Taking Stock After the PA Primary

After the American Century

It is time to take stock and get the bigger picture in focus after yesterday's primary. The results are in, and Hillary Clinton has won Pennsylvania by roughly 9.5% over Barack Obama. This was a bit more convincing victory than some polls had predicted, but by no means a surprise. It tells us that voters over who are over 45, women, or working class, cannot easily be won over to Obama's side. Clinton successfully portrayed herself as a local girl, whose father came from Scanton. Its citizens responded by voting for her by a margin of 3 to 1.

This means Hillary will continue to run, and that, in her words, she "won't quit" because "the American people don't quit." For the Democratic Party, however, this is the nightmare scenario, in which the primary campaign does not choose a candidate and the convention risks becoming a free-for-all. Since February 5, the campaign has lost its lofty tone and become increasingly negative. All close observers can see that Clinton is primarily responsible for the change. Today the New York Times, which endorsed her, nevertheless editorialized against her tactics, citing in particular an "advertisement" (if one can call it that) that depicted all the worst crises in twentieth century US history, including the Stock Market Crash of 1929, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Cold War, 9/11, and even a cameo role for Osama bin Laden. The powerful imagery has nothing to do with the differences between the candidates, but was marshalled so Hillary could once again suggest that she had more experience. (However, McCain will beat "McClinton" on experience, particularly military experience.)

Meanwhile, what is happening outside the bubble of Democratic Party politics? President Bush has fallen even further in the polls. Now just 28% approve of the job he is doing. But Congress is even less popular, with some polls giving it just 20%, although the average of all polls is 22%. The electorate is not happy because the economy is in recession and hundreds of thousands of home buyers teeter on the edge of foreclosure. Because food prices are rising while incomes are stagnant. Because the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue. Moreover, many are now making the link between the billions of dollars spent on the war and the weakening economy. Normally, with such dissatisfied voters and such an economy, the Republicans would have no chance in November. But the unresolved race between Obama and Clinton has given them a chance, and McCain is the ideal candidate to make the most of it.

Now step back further, away from the clamor of the election. The dollar has just sunk to a historic low against the Euro. It now costs $1.60 to buy the same Euro that was worth 99 cents on January 1, 2000. This difference will almost certainly get worse, because the US continues to buy more than it sells and because European interest rates are considerably higher than those in the US. America may be in recession, but in much of Europe the problem remains inflation. (Indeed, in Denmark the unemployment rate is less than 2%, foreign workers are streaming in to meet demand, and home loan interest rates are over 5%.) While the downturn in the States will slow growth elsewhere somewhat, the realization is growing that China and India have become large enough to keep the world economy steaming ahead. If the US is only stagnating and not collapsing, the Europeans may have little to worry about. In economics, it's called "decoupling."

The candidates have not talked about this, or what to do about it. While the election preoccupies the US, the nation's economic centrality is fading. The dollar can fall drastically, and the nation can go into recession while the rest of the world as a whole grows at an average annual rate of 3-4% or more. In Pennsylvania, the voters look at their shuttered factories and can sense the problem, but the candidates blame NAFTA. Unfortunately, the reasons for the economic weakening of the US are far more complex and risk becoming more permanent than the next administration. That is why this blog is called After the American Century. The US needs to wake up to the severity of its economic problems.

The Strange ABC Debate

After the American Century

Remarkably, the recent debate between Senators Clinton and Obama focused a good deal on trivial matters. The US economy is slipping into recession, the imbalance of trade with China is now more than $250 billion, the war in Iraq costs millions of dollars every hour, prisoners held without basic human rights continue to rot on Guantanamo, and the dollar has fallen to its weakest level in 25 years - the phrase "in the toilet" comes to mind - and in the midst of such real problems, the questions ABC  presented to the candidates were pathetic. 

Back in the sixties, at media events students used to chant, "The whole world is watching." This is even more true now than it was then, but American journalists seem to be unaware of it. How idiotic ABC looks from outside the US! 

The Dangers of Clinton's Strategy

After the American Century

Many have noted that Hillary Clinton is pursuing a strategy which is potentially destructive not just to Obama but also to the Democratic Party. But polling figures show that the strategy of all out attack on Obama, often using precisely the same arguments as Republicans, is having a destructive effect on Clinton herself. The Rasmussen daily tracking poll shows that Mrs. Clinton has been behind McCain now for more than one month. According to the same polling organization, Obama has been closer to McCain, and on a few occasions ahead of him, during the same period.

In short, Clinton risks being seen as a surrogate McCain, or a second-rate version of the "real McCain." She can talk about learning to shoot a gun as a young girl, and she can sidle up to the bar and have a beer and a shot of whiskey, but she just is not as believable in that role as McCain himself. She was not a fighter pilot, she only mistakenly claimed to come under fire. An undecided voter in the crucial swing states of Ohio or Pennsylvania or Florida just might prefer the new (if old) face, and go for the Republican anti-Bush.

It gets worse. Suppose Hillary's endless attacks on Obama do eventually win her the nomination. The millions who voted for him are not going to be enthusiastic about her. Not now. She will have quite a struggle to unite the Democrats, and will have to start months after McCain has been at the same game in his party. Polls show that back in Februry most Democrats were excited about both their front-running candidates, but today the divisions are far deeper, with the split getting worse every day.

Now imagine that you are one of the remaining super-delegates, who has to decide. Clinton has managed to take some of the gloss off Obama, who nevertheless still leads McCain in national polls, while she is clearly weaker against him. The process of selecting a candidate is weakening the party, which now risks losing the White House, despite President Bush's extremely low popularity ratings that hover around 30%. If this goes on much longer, is it not possible that a new, no doubt impossible, scenario has a certain appeal, the scenario of an entirely new candidate coming to the rescue? Someone with experience. Someone who once received more than 50% of the national vote. Someone the party might unify around - like Al Gore.

Impossible now. But what if the race remains undecided until the end of summer?

OBAMA: Guns and religion in Pennsylvania

After the American Century

Obama has closed the gap between himself and Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, and depending on which poll you believe, he is now behind by 4-5%. This will allow him to suffer an "acceptable loss" on April 22 - by which I mean a small loss compared to his initial weakness in the state, where he trailed by more than 10%. Note, too, that he narrowly leads John McCain in Pennsylvania polling, though Hillary leads by considerably more. 

However, Obama has not been having an easy time of it of late, due to some ill chosen words in San Francisco, when trying to explain why he is not winning in the polls in Pennsylvania. To summarize, he said voters were bitter, and that they were clinging to guns and religion. This was a rare mistake in what has generally been an extremely good campaign, and Clinton is riding it for all it is worth, in every campaign appearance.

Pennsylvania is a state I once knew very well. I grew up in the center of the state, in Boalsburg, which is far enough west to make me a Pittsburgh Pirates fan. The town claimed to be the birthplace of Memorial Day, and it was the sort of small town where lots of farm boys were in the schools, and these boys went hunting with their fathers when they were about 11 or 12 years old. Some would come into school on Monday with tales of killing their first deer. Even if all you know about Pennsylvania is the early scenes from The Deer Hunter, then you know that hunting and gun ownership are not about fear. Whatever else might be wrong with the world, the rural Pennsylvanian can still go hunting. The woods will welcome the hunter each fall, and the man will recall when he was there for the first time with his father. Obama simply got that part wrong. Rural white Pennsylvanians love to hunt, and they connect gun ownership to going into the woods after game. No doubt in Chicago, where Obama lives, gun ownership has another meaning, and gun control has considerable appeal. But hunting and gun ownership are simply not debatable for the sort of people I grew up with. He has lost some votes for that mistake.

Unfortunately, Obama managed to drag religion into his remarks as well, as another thing Pennsylvanians cling to. Remember that the state was founded by Quakers, who were extremely tolerant about religion, allowing any sect to immigrate into the state. As a result, the variety of religions in Pennsylvania is greater than just about anywhere in the country. You can find sizable groups of Mennonites, Amish, Lutherans, Dutch Reformed, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Baptists, and Catholics, to make a short list. These groups do not merely persist, they flourish, and it is not because people cling to them due to bad times. The churches as I knew them, through endless suppers, bingo games, small carnivals, bake sales, coffee hours, markets, and strawberry shortcake specials, were the sinews that held communities together. In the small town you might well go to some of the events at another church, which helped them to raise money. We all knew one another, and the church was not so much a matter of doctrine as a matter of cultural identity. I do not think religious doctrine then was or now is quite as central to church-going in Pennsylvania as it might be in Alabama or Chicago. Rather, people were comfortable with their particular church, without being particularly zealous. Obama should get to the chicken dinners, and then have some apple cobbler and coffee.

When I lived in rural Pennsylvania, there were almost no Black people. There were none in my elementary school and only one fellow in seventh grade, as far as I can recall. Hillary will seem a more familiar figure to them than he will. Obama is definitely my candidate, but I wish he had found better local advisers and had practiced his bowling before heading out into the hinterland.  My guess is that for a decent showing in the primary there, he will have to rely on getting out the vote in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and the other cities. More generally, he will have to use his ability to learn quickly to understand this part of the electorate a bit better, or McCain will win Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the White House.

McCain's Torture

After the American Century

In a world of political spin, perhaps I should not be surprised that John McCain continues to enjoy the reputation of a moderate maverick. Sadly, this is not the case.

McCain has courted extremists, notably Rod Parsley who is a well-known Moslem basher and John Hagee, a preacher from San Antonio Texas, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for granting gay rights. He has also called the Catholic Church a "false cult." Hagee wrote a book, Jerusalem Countdown, which reads current events in the Middle East as the fulfillment of Biblical prophesy. Iran and Armegeddon, as 'twas foretold. This is ideal reading material for a future commander-in- chief. We will all sleep more comfortably, if we are certain that President McCain sees diplomacy as a part of escatology. President Bush made a start in this direction, but an even more militant attack on "evil" is surely just what the nation needs. Otherwise, we might get distracted by the economy, as it slides into recession.

At the end of February, The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights called on McCain to disavow Hagee's endorsement. At the very same time that Obama was being roasted by the press for statements that his pastor had made, but McCain got off lightly, with relatively little attention to his relationship with Hagee.

There is no space here to discuss McCain's conservatism in its entirely. But consider that this is the man who voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Think about that for a moment, and keep in mind that he has a poor record on civil rights laws.

Consider next that he voted against a legal ban on waterboarding. Yes, the man known for his suffering as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, and for his opposition to torture did not want to stop waterboarding. He cast this vote in this election year, showing where he stands on the torture question. But if waterboarding is OK, McCain is adament that abortion should be outlawed. He is also a fiscal conservative when it comes to liberal frills, like children's health care, which he voted against last year. To make certain no one would mistake his view, he defended George W. Bush's veto of the bill.

Many people think McCain is pro-environment, but in 2007 the League of Conservation Voters studied his voting record and found he deserved a zero. That is a truly remarkable result for a Senator from Arizona, a state with some of the nation's most attractive scenery and with real environmental problems. Arizona's conservatives often have been environmentally aware, notably Barry Goldwater. He was among the first 100 people ever to go down the Grand Canyon in a boat, and he had a reverential attitude toward wilderness. McCain has a more utilitarian view of nature. How is it that in 1964 Barry Goldwater had no chance of winning the presidency, where today McCain, with similar positions on many issues, has a very real chance of winning?

The Republican Party as a whole has moved so far to the right since 1964 as to be almost unrecognizable. Had McCain stood for election 44 years ago, he would have seemed to the right of Barry Goldwater. But today, McCain is widely perceived as being to the left of President Bush.

Where Are the Battleground States? Does This Information Point to Clinton or Obama?

After the American Century

Rasmussen Reports has made a study of the alignment of the states, looking at them in terms of the electoral college. It turns out that according to their polling, the Democrats have 190 electoral votes they can count on, including New York and California. The Republicans have 189 in their column, including Texas. So, where are the battleground states? Here is the list of 13 where the fall election will be lost or won. They have a total of 159 electoral votes: Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, and New Hampshire.

Note that both Michigan and Florida are on the list, providing another reason to consider finding a way to hold proper primaries in each state. But what is most striking, otherwise, is that the Deep South is not going to be in play. Rather, the election will be won or lost in the middle of the country, with 85 votes in the contiguous states that stretch from Pennsylvania to Iowa and Minnesota, plus 19 electoral votes in the mountain, desert west (Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico), and 55 in four quite different outlier states, Virgina, Missouri, Florida, and New Hampshire.

Looking at that list, it seems clear that Hillary's endlessly repeated claim that only she can win the big states only has some force, because some of these big states are safely in one column or other other. But nevertheless, it is true that some big states are up for grabs, notably the 58 electors from Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Another way to look at the list is to ask how Obama and Clinton did in these states, and this reveals a close contest, with Obama a bit ahead.

Clinton (54): Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, New Mexico

Obama (60): Virginia, Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado
No Valid Primary (44): Michigan, Florida

One could say that Clinton's whole argument comes down to Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Looking toward November, this list of swing states strongly suggests that the ideal Democratic vice-presidential candidate is not someone from the South, where the Republicans are strong, but a popular governor in one of the Midwestern swing states - someone from Ohio, perhaps. Ted Strickland seems ideal for the job, from a polling point of view. He would also appeal to centrist voters, with his storng Methodist background, teaching experience, and work as a psychologist. Personally, I would be more excited to see Bill Richardson on the ticket, but there are not enough votes at stake in New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado, and the Hispanic voters in Texas and California seem safely in the Democratic column in any case.

Overall, the Rasmussen polls show another important trend. In the last month the movement has been away from the Democrats, who are far less likely to win the election now than they were in early March. McCain is the only winner in the Clinton-Obama contest so far.

Guantanamo To Close?

After the American Century

One of the worst mistakes of the Bush government has been to create the special prison at Guantamo Bay in Cuba. The men held there have not been charged with specific crimes, and could not be kept in detention for more than a few days if on American soil. That is because the Constitution gives all those arrested the right to know what charges are being made against them. The US Courts also have always upheld the right to a legal defense, the right know the evidentiary basis used by the prosecurtion, the right to call witnesses for the defense, and the right to cross-examine witnesses for the prosecution. None of these fundamental rights have been available at Guantanamo, and its mere existence has given the US a credibility problem. How can the US claim to represent democracy, and to want to encourgage other nations to adopt democracy, if it does not play by the rules of democracy?

Putting the detainees off-shore and denying them rights was a serious blot on the US's national reputation. But making matters worse, the Bush Government chose to lock them up on Cuba. That placement reminded the whole world, especially Latin America, of the US seizure of Cuba after the Spanish-American War in 1898. That little war was supposed to lead to independence for Cuba. Something else happened instead, and real independence for Cuba only came with Castro's revolution. In short, putting the illegal prisons on a base in Cuba reminded every Latin American that the US has often been something of a bully in the Caribbean. Teddy Roosevelt was thinking of that region when he declared that his policy was to "speak softly but carry a big stick." Locating the base in Cuba was a gift to the Left all over Latin America. It particularly hurt our credibility in nations such as Venezuela, Brazil, and Bolivia.

Worst of all, the whole conduct of the Bush Administration with regard to these prisoners has distrcated attention from the serious crimes some of them surely committed. I do not doubt that some - though probably by no means all - of the detainees are terrorists. But the Bush policy made them into victims!

This morning's news carried the story that an impressive FIVE former Secretaries of Sate are now calling for the Guantanamo Prison to be closed down. The bi-partisan group includes Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright and Colin Powel. This is a welcome development, signaling the widespread rejection of much of the Bush-Cheney policy. These are the most experienced people in American foreign policy, and their unusual bi-partisan statement should be enough to close this sorry chapter. In a sense, they are only seeing the hand-writing on the wall, because the electorate has already spoken. John McCain, who himself suffered as a prison of war in Vietnam, would close it. And both Clinton and Obama would close it. The only question is how quickly it can be done.

As a sidelight on this issue, a little story. About two months ago a Danish journalist called me to talk about Guantanamo. As is often the case with Danish journalists covering some aspect of the US, she was by no means a specialist on the United States. I seriously doubt she could pass the exam in my introductory American history course. But she had fixed opinions about the US which were precisely of the sort that the existence of Guantanamo reinforced. I told her for 15 minutes, in as many ways as I could think of, that Guantanamo Bay prisons would not survive very long in the next presidency, that they were an illegal embarrasment, that they no longer even served an intelligible purpose, and that a new leader would hardly want to be saddled with this Bush mistake. But she simply would not listen. She, like millions of others around the world, saw in those orange-clad prisoners, shuffling in chains, the "true" American policy toward the rest of the world. Since I did not agree with her, my interview was not used in her story. That is one of many instances where Danish journalists imposed their oversimplified world view on their readers. Guantanamo was made-to-order for such people, and it will take a generation of far better leadership in Washington to undo the public relations damage.

Unfortunately, there is no way to undo the terrible damage done to those prisoners held illegally without charge who in fact were not guilty. They have lost precious years of their lives, and as long as their relatives remember, the United States will be a bitter name in their mouths. When Guantanamo finally closes, it will live on in memory as another Bush disaster. He has been such a poor president that Richard Nixon begins to look sensible, moderate, and statesmanlike, even if he had to insist he was not a crook. You know things are bad when the most disgraced president in US history begins to look better.

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.

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."