Debating Myself

Today I turned in the fruits of over a year of my labor–my senior thesis in Politics and Government at Pacific University. It is a good feeling and I am actually very proud of the finished product. It is not quite a publishable paper, largely due to a lack of data, but it is a good paper calling for further avenues of research in rural education policy. You can read the abstract below to find out what the paper is all about, but I thought it would be fun to take a statistical look at my thesis:

Vital Stats:

• Pages: 41
• Words: 11,857
• Footnotes: 42
• Words (with footnotes): 13, 337
• Sources Cited: 38
• Sources Consulted: 74
• Appendixes: 1

For those of you interested, here is a summary of the thesis and what it entails:

Rural education policy research has traditionally focused on the sociological aspects of rural areas and often failed to take into account analyses of politics and power. Utilizing a more formal political analysis, this study describes the political universe within which educational policy in rural areas is formed. Using two case studies of the implementation of a national grant program, the Reading First grant, this study seeks to explore the different intergovernmental relationships that rural and urban school districts experience, and the institutional features of No Child Left Behind that place rural areas at a disadvantage when implementing national educational policy. The study concludes by suggesting ways that policy makers and school districts alike can craft future policies to accommodate the unique advantages and disadvantages of both urban and rural school districts.

If that sounds interesting I invite you to download the PDF and take a glance. It is a bit dry, so if you want to be spared the details you can skip to the conclusion and find the most salient points summarized nicely there.

The Myth of the Oak Tree (PDF)

The important thing is that it is done, and that I am proud of the finished product.

A candidate for Congress in Indiana (a Republican) recently made an odd choice of public appearance. It was odd because Tony Zirkle, an apparently very devout Christian, was appearing at a celebration to honor perhaps the greatest monster of the 20th Century.

Yes, Zirkle was at a Nazi celebration of Adolf Hitler’s birthday.

Zirkle, who is apparently crazy, had this to say:

When asked if he was a Nazi or sympathized with Nazis or white supremacists, Zirkle replied he didn’t know enough about the group to either favor it or oppose it.

“This is just a great opportunity for me to witness,” he said, referring to his message and his Christian belief.

I know 5 year olds that have enough information to know whether or not to favor neo-Nazis and white supremacists (the correct answer, by the way Mr. Zirkle, is in fact to oppose them).

But this is probably just a ridiculous publicity stunt by this clown, and we are all playing into his devious hands. Go ahead, check out his campaign website and read what he has to say about any number of issues.

The Economist has some juicy quotes on their American blog if you just aren’t up for browsing insanity for more than a little bit. I can’t resist reproducing this gem for you here:

In an interview, Zirkle told FOXNews.com he doesn’t think he is too far out of the Republican mainstream. He believes the solution to STDs and out-of-wedlock births is to separate blacks and whites into segregated states, but he says that’s fully in the tradition of the party.

On the one hand it is a triumph for American democracy and freedom of speech that someone with such crazy ideas could run for office and not be silenced.

But on the other hand, he is crazy, and I’m a big believer that rights come with responsibilities–like not going to Hitler’s birthday party… even if that means sacrificing your opportunity to witness to hate-mongers.

Montana Governor Brian Schweizter speaking in Washington D.C. in May 2006. I just stumbled across this video and had to share it. It just reminds me what I like about Montana voters and Montana politics, and what is often misunderstood about us. Montanans vote for the “right” thing when they are told honestly and directly what is at stake. With some honest talk and innovative policies Montana is doing the best it has for the past 12 years or so. Other Democratic politicians in the west should listen closely.

Vindication through coursework is a rare part of the college experience, but this past week has really been a rewarding one for me. Having recently completed my senior thesis in political science–a study of the effects of No Child Left Behind on school governance and rural schools–I was more than pleasantly surprised to see that the Reading First Initiative, the focus of the case studies in my research, was in the news. Both the Washington Post and the Economist carried stories on the program that can be found here and here respectively.

My thesis is largely critical of the way in which the Reading First program is administrated. Federal grant money is distributed to states, who then subgrant the money out to local school districts. For rural school districts the grant process by itself proves problematic enough, but further complicating matters are the stipulations that the aid comes with, often conditioning the types of reading instruction to occur in the classroom. Decentralization and localization have long been hallmarks of the American education system, and No Child Left Behind purported to continue those traditions, but clearly the Reading First program is an exception–the Washington Post gets it right:

A 2006 report from the Education Department’s inspector general, John P. Higgins Jr., said some program officials steered states to certain tests and textbooks.

Mix in a little classic Bush cronyism just for good measure:

Congressional testimony last year also revealed that some of those people benefited financially…

This was bad enough, but the pattern of unfair benefits was distributed unequally along ideological lines as well–essentially deciding a long standing debate about how reading should be taught:

Critics say that Reading First officials have promoted intensive phonics instruction, in which children focus on learning to sound out words, and that schools have been discouraged from using the whole language approach, which emphasizes teaching reading through literature.

In the case study I used for my thesis, a rural Pennsylvania school district was forced to abandon a highly successful whole language approach due to lack of funding, apply several times for a Reading First grant, and only after a change in party (from elephant to donkey) was a grant for a new type of reading program approved. Rural schools thrive on the whole language model and can be highly successful, because, by their very nature, these schools afford their students considerable individual attention from teachers. Under the Reading First program whole language instruction funding is now highly inconsistent and politicized. The Reading First program unfairly squashes this and tramples on the ability of local school districts to resist federal and state mandates about instructional programs and be classroom innovators.

That said, Reading First has for the most part been a success for non-rural schools, and the phonics method of reading instruction is an acceptable and worthwhile practice. Unlike many aspects of NCLB, Reading First seems to be getting results (again WP):

The Center on Education Policy, based in the District, reported in October that officials in 37 states said the curriculum and assessments helped boost achievement.

So I guess it doesn’t make sense to me why Democrats would cut the funding of this program by more than 60 percent. But that is just what it did. The Washington Post searched for the best answer they could:

“We all agree that the goal of the Reading First program — to help all children learn to read — is incredibly important,” said Rachel Racusen, a spokeswoman for Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.)… “We must have every assurance that Reading First funding is being used as intended — to benefit our nation’s schoolchildren, not to line the pockets of Bush’s cronies.”

Wait what? It is benefiting our nation’s schoolchildren as is–even if it was conceived in an improper way. Children are learning to read from this program. It doesn’t get any clearer! (I’m a critic, and even I can’t disagree that it works.) File this under further evidence that representatives from really big states are generally up to no good and/or certifiably crazy. But, more importantly, Mr. Miller has completely missed the point.

1. The program is currently under administrative review for the transgressions involving yet another case of Bush cronyism. Those involved will be punished, reports will be issued, etc.
2. In the meantime, the program borne out of cronyism appears to be one of the few bright spots in this administration–it is actually helping impoverished American children learn to read.
3. Cutting funding to the program will not kill the benefit to textbook manufacturers or those who sell reading curricula–schools know these programs work and will now secure outside funds to continue these government programs. Unfortunately, it is only better off schools who have the resources to do this, while poor, rural or underfunded schools who need these programs most will actually just cut back reading instruction.
4. The Democrats have proposed no alternative or amendments to the Reading First program to allow reading instruction to continue, while rolling back Bush cronyism.

So instead of taking a stand against President Bush in the Iraq War, around which a public consensus now exists, Democrats have opted to take a much bolder position… punishing children for alleged Bush cronyism. Those Democratic Senators and Representatives are much braver than me; I would have meekly pushed an alternative policy through fixing the improprieties of the program and making it more flexible, while the program continued to quietly improve reading scores across America . Instead the Democrats hope to convince American children learning to read that they need to sacrifice their extra reading education in the name of slapping a few textbook manufacturers on the wrist for allegedly earning an extra 5% in profits. Oh, and the opportunity to stick a finger in President Bush’s eye.

This is just a sickening example of partisan politics at its absolute worst; in this case on the part of a Democratic Congress seeking to exact retribution from a Republican executive at any price. Is a policy that has widely benefited millions of poor and disadvantaged American children really the policy the Democrats want to choose to punish President Bush on? Shouldn’t they take their rage out on him in a more benign and sensible policy area–choosing randomly of course–like the Iraq War, the nuclear deal with India, etc ad infininum?

The Washington Post piece ends on a sober note that readers should be left with:

“Reading First has made so much of a difference in the lives of so many people,” said James Herman, the program’s director in Tennessee. “We’re going to punish the children. I don’t understand that at all.”

I don’t either Mr. Herman.

Lawmakers are complaining that oil executives are exploiting consumers through artificially inflated oil and gas prices.

This is an odd criticism for politicians to make, considering they reap those very oil company profits to finance their campaigns–oil and gas contribute upwards of $20 million a year to political campaigns.

Of course, it looks good to stand up on C-SPAN for the whole world to see and fight for the American consumer. But please, if you would Big Oil CEOs, leave your donations for our political campaigns at the door on your way out…

This is part one of a multi-part series addressing the issue of free trade and the arguments used against it. In this section I take on the historical protection of manufacturing jobs by opponents of free trade. Future sections will address environmental concerns, concerns of 3rd world exploitation, and an honest appraisal of the evidence in favor of and against free trade.

The recent debate about free trade bubbling up in Montana politics is the perfect opportunity to discuss this highly misunderstood issue. Montana Gubernatorial hopefuls Don Pogreba and Jason Neiffer have criticized Max Baucus, Montana’s free trading senior Democratic senator, as supporting a policy of:

Enhancing the bottom line of multinational corporations who operate above the law and whose profits rarely make it to the hands of workers who produce them? Sane fiscal policy.

Though they criticize Senator Baucus for misrepresenting opponents to free trade, the above quote shows that their campaign has also misrepresented the arguments in favor of free trade as well as missing an opportunity to move the Democratic party forward in its thinking on this issue.

This is not surprising–ever election is marred by a consistent misunderstanding of free trade. Politicians on the left use American fears about job security, the environment, and exploitation of the 3rd world to frame free trade as an exploitative and hurtful practice–often favoring protectionism as a solution. At the same time the right unilaterally supports free trade arguing that pure free trade is the only trade policy to have on the basis of economic freedom–even if it is sometimes exploitative or imperfect.

Of course not all of those on the left are against free trade–Senator Baucus is a Democrat–and some bloggers on the left, Jay Stevens over at Left in the West in particular, are actually supportive of reopening the discussion of free trade and searching for a middle ground. I think all Democrats would be well advised to welcome a discussion of how to:

encourage trade, but… make sure our trade agreements are fair, that they benefit American workers and businesses, not just multinational corporations looking for cheap labor and a way to trample over workers’ rights and avoid environmental standards.

Before we can move forward in our thinking on free trade we need to look at the historical basis for the Left’s rejection of free trade. Pogreba and Neiffer trot out this historical justification that still drives left opposition to free trade today:

concern about stagnant or even declining wages for American workers who struggle to find manufacturing jobs

This objection is based on a vision of the world centered on human intensive labor and wide scale industrial production. The US Government publication “Outline of the US Economy” provides a really good description of the diminishing role of labor in the traditional manufacturing sense:

Manufacturing has declined in relative importance, and the service sector has grown. More and more workers hold white-collar office jobs rather than unskilled, blue-collar factory jobs. Newer industries, meanwhile, have sought highly skilled workers who can adapt to continuous changes produced by computers and other new technologies.

If you want numbers to prove it, enjoy:

Service-related industries accounted for 24.4 million jobs, or 59 percent of non-farm employment, in 1946. By late 1999, that sector had grown to 104.3 million jobs, or 81 percent of non-farm employment. Conversely, the goods-producing sector — which includes manufacturing, construction, and mining — provided 17.2 million jobs, or 41 percent of non-farm employment in 1946, but grew to just 25.2 million, or 19 percent of non-farm employment, in late 1999.

America is no longer a manufacturing economy. Manufacturing jobs are protected out of a nostalgia for the hayday of workers’ movements, and having been the focus of labor activism for decades, the compensation for these jobs is artificially inflated. Resorting to protectionism to hold on to this distorted version of the labor market is damaging for a number of reasons…

(more…)

It was a big week for NATO this week. First, President Bush put pressure on the organization to set a timetable for Ukrainian and Georgian membership. Though Ukraine has made clear its desire to join NATO, which is seen as a first step along a path to EU membership, the timing of the announcement comes amidst much saber rattling by Russia–and a change of power, at least officially, from Vladmir Putin to Dimitriy Medvedev.

Further, membership invitations were extended to Albania and Croatia, and membership talks were intensified for Bosnia and Montenegro. Interestingly, Serbia, the site of recent riots and the burning of a US Embassy, was encouraged to apply for membership.

There was more going on in Bucharest at the NATO summit than just talks of expansion. A historic agreement was reached on the controversial deployment of US missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic as well. After years of negotiations an advanced radar facility will be built in the Czech Republic and ten anti-ballistic missile missiles will be deployed in Poland.

Significantly it appears Russia played a key role in shaping the outcome of the summit. Not only did the NATO press release concerning the agreement on the ABM systems specifically urge Russia to drop its objections, but some argue that the rejection of an invitation to Georgia and Ukraine may be the key to achieving Russian consent on the issue.

What does all of this mean? Well, the aggressive expansion of NATO could precede an expansion in EU membership–though it appears the EU is a bit worn out from expansion. Another factor that NATO expansion has is a larger pool of troops to draw on while fighting the war in Afghanistan. Indeed, the summit did conclude with a larger commitment of troops to Afghanistan.

Most importantly, however, is the increasing tension between Russia and NATO. Russia’s implicit veto of membership talks with Georgia and the Ukraine are significant.

While the United States, Canada and nine Eastern European nations supported putting Ukraine and Georgia on the path to membership, Germany, France, Italy and other Western European nations resisted, arguing that the two were still too unstable and expressing concern about poking Russia in the eye.

That West European countries are acting out of fear of some form of Russian retaliation, perhaps through a rationing of gas supply, signals the weakness of Europe’s “core” in dealing with nation-states outside of the liberal democratic consensus. While the EU has been wildly successful at enticing nations who have an interest in the liberal market and other benefits of EU membership, the Union has been just as unsuccessful at adequately coping with those that wish to stay outside of that consensus (for example, Iran, North Korea and Russia).

The EU’s continued lack of both a cohesive foreign policy and a sizable military force is beginning to spillover into NATO and cause tensions within the defense community. The EU, according to the Economist this week, has already shown its commitment to the fight in Afghanistan to be half-hearted at best (with the exception of the Brits, of course).

The current weakness of NATO only emphasizes the need for a stronger and more unified EU to help build a stable bloc to offset rising Russian power, and continue the fight and rebuilding in Afghanistan.

David Isenberg over at the Partnership for Secure America has written a great post critiquing the media for making a big deal of the supposed “milestone” 4,000th American casualty in Iraq. He puts it much more thoroughly and eloquently than I can.

Having had a family member serve in both Afghanistan (3x) and Iraq, the artificial ways we use to count the costs of this war are ever more infuriating. Why don’t the wounded, whose lives will be forever marred by the war and who will rely on the unreliable support of taxpayers for care the rest of their lives, count at all? Isenberg has a good point here:

And as Mideast Stars and Stripes reported yesterday the number of wounded coming to the 435th Contingency Aeromedical Staging Facility at Ramstein Air Base Germany is nearing 44,000 patients from Operation Iraqi Freedom and is close to reaching 7,000 from Operation Enduring Freedom, according to Air Force statistics compiled this month. Nearly 11,000 of those patients — or 22 percent — are considered battle injuries. While American commanders and soldiers have pointed to signs that the troop “surge” in Iraq is working, the facility has not seen a dramatic drop in the number of overall patients.

I can’t say enough about the article. Read it. The true cost of war is much deeper than the tragic loss of 4,000 lives.

Even if you support the war you should be interested in a more comprehensive look at the costs of the war. How can you propose solutions if many of the problems remain obscured behind weak reporting and skewed facts? We need to be open and honest about the real costs so we know where best to allocate the meager resources we have for the fight.

And, if being open and honest means that no one wants to allocate those resources? Then I guess it is time to come home.

You may or may not be one of the millions of Americans who receive junk mail daily. I personally am still young enough to enjoy the novelty of receiving mail every single day, even if it is only another of the countless pleas for me to apply for a United Mileage Plus Visa. Yet for many Americans these daily mailings are not only a nuisance, but wasteful and a potential privacy risk.

Some sensible people have created some grassroots movements in state legislatures to allow citizens to opt out of junk mailings through a “do-not-mail” list similar to the national “do-not-call” registry. Remember, they are not banning the sending of junk mail, just giving consumers the option to opt out of it…

It is fair to say I was shocked when I read in the Washington Post that:

Then came the pushback from the postmasters, who told Pearson and other lawmakers that “standard” mail, the post office’s name for junk mail, has become the lifeblood of the U.S. Postal Service and that jobs depend on it.

Yes, that is the United States Postal Service attempting to block some perfectly sensible legislation for the preservation of jobs that it claims only exist to pass on useless junk mail to consumers! So, we pay for the salaries of postal workers with our tax dollars in order to receive superfluous mass mailings directly to our mailbox every day? Now that’s government service for you.

The article is full of little nuggets of madness. Here are a few choice selections:

Barred by law from lobbying, the Postal Service is nonetheless trying to make its case before a growing number of state legislatures… The agency has printed 3,000 “information packets” about the economic value of standard mail, with specific data for each of the 18 states that have considered a Do Not Mail Registry.

The Postal Service is working closely with the Direct Marketing Association, the trade group that represents retailers and the printing industry, in its new campaign — Mail Moves America — which is designed to quash the Do Not Mail initiatives.

Right, this sounds nothing like lobbying…

So far, their efforts appear effective. None of the states where Do Not Mail legislation has been introduced since 2007 has approved a law. And no similar legislation is pending in Congress.

Let’s step back here and consider some of the bigger issues:

Government Jobs

Every government job should in theory, by virtue of it being funded through the tax dollars of all, provide a public service. In this case postal workers supposedly hold together a mail system that delivers us mail in a timely and orderly fashion. If the creation of a Do-Not-Mail list threatens some jobs, admittedly government jobs with strong pension plans, doesn’t that mean that those jobs really only exist to support junk mail? Yes. Is junk mail really a public good the government should be providing?

The Environment

Anyone who knows me knows that I am about as far from an environmentalist as they get–I’m much too lazy to recycle normally–but shouldn’t environmentally conscious people be able to reduce their environmental impact by getting rid of unwanted solicitation? Phone solicitation has no tangible environmental impact, but not only do the mailings waste paper, but they also lead to greater landfill usage and increased emissions and fuel costs from the transportation of that trash to landfills. Perhaps we should tax direct-mail advertisers to cover this cost instead of allowing people to opt-out? I’m sure if that proposal is made an opt-out by consumers will start sounding really appealing.

Economics

Local governments, as I have mentioned, are already stretched pretty thin… so why should they have to continue to bear the burden of hauling around this useless garbage? It may not be a huge cost, but with rising fuel costs every trip to the landfill becomes more and more burdensome.

Government and Lobbying

Is it really appropriate for the Postal Service to make such intimate ties with industry lobbying groups? The Direct Marketing Association gave a modest $800,000 to lobbying firms in 2007, but certainly is targeting specific individuals–including including $6,610 to Sen. Thomas R. Carper (chair of the Postal Services subcommittee).

Government agencies lobbying lawmakers constitutes not only a direct conflict of interests–by driving a wedge between voters’ interests and the actions of policymakers–but it also makes the government more inefficient. The Postal Service already enjoys a monopoly and by shaping legislation that controls the agency the Postal Service can prevent even reasonable democratic pressures from forcing it to become moderately more efficient.

Obviously impeding the ability of citizens to control branches of the government is particularly dangerous in an unwieldy bureaucracy where many decisions may already be made through processes that are far from transparent. The Postal Office may be a rather benign example, but if the Post Office is so efficient that only $250 million (just a guess) is wasted each year—why should we accept that?

The Bright Side

I’m stumped. This hurts everyone except a small number of postal employees who could probably find another job–even in today’s unstable economy. The big shipping firms always seem to be hiring and would probably gladly take workers with package handling experience.

So, I guess all that is left to say is that if we can’t get rid of our junk mail, we should all do something useful with it and raise up arms to make the government hear our demands for a “Do-Not-Mail” registry. Here’s a start–

Image courtesy of www.dellfreedomriders.com

Anyone who has been to a gas pump lately can attest to the impact of rising energy prices. The price of oil rising to record highs hardly qualifies as news, but it does beg the question–what are some of the wider effects we will see from rising gas prices?

Some of the biggest consumers of fuel are local governments. Metro systems, school buses, and police cars are just a few of the major sources of fuel expenditures that local districts face. The Washington Post published a great article a few days ago about the pressure local budgets are facing due to rising fuel costs. Despite not having to pay fuel taxes and creative ways of purchasing fuel to save money, some local governments are at a breaking point. As prices increase much more rapidly than the expectations of local governments, these governments are faced with hard decisions–reducing police patrols or bus service to disabled or the elderly. (Interestingly, private consumers may be being hit by a double-whammy as a lot of new roads being constructed in urban areas are toll roads–to reduce traffic congestion–as part of a new transportation philosophy championed by the Bush administration)

In the few areas local governments could shift to other modes of transportation, they will also face rising costs on air fare as well. United recently hiked air fares across the board up to $50 to deal with rising fuel costs of its own–a move speculated to be copied by airlines across the industry. In short, transportation will continue to eat up a larger portion of local governments’ budgets–continuing to exceed even the anticipated price hikes built into those budgets.

Aside from the obvious issues consumers face through increased fuel prices, lets look at a few less obvious ways that these higher fuel prices could affect government services and those that rely on them.

Fewer Police Patrols

Rising fuel costs mean that local governments will have to struggle to keep their police cruisers fueled. Aside from switching from gas-guzzling SUVs, police forces have little options open to maintain a police presence and expend less fuel. A particular problem may arise if police forces opt for reducing presence in areas with lower property values (aka poorer) in order to avoid leaving citizens responsible for paying higher taxes feeling unprotected. Of course lower police presence also could lead to a spike in petty crime–increasing insurance rates in some areas.

Decreased Bus Coverage

This could, paradoxically, force some people into driving in order to get to work on time. It could also lead to some people being unable to reach their job, or having to look for employment closer to home. Obviously this is particularly damaging for people dependent on buses, because they already have less financial flexibility.

School District Shifts

School districts that are particularly spread out and face large busing costs, and are typically already financially stretched, may have to start reducing other services within the school, freeze wages, and put off maintenance for school facilities to allow room in the budget for increased transportation costs.

Inflexibility

A major problem is that many of these local governments were already stretched thin, leaving them unable to shift toward more fuel-efficient transportation options. Purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles and optimizing current vehicles for fuel efficiency are capital intensive tasks, and local districts will have difficulties raising the capital to accomplish this.

Positives

There are some positive aspects of the increase in fuel costs. Local governments may feel the crunch, but they will be forced to become more efficient, while also taking steps toward reducing fuel waste. If price hikes are sustained for a reasonable amount of time (a year or so) even if prices come back down it is likely that governments would keep their expense reduction schemes in place to hedge against future price increases. This not only decreases the carbon footprint of local government (good for Mother Nature) but it also increases the fiscal efficiency of the local government (good for Joe and Jane Taxpayer).

Another glass-half-full way of looking at the crunch on local government funds due to fuel costs is that it may force local governments to be more innovative in the delivery of their services–for example by implementing some e-government services–and driving a more consumer oriented form of service delivery to their tax payers. E-government seems to be a place where local governments could see the most gains, and blogger Che Tibby has an interesting way to conceptualize the provision of e-government services online.

One of the most disappointing parts of college for me has been the lack of an intelligent, diverse, and spirited political discourse. I used to think this was a symptom of undergraduates in general, or American political apathy, but I think the problem runs much deeper. Diana C. Mutz, a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, recently published a book, titled Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative v. Participatory Democracy, on the habits of Americans in discussing politics. I have not yet read this book, only an excellent review by Benjamin Page in Political Science Quarterly (Fall 2007 issue). Page lists some of the key findings:

Given an opportunity to name up to four political discussion partners, only about one-quarter of Americans come up with even a single person who disagrees with them about presidential candidates (p. 40).

Neighborhoods and voluntary associations, favored foci of some deliberation theorists, actually engender few political discussions of any sort and are particularly barren of disagreements; workplaces produce more (p. 28).

Individuals with high levels of income, education, and knowledge, the big participators in American politics, rarely talk with opponents; low-income people and minorities do so more often (pp. 30, 31)

In a way this lack of a political discourse is what this blog is all about. This blog is a way for me to seek out and present opposing viewpoints in a way that is less personal and gives people less cause to be defensive. I am constantly seeking out new political viewpoints and ideas, and the internet is a great way to put these viewpoints together and discuss them. I am a firm believer in the marketplace of ideas and the only way that marketplace can function is if information flows freely and undistorted among people—something I have not found. The internet is the only forum that comes close—particularly the blogosphere. (more…)

Color me underwhelmed, but Ralph Nader has announced his candidacy for President in 2008. Much has been written in the blogosphere about the impact Nader will have on the race in 2008, but for some level-headed and well-reasoned analysis on this matter, look no further than Joe Gandleman’s piece in The Moderate Voice:

What has happened to him since is sad because he became overexposed politically and weighted-down with hubris — so the most he will gain in 2008 would indeed be siphoning-off Democratic votes if it’s a razor-thin-victory-margin election. He is not an up and coming force — or even as respected as he once was — any longer.

Now, I’m not opposed to Nader running—it is, of course, his choice. As a slightly left leaning moderate I worry that Nader will hurt the chances of the Democratic nominee in 2008, but as a staunch believer in the marketplace of ideas I also believe that it is that nominee’s responsibility to effectively deal with Nader’s challenge from the left.

Back to Gandleman, who gives the more worried Democrats out there a few reasons to sleep much easier at night (a small selection from his list):

• NADER HAS NO CHANCE OF GETTING INTO THE NATIONAL DEBATES
• THERE WILL BE A CLEARER CHOICE THAN EVER THIS YEAR
• NADER LEFT MANY VOTERS FEELING BURNED (in 2000 and 2004)
• NADER’S STYLE DOES NOT FIT INTO THE EMERGING EARLY 21st CENTURY STYLE OF POLITICS
• NADER HAS LOST A KEY CHUNK OF HIS ORIGINAL STUDENT CONSTITUENCY

I think Gandleman’s analysis is really clear. Check out the full article—you will not be disappointed. Gandleman goes on to summarize the reactions of the blogosphere to Nader as well, a very useful exercise in taking the pulse of the tech-electorate out there. Another look at the reaction in the blogosphere can be found courtesy of the blog Balkinization.

It should be further noted that this time Nader is not running with the support of the Green Party, but instead has declared himself an independent. The Greens, for their part, are having a much less publicized 5-way primary to determine their nominee.

This means that Nader is free to develop his own platform for the election, without the burdens of a party bureaucracy, or the need to prove his environmental credentials at the cost of discussing other policy issues. Nader can discuss the issues that really matter and create a substantive debate around those issues using the vehicle of his national campaign. He can start a grassroots movement to bring new and pressing issues to the forefront of the American political arena. Impressed yet? Me either.

A quick look at Nader’s platform, as it is now written, leaves much to be desired. Nader lists twelve issues in table form on his page and simply says that for him they are “on the table” and for his opponents they are not (noticeably Huckabee does not appear on the list, Nader has counted him out already). Here are some of the “Twelve Issues that Matter in 2008″ according to Nader:

• Adopt single payer national health insurance
• Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget
• No to nuclear power, solar energy first
• Work to end corporate personhood
• Impeach Bush/Cheney

The last one makes me smile. Nader, who currently holds no public office, has impeachment in his Presidential platform? Isn’t this kind of a moot point by March of 2008 already? Nader may not be familiar with the concept of winning elections—he is about to go 0 for 5 in Presidential elections—so I can forgive him for not realizing that if he wins that means Bush/Cheney have to resume their lives of corporate luxury and step down from political power.

Aside from the amateur feel of Nader’s list of issues, I am struck by just how undeveloped his policy plans are. Here we are less than 9 months away from the general election and Nader—who has been sitting on the sideline for the last year of campaigning—announces that these twelve pet issues are merely “on the table” for him. Cutting the military budget is not a matter of changing some figures around on a budget sheet, yet Nader seems to think that saying he is not opposed to cutting the budget is a strong enough stand on which to base a Presidential campaign.

I doubt my problems with Nader’s candidacy will move many of the people who are likely to support Nader no matter what he does. Despite the relative incoherence of his policy proposals (and I thought Obama’s fluffy proposals were vague), Nader will still attract a similar vote count he received in 2004. The reason: Nader is the anti-establishment candidate. Voters who are fed up with the two-party system will vote for him, regardless of his policies, because they see a vote for Nader as a vote against two-party politics in the US.

Nader sees his candidacy as something entirely different. In a revealing interview with Time Magazine, Nader poetically reveals some of his reasoning and uses the opportunity as a soundboard for his own pet issues:

One metaphor for [my] campaign could be the tugboat campaign, pushing candidates toward the harbor of the people and away from the harbor of giant corporations.

In response to the question of playing spoiler of the Democrats in 2008:

No, I think they’re going to win big. [Republican frontrunner Arizona Senator John] McCain, if he is the nominee, given his statements and his position on Iraq…seems to be the candidate of permanent war and intervention.

On why the “issues” are being ignored:

The whole idea of freedom, diversity, choice inside the electoral arena is a major issue, especially as the overwhelming power of commercial money in our elections has drawn the two parties into more and more of a convergence in corporate power issues. And that’s reflected in the issues that draw a bright line between my candidacy and that of McCain, [Illinois Senator Barack] Obama, [and New York Senator Hillary] Clinton.

And finally on his grand strategy:

We’re also trying to get people to form Congress watchdog-type groups in state after state and focusing on their representatives and senators — to take it from the election year ‘08 and moving it into ‘09 and to move these platforms, these issues into Congress. To make it a broader redirection of Congress as it truly represents the people has not been tried before…Any kind of social justice proposal has to be premised on a shift of power and that’s what happened with slavery and the women’s right to vote and worker standards. It was all shift of power.

It is a little unclear of what Nader is trying to shift power toward, aside from, of course, himself…

In a future post I will take a look at the relationship between Nader and the other candidates. Where is he positioning himself among the big 3 (since he doesn’t acknowledging Huckabee as viable candidate). All pretty interesting stuff, and I’m sure we’ll here more from Mr. Nader in the future.

Barack Obama’s campaign is now a media darling and a populist movement across the country. Much has been touted of his ability to unify people from across the political aisle by reaching out to independents, moderate Republicans, and Democrats from all walks of life. But where exactly does Obama stand? Is Obama capable of delivering on his ambitious campaign promise to unite the country again? About eight years ago we had another presidential candidate promising some similar things—will history repeat itself?

One way to evaluate Obama’s ability to unite a divided electorate is to look at his policy preferences during his short time in office. The National Journal, a political weekly based in Washington D.C., conducts annual reviews of the voting records of legislator’s and rates them as either liberal or conservative. (For a more in-depth description of the methodology, look here. For a description of the “key votes” used in compiling the ratings, look here.) Obama, the Democratic front-runner and darling of independent voters, ranked as the most liberal senator in 2007. In the interest of fairness, it should be noted that Hillary Clinton was not far behind, ranking 16th in a notable shift to the left in 2007.

Interestingly, soon-to-be Republican nominee John McCain did not vote frequently enough to be included in this study, but a composite of his votes on social policy (including immigration) gave him with a much more centrist score than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. A PDF file of McCain’s prior scores compiled by the National Journal can be found here—showing the continued shift toward the senator throughout McCain’s career.

Below is a table summarizing the data collected by the National Journal on all three candidates. McCain’s scores are on a 100 point scale of conservatism (100 being extremely conservative, 0 being not conservative) and the two Democratic contenders are scored on a corresponding scale of liberalism. Again, see the excellent description of the methodologies for specific details of the study.

While the Democrats are riding a wave of momentum into the general election, regardless of the outcome of the primaries, independent and moderate voters may want to look more closely at the voting records of the various candidates before deciding who will best represent their voice in the Oval Office. Though Obama, and Hillary as well, may be flashier campaigners and much more accomplished speakers and debaters than McCain, neither Democratic senator can match the public record that McCain has accumulated over the years. And neither can claim to be more moderate than him in anything other than rhetoric.

UPDATE: New poll results show that Obama’s appeal is ever broadening. Is this proof that rhetoric matters more than record? Or is it evidence that Americans want to vote for a candidate that moves them, that they believe in instead of a career politicians? This campaign is providing a really interesting look into the psyche of the American electorate—something to watch as the campaign season marches on. Keep watching.

Paul Silver, over at The Moderate Voice, points out that moderate voices are not more prevalent, and what the term ‘moderate’ really means:

Few of the central controversies in our society can be resolved by simple extreme answers: they do not reduce to: power versus finesse, carrot versus stick, civil liberties versus security, and it certainly isn’t liberal versus conservative. It is almost always a balance and blend.

Moderate voices aren’t present enough. People search for easy answers in extremism, ideologies, or one-sided discourse that only reaffirms poorly formed policies. The left and the right are both susceptible to offering what seem like easy answers, but they are not. The only way toward truly successful solutions is through a moderate dialog between ideas coming from both the left and the right.

As a moderate myself, I often find myself torn between left and right wing ideologies that rarely address the issues in a convincing and meaningful way. In the flash and buzz of cable TV news spin machines, sound bytes on talk radio, and left and right wing shock columns in national newspapers across the country America is losing its ability to generate meaningful and well-reasoned political discourse. Moderate voices don’t get TV ratings and don’t raise the passions of Americans in the way that more ideologically biased voices tend to do. Fortunately, for those looking for a more balanced discourse the Moderate Voice is a great starting point for getting in touch with blogs across the entire political spectrum—left, right and the middle.

Over the next few weeks I will be selecting several blogs across the political spectrum to feature in the link section of this page. The links will be divided accordingly so their ideological bias is known upfront and readers can decide for themselves what ideology to look at and find a diverse array of political opinions to satisfy their intellectual curiosity.

The first ever crash of a B-2 bomber occurred in Guam today. Both pilots, thankfully, are alive and in stable condition aside from severely bruised egos.

Does this steal the thunder of the successful missile launch earlier this week?