Election 2012: Santorum On Top in Early Feb Polls

After the American Century

Since Santorum's triple victory last week a number of polls have shown his support rocketing up to the top position. In an average of all the recent polls, he has just over 30%, and he is about 3% ahead of Romney. Moreover, Santorum wins ALL of the polls, whether conducted by Pew Research or the New York Times. Just eight days ago this result would have seemed improbable.

Meanwhile Gingrich seems to have had his moment in the sun, falling in the same polls to about 16%. Moreover, the trend is downward, as he gets only 10% in the most recent one. Since Gingrich is nearly broke, he has had to stop most campaigning to raise money.  He vows to keep going, and almost certainly will be using his energies to attack Romney, though he is an unpredictable man.

Romney hardly needs to worry about money, but suddenly neither does Santorum. He received more than $1 million a day in the first days after his stunning victories last week. Moreover, suddenly all the journalists and TV stations want to talk with him. This gives him free exposure to the public.

And just to make it harder for anyone to achieve a majority, Ron Paul keeps chugging along. He came in a close second to Romney in Maine. Romney should have been able to win easily there, as Maine was once a part of Massachusetts and has many similarities with next door New Hampshire, where Romney won.

In short, things remain unstable and will be interesting at least until March 6, or Super Tuesday. Here is the schedule of the primaries and caucuses to come until March 6.  The full list stretches into June, and it is possible to imagine a scenario in which no one candidate has been chosen prior to the Republican Convention. That would make the Convention an exciting event, rather than a scripted coronation.

February
21: Wisconsin Primary
28: Arizona Primary
      Michigan Primary

March 

3: Washington caucuses

6: Alaska caucuses
Georgia Primary
Idaho caucuses
Massachusetts Primary
North Dakota caucuses
Ohio Primary
Oklahoma Primary
Tennessee Primary
Vermont Primary
Virginia Primary

Denmark Expells Educated, Danish-Speaking Immigrant, 28 Years Old

After the American Century

Denmark had an election recently, and one of the issues was the poor treatment of immigrants. But nothing seems to have changed.  They are still treated badly, regardless of their education, ability to speak Danish, or integration into society. And the authorities continue to take many months longer to decide cases than they are supposed to, according to their own rules.

The latest case concerns the son of the former Albanian ambassador to Denmark. He came when 18 years old, studied in gymnasium, learned Danish, graduated, was admitted to Copenhagen University, and has all but completed his MA in Economics. He has been in Denmark for ten years. As these facts would suggest, his Danish is reportedly excellent, He has also been working part time, gaining experience he will need after completing his MA thesis, to be turned in shortly.  For those readers who can follow this story in Danish, see the story in Politiken.

This young man would seem to be a model of integration based on hard work and education. He has received his university training free from the Danish state. Now, just as he is ready to work and contribute to society, he has been told to leave the country. The government authorities took 10 months to handle his case, instead of the three months that they are supposed to abide by. This case is obviously is enormously complex! Should a talented, multilingual immigrant who speaks Danish be allowed to stay or should the investment made in his education be thrown away, by expelling him?

Such cases are warning to all who think of coming to work or study in Denmark. The new government has not yet been any better than the xenophobic government it replaced. Even those who learn the language and obviously have skills can be expelled based on complex rules that the bureaucracy seems unable to interpret in a timely fashion. And so, a young man has been told to leave with less than 30 days notice. Instead of writing the last pages of his MA thesis, due in 22 days, he has been sent packing. By tomorrow, the shortest day of the year, he must be out of the country. 

I suppose the only "good" thing one can say is that the poor treatment of immigrants is absolutely even-handed, with the same slow decision-making and expulsions for all, regardless of class or social standing. In this case, being the son of an ambassador and working part-time at the Albanian Embassy was no help to him.

The new government continues to disgrace itself. The rhetoric is that the country wants to attract highly qualified immigrants. The reality is that the slow-moving bureaucracy remains as xenophobic as ever. What is Denmark doing to itself?

Knowing of such cases, what am I to say to the foreign students currently enrolled in the MA program I helped to establish in 2002?  What about the prospects for foreign students who may enroll in the new BA program that begins in the fall of 2012? What am I to say to those who write asking for information, with plans to apply for next year?  Will they be given a chance to stay, when they complete their degrees, or will they be summarily expelled?

First Female Prime Minister in Danish History

After the American Century

Denmark has elected its first female prime minister Helle Thorning Schmidt. Gender was not an issue in the election, which focused on domestic issues. Foreign affairs were scrarcely discussed in the  debates, which dealt with the economy, health care, and the like.

The new prime minister was educated in political science, graduating from Copenhagen University in 1994. She also studied at the University of Bruges, as an exchange student in 1993. Before being elected to the European Parliament in 1999, she worked for three years as leader of the Secretariat for the Danish Socialist Party in Brussels.  Compared to most Danish politicians, therefore, she has had an unusual career, since it began in Europe and only later brought her back to the Danish Folketing (Parliament), where she was first elected as recently as 2005.

Thorning Schmidt is married to the son of Neil Kinnock, once the leader of the British Labour Party and later an EU Commissioner. Her husband lives much of the time in Switzerland, where he works.  This fact, combined with her extensive EU experience, suggests rather strongly that the new government will not be as xenophobic as that which has been toppled by the voters.

The new coalition government does not have a large majority, and the four parties involved disagree on many issues, so it may not be easy to hold them together.

Wake Up Republicans: Government is not a Business

After the American Century

The idea that the US government could choose to default is a fundamental misconception. Government is not a business that can decide to fail. Default is not a valid government strategy. Government is the foundation of society. It is a contract between the citizens that cannot be broken, not a corporation that can be allowed to go broke because people do not want to pay taxes. Talk of letting government fail financially cannot be separated from a more general failure of trust between the citizens. Government is about mutual obligation. It is not an investment that one pulls out of. Government is a contract between the generations, ensuring that pensions are paid, that opportunities such as education remain available, that the infrastructure is maintained, that services such as hospitals and fire departments do not deteriorate. Republicans really do not seem to understand this. They have long argued that government is an evil that should be pared down to a minimum. But the idea that elected legislators are willing intentionally to let the government default goes far beyond that doctrine. Dangerously far.

Americans have lived with a stable system so long that they have no historical experience of the disasters that come with fiscal irresponsibility. Undermine the state government, and you undermine the dollar itself. I am not talking about the dollar losing a few percentage points against the Euro. I am talking about the Japanese and the Chinese deciding not to buy dollar debt anymore, because it is too risky. I am talking about interest rates above 10% that cripple the US economy. For a small inkling, a mere taste of what that might mean, look at Greece right now, with the difference that the EU can bail out Greece. But no economy is big enough to bail out the United States.The US taxpayers have to honor their own obligations.

The dollar has been the world currency for so long that Americans take it for granted. But its hegemony is hardly assured. Other economies look stronger right now. Even to flirt with default will scare away future investments. Should the Republicans get back into power. international investors may head for the exits. Even now, China and Japan will almost certainly plan to dis-invest in US government bonds in order to spread their risk.

The Republican Party once again is showing that it is not fit to rule. It is a reckless party with no fiscal policy, a deluded party that does not understand the dangers of this historical moment when US economic and political power are challenged. The Republicans are a dangerous party that threatens to do lasting damage to US financial security and its standing in the world.

How Much Will Denmark Punish Immigrants Economically?

After the American Century

Danish politicians in recent weeks have been suggesting that newly arrived immigrants from outside the EU should not receive health care and other benefits as soon as they arrive. Rather, they should pay for them for a period of time, for example one or two years, before becoming eligible. Many Danes like this idea, and since the immigrants themselves cannot vote, so the political parties lose nothing by attacking them. Increasingly, the image in the media of the immigrant is that of a parasite.

In fact, immigrants to Denmark with jobs automatically pay for their medical care and other benefits through taxes. It seems absurd to demand that they pay what amounts to an additional tax. Denmark has the world's highest taxes, with the average salaried person paying about 50%.

Consider a counter-argument. An adult immigrant has not cost Denmark anything in terms of schooling, medical care, or other social services. He or she immediately can go to work and contribute taxes to the state.  In contrast,  Danes themselves cost money for at least twenty years before they can begin to pay back the cost of their upbringing, education, and care.  Comparing the cost of the adult immigrant with any Dane of 20, an economist could only conclude that the immigrant is a better "buy."

In the case of someone like myself, arriving with a PhD and working from the day of arrival almost thirty years ago, the Danish state has made a huge profit. I have made tiny demands on the medical system. My costly education at excellent American universities was completed before arrival, and I have never needed unemployment payments, retraining programs, or any other transfer payments. Meanwhile, I have been paying more than 50% of my salary in taxes. Moreover, the Danish laws limit my state pension, and I will receive less than any native-born citizen, regardless of what they have done or not done. So my retirement will also cost Denmark less the retirement of a Dane.

Looking at this in purely economic terms, the Danish state could save lots of money if it stopped training PhDs, doctors, and engineers and hired foreigners instead. I am not advocating that policy. But I am pointing out that if economics really drove immigration policy, then one would not punish immigrants by asking them to pay an extra tax. Rather, one would find ways to lure them into the country rather than erecting new barriers to keep them away.

What then is really driving this demand that immigrants pay more taxes than the Danes themselves? Is it not xenophobia? Is it not the fear of others? The Minister in charge of immigration declares himself against integration, demanding nothing less than full assimilation of foreigners. His predecessor illegally denied citizenship to many people with foreign backgrounds, even though they have grown up in Denmark, speak the language as natives, and have jobs.

And what is the likely effect of such laws, if they are enacted? What is already the effect of such illegal actions and such pronouncements from Ministers? People like myself may no longer migrate to Denmark, or they will soon leave once they realize that they face tax discrimination, pension discrimination, and hostile remarks from elected officials.

Meanwhile, Denmark will still end up giving asylum to victims of torture, refugees, and others who have suffered injustice, many of whom will not be able to work. In short, the proposed policy will drive away those who would come ready to make a contribution at the highest level, but it will not excuse Denmark from its humanitarian responsibilities. Quite possibly, the proposed law will not put more money in the treasury. Instead, it may drive away potential educated immigrants who can work, and simply impoverish the country - and not only in economic terms.

Danish Politics: The Ministers Have No Clothes

After the American Century

The gap between Danish political rhetoric and Danish lived reality is reaching epic proportions. Assuming the national character has not changed too much, it is no wonder Hans Christian Andersen wrote a famous story called "The Emperor's New Clothes." Readers will no doubt recall that the Emperor thought he was being arrayed in extremely fine clothing, but actually was putting on nothing at all. Even his subjects (or the public) went along with the fantasy, until finally a child pointed out that the King was in fact naked.

Most of the Ministers in Denmark are now similarly naked. The Minister in charge of finance cannot come close to balancing the budget, and yet keeps claiming that the tax reductions for the wealthy put through just two years ago, cannot be the cause of the problem. Rather, he argues, everyone should work longer hours, many public employees should be fired, libraries closed, and retirement laws be changed, so people will work longer. Meanwhile, everyone knows that the nation has a huge problem with black market labor (typically labor in people's homes such as plumbing and electrical work), which the government has not been able to deal with. 

But the finance minister actually has fewer problems than most of the others. The government has continually insisted that its policies will raise the level of the schools and universities, but now everyone can see that in fact schools are closing, faculty are being fired, and the number of hours of teaching received by students has been in decline for years. The Ministry involved now is trying to put the blame on the schools and universities, as if they had cut their own budgets. These politicians are nakedly fools.

Then there is the pathetic figure of the Minister in charge of allowing (well, mostly preventing) immigrants and refugees into the country. She and her predecessors in the post have, for more than a decade, broken the UN guarantees to stateless persons. A whole line of Ministers from this government have consistently misinformed people who had a right to Danish citizenship, people who were born in Denmark, educated in Denmark, and are now adults working in Denmark. These people have been denied citizenship, over and over, illegally. This would seem to be a serious breach of law and call for an investigation. But the same people who broke the law will now "investigate" themselves. A few right-wing politicians are now complaining about the UN, as if it were the problem!

Then there is the pathetic government organization that is supposed to ensure that the banks in Denmark are solvent. This institution decided that the Amager Bank was credit worthy, though in trouble, and lent that bank more than two billion dollars. Given this apparent certificate of good health, many kept their money in that bank, including several local governments. One quarter of a year later, Amager Bank lies in ruins, and those who owned stock in it, and those who had deposits larger than those insured by the  government, have lost their money. The loss is the equivalent of $200 for every man, woman, and child living in Denmark. The failure also weakens the Danish kroner, forcing up interest rates. A fine government, indeed! One mistakenly had thought that a conservative government could at least manage the business side of things.

The list is by no means complete, but how much naked incompetence and mismanagement should one put into a single blog? Suffice it to say that the current Foreign Minister performed so badly that her own party forced her to resign as their leader. But she is still in office.  

Then there is the former Minister in charge of research who intervened, illegally, and leaked confidential documents, in an attempt to help a researcher whom he liked, though it is now clear that her "results" were cooked up, based on non-existent rats in a non-existent Spanish research lab.  So he, too, is naked. But will there be a real investigation?

The list could go on, but how many naked Ministers can one stand to look at?

CRACPOT: Republican Party Needs a New Name

After the American Century

It is usually best to call things by their right names. There once was a political party in the United States called the Republican Party, which proudly nominated Abraham Lincoln for President. That party would never have considered nominating a bird-brain like Sarah Palin. It was called, affectionately, The Grand Old Party. It made mistakes, of course, but it was the essentially the party of the North, of development, of education, and of fairness, notably in the politics of Teddy Roosevelt. TR was far from perfect, but he did attack corporate monopolies, he often took the side of labor, and he believed passionately in conservation.

The so-called Republican Party of today is not at all the party of Lincoln or of Teddy Roosevelt. It is an angry party, a party of negative campaigning, a party that courts religious fundamentalism, a party that nominates candidates with extremist views. I strongly doubt that Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt would have voted for their candidates in the 2010 election. They were too modern in their thinking. 

The truth is that the Republican Party has become the Christian Capitalist Conservative Party, or CCCP . However, that abbreviation refers to the Communist Party in Russia. So we cannot use it. This new party has its power base is in the old confederacy. Get out a map showing where the slaves were most numerous, and it coincides perfectly with the states that are most staunchly Republican. I am not saying they are racists or that they are Bible beating yahoos, but they are strong in the areas where such people are to be found.

Indeed, if one looks at a map of the election results for the nation as a whole, broken down by county, it is immediately obvious that the Republicans are strongest in the countryside. The Democrats win Chicago, New York City, LA, Philadelphia, and so on, but they lose all those rural counties where people confuse socialism with any form of public services. 

So let me propose a new name for the Republicans, one that expresses their true nature:

Christian Rural American Conservative Party of Tea:   

CRACPOT

The name CRACPOT is accurate and descriptive. It is much needed in order to clarify who we are dealing with.

I therefore propose that CRACPOT be used from now on.

Who is Energy Efficient? Blue States

After the American Century

All solar demonstration house on the Washington Mall

Once again the individual American states have been evaluated for energy efficiency, and again California is the most efficient, with Massachusetts close behind. Basically, the "blue" states that voted for Obama are the most energy efficient, while the over-consuming states are mostly the "red" states that apparently don't really care about being green. Note the states at the bottom of the list, Alabama, Mississippi, and Wyoming. These are also states that don't want a national health care system. Their motto should be "Pollute often - die young."

Here is the complete list:

#1 California          #18 Arizona           #35 Tennessee
#2 Massachusetts    #19 Colorado        #36 Kentucky
#3 Oregon              #19 District of Col #37 Alaska
#4 New York         #19 Nevada           #37 Georgia
#5 Vermont            #22 New Hampshire  #37 South Carolina
#6 Washington       #22 New Mexico #39 South Dakota
#7 Rhode Island     #24 N. Carolina   #41 Arkansas
#8 Connecticut       #25 Illinois           #42 Louisiana
#8 Minnesota         #26 Idaho             #43 Missouri
#10 Maine              #27 Delaware      #43 Oklahoma
#11 Wisconsin        #27 Michigan       #43 West Virginia
#12 Hawaii             #27 Ohio              #46 Kansas
#12 Iowa                #30 Florida          #47 Nebraska
#12 New Jersey     #31 Indiana          #48 Alabama
#12 Utah                #32 Texas            #48 Wyoming
#16 Maryland        #33 Montana        #50 Mississippi
#16 Pennsylvania  #34 Virginia        #51 North Dakota


Note that the "swing" states in presidential elections fall right in the middle of the list, including Michigan, Ohio, and Florida.

The list has changed somewhat in the last year, as states like Arizona and New Mexico have climbed to higher positions as they have adopted more solar energy.

If you want more information, click here.

After Health Care, Where To Next?

After the American Century

The Obama Administration has used far more time on the health care legislation than one might have thought possible. The victory seems to have come, at last, but many other problems await. It seems the Republicans do not want to accept that they have lost and want to keep on fighting the health care battle, which is not exactly a constructive approach.

While the battle of health care legislation has raged, legislation regulating Wall Street has been side-tracked, along with vital bills to promote green energy and move the economy toward the next energy transition. It has been sad to watch China charge ahead in this area for the last year, while Congress proved unable to multitask. 

Indeed, the Republicans seem unable to perform even a single task, having become enamored of just saying no. Being against all policy initiatives at a time when the US world position is slipping will be harshly criticized by future historians, I submit.

The US badly needs immigration reform, too, and lawmakers may have to take a look at the tax code which seems to reward companies that export jobs to offshore factories. In short, it is time for American lawmakers to find common ground on important issues and move forward. If near stalemate continues, the nation will suffer. 

The American South and Health Care

After the American Century

I recently looked at where the Republican Party is strongest. The former slave states stood out, particularly those that grow cotton. I then looked to see where opposition to national health insurance is strongest. The former slave states again were prominent, particularly those where support for George Wallace once was strong.

The inescapable conclusion seems to be that the Republicans, who began their existence as a party based up North, insisted on keeping the South in the union so that one day the scourge of health insurance might be fought off with the help of the South. The Republicans of 1860 clearly took the long view, and wanted to be sure that when the ultimate danger to American society appeared - in the form of universal health care - the solid South would obstinately demand stasis. You could drive down Main Street in any southern town, throw a Bible out the window, and have a 65% chance of hitting someone opposed to health care.

Southerners have faith that they can get along without insurance. About 25% of all Texans have no health insurance at all, and apparently these uninsured people are against it.  One test of health, admittedly general but quite noticable, is how long people live. It turns out that people live longer in the states that want federal health coverage. According to statistics compiled at Harvard, those living longest are in Hawaii (80 years) and Minnesota (78.8), followed by Utah, Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Guess where people have the shortest life expectancy? The worst four places if you want to live a long time are Mississippi (73.6), Louisiana (74.2),  Alabama (74.4), and South Carolina (74.8). They apparently like the idea of an early death, as they are against mandatory health care.

In Massachusetts a national health bill has far more support, yet that state already has basic health care for all its citizens and its hospitals are among the best in the world. People in Massachusetts live to be 78.4, on average. So the real question is, why do so many people in Northern states like Massachustts want to subsidize health care for Southern states like Texas, Alabama and Mississippi? They apparently want to live 4 or 5 years less than people in the North anyway. 

What We Can Expect

After the American Century

We have all now heard about the Governor of Illinois trying to sell Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder. Such an event is the perfect deflation device, bringing us back down to earth. The economy may be in meltdown mode and the world in peril from global warming, but politicians do not therefore become virtuous. No one thinks Obama has anything directly to do with this sorry mess, and indeed the FBI tapes reveal the Governor complaining that he could not get anything from the president-elect.

Nevertheless, as the United States confronts a major economic crisis, it would be nice if one sensed a corresponding urgent desire to do the right thing in the political class. But recall the venality of Congress just a few months back, when it attached billions of dollars of pork to the financial bailout package - and this was just before an election when the country was paying attention.

Obama has been around Chicago politics and Washington politics long enough to know that getting real change will not come easy. The vested interests will try to oppose reform of the medical system, pollution restrictions, and higher energy standards to make houses and cars more efficient. Obama has moved rapidly to name his Cabinet and make other key appointments, and they appear almost uniformly to be both bright and experienced. Even the don of the Republican insiders, Henry Kissinger, has praised the steam that is being assembled.

This team is more centrist than many of Obama's supporters might have liked, but politics is the art of the possible. In this crisis, one senses that more may be possible than normally would be the case. Much depends on how skillfully the Obama presidency sequences its legislative proposals. Ideally they will begin with the ideas that are hardest to oppose and build momentum. Ideally, they will not try to overwhelm the Republicans, but make a show of working with them, cajoling support from moderates on the other side of the aisle. If they get some major legislation through quickly with bipartisan support, then it might turn into a new version of Roosevelt's famous 100 days in the first months of his first administration. Press reports about Obama's history reading suggests that this is his scenario. Yet however beautiful the plan and however fine the team to carry it out, venal politicians like the Governor of Illinois can obstruct and unexpected events such as a foreign policy crisis can derail the Obama Express.

I temper my hopes with these realizations, but remain confidant that at the least we will have a president who is intelligent and knows the Constitution. We can with confidence expect that the Guantanamo prison will close, that the government will not systematically lie to the public about foreign policy, that vast troves of government documents in the form of White House emails will not again be lost, that the White House will not engage in political vendettas, that Civil Rights laws will be enforced, that Supreme Court nominees will be competent, and that pollution will be reduced. For the last eight years we could expect none of these things.

Preparing the Way

Weedcraft artwork, by Fern Nye

After the American Century

On this Easter Morning I want to wish all my readers well, and say Thank You for your attention. The pace of publication has been slow of late because of the final illness of my mother, Fern, who passed away last week. She was one of my readers. Rather, beginning in childhood, she was my first reader. She also took a keen interest in politics, worked to get out the vote, and once was elected a Justice of the Peace. Even in her last days, she was following the current election with great interest. Always a swing voter, she studied the candidates closely. She was a liberal Republican who admired both Abraham Lincoln and Jimmy Carter, both Dwight Eisenhower and Martin Luther King.

Barack Obama made what is already a famous speech last week, but unfortunately my mother never got to hear it. The media keeps referring to it as a speech about "race", but it would be more accurate to say that it is about getting beyond racial fears and stereotyping. By giving it in Philadelphia he called attention to the continuity between his campaign and the promises and possibilities of the Constitution that was written in that city 221 years ago. It is a great speech because it is not mere rhetorical effects, but a probing analysis of the attitudes of both African-Americans and White Americans. So many have already commented on what he said, that I will only say that it reminds Americans of all racial and religious backgrounds that we are on a journey together, sharing a common fate, building a common future.

I feel certain that my mother would have liked that speech. In her own way, she was part of the process of change that Obama embodies and embraces. In the late 1950s, also in Pennsylvania, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, she strongly supported hiring a Black clergyman in her largely white Episcopal congregation. He was hired, and proved to be an effective and popular minister. For the most part, Fern Nye was not a public figure, working quietly and generously for others through volunteer work and charitable giving.

Nevertheless, she acknowledged that, while she knew as a trained biologist that racial differences were so minimal as to be unimportant, she still discovered racist feelings within herself. For example, she once confessed to me (c. 1964) that when taking communion, sharing the same cup of wine with a Black person as it was passed from mouth to mouth, bothered her, even though intellectually she knew it should not. Her honesty about such matters helped her to transcend these feelings. She did not let herself become a prisoner of prejudice but continued to develop on many levels until the end of her life. She was considering whether or not to vote for Obama. That would have been inconceivable when she first was old enough to vote in 1941.

On this Easter Day I honor Fern Nye and the journey she made. Like many in her generation, she became more open and tolerant with the years. If we can now believe that "Yes, We Can," it is because people like her prepared the way.

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.

Why Obama Beats Hillary

The election tomorrow in New Hampshire will likely cement Barack Obama's status as the leading Democratic contender for the Presidency. Some of the most recent polls place him 10-12% ahead of Mrs. Clinton, and all observers on the ground agree that he has tremendous momentum. He is filling every hall, and the crowds leap to their feet with enthusiasm. In contrast, former President Clinton, it is widely reported, is not filling halls, and those who do come applaud politely

How has this happened? How could Hillary Clinton, with more than $100 million and the backing of hundreds of former officials from her husband's presidency, lose to a first-term Senator, much less a Black man who is in his mid-forties? How could Obama beat not one Clinton, but two? There are many possible answers to this question, but for convenience let us begin with the Hillary negatives and then move to the Obama positives. 

HIllary wants to be perceived as the candidate of experience, yet this is a weak platform for her. She bungled health care when given the chance to put forward a plan as First Lady, and it came out during the campaign that she did not have a security clearance, and therefore lacked access to important foreign policy documents when in the White House. Nor did her vaunted experience stand her in good stead when faced with the Iraq War. She voted for it, suggesting that she has not learned enough, despite the opportunities. Did she support it because she genuinely agreed with President Bush? Or was she too timid to stake out an anti-war position, fearful that she could not get elected president if she looked "soft"? Unfortunately for her, the post-war period has gone so badly that the American people by a considerable majority want to get out of Iraq. So does Hillary now.

She wants to be the first women president, but her charismatic husband gets in the way. Too often she seems to be riding her husband's coat tails, which does not work well when he is no longer running himself. But the key problem is that she simply does not compare well with him. Bill Clinton generated a public enthusiasm but Hillary does not. She is a better speaker than George Bush, which is not saying much, but she does not electrify a crowd.

That is the first Obama positive. He does electrify a hall, as he speaks with passion and conviction. His speech after the victory in Iowa was masterful, and already some are comparing him to some of the greatest public speakers in US history, namely Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King. Obama knows how to build up to a climax and take the crowd with him. He does not just talk about hope, he creates it. 

The second positive for Obama is that he does not talk about being Black. Rather, he embodies what it means for a Black man to have attended Columbia and later Harvard Law School, without taking the lucrative path to a big law firm. Instead, Obama chose politics and public service. He also chose to be inclusive, defining himself not as a minority candidate, but as a candidate in the Democratic mainstream. The reason white audiences respond to him so positively is that he never tried to lay down a guilt trip, to make people feel bad about the injustices of the past. Instead, he calls out to their good impulses to make a better future. The fact of Obama being there at all is an embodiment of hope.

The third positive for Obama is that he has built up a coherent campaign theme based on hope. It began with his two books, both bestsellers that reached a large audience with his message of personal transformation, growth, and hope for change. In contrast, Hillary wrote a memoir about her years in the White House that sold well enough, as her publisher advertised heavily to get back the big advance. But look at their books today on Amazon. Obama's The Audacity of Hope is number 36 overall, but number one in non-fiction books on government and number one among all biographies and memoirs. Hillary Clinton's A Woman in Charge is number 14,752 overall, and only number 49 in biographies and memoirs. Her Living History from 2004 is below 49,000. His Dreams from My Father is the best-selling non-fiction book about African Americans, and it is in the top 400 books. 

So, Hillary has not become as strong and convincing a spokesperson for American women as Obama has for African-Americans. You have to feel sorry for her. She is a good candidate, better than Kerry, far better than Bush. But Obama is a great candidate, a once-in-a-lifetime candidate. Let us hope he can continue as he has begun.