What the Press Must Find Out About Palin

After the American Century

Sarah Palin remains largely an unknown. But some disturbing questions have arisen since her nomination. She must be judged in the court of public opinion, like all other candidates. Voters have a right to know what a candidate actually stands for. All of the following statements now appear to be true, but we need further investigation by the press to be certain.

(1) Palin is a Prevaricator. She lied about her support for the Bridge to Nowhere, and actually did support it and ultimately did get the pork: $223,000,000 from the US Treasury that Alaska did not need.

(2) Palin attempted to censor the books in her town library, and to fire the town librarian without cause.

(3) Palin holds extremist views on evolution, global warming, and biological research, and would use her public office to promote her views, for example through giving large sums of money for conferences devoted not to scientific research but to promoting her views. [As governor she has given $2 million to a conference seeking to discredit the reality of global warming.]

(4) Palin has fired public officials guilty of no wrong-doing, misusing her power.

(5) Palin has little knowledge of the law, specifically the Constitution of the United States, and might not be a reliable guardian of its provisions concerning the separation of church and state.

(6) Palin and her husband have given support to a party that is working for Alaskan independence, on the grounds that its accession to statehood did not meet UN guidelines.

(7) Palin has been a member of an extremist church that holds views many other Christians would not find acceptable.

Again, these statements appear to me to be true, but the evidence is sketchy, and the candidate has not been forthcoming. To date, she has not given a press conference or a no-holds-barred interview. Such seclusion is inappropriate for a someone running for Vice-President.

For more questions rasied about Prevaricator Palin, see this piece in the New York Times. Or have a look at this editorial in the same newspaper.

Was McCain the Bomber Pilot a Hero? Republicans and Vietnam

After the American Century

The Republican Party has never come to terms with the Vietnam War, as the McCain candidacy underscores. For as Ronald Reagan once put it, Vietnam was a "noble cause," to considerable right-wing applause. Standing at the then new Vietnam Veterans War Memorial, he declared, "who can doubt that the cause for which our men fought was just?" I can. What Reagan said was pseudo-patriotic nonsense. Which part of the Vietnam War was noble? Was it noble to pretend that the Vietnamese War was about communism, when it began as a nationalist uprising against the French colonial power? Was it noble to concoct a "domino theory" to justify the war, when area specialists at the time knew that it was not true? (Indeed, once the US lost the war, other nations did not "fall" into communism.) Was it noble to overthrow Diem and then support an unpopular South Vietnamese military regime? Was it noble to spray chemical defoliants, notably Agent Orange over large parts of the nation, poisoning both the habitat and US soldiers on the ground? Was dropping napalm on civilians noble? Was support for a wealthy landowning class against landless peasants a noble democratic aim? Was it noble to round up South Vietnamese into compounds and force them to live there rather than in their ancestral villages? Was it noble to be allied with a regime that at times shot prisoners, that was known to mistreat its prisoners, and even to throw them alive out of airplanes? Was it noble to bomb North Vietnam, attacking not only military targets but cities as well, killing thousands of civilians?

Let us focus on that last question, because the future Republican candidate John McCain was flying over North Vietnam in 1967. What was he doing there when he was shot down? People focus on McCain in a prisoner of war camp, but forget to ask why he was there, or whether the US war in Vietnam made any sense. Yes, he was shot down. Yes, he was mistreated. Yes, he suffered. But the Democrats have been reluctant to ask the real question: What was McCain's role in that unjust war, which was condemned by most European nations? Did he drop agent orange on agricultural lands? Did he drop napalm on villages? Did he bomb women and children? And just as importantly, what does McCain think of the Vietnam War today? Does he agree with Reagan's absurd idea that the war was a noble cause? Does he think that massive strategic bombing was a successful tactic? A morally defensible tactic? A good tactic in future wars? If so, then why did the US lose that war? Why did the US lose the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people? Has McCain, have the Republicans, any new ideas, or will they keep trying the same failed military "solutions"?

What does McCain think of the "shock and awe" bombing of Iraq? Does the United States want a president who jokes about bombing Iran, by intoning a Beach Boys tune as he warbles, "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran?" This might sound like a joke, but the threat of strategic bombing is the essense of McCain's foreign policy. There is nothing heroic or noble about dominating the air space over a nation, whether Vietnam or Iraq or Iran, and carpeting it with deadly bombs. That is why McCain is a dangerous choice for president, just as the Republicans are a dangerous party to entrust with foreign policy.

After eight years of George Bush, where in the world is the US in a sronger foreign policy position than it was in 2000? Not in Europe. Not in the Middle East. Not in China. Not in Latin America. Where is it more popular than in 2000? It is hard to make a case for many places. John McCain has a millitaristic conception of foreign affairs, and he is accompanied by a vice-presidential nominee who thinks the Iraq War is a holy mission.

Vietnam was not a noble cause, but an enormous mistake. McCain and the Republicans have never understood it, and remain prisoners of a distorted sense of history. That is why they are unfit to hold power.

Republicans and Democrats: changing regional support

After the American Century

The Republicans have changed a great deal in the twentieth century. Back in 1901 they were led by Teddy Roosevelt, and he won reelection in 1904 with scarcely any support in the South. That was solidly Democratic, and remained so until the 1960s. Then in 1964 Barry Goldwater did poorly in the general election, but won several states in the Deep South. Richard Nixon took note, and made a concerted effort to win in that region, where Republicans had been anathema since the Civil War. The Republicans long were despised below the Mason-Dixon line, as the party of Lincoln and Reconstruction.

The sea-change that followed Nixon's 1968 triumph in the South was astonishing. It was as if two men who had been wrestling furiously until they emerged from their struggle wearing each other's clothing. The Republicans ended up switching regions, as it were, and today the so-called "red states" they tend to win are mostly the old slave states. Lincoln would be astonished to find that his home state of Illinois is solidly behind Obama, the Democrat, while his party is very strong in Mississippi and Georgia. Likewise, the Democrats are now strong in the North where they seldom could win electoral votes for generations after the Civil War.

By meeting in Minneapolis, the Republicans are trying to keep their brand national. At the party's birth in the 1850s it was strong in the Middle West, and stood for free labor against the slave South. But it has not been the party of affirmative action or the equal rights amendment. In my childhood, Republicans often called themselves "the party of Lincoln." One hears this seldom now. Where Black Americans once overwhelmingly voted Republican, they now vote almost entirely Democratic, often over 90%. Women likewise tend to vote more for Democrats, but by less dramatic margins. In 1992, had only men been allowed to vote, George Bush would have been reelected. Had only whites been allowed to vote, Bush also would have won. Blacks and women made Clinton president.

So the party that abolished slavery lost its Black support, moved its center of power from North to South, and embraced religious conservatism. Yet it also remained the party of businessmen. Ronald Reagan was able to remain popular with these somewhat contradictory constituencies, and he also kept the Republicans strong in California. Today, the Republicans are weak there, as well as in New York, however, and they tend to be stronger with businessmen in older, heavy industries than in the high-tech and computer areas.

Is the party still national, or has eight years with George Bush cemented its Southern identity? Certainly, it seems unlikely to win much in the Northeast or the West Coast. Holding the convention in St. Paul is designed to keep its brand visible. Indeed, the hope is that they might win Minnesota. Neither McCain nor Palin has Southern roots or a drawl, and clearly the GOP thinks it can be viable in many Midwestern and Western states. At the same time, Obama is attempting to compete in every state, hoping to break or weaken the Republican hold on such places as Nevada, Montana, North Dakota, Indiana, North Carolina, and Virgina, and keen to win back Florida, if possible.

Will the 2008 election be a watershed event like that in 1968? Probably not. But it may begin a process of realignment, as both parties try to win in new areas. Conceivably, if Obama does very well, the Republicans could lose much of their western base, and be reduced to a regional, southern core. Alternately, if McCain does very well, the Democrats might be reduced to the party of the Northeast and the West Coast, with little in between.

If the two parties remain roughly in their present positions, however, things will hardly be so neatly regional. The New York Times electoral map currently suggests that if the election were held tomorrow there would be 251 electoral votes for Obama, 229 for McCain, and 60 too close to call. Real Clear Politics thinks twice as many electoral votes are up in the air, a total of 125. Both agree, however, that six states are balanced on a knife edge and could go either way: Michigan, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Not surprisingly, on Labor Day, Obama was in one of the largest of these: Michigan.

McBush and Appeasement

After the American Century

Senator McCain has endorsed George Bush's attack on the Democrats for "appeasement." I will return to this, but only after looking at the many absurdies in this attack. Bush chose to go after the Democrats while making a state visit to Israel to mark the 60th anniversary of that nation's independence. Partisan attacks are to be expected from now on until the election, but it is poor form to go to another nation and distract attention from their celebrations to engage in electoral politics. However, where Bush made his statement had a special resonance when he chose to compare the Democrats to those who appeased Hitler. The implication was that if Americans elect Obama, they will be responsible for another holocaust. But there is no historical sense to these assertions.

It was the Republicans far, far more than FDR's Democrats, who were in the appeasement camp. In the 1930s many Americans, especially Republicans, wanted the nation to remain neutral. It was Roosevelt and the Democrats who have the more honorable record. Who wanted to negotiate with Hitler? Republican Senator Borah! Yes, that wonderful party leader who also helped to sabotage Wilson's League of Nations. He was from Bush's party.

And another thing. Just which leader or which nation today can realistically be compared to Hitler? Iran's leaders deny the Holocaust. They sponsor terrorist groups. Democrats and Republicans would all agree aboout these things. But Iran simply does not have the geopolitical clout that Germany had in the 1930s. Because we are talking about a nation, not an amorphous group of terrorists, they could conceivably be negotiated with. The Neo-Conservative Republicans seem to have forgotten that the Cold War was won not by arms, but by a much slower process of dialogue, trade, cultural interchange, and, yes, negotiation. The Berlin Wall came down without a shot being fired. Bush's continual refusal to talk to Iran's leaders has pushed them into the willing arms of the Russians, who are happy to help them build oil and gas pipelines and trade with them. Furthermore, many in Washington, even some Republicans, have come to recognize that it will be impossible to forge a peace in Iraq without somehow involving the Iranians.

Leaving aside historical analogies, Bush himself has at times been a negotiator, so that must make him "an appeaser." At almost the very moment the President was declaring one should never negotiate with terrorists, his administration announced that it was sending massive food aid to North Korea. This is part of the complex negotiations that have, with some success, sought to turn that nation away from its nuclear program. Thus Bush's own administration has been doing the very thing for which he criticized the Democrats.

Bush is trying to distract attention from his foreign policy failures. But his shoot-first-preemptive-strike-cowboy approach to the world has not yielded success in Afghanistan or Iraq. His administration arrogantly refused to listen to its allies. France and Germany both tried to dissuade him from invading Iraq, but Bush told the world that US intelligence information was more reliable than theirs and charged ahead. However, the French and the Germans got it right. There was no pressing national security reason to rush into that war. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found. Bush either lied or his intelligence services were incompetent. Either way, it was an expensive mistake that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and led to the deaths of more than 100,000 people, the vast majority civilians. The Iraq War has increased instability in the Middle East and served as a training ground for terrorists. Bush's interventionism has also indirectly driven up the cost of oil, because the Iraqui oil fields are not producing as much as they might. Anyone who thinks the US is more secure or better off economically than it was before the invasion of Iraq has not been paying attention.

John McCain had an oportunity to show he was not like the President, but he has endorsed Bush's attack on the Democrats. So much for his claims to represent "straight talk." Perhaps the fall ballots should read "McBush" so voters will know what he represents. For McCain's remarks show once again that he is a throwback from another age, living in the mental universe of the Cold War where he was trained as a military man. McCain by temperment and education is not prepared to be a negotiator or to understand the world as a complex place. He is the candidate who thought it was funny to sing "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" to a Beach Boys tune. He is unfit to be President precisely because he has all that Cold War and Vietnam military experience. The world is a different place now.

Finally, suppose we were to evaluate Bush by his own Rambo standards. Seven years after the 9/11 attacks, he has been unable to find Osama bin Laden. By any measure, he has been a miserable failure.

The Bush Economy: End of the "Almighty Dollar"?

After the American Century

The US mortgage crisis and the falling prices for houses have been making headlines for months. The stock market is also jittery because consumer spending has begun to fall, as homeowners feel the equity shrink. In a few cities, such as Cleveland, a glut of unsold homes on the market has created a crisis. Housing values are in free fall. Even though most people are not selling their homes, when the value of a house drops, it has a psychological effect.

Bear-Stearns was part of the rush of speculators who got caught up in the housing bubble, stimulating the market, acquiring sub-prime mortgages, luring people to buy homes they could not afford. And now, Bear-Stearns, on the brink of collapse, has been "saved" for a little while, at any rate. Why did the Bush Administration not try to save the homeowners? Then it might have saved Bear Stearns as a secondary result. Why is a speculative corporation more worth saving than several million home owners? This is the Bush double standard at work.

Of course, if Bear Stearns collapses, other investment houses and even some banks might collapse as well. (It might be the domino effect, which never happened in Vietnam, but maybe this is where the under performing domino effect can make a comeback.)

If a really big organization like Bear Stearns is run badly, society has to pay for it twice - first by suffering the effects, and second by bailing out the people who inflicted the suffering. Instead, Bush should take a truly conservative line: corporations that are run badly should not expect a government handout. Their overpaid executives, many of whom make more money in one year the most working people make in their entire lives, should not helped. Rather, the victims of such corporations should be protected from unscrupulous lenders.

My father was a lifelong Republican, of the old school. He had actually read Adam Smith. He was an engineer and an educator who ended his career as a college dean. He also was a investor. But his fellow Republicans wandered far off the path of hard work, stewardship, and honesty, and he was robbed in the last years of his retirement by Enron. That corporation's brazen lies, arrogance, and manipulations knew no bounds, and the executives of that corporation were campaign contributors to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

A few of Enron's executives have been sent to prison, but the Bush Administration did not punish many, and the punishments were mild compared to the economic destruction they caused. The executives cooked their books and issued misleading profit statements, when they were really losing money. Near the end, they quietly began selling their own stock holdings, since they knew that the company was close to worthless. But they would not let their employees sell their stock, and many lost everything. Enron's leaders milked the company literally to death, as they robbed investors and abandoned their employees, who lost their jobs and their pensions.

That is how the Bush League Economy works. It started by giving huge tax cuts to the wealthy. It continued by letting many of the white-collar criminals from ENRON get away. In Iraq, it was time to give away billion dollar contracts (with no competitive bidding) to Bechtel executives and other old friends. And now it is time to bail out Bear Stearns. Save the capitalists, and the American public be damned? Actually it is worse than that.

The Bush economy apparently will end with a debacle much bigger than the collapse of Enron. Does this prove that the Republicans cannot safeguard the economy for the well-being of all Americans? No, it is much worse than that. The Republicans have failed to safeguard the value of the dollar itself, which is plunging to new lows. Things will continue to get worse before they can have any hope of getting better, because the Bear Stearns bailout requires the US Federal Reserve to print more money, making the dollar even less valuable. Ominously, the oil markets are beginning to operate in other currencies, and one wonders if the dollar will ever again be "almighty". If things get much worse, this blog might have to change its title to "After the American Economy."

What is at Stake in November?

After the American Century

The race between Clinton and Obama should not distract from the fundamental oppositions between McCain and the two Democratic candidates. Party divergences are so fundamental that this election seems to be a defining national moment. Count on the Republicans to try to find some symbolic controversy to distract the voters, such as respect for the flag, prayer in schools, gay marriage, and the like. One can only hope the American people will not be easily distracted. Here is what they should be thinking about.

One. The Bench. Will a conservative, strict-construction of the Constitution be cemented more firmly in place, with four more years of Republican judicial appointments? This concerns not only the Supreme Court but the many appointments to the other Federal courts as well. It is not just about whether abortion will continue to be legal, but whether the courts will agree to hear cases dealing with social inequality, racial discrimination, and free speech, broadly defined. In a worse-case scenario, conservative judges (whose terms to not expire until they decide to retire) could become the dominant force for a generation. A conservative bench is potentially dangerous after eight years of Bush's attacks on civil liberties, along with continual attempts to place both the President and the Vice-President above scrutiny and the rule of law.

Two. Will the destabilizing tax cuts that Bush enacted become permanent, or will more progressive taxation return? Under the Bush plan, the rich keep getting richer and the national debt grows, the middle class and the poor lose ground, and the next generation gets the bill. McCain has pledged to keep the Bush cuts, while the Democrats want to return to the system that served the nation so well in the 1990s. Recall that from 1992 until 2000 the economy grew, the middle class did not lose ground, and the national debt was rapidly paid off. The Republicans have evolved into a party of fiscal irresponsibility. Under both Reagan and the Bushes, they have run up huge deficits and given the wealthy tax breaks. In effect, they keep imposing a tax on the next generation. That was the central issue that got Ross Perot to run in the election of 1992, siphoning off enough Republican votes to get Clinton elected. However, the Republicans shamelessly keep calling the Democrats "tax and spend liberals". This rhetoric worked a generation ago, but since 1980 have become "tax and spend conservatives." The difference is that their spending is for the military rather than for social programs.

Three. Will the Iraq war continue without any end in sight (McCain) or will the US seek to negotiate its way out of the mess Bush created there (Clinton and Obama). Back in 1968 and again in 1972 the Republicans railed at any suggestion that Vietnam could not be won, and they stuck to their guns for six years after Nixon came in. The Republican "plan" for Iraq now seems like "deja vu all over again." Remember "Vietnamization?" The US is now spending billions on building up a new Iraq army and police force with the same idea in mind. The Democrats want to end the conflict and put the money saved into social programs, notably medical care. How much is Iraq costing? About $15 million an hour.

Four. Will the US fix its medical system? Costs are out of control, malpractice insurance drives some doctors out of business, patients in rural areas are underserved, employers have begun to eliminate health care from worker benefits - the list could go on, but this is a national emergency must be solved. It is a terrible problem at the personal level, but failing health care also makes the US less competitive in the world. The Detroit automobile companies spend as much money on health care for their workers than they do for steel. In many other nations health care is paid by the state, and corporations do not have that expense.

Five. Will corporations be regulated? The 9/11 attacks saved Bush from a major investigation of his close financial and political ties to ENRON. Its executives were frequent guests at the White House and advised Bush and Cheney on energy policy. Yet that corporation's rapacious and illegal activities cost California billions of dollars, and such predatory behavior emerged again in the behavior of the mortgage industry. Likewise, this government cut back funding for inspectors in many areas, making actual enforcement of the laws difficult. The Republicans are so in thrall to the special interests that they no longer protect the public. Only a few Enron executives were punished even lightly for their felonies. If the Republicans stay in the White House, they will continue to resist government oversight of corporations and environmental inspections will be under-funded.

Six. Energy policy. The Bush government has squandered eight years when the US could have moved toward sustainable energy use. With two former oil executives in the White House, the nation fell behind Europe and Japan in creating the next generation of energy systems, notably wind and solar power. For those curious about what is possible, see Scientific American's article on how solar power alone could supply most of the US electricity needs. ("A Solar Grand Plan," January 2008). Such creative thinking has been anathema in Washington. Republicans have resolutely hung on to a national energy model from c. 1950. For example, they have resisted for 25 years higher mpg requirements for cars, and Detroit makes gas-guzzling automobiles that are not competitive in the rest of the world. The Republicans should accept responsibility for those thousands of jobs lost in Michigan and Ohio. (There is a silver lining for some Republicans personally: Exxon-Mobile's profits for the last quarter topped §100 billion.) This election will determine whether the oil industry will continue to hold back economic development and have an undue influence on foreign policy, and whether the US will actually do anything about global warming.

Those are all vital issues for any candidate. After winning ten straight states, it does seem that Obama is the more likely candidate. At his Tuesday night rally in Houston, attended by 20,000 people, tickets were free but in such short supply that some were scalped for $100. I don't think anyone is paying that kind of money to see Hillary. Yet whether the Democrats ultimately choose Obama or Clinton, both oppose John McCain on all these issues. Either would be far, far better than McCain.

For more on "The Bush Economy" see this blog for Dec. 12.

McCain, Yesterday's Man

After the American Century

As predicted in this Blog on 7 February, Obama won all three contests against Clinton yesterday. Taking Washington State, Nebraska, and Louisiana – all by wide margins – he has made the race even tighter. Without super delegate support, Hillary would now be behind. I will return to that race in my next Blog.

On the Republican side, the race is not quite over. Huckabee not only refuses to drop out, he won two contests yesterday. Compared to this evangelical Baptist minister with his extreme views, McCain can appear to be a centrist candidate. Indeed, a number of European newspapers are mistakenly reporting that Senator John McCain is a moderate. This is dangerous nonsense. McCain presents himself as a straight-talking maverick, and he refuses to embrace some of the issues of the rabid right. Huckabee would ban homosexual marriage, replace the Internal Revenue System with a flat tax, abolish abortion, and in general return to the United States of c. 1910, or perhaps 1880. Huckabee is so far to the right on these issues that he makes McCain look moderate by comparison. Furthermore, McCain does not want to deport all the illegal immigrants, but find a way for them to become lawful citizens. This is a sensible position. But forget about these issues. Realistically, there is little chance of the US adopting the flat tax, banning gay marriage, abolishing abortion, or evicting millions of illegal immigrants. This is the rhetorical grandstanding of the religious right that Reagan and Bush II would encourage in an election year and then pragmatically ignore afterwards.

But on other issues dear to the right wing, McCain is quite conservative. He would extend the so-called "Patriot Act" and continue the extensive use of wire-tapping. The NAACP gives him only a 7% rating on affirmative action. He believes that school prayer at the start of each day should be allowed, and also thinks religious symbols are acceptable in schools. He has given strong support to the voucher system, which would undermine public education, and would give state money to private (typically religious) schools. He strongly supports the death penalty, and he would limit the number of appeals a prisoner can make, to speed up executions. Many of his Senate votes have tried to reduce the availability of abortion and to cut funding for sex education. McCain can hardly be considered a moderate on any of these issues.

Likewise, to see the real McCain look at the war and the economy. He has voted for just about every free trade agreement, making him a strong proponent of economic globalization. He now wants to retain Bush's tax cuts for the rich, though he once voted against them. He is not about to put billions of dollars into welfare, and he would continue Bush's programs of directing welfare aid through "faith based organizations" – in effect forcing the poor into the arms of the religious right. At times McCain has been a critic of the conduct of the Iraq war, but he has never been a critic of the war itself. To the contrary, McCain embraced the war from the beginning. He saw Saddam Hussein as "a threat of the first order," and he asserted that the UN program of weapon inspection had not worked. He voted to give Bush the power to go to war, and he championed the fallacious idea that a war would bring democracy to the Middle East. Two weeks before the invasion began, he declared that that the people of Iraq would welcome it as their liberation. [Speech to the Center for Strategic & International Studies, 2/13/03] 

While he had some differences with the Bush Administration over the conduct of the war, he embraced the neo-conservative idea that the invasion would "send the message throughout the Middle East that democracy can take hold in the Middle East." He also long supported Donald Rumsfeld. After the Abu Ghraib scandal he was asked if Rumsfeld should continue as Secretary of Defence. He replied, "I believe he's done a fine job. He's an honorable man." In Derry, New Hampshire (3 January 2008) McCain declared that the occupation of Iraq will continue, if necessary, for "100 years." McCain is an officer, however, and he has not always supported the veterans as much as the Administration. In 2006 he was one of 13 senators who voted against appropriating $430 million for inpatient and outpatient veteran care.

If McCain becomes president, the world can expect a leader who seeks military solutions to political problems, including those rooted in religious differences. His worldview is mostly black and white, with few shades of gray. Born in the middle of the 1920s, he came to adulthood during World War II and the McCarthy years. He embraced the military at the height of the Cold War. This Manichean worldview was further hardened when he was held as a prisoner of war during Vietnam. To his credit, this experience also made him a forceful critic of the Bush Administration's use of secret prisons and torture.

If McCain has been shaped by the military, at least it is a proud and principled military tradition. His grandfather, his father, and his son, like McCain himself, all attended the Naval Academy at Annapolis. For two reasons it is rare in the United States for four generations in a single family to send a son there. First, it is just as difficult to get into that elite school as it is to go to the army's West Point. Second, it is rare for one family to have sons for that many generations who want to that career. This puts McCain in the super-patriot class of true believers in the United States. Attending Annapolis is like going to boot camp for four years, followed immediately by an obligatory four years of military service. Each graduate begins as a junior officer, and a preponderance of the generals and admirals come from West Point and Annapolis. Electing McCain would put the military establishment in the West House. He would raise military pay and appropriate more money to defence, while at the same time closing some bases to rationalize the use of funds.

Huckabee would go back a century, while McCain would go back "only" fifty years. Such a leader is more appropriate to the either/or psychology of Cold War than to the complexities of today's world. But he is ill-suited to world where the US will decline as the world's most powerful nation, both economically and militarily. In the next twenty-five years, China and India each will rival or surpass the American economy in size. Even now, the Bush legacy is a weak economy, a weak dollar, and a huge imbalance of payments. As the global balance of power shifts, the United States will be best served by a leader who can maximize what Harvard's Professor Joseph Nye has called "soft power." The go-it-alone arrogance of the Bush years has eroded that soft power, which builds upon international respect for a nation's values, behavior, and culture.

During the Bush Administration the rest of the world instead has endured lies, bluster, arrogance, and ignorance. Recall Rumsfeld's nasty remarks about "old Europe," or Powell's speech at the United Nations justifying a war with Iraq, which turned out to be full of misinformation and lies. Recall Bush's refusal to sign many international treaties, notably that banning land mines. Recall the hubris of the neo-conservatives, certain that Iraq would quickly become a model democracy. Remember that for years Bush refused to believe that global warming even existed, and tried to silence government scientists who disagreed. The Bush team has damaged the nation's credibility.

The next president needs to restore faith in the good intentions and the honesty of the United States, primarily by exercising soft power and serving as a useful leader. McCain might well be a more effective commander in chief, and let us assume he would be honest. But he will always be yesterday's man.

Clinton vs Obama: How Long the Race?

After the American Century

As the candidates make their final appearances before Super Tuesday, it appears likely, judging by the polls, that John McCain will have an insurmountable lead over Romney, Huckabee, and Paul, after the Republican voting. In contrast, the polls also suggest that neither Clinton nor Obama will be anywhere near a majority on February 6. Whether selecting the nominee first is an advantage is the subject of an earlier blog. The question I will take up here is how long the Democrats may have to struggle.

In theory, the nomination process for the Democrats could last until their convention late in the summer. In recent posts I have pointed out that the Edwards delegates and the super delegates would then hold the balance of power. Together, these unpledged votes constitute one fifth of what either Obama or Clinton needs to reach the magic total of 2025. They might be fighting to get those votes all summer, culminating on the floor of the convention. This happened to the Republicans in 1976, when Ford and Reagan battled all the way to the last possible day, with Ford winning by a small margin. The same thing happened to the Democrats in 1960, and there are other examples from earlier decades.

In practice, convention cliffhangers are rare. Usually, the candidates have been chosen through the primary process, and the convention is scripted as a display of unity. That is what any nominee would prefer. However, there are simply not enough delegates being chosen on Super Tuesday to declare a winner to this contest, so, let us look at the contests after 5 February. Seen from a candidate's perspective, what lies ahead is going to be exhausting. It will be long and it will require a great deal of travel, because the states holding primaries on the same day are often far apart. It will also be ferociously expensive.

Here is a summary of what comes after Super Tuesday. Note particularly 4 March when more than 10% of all the delegates will be selected. This might close out the process, but even at this point there will be 650 more delegates to choose in the remaining primaries, plus the uncommitted super delegates. Should Clinton and Obama keep running neck and neck, this race could go all the way into June and still not have a certain winner.

One hopes, however, that either Obama or Clinton will manage to build a majority by 22 April (Pennsylvania) or 6 May (North Carolina and Indiana). By that time, conceivably, one of them will admit defeat and gracefully withdraw. But it might go all the way to the Convention.

Primaries after "Super Tuesday"

9 February, 194 delegates at stake in widely separated Washington, Louisiana, and Nebraska.

10 February, 34 delegates at stake in Maine, up on the Canadian border, as far from the previous three states as it is possible to get.

12 February, 238 delegates at stake in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington DC. Note that for once the three elections are in contiguous locations.

19 February, 121 delegates at stake in Wisconsin and Hawaii

4 March, perhaps a decisive day with 444 delegates at stake in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

8 March, just 48 delegates, in the widely separated Wyoming and Mississippi.

22 April. If the decision still has not been reached, the primary in Pennsylvania might well be the most important of the entire election, with 188 delegates at stake. The candidates will have ample time to campaign here - six weeks!

6 May. Two weeks later, even more delegates are at stake, 218 in North Carolina and Indiana.

13 May. If the candidate has not been chosen by this point, West Virginia may become an unlikely battleground for just 39 delegates.

20 May. With 125 delegates in Oregon and Kentucky, this is the last time a substantial number of delegates can be won

3 June, the end of the process, with just 47 delegates at stake, in the neighboring states of Montana and South Dakota.

The Michigan Results

Romney has won in Michigan, with 39% of the votes, and so he keeps his hopes alive. McCain had 30%, Huckabee only 16%. It was a convincing victory. Romney was the strongest candidate in all age groups except for those over 60, who went for McCain. Romney also beat Huckabee among both Protestants and Catholics. Meanwhile, McCain carried the Republicans who never go to church, with 39% of that little constituency. Furthermore, as noted in an earlier blog here, Huckabee did extremely poorly among the Catholics, getting less than 10% of their votes. And these are the very conservative, Republican Catholics, who represented about 30% of the vote. Huckabee would have even less appeal to the larger group of Democratic Catholics. In short, Michigan's results suggest that Huckabee may have been a one-win wonder in Iowa, who now must redeem himself in South Carolina next week, if he is to look viable. 

McCain, on the other hand, did respectably in Michigan, which after all is Romney's former home state. It is hard to beat an opponent who can bring his old schoolteacher and classmates up on stage. Nevertheless, if we probe these results further, it turns out that voters who think the economy is on the right track and who are generally satisfied voted for Romney. The unhappy voters were more likely to be for McCain, whether they were upset by Bush in particular, the poor Iraq results, or the economy.  McCain also was relatively successful with Independents and Democrats, some of whom crossed over to vote for him. Finally, McCain defeated Romney in urban areas (40% to 31%), which is obviously important in the coming contests for New York and California.  So while he lost, McCain showed that he can appeal across party lines, and remains in a good position for the contest in South Carolina.  In terms of money, however, Romney has $60 million to McCain's $31 million, a difference which could begin to be a real problem for McCain by February. 

There are also three footnotes to these Republican results. The first is the strange failure of Giuliani to put up any fight at all, as he dropped to just 3%. Perhaps if neither Romney nor McCain can win an advantage soon, this strategy will yet be vindicated, but it looks like a long shot. Only slightly better was Fred Thompson's 4% showing. He seems unable to ignite his campaign, and one suspects that he is staying in the race in order to have a shot at being the vice-presidential nominee. Indeed, perhaps that is Giuliani's idea as well. If he can show he is strong in Florida, he becomes an attractive VP who can deliver that vital swing state and help carry New York. Finally, there is Paul's fascinating maverick candidacy. He describes himself as an old-fashioned strict constructionist of the Constitution. He is so far to the right that he emerges on the left on some issues, notably Iraq, where he advocates withdrawal. If you have not seen him in the debates, pay more attention, for the Texas congressman has some vocal supporters, as he calls for balancing the budget, an end to military adventurism abroad, and a return to the foreign policy of Thomas Jefferson. I strongly doubt that he is seeking the vice-presidential nomination, and he is smart enough to know that he is but an articulate gadfly. If nothing else, he shows how boring Fred Thompson is by comparison.

Meanwhile, Hillary won, running unopposed, and will get zero delegates, because the Democratic Party is punishing Michigan for advancing its primary date, as discussed a few days ago here. A notable 43% did not support her in the absence of other candidates. The real action was out in Nevada, where delegates can be won or lost, and where a debate took place yesterday. It apparently was a particularly friendly affair, as the three main candidates made a point of not attacking one another. After some un-pleasantries earlier in the week over the relative contributions of Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson, it seems that Clinton and Obama have returned to their senses. Arguing about events that took place 40 years ago, and bringing up race, were just not going to sell either candidate to the electorate.

One final aspect of the Michigan vote needs to be emphasized. Fully 46% of those exit-polled admitted that they did not make up their minds until this week. Indeed, more than 30% made up their minds during the last three days. As in Iowa and New Hampshire, this remains a fickle electorate, one that can be swayed by small events or media images right up to the end. The last minute shifts on the whole favored Romney. McCain outpolled him (32% to 28%) among those who had decided more than one month ago, but Romney garnered 41% of the voters who decided on the last day, as they neared the ballot box. McCain only got a quarter of these votes, and that represents much of the margin of difference between them.

Voting Patterns May Favor Clinton and McCain

Forty years ago I worked briefly for the Eugene McCarthy campaign in New Hampshire. That was a heady experience, because the primary became, in effect, a referendum on the Vietnam War. And McCarthy did something no one had thought possible. He embarrassed a sitting President, who won with 49%, by getting more than 42% of the vote. This was hardly an expected result in a conservative state. It was only possible because of massive support from college students and other young people. It did not hurt McCarthy that he had a good education in Catholic universities, so he could appeal to that constituency as well.

Working in the campaign made me acutely aware of the differences between voters. The problem for any candidate is, "How can I appeal to as many groups as possible?" The usual practice is to come up with a general campaign slogan, such as "New Deal," "Fair Deal," "New Frontier" or, this year, simply, "Change," and then develop a variety of specific proposals, which the candidate trots out or barely mentions, depending on the particular audience being addressed. Yet, in the end, each candidate appeals more to some social classes, religious faiths, or racial groups than to others. Some appeal more to men than women, or vice-versa. If only men could vote, then Bill Clinton would never have been president.  What can we learn about the major candidates' constituencies, based on Iowa and New Hampshire? 

Who voted for Obama instead of Clinton? For Huckabee or McCain?  Iowa and New Hampshire voting behavior suggests some patterns to think about. Consider that Hillary's New Hampshire victory essentially was won in small industrial towns, where she got twice the support Obama did. She is also emerging as a working-class candidate who speaks to bread and butter issues. Since the American economy is fading at the moment, with falling house prices and higher unemployment, this aspect of Hillary's appeal bears watching. Another area of strength for her is in terms of religion. The Catholics clearly preferred Hillary (44%) to Obama (27%), with Protestants more evenly divided. In New Hampshire, these Catholics are mostly French-Canadian and Irish. Will Obama find a way to reach out to such voters? Will he have more success with Catholics that have other ethnic backgrounds? He will have to re-think his basic message a bit if he wants to appeal to the less educated and to the working-class. To put this in a more positive way, Obama outpolled Clinton among college students, the better educated, and the wealthy. Among those who have gone to graduate school, he defeated her soundly, 46% to 27%. But could he win a Presidential election primarily based on that kind of support? Perhaps, for Obama seems to attract votes from people with higher incomes, many of them Independents. Among voters earning more than $50,000 a year, Obama had a margin over Clinton of 43% to 27%. 

These kinds of preferences are not written in stone, and candidates can modify their speechs and presentations to woo voters whom they failed to attract early on. For example, Hillary discovered in Iowa that the young were flocking to Obama by a radio of 2 to 1, while she was busy targeting women over 45. To improve in this area, in New Hampshire Hillary began surrounding herself on stage with young people. That may seem a rather minimal change, but it seems to have helped her. 

Overall, one can see that while the total vote for Obama and Clinton was close, support varied greatly within specific groups. Men strongly preferred him, but women brought her the victory. Clinton may be a bit better positioned, with strong support from Catholics, women, and the working class. But Obama will presumably adjust his campaign messages in an attempt to reach more of these voters, all of whom traditionally have been more Democratic than Republican. If he fails to do this, he will have troubles down the road that may undercut the boost he can expect to get from Black voters, who were scarcely present in Iowa or New Hampshire.

On the Republican side, for the last three decades religion has been a particularly important influence on voters. New Hampshire Catholics taken as a whole are rather conservative, and in 2004 gave more support to Bush (52%) than to Kerry (47%). In theory, Huckabee could do as well as Bush. In practice, he did far worse. Huckabee received most of his support from Evangelical Protestants, while in New Hampshire only 8% of the Republican-voting Catholics selected him. McCain literally got five times more Catholic votes, suggesting that he is far more electable in a national contest. More to the point, in the Michigan Primary next week there are three Catholic voters for every two Evangelicals. Furthermore, if one looks at Protestants as a whole, McCain has roughly the same appeal as Huckabee.  In short, Huckabee's born-again Baptist religion ultimately may be a limitation, not a strength. Nevertheless, the latest Michigan polls show Huckabee and McCain in a dead heat along with Romney, with all three getting about 20% of the vote. 

The Bush Economy

The US mortgage crisis and the falling prices for houses have now been making headlines for months. The stock market is also jittery because consumer spending seems certain to fall, as homeowners react to this news. Even though most people are not selling their homes this Christmas, when the value of a house drops, it has a psychological effect. When Jones hears that Smith, just down the street, had to sell for $75,000 less than he expected, Jones is deeply sympathetic, and worried.

How is this problem related to George Bush's 7 years in office? Before his election, in 2000, the country was economically strong. The economy had created 1 million new jobs a year during Clinton's presidency. The federal budget was in robust surplus, and Americans were rapidly paying off their national debt. After Bush came into office, not by virtue of a clear electoral victory but thanks to a 5-4 decision in the Supreme Court, he chose to lower taxes, especially for the wealthiest people. So those who least needed a tax break got one, and the budget once again went into the red. The national debt started to rise again, and the US government had to borrow more money every year. Ronald Reagan did the same thing, so one can say that Republican presidents since 1980 have a clear track record on the economy. Republicans spend more than they take in. They drive up the deficit. Republicans are tax cut and overspend conservatives, who pass the bill on to the next generation. In other words, they are not conservatives at all, in the classical understanding of the term.

Part of the bill for these economic policies comes due now in the form of a crumbling housing market. Why is that Bush's fault? First, by lowering taxes, Bush gave people, especially wealthy people, more money to spend, and much of it went into houses. This drove up prices, and it encouraged all home owners to borrow on the value of their property. It also drew many to invest in real estate. So, something of a housing bubble developed, thanks in part to Bush's profligate policy.

Second, more than $1 billion a day of Bush's deficit spending has gone into the War in Iraq. Had he gone out in the desert and simply burned $1 billion a day, it would have had almost as negative an impact on the economy, except that some of the huge war expense did come back, not to ordinary people, of course, but into the coffers of US corporations like Bechtel. But overall, considered as an economic program, the Iraq adventure is hardly a money-making activity.

Indeed, think about all the money that has gone into military hardware. Building a tank or a military jet does not do much to stimulate the American economy after it is built. A big piece of military equipment itself does not create jobs, improve transportation, or upgrade education. A tank does not innovate. A missile does not start a new business. There is far more economic payoff if a government invests in human beings. A better educated workforce generates more national income. A more highly trained hospital staff provides better care. Job training programs help workers make the transition to a new position. Investment in innovation more than pays for itself. In short, the huge military expenses of the Bush years have siphoned off more than $1 trillion and blasted most of it to bits in Iraq. Think about how much stronger the economy would be if that $1 trillion had been spent on health, education, rebuilding roads, and developing alternatives to imported energy. And in a stronger economy, the housing market would not weaken.

Third, one of the arguments for going into Iraq was that the nation could not let all that oil be controlled by Saddam Hussein. But the War has hardly stabilized the price of oil. For much of the time since the US "won" the war Iraq has had trouble supplying even its own population. Meanwhile, the war itself angered many of those who control Middle East oil production, and they are not rushing to increase production. For some reason, they like getting over $95 a barrel. The high cost of fuel obviously does not help the American economy in general, or the housing market in particular.

Bush Administration policies encouraged housing prices to soar while undermining the strength of the economy as a whole. A correction is unavoidable. One hopes it will not be too severe. It is happening even as I write, and we can only hope that the hard work and innovative activity of ordinary Americans has been a sufficient counter force to Bush's over-spending.