Debating Myself

Regardless of what you think about Hillary staying in the race or not, you have to be excited about the way the prolonged primary has forced the candidates to engage people across the country who never were touched by election politics before.

This Washington Post article about Bill Clinton touring rural communities in North Carolina and speaking in them made me really excited for the prospect of the Democratic Primary descending on Montana. This election season has really brought the election to all fifty states in a way that hasn’t happened for a long time.

Small town America suddenly has big time political significance–that is a pretty exciting prospect.

Update: Just found out that Obama supported gas tax holidays too, although it was during his time in the Illinois state senate. Thanks to Buck Naked Politics for the info!

Just as Hillary Clinton is beginning to rise in the national polls thanks to a surge of momentum from her win in Pennsylvania she manages, like so many times before this campaign season, to shoot herself in the foot.

People may not be outraged about it, and it may not stir emotions like Obama’s current problems with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but her recent proposal for a gas-tax holiday this summer (also proposed by John McCain–you might know him) has stirred up more than a little controversy. Top Democrats, like the Majority Leader in the House, have even lined up against the idea. Obama is enjoying telling voters that Hillary’s proposal will cost the government millions and save taxpayers only about $30 each.

Hillary’s side of the story seems to make sense at first, and I’m sure her campaign thought reasoning like what Buck Naked Politics’ D. Cupples summarizes here, would be very persuasive to middle class voters pinched by gas prices right now.

There’s just one problem: it won’t work.

Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist, takes Hillary’s proposal to task in a recent article. The Washington Post’s Fact Checker has a great in-depth analysis of the economics behind the issue. If you take my word for it, here it is short and sweet: lower price = more demand and more demand will lead right back to higher prices because supply cannot be expanded. There simply isn’t enough oil.

The Machiavellian argument that Hillary knows it won’t be that effective, but it will win her more votes is okay with me, I support her and would like to see her win. But, that argument appears to fail as well. Fact Checker tell us that when a similar policy was tried in Illinois:

A poll by the Chicago Tribune showed that only 28 percent of motorists believed that they were actually paying less for gas as a result of the temporary suspension of the tax.

Not a significant enough part of the electorate to make a difference.

Across the Aisle features a great article by Brian Vogt discussing Hillary’s proposal and then suggesting some more sensible ways to deal with the gas price problems facing America. Essentially, inflate your tires properly (which will improve fuel efficiency by up to 10%) and let the government and private industry develop some long-term technological solutions that will reduce our dependency.

I agree, but I would argue that fixing the dollar crunch and managing the economy better to preserve consumers’ purchasing power would also go a long way to fixing this problem as well. A large rise in oil prices can be directly attributed to the falling dollar.

There is one aspect of Hillary’s proposal that people aren’t discussing that troubled me greatly (and Obama agrees with Hillary here). Again, from Buck Naked Politics:

That’s why I have called for making Exxon and other oil companies with record profits pay the federal gas tax this summer… I believe we should impose a windfall profits tax on big oil companies and use that money to suspend the gas tax and give families relief at the pump.

Now maybe it is just me, but windfall profits taxes always make me nervous. Sure, Exxon alone made over $40 billion in profits last year, but the market determines the price of gasoline, not Exxon. Exxon is simply the beneficiary of rising oil prices and the success of the OPEC cartel.

Here are some arguments against a windfall tax. My favorite:

The Tax Foundation’s Jonathon Williams and Scott Hodge remind us of more very unintended consequences:

… according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), is that the 1980s windfall profits tax depressed the domestic production and extraction industry and furthered our dependence on foreign sources of oil.

So here’s to Hillary proposing two policies that in all likelihood will sacrifice meager short-term relief ($30 over 3 months) in exchange for:

• A high likelihood of rising prices later
• Decreased oil production
• Weakened support for alternative technologies (in the short and middle term)
• Further dependence on OPEC oil
• No additional political support

I’ll keep my $30 Hillary (maybe even donate it to your campaign so you can hire a new economic adviser). Let’s try to find a more creative solution. I know you can, and have, done much better. As Paul Krugman writes:

I don’t regard this as a major issue. It’s a one-time thing, not a matter of principle, especially because everyone knows the gas-tax holiday isn’t actually going to happen. Health care reform, on the other hand, could happen, and is very much a long-term issue — so poisoning the well by in effect running against universality, as Obama has, is a much more serious breach.

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.

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…)

Clinton, campaigning hard for Pennsylvania, visited Scranton, PA today. Apparently her father was raised there and she is quite familiar with the city that fans of NBC’s hit comedy The Office know as home to their favorite branch of the Dunder-Mifflin paper company.

The question is–who would Michael vote for?

Noah Millman over at The American Scene has some great stuff, not the least of which is this highly entertaining/so true it is sad characterization of the current mess that is the Democratic primary. No excerpt here… just go read it.

Looks like the West Wing writers knew something we all didn’t…

Credit to the excellent Economist.com blog Democracy in America for the tip.

So is the whole Obama campaign just a great storyline from a TV-Drama? Maybe that is what Bill Clinton was talking about…

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.