaigns. Each clearly has decided that they have the best chance to win if they can undermine their opponent.  But the result of such campaigning is that voters lose respect for the political process and do not want to see or hear the advertisements. More and more people become convinced that the candidates are exaggerating or lying. Indeed, some people  get disgusted and will not vote at all. The candidates know they are driving some voters away, but nevertheless continue their negative advertising. 

There are basically two kinds of negative advertising. The first stays focused on an opponent's political activities, particularly how he or she voted, their relationship to special interests, and any evidence of flip-flopping on important issues.  The second makes personal attacks (veiled or otherwise), suggesting that the candidate is not a good person. So far, we have mostly the former, but there are hints of the less acceptable advertisements, and these are more likely was we come closer election day.

One would think that after four years a president's image would not easily be challenged, though that is what Romney is trying to do. Surely most voters have formed an opinion about a sitting president, but apparently Romney thinks he can convince people that Obama is not a good American - this apparently being the line of attack in some of the ads. Such attacks seem just plain stupid to me. These two men differ in their views, but I do not think either one of them is insufficiently American.

It is time to have a real debate about issues - accompanied by detailed policy proposals. Where do these candidates stand on the following issues?

-  Is it possible to institute some form of gun control, to protect the public from massacres like the recent one in Colorado?

- Should the US continue to use killer drone planes in Pakistan and other countries? If so, what are the limits for using such weapons?

- Do women have the right to an abortion? (An issue especially important given that several Supreme Court positions are likely to open up due to retirement during the next four years.)

- Are banks now sufficiently regulated, or does the new scandal (centered in Britain) suggest tighter controls are needed to prevent them from defrauding the public?

- Should the Bush II tax reductions for wealthy people end or not?

- How should the United States finance university education? Its price tag has increased more rapidly than wages during the last thirty years, and the nation risks becoming uncompetitive with countries where tuition is low or even non-existent.,

- What is the best foreign policy for the future, as the US economy declines in relative size compared to the world economy as a whole?

- To what extent, and how, is the US going to pay off its enormous national debt?

- As evidence accumulates that global warming (and Greenland's melting) are very real, what is the US going to do to reduce its contribution CO2 emissions?

This is only a partial list of important issues. Negative advertising focusing on individuals will not address them. The voters deserve better.

-

What Does the Wisconsin Recall Vote Mean?

After the American Century

The Democrats failed to recall the sitting governor in Wisconsin, but Obama remains more popular than Romney. What can the candidates learn from these local results?

Which Underdog Will Lose the Election?

After the American Century

There may be an advantage to being a (slight) underdog in the American presidential election.  Both candidates seem to realize this. Supporters are more motivated if the victory seems achievable but not at all certain. The polls have see-sawed up and down, with Obama generally slightly ahead of Romney, but not always.

Obama, as a sitting president, would normally not have much trouble with reelection. In recent memory Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II all were re-elected. But the US economy apparently is slowing down, if the new job figures are accurate, and the only presidents not to be reelected since 1916 (Hoover, Carter and Bush 1) presided over weak economies. A weak economy always hurts an incumbent. Worse still, Obama's chances might be torpedoed by economic forces completely beyond his control, notably the Greek election later this month, which seems likely to cast Europe into economic chaos, or at least uncertainty. Moreover, the Republicans have raised more campaign money than Obama, which puts the president at a disadvantage in another economic sense. 

Romney is an underdog in quite a different way. As a Mormon he can easily seem to represent a little-understood religion. In the abstract, if you ask Americans are they ready to vote for a Mormon for president, the support is weaker than for a generic woman candidate. Romney is also an underdog in another statistical sense, in that the Republicans are the smaller party, in terms of registration. But perhaps his greatest liability, with many voters, is that he is tightly linked to the financial sector. The public generally distrusts, even hates, the banks. Romney was a key player at BAIN, and this is surely not the ideal qualification for office in the wake of the misdeeds on Wall Street that led up to the meltdown of 2008.

But perhaps the real underdog is the American pubic. In 2012 Republicans and Democrats together will spend $2 billion on the campaign, a rather obscene new record. Will American voters be, in effect, sold to the highest bidder? Will clever advertising replace serious debate? Will the election be won on spin rather than substance? The poor voter will be bombarded with half-truths and misinformation, much of it emanating not from the candidates themselves but from their supporters.  If on election day the big questions on voters minds are such things as how it felt to be Romney's dog on top of his car or whether Obama has a valid birth certificate, then the public will certainly have lost the election.

Election 2012: Romney the Bully? Gay Marriage and the Election

After the American Century

The Gay Marriage issue has turned into the worst sort of public relations for Romney, who now comes across in his youth as a rich kid, who was an insensitive, intolerant Mormon bully. That was an unexpected bonus for the Democrats. How did this happen?

When President Obama announced yesterday that he supported gay marriage, he did not do so because there was pressure on him to do so. Nor did he say this because Joe Biden "inadvertently" said he supported gay marriage last week. Anyone who believes that is naive. Biden and then other prominent Democrats came out in favor of gay marriage as trial balloons, to see how the public would react. 

On an emotional issue of this kind, Obama does not just casually make a statement. We can be sure that his staff consulted carefully on this issue and laid out a strategy to make the most of it. The goal here is not to win the gay vote, which is likely Democratic anyway. The goal is to force Romney to make a hard choice. Either he can come out against gay marriage and alienate moderates or he can alienate the Republican right, which already distrusts him, by remaining silent on the issue or saying that gay marriage ought to be allowed. Romney wants desperately to move to the center and look moderate, in order to win over the Independent and moderate voters. Obama is forcing Romney to make a hard choice. He cannot afford to create a rift with the Republican right, but he also cannot afford to embrace them too closely if he wants to become president. 

What is fascinating in this case is not the specific issue but the way that the Democrats are using what has been a Republican issue and making it their own.Obama and his advisers evidently have decided that bringing up such issues can exacerbate the divisions in the Republican Party. At the same time, they surely have calculated the potential effect on voting in swing states before going ahead with this plan. Put another way, this announcement makes Obama stronger in New York and California, which he would win anyway, and weaker in Alabama and Mississippi, which he has little chance of winning. The key question is whether this strategy will help him to win the swing states, especially Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, New Hampshire, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. 

Romney when in High School

Obama got an unexpected bonus from this strategy, when it came out that Romney, when in high school, was one of a group of bullies who persecuted one of their fellow students, This was in Michigan, and he was the son of the Governor, attending a private school. The student he attacked had long hair and was gay, though apparently not yet "out of the closet" at the time. Romney and his buddies chased him, caught him, held him down, and clipped his hair off. Apparently this bullying was directed more at the long hair and the presumably left-leaning principles that tended to go with it. This act reveals an intolerant, vigilante side of Romney that moderates will find unpalatable. Ganging up on people and persecuting them because they are different suggests an arrogance and insensitivity unacceptable to much of the public, though it could help Romney hang on to the KKK vote.

Election 2012: Why Ohio is the Key Swing State

After the American Century

There is a certain justice to the fact that Ohio has become so important in elections, because in many ways it is a microcosm of the country. Ohio is an important agricultural state, but it also has three large cities (Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati). It has been an industrial powerhouse, but suffered a great deal from the outsourcing of factory jobs to Latin America and China. It has suffered greatly since the 2008 financial crisis, with large numbers of home foreclosures. But it has also been bouncing back economically, albeit slowly. It contains many minority groups, and a good cross section of the churches. It gets back from Washington almost precisely the same amount as it pays in federal taxes (unlike New York which gets back only 79 cents on the dollar, or Mississippi which gets back almost twice what it pays in.) Ohio can be seen as the end of the Eastern states and the beginning of the Middle West. Its southeastern region much resembles Appalachia, while its northeastern quarter seems an extension of industrial New York.  It has generally been a moderate state, politically. But while Ohio therefore is in many ways a good representative state, that is not why it has become so important in elections.

In elections, states are not created equal. The American states are unequal in population, and this means that a few of them have an enormous impact in presidential elections, because all of their electoral votes will go to one candidate or the other. Obama can expect to win the largest state, California and its 55 electoral votes, and the Republican nominee can expect to win Texas, the second largest, with 38. The Democrats generally have won the third largest, New York State (29), too. But precisely because these states are somewhat predictable, the focus is on the "swing states" that are not reliably behind one party in national elections. Most important of all are swing states with a large number of electors, notably Florida (29), Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20), Virginia (13), Indiana (11), and Missouri (19). (Pennsylvania leans perhaps a bit too much to the Democrats to be a true swing state, but it is moderate.) The smaller swing states can also prove crucial, notably Colorado (9), New Mexico (5), Iowa (6), and New Hampshire (4).

Note that the swing states are not randomly distributed, but are largely in a band just above the middle of the country. They are all marked in yellow on the following map, and as a group they have 96 electoral votes. A candidate needs to win 270.

The Swing States

Here is a map of what well may happen in the 2012 election. It is a prognosis based on how the states voted in 2000, 2004, and 2008, plus my sense of what is going on in the various states, hunches, you might say.  It is based on the supposition that Obama fails to win Florida, North Carolina, New

Hypothetical map of 2012 election, with the electoral vote evenly split. Ohio and Indiana are in yellow.

Mexico, or Virginia. In terms of delegates, this map shows the red states with 254 electoral votes and the blue states with 255. The two yellow states are Indiana and Ohio. Indiana tends to go Republican, but its electoral votes are not enough. If either party gets Ohio's 18 electoral votes, it moves into the White House. (In this example, you could substitute for Indiana Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire or Virginia, and the result would be the same. None of these states has Ohio's electoral clout.

This is not a far-fetched scenario. In 2000, when Gore lost to Bush in a much disputed election, here is what the map looked like:

2000 Presidential election

The final tally in that election was 271 (Bush) to 267 (Gore). If Gore had won Ohio, he wold have won the election easily, without Florida. That particular election was so close that Gore could have won by taking any additional state, but it is the swing states that matter, and Ohio was close.

How about the next election, in 2004?  Here again Ohio proved crucial to Bush's victory:

2004 Presidential Election

If Kerry had won Ohio and Indiana (or Ohio + Iowa), he would have been elected president.

No Republican has become president without winning Ohio. That is why the state is so important.

Update. After Obama led in Ohio during September, Romney won back some of its voters and he is much closer to winning the state - primarily due to his strong performance in the presidential debates. By the last week of October, it seems that Obama is likely to win Nevada and Iowa, while Romney seems likely to win Florida and North Carolina, with Virginia a toss-up.  Current polls still suggest that Obama will win, but the difference is narrow. After the second debate Obama seemed to regain momentum again, but in the meantime he lost ground in several swing states. In short, Ohio once again looks like the key battleground. The candidate who wins there will almost certainly win it all.

See also posting on Oct 11, on the four crucial swing states in the 2012 election. "Can Romney Win: Four Swing States Hold the Key"