:: The Boys Weekend Journal ::

Discussion: Coming Back to Life
(I upgrade this from random spewage)

I wanted to get my two cents in before we left for our two-week trip to Vermont, where I hope to do a more throrough background check into this Dean fellow. For the record, I have not placed my allegiance behind anyone quite yet, but I still think Dean is worth keeping an eye on for the time being. His position on the death penalty is a little disappointing, but what interests me most about him is that he was most certainly the most vociferous anti-war candidate, and that puts him in the best position to call for an independent commission to investigate the evidence (or lack thereof) used to justify the war. By the way, Dean has recently called for the resignation of Rumsfeld and other administration officials who misled the nation about the war (see here). This may be a little premature, but at least he is not letting the issue slip away.

I think that President Bush is dead in the water from the WMD issue. It may be just wishful thinking, but President H.W. Bush was unable to capitalize on the 1991 Gulf War, and that was without the level of controversy that President Bush finds himself swimming in. And I think there will be more to follow. For instance, tomorrow the BBC is conducting an interview with Ron Manley, who oversaw the elimination of Iraq's chemical weapons program following the 1991 Gulf War and who is expected to argue that Iraq posed no significant military threat. OpenDemocracy.net is also planning to publish an article about Ron Manley.

I have little to add to Joe's interesting commentary on the current situation in Europe, other than to note that Foreign Policy magazine had an interesting article in this month's issue about how US-European relations may be affected by the decline in the US dollar. It notes all the potential upside to a weakened dollar, but fails to discuss how this might be a bad thing. Call me a pessimist if you must.

:: Barry 11:24 PM [+] ::
...

Article: It's That Time Again

The Presidential primary season is starting to heat up. There was a story today on /. regarding Lawrence Lessig having Howard Dean guest host his blog while he's gone on vacation. That is an endorsement that scores big points with me. Also I found a link to this web opinion survey which matches up your political opinions with the stated positions of the 2004 candidates. I was a 100% match with the green party. After that, Howard Dean edged out Kucinich by one point. However, after reading through each of their position pages, I think I favor Kucinich a bit over Dean. I was particularly impressed by this quote: "Among the first actions of a Kucinich Administration will be withdrawal from NAFTA and the WTO-to be replaced by fair trade agreements." Of course, by all reports Kucinich is likely going to get his ass handed to him. But it can't hurt to support him until that happens..

:: Joe 10:31 AM [+] ::
...

Article: Who Gave You Another 15 Minutes?

I'm sure you Foreign Policy Mag subscribers have already seen this article by Newt Gingrich blaming the State Department for making people hate the US. Apparently they haven't been cruel and arrogant enough for his tastes. Now that I've stopped laughing and wiped the tears from my eyes enough to actually read the article, I really have to say that it's one of the most pathetic pieces of literature I've ever read. I'm a bit disappointed that FP would this run as cover story. It's clearly intended (as have been all of Gingrich's recent statements) to be in the Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly vein of inflamatory, far-right pedagoguery. FP Mag usually tries to keep things on a more academic level... Apparently they're not immune from senationalism. That aside, I find these Gingrich statements to be most interesting in regards to the insight they give to the conservative machine. I recall that when he came out and blasted the State Dept a month or two ago it was widely rumored that he was doing so with the blessing or even at the request of many of the neo-cons in the administration.

I think it will be very interesting to hear, years from now, if ever, the inside story of what went on in this administration. There clearly have to be some different factions there, but I can never figure out exactly how they interact and who's really driving. I strongly suspect that the Powell State Department was one of the Rove's more clever moves. It's clear they never meant to let him have any real power in things. Right from the start, just a few months into the term, they very publicly humiliated him on the CO2 issue, and never let up from there. His presence has been useful from a political perspective, to take heat from the rest of the administration and have a moderate multilateral face that they can use when it suits their purposes. He has clashed frequently with the neo-cons, but they always win. It seems strange to me that they would use Gingrich to attack him so strongly and to lobby for a neo-con housecleaning of the State Department. Powell is a useful tool for their cause. I think Rove sees this, and apparently he has convinced the President as well. Given the dedication of the administration to presenting a unified front, is surprises me that they haven't been able to get the neo-con club on board with this. There has to be some sort of internal conflict in progress, but it's hard to figure exactly who the sides are or what they hope to accomplish.

:: Joe 9:22 PM [+] ::
...

Article: Who Gave You Another 15 Minutes?

Joe, I have to admit that I am suprised that you find the Gingrich article in FP sensational and non-academic. While I don't agree with all of Gingrich's arguments, I do think he has valid arguments. While you seem to imply that the article is an attack on the Rogue Powell rather than the rogue State Department, Gingrich's arguments raise bigger questions about the role of the State Dept. Should the State Dept be exactly in line with the President's policies in an obligatory sense? If so, is this truly the best path to a successful international diplomacy? If you see Gingrich's article as an attack on Powell, then perhaps he is right. If you were running the country, would you want your appointees countering your policies and beliefs openly in the press? Wouldn't this undermine the ability of a president to instill confidence in the public and carry out policy? While discussion is clearly important, open contradiction is likely to be counterproductive. The exception to this, of course, is when no discussion occurs in the first place (as with Johnson and the Joint Chiefs prior to Vietnam).

I think you also missed the real criticism of the article, which Gingrich himself alludes to. He quotes a Los Angeles Times article about diplomats who "said they are profoundly worried about what they describe as the administration's arrogance or indifference to world public opinion, which they fear has wiped out, in less than two years, decades of effort to build goodwill toward the United States". Gingrich quickly dismisses this as simply being out of line with the Bush vision. However, this is another (more) plausible argument for the failure of the State Dept. In short, I contend that this administration's policies are so out of step with world views and processes that no restructuring of the State Dept would have solved our "image problem". Gingrich's failure to seriously address this point is a major limitation of the article. On the other hand, why hasn't the State Dept restructured according to the suggestions of the US Commission on National Security?

:: Ryan 9:35 PM [+] ::
...

Discussion: Gingrich In Depth

Taking this from the top. Gingrich criticizes the State Department's lack of outrage regarding the US's removal from the UN Human Rights committee. They lost in a vote against Sweden. At the time the administration was cozying up to the likes of China, Isreal, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Pakistan, the Northern Alliance, Russia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, all in the name of the war on terror. All well publicized human rights offenders. They were fresh off torpedoeing the ICC, the UN biological weapons treaty, the UN land mine treaty. Not to mention the job they were doing on civil rights here in the US. Was it really in the US's interest to turn this into a big public battle? Given the circumstances it is pretty hard to argue that Sweden was not a better choice for the committee and a fight on the part of the US would have resulted in everything I just mentioned being publicly thrown in our faces. Devoid of any of this context, Gingrich's outrage appears well founded. But context is precisely what I count on FP Mag to have, and why I refer to it as more academic.

Gingrich further asserts that this is the reason that France contested the US's drive for war with Iraq in the UN. He offers no evidence. It is a fairly bizarre assertion. I've read many accounts of France's reasons for their actions, and have some opinions of my own. Never have I seen this connection made before, and barring any further argument it is hard to regard it as anything more than rhetorical hot air.

Passing over Ginrich's main thrust regarding the poor bureaucratic structure of the State Department (which I'll return to later), he attacks the department for a report by their intelligence wing that contradicted a statement of Bush's regarding the spread of democracy in Iraq. The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research stated in a report, leaked in March: "“liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve [in Iraq] . . . . Electoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements.” The truth of this statement seems obvious to me, and I believe that events that have come to pass since that time bear it out. Gingrich makes no effort to contest the accuracy of the statement, only that it is not in tune with the neo-con chorus line. Does he believe the State Department's Intelligence and Research group should serve as a PR arm of the government rather than, say, trying to come up with the most accurate intelligence and research assessments it can? I'll grant that the State Department ought to serve some role in evangelizing the policies of the administration, but I think the research department is not the place for that. Is not the evangelical roles played by intel groups exactly the reason that Bush and Blair now find themselves in such a pickle over the WMD's?

He further rips into the department's diplomats for their opinion that "they are profoundly worried about what they describe as the [Bush] administration’s arrogance or indifference to world public opinion, which they fear has wiped out, in less than two years, decades of effort to build goodwill toward the United States.” The job of the State Department is to represent US interest in international matters. Should they not have opinions on how this is done? Should they not attempt to be in tune with the reactions of other nations and their people to US actions? Again, the accuracy of the statement appears difficult to dispute. Numerous polls and statements by foreign politicians bear it out. This feeling on the part of the State Department merely indicates that they are, in fact, doing the job they are assigned to do. Again it seems the State Department is guilty of nothing more than failing to toe the neo-conservative line.

Gingrich takes a brief break from attacking the state department to lambast the left wing media, NGO's, and academics for inciting opposition to the US which the State Department must counter. Again the evidence is completely absent, save a throw-away statement that "some observers" felt the BBC's coverage of the Iraq war was little different from Al-Jazeera's, a statement which I, as a regular reading of the BBC, find to be utterly unbelievable. The left wing media is largely of myth of the past. That time has come and gone, and Gingrich's invoking it does little to improve his credibility. And NGO's contribute considerable human and financial resources that should be a tremendous boon to US foreign policy. They provide a devoted and compassionate side to US foreign policy that is desperately needed in these days. To blame them for US's ills in foreign perception is folly.

Gingrich goes on to state that direct interactions with other states are obsolete, and that the US needs to change to a broadcast format for foreign policy, making minor adjustments for each region. In other words he wants to adopt the Clear Channel radio model for foreign policy. I'm sure other nations will greatly appreciate having even less consideration from, and interaction with, the US than they get now. Again, any reasoning or justification for this change is completely absent.

I'm beginning to tire at this point, so I'll skip the remainder and get back to Gingrich's main point. I, frankly, can't speak to the bureaucratic systems of the State Department and their efficiency in serving the President, other than to say that, based on the issues Gingrich raises, they seem to be doing a good job. He does indeed cite a couple of relevant reports in this area to back up his position. However, he completely fails to provide any counterpoint or perspective from the State Department. In any serious discussion, I expect, I demand, to see this. Getting only one very opinionated side of the story is what I expect of Limbaugh or O'Reilly, hence my comment. The best Gingrich does is to quote the State Department in saying that some reorganization proposal is “too disruptive and distracts too much energy for ongoing operations,” and conlcude based on that statement that "the State Department is far too busy being ineffective to bother fixing its internal structures in order to become more effective." Clearly this is not the whole story. He is arguing against a straw man. And given the weakness of the rest of his argument, and given what I know if his background and previous statements I find this aspect of his position to be quite lacking in credibility. I feel no qualms in dismissing it out of hand. I am at this point a bit curious to know exactly what those reports said and what the full response of the state department was. But on their own, I find Gingrich's arguments worthless.

Credibility is currency. You have to earn it before you spend it. If you've earned credibility I will give you the benefit of the doubt when you make assertions that are less than fully supported. If you haven't, I won't. Gingrich clearly hasn't. Gingrich had little to offer when he was Speaker of the House, and has changed little since then. At the time he was a captain of the vicious and petty party politics that, from his time on, characterized the Clinton Presidency. He was enough to make me a big fan of Bob Dole, his contemporary counterpart in the Senate, who despite disagreeing with almost all of my political positions, at least had the merit of being thoughful and gentlemanly. Now, holding no power, Gingrich has been reduced to serving as a right-wing attack dog.

There are many serious issues to discuss regarding US foreign policy and the perceptions of that policy by other nations and their peoples. There have been many interesting and insightful pieces written on the matter in recent years, and FP Mag has hosted a good number of them. Gingrich completely disregards all of those discussions in foisting his politically driven screed on his readers. He does not even acknowledge the effect of US policies, past actions, or the US's position in the world on foreign opinion, nor the internal conflicts, contradictions, and complications that those issues present to the State Department and its mission. As far as his essay is concerned they don't exist. Only the State Department, by itself, and void of any context, is responsible for the poor global perception the US carries. He ignores all previous serious discussion of the topic on which he writes in order to launch a half-baked attack that finds the State Department guilty of being something other than a simple PR organ for the neo-con leadership, something it was never intended to be in the first place. I find his essay to be of little intellectual value, and frankly somewhat insulting. But then again, as a great man once said, that's just my opinion.

:: Joe 1:05 AM [+] ::
...

Discussion: Unified Front Crumbling?

Adding fuel to my theories that the tight coupling between the political elements (ie Rove and his people) and the neo-con power center of the adminstration are not on the best speaking terms has been the recent incident over the market on terror. The program, as I understand it, had some merit, and I don't doubt that Rove could have sold it. But it is obvious that nobody with an ounce of political cluefulness was aware of its existence. It is unclear how aware the upper tier of the neo-con leadership was of the program, but it was proposed by John Poindexter, one of their favorite sons, and as a part of the TIA, one of their pet projects.

The basic idea was sound. DARPA was to hand-pick 1000 people to participate, presumably middle-east experts, terror experts, and other knowledgeable folk, and allow them to put their money where their mouth was. It seems a useful manner in which to sort out the wide variety of opinions on issues of great importance to the country, providing DARPA with a constantly updated reading not only on the opinions of the community of experts, but also on their confidence level in those opinions.

While the idea was fine, the political handling of it was a complete disaster. It was kept secret from everyone, including Congress, and, by all reports, most of the administration, despite the fact that it required the participation of 1000 people not directly affiliated with the government. They had to know that someone would leak the existence of the project. By allowing this to happen without first publicly spinning the program themselves they allowed their political enemies to brand it however they wished. Which they did quite effectively. Once this hit the public the goals and mechanisms of the system were completely lost and most people were left scratching their heads over the absurdity of the idea. In the /. discussion of it most people seemed to think it was a honeypot, designed to lure terrorists into trying to make money from their attacks. They thought DARPA would watch for sudden influxes of money into particular attack predictions and use this to first thwart the attack, then track down where the money came from and apprehend the terrorists.

If someone who were politically shrewd (ie Rove) had been aware of the program the results could have been quite different. First thing would be to remove the direct use of money on the market. Allocate some bogus bucks to the participants then come up with a system to reward the winning players with prestige or government grants for their research. The idea of people directly profiting from disastrous attacks on the US is simply too perverse to survive public scrutiny. The next thing would be to present it to the public on their own terms, spinning it not as a "market on terror", but as an interactive system by which to mine the talent and expertise of the American academics and intellectuals. It could even serve as an answer to the common criticism of the administration as being too closetted and isolated. Certainly there would still be those who would have tried to brand it as a market on terror, but the administration has shown a great talent for branding, and I think their sales pitch would have stuck.

In any case this serves to reinforce my perception that the neo-cons have tired of sharing power. As I stated previously, the presence of Rove and Powell and the non-neoconservative elements of the administration has served a vital role in allowing the neo-cons to do what they want. But the neo-cons have always, even from their modern inception during Bush I's term, fought against the reins of political pragmatism. In 1992, while serving in the George HW Bush administration Paul Wolfowitz drafted a Defense Planning Guildance document, which later served as the core of PNAC's mission. It was quickly quashed by the administration for being too radical, although not before causing a bit on an international incident. They made a marriage of necessity in order to sweep into power with George Bush in 2001, sharing power with more moderate and politically-minded elements of the administration, and for some time have operated within those confines. But with egos inflated from the perceived victories in the war on terror, it seems as if they are fighting those constraints as they try to run Powell out of office and launch their own programs without so much as a by-your-leave from the rest of the administration. If a divide is growing between these two factions, with the neo-cons holding this upper hand, this may offer the best chance yet to see Bush defeated in 2004. It has been those outside the neo-con camp who have done a masterful job of spinning and selling the eminently questional policies the neo-cons have implemented. If they abandon these allies they may find themselves in a heap of trouble, as they did in this instance.

Again, it's hard to figure any of this to any reasonable degree of certainty due to the intense secrecy maintained by the administration, but in any case it's fun to speculate..

:: Joe 10:26 PM [+] ::
...

Discussion: Gingrich In Depth

Just a brief reply, and then I suggest we let this issue rest, as there really are more interesting matters to discuss. My main point previously was to suggest that Gingrich's essay raises some very interesting questions about how "disciplined" the State Dept or other areas of the executive branch should be to the president. I am by no means putting Gingrich on a pedestal, but I was intrigued by his main argument. Like many argumentative articles in FP, this was not meant to be an in depth analysis of the issue from all sides. We will have to wait for replies in the "Letters to the Editor" section of the next issue (and I'm sure there will be many). There is a certain danger, I think, in quickly dismissing someone simply because of disagreements on a few other statements that were a small part of the article. While the article would have been better written without such comments, there are nonetheless intriguing questions raised by Gingrich's main point. In particular, just how much power and control should the president have over the executive branch? Does our president, in general, hold too much sway over domestic and international issues? Has the amount of "power" (not yet defined) of the presidency changed over time and how?


:: Ryan 8:23 PM [+] ::
...

Discussion: Congressional Committee Records
Discussion: Unified Front Crumbling?

I was able to catch part of the hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with Paul Wolfowitz regarding reources for the reconstruction of Iraq. Although there is some sentiment against Real, I would highly recommend viewing the Senators' questioning of Wolfowitz and others in the C-span video. These discussions are not on the Senate Foreign Relations website because they are not scripted, yet I found them very informative and interesting. Note that the questioning starts at 1:16:00 if you watch the video clip.

One very common them was evident from the questioning. Both Republican and Democratic Senators were very concerned that Congress and the American people are not being informed of the sacrifice needed for reconstruction of Iraq. The senators were very upset that there was not even a request for a conservative estimate of reconstruction costs in the 2004 budget which are likely to be substantial. In addition to financial sacrifice, there were complaints that the duration of stay of our troops and the sacrifice of American soldiers are not being adequately explained. It seems the senators are very concerned about losing the support of the American public over time, and this could prove disastrous for an effort that we must be tied into for the long haul. This was some of the most intense grilling of these individuals (especially Wolfowitz) that I have seen to date and suggests to me that Congress has been left largely out of the loop in the Iraq process.

I thought you guys might also be particularly interested in the comments of two senators. The first is from D-Chris Dodd from Connecticut. He pointed out that the outlined chain of command for Iraq proceeds from the President to the Sec of Def to Bremer. Notably absent, he pointed out, was the Sec of State. I found this partcularly interesting in light of Joe's comments of the Bush/neo-con attacks on Powell. It seems that the Sec of State has been left out of the command and decision making structure for Iraq with the exception of an advisory role to the President on the NSC. Dodd was quite concerned because the military is essentially running the show, and they are not likely the best qualified to address issues that would be better handled by the State Dept. While this may be a more efficient command structure, it leaves out the expertise of the State Dept. I also wonder if it isn't due to the likelihood of Powell stepping down after Bush's current term.

The second comes from our beloved Russ Feingold. Wolfowitz claimed in his statement that "In fact, the battle to secure the peace in Iraq is now the central battle in the global war on terror". Feingold was very concerned that we are being mislead and that American resources are not effectively being used in the "war on terrorism". Given the questionable links between Iraq and terrorist organizations, Feingold argued that our efforts should be focused heavily on areas such as Afghanistan and eastern Africa where the majority of the terrorists are.

Very interesting stuff... there are definitely some pissed off Senators out there.

:: Ryan 4:16 PM [+] ::
...

Article: It's Official

Powell will not stick around for a second term. No great shock there... At least Gingrich will be happy.

:: Joe 12:53 PM [+] ::
...

Article: More On the Administration

Apparently I'm not the only one with the feeling that all is not well in the inner sanctum of the Bush administration. This article puts a lot of focus on Condi Rice, who has been mostly MIA for the last few months...

:: Joe 8:09 PM [+] ::
...

Article: Lessig As Presidential Moderator

This past week, Dennis Kucinich followed Howard Dean as a guest writer on Larry Lessig's blog. I think he did a good job with his posts. I was most impressed by the one regarding John Gilmore (founder of the EFF) and his airport experiences. Where Dean's stuff looked more or less like he could have cross-posted the same material anywhere, Kucinich clearly took the time to at least poke around Lessig's site and see what it's about. And his comments on the GPL reveal surprising cluefulness as well. It's too bad he hasn't been able to generate the same sort of buzz that Dean has..

:: Joe 3:40 PM [+] ::
...

Discussion: Insert Lame One-Liner Here

I hope Arnold wins so he can kick the asses of all those evil terminator robots from the future who are trying to purge our humanity. Of course, he'll have his work cut our for him. The Bush administration is full of them.

:: Ryan 9:30 PM [+] ::
...

Discussion: Insert Lame One-Liner Here

"If Arnold is elected, you know who I'd feel sorry for? The people on death row. Imagine, you're about to be executed, the governor calls, you think it's your reprieve, and you hear 'Hasta la vista, baby.'" -Jay Leno

:: Barry 11:43 AM [+] ::
...

Article: Sizing up Bush for 2004

The Economist has this article in its most recent edition evaluating some of the successes and failures of the Bush adminsistration, which makes reelection anything but a foregone conclusion. The article does note that Bush certainly has one thing going for him (a lot of one thing, actually): money.

:: Barry 6:50 AM [+] ::
...

Background: The Neoconservatives

The Christian Science Monitor has an extremely nice summary of the history, ideals, and key players of the neocon movement. I found it very informative as I see and hear this term thrown around a lot but with little explanation of what it means. I was fascinated to learn that the neocon movement started with a bunch of Jewish liberals in the 60's and 70's who were born again into the right.

:: Ryan 4:02 PM [+] ::
...

Article: Busy News Day

Lots of interesting stuff today. This whole episode of going back to the UN for military and financial support is really fueling my Bush administration split conspiracy theory. According to stories floating around, Powell finally decided to make a move, and according to a story in the Milwaukee Journal last week he's got Karl Rove on his side, and this story shows the Joint Chiefs and Condi Rice lining up with him as well. That's a coalition that could take on the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz axis head-to-head. Interesting stuff... Of course Wolfowitz says (paraphrasing, I heard this on the radio) this is not a case of the US changing our position on UN involvement, it's that the UN has decided that backing up the US is the right thing to do. Huh? It was clearly the US who initiated this proposal, and the UN still ain't buyin unless the US makes substantive concessions to the UN.

Elsewhere, Abbas continues to play his one-note symphony ("do what I tell you or I'll take my ball and go home") for the Palestinian Authority. There is incentive enough for both sides to give it a shot, but I don't think Arafat intends to yield any real power, and Abbas has little room to negotiate without losing his US and Israeli endorsement (and with it his entire reason for holding office). They'll try to work things out for a while, it will collapse, and the roadmap will be officially over.

And finally, CSM mentions a new reality TV show coming out, as if we haven't had enough of them. But wait, this one, called "K-Street" is about political lobbyists. It's a bizarre, but intriguing idea, particularly considering it is produced by the brilliant writer/producer/director Steven Soderbergh. The bad news? It's an HBO exclusive.

:: Joe 4:34 PM [+] ::
...

::The Great Litmus Test::

So, in the news, Abbas is out and new attacks on Israel are in. I figured it would happen, but not this fast. I think the administration is still trying to pretend the road map isn't dead, but it would take a miracle to rescue it at this point. Now we've got another Arafat crony running the show there. I really don't see Arafat's crowd settling this thing. His crew is infamously corrupt, and I fear, growing further out of touch with Palestinian popular sentiment every day. Not to mention the fact that the US and Israel hate him with a passion and don't want to deal with him. In fact, I rather suspect he'd have lost power by now except for how strongly the US and Israel fight against him and the sympathy that this engenders in the Palestinian populace. And the way things stand now he has a death grip on the armed wing of the Palestinian Authority. As long as the US and Israel insist on dealing with the PA alone (not involving Hamas) and they maintain a level of pressure that leaves the PA unable to thouroughly reform itself this conflict will go nowhere.

Also in the news, Bush asks for a boatload of money for Iraq. I think this is a very good idea, but agree with various Democratic congress-people (including our friend Russ) that he needs to be made to suffer for it. If he is not willing to admit to any mistakes, if he is not willing to compromise on his tax cuts to fund it, if he is not willing to let Congress have more say on how it is spent, they need to reject this request. There is a column on tompaine.com of moderate value that contains a quote that I think captures the brilliance of Rove's media strategy: "The genius of the new Bush Speak is to fudge all substantive distinctions, on the assumption that the American people won't notice what you are saying as long as you get the photo op right." It's the ultimate statement of style over substance, and it has worked beautifully so far. Congress has an opportunity to force the administration to deal in substance or to see their plans suffer. If indeed they choose to pass up the funding to avoid substantive discussion of the issues, it would truly be a tragedy for Iraq. However, I don't think they can afford to do that, and I don't think they will. Congress, press them hard while you have the chance.

But all of that is not what I want to write about tonight. I wanted to clearly delineate why I will not vote for any Democratic candidate who voted for the resolution allowing George Bush to go to war with Iraq. It's late already, so I'm going to keep this short and to the point. When this vote came up in October of 2002 it had been known for a year that the Bush administration was angling to go to war with Iraq. Rumsfeld had set up a planning committee to prepare for this war within weeks of the 9/11 and had been working to position the US for this war despite a complete lack of evidence tying Saddam to the attack or demonstrating any substantive risk posed by Iraq to the US. When this vote came up the doctrine of preemtive warfare had been circulated to the public and the administration's support for it was known. When this vote came up it was known that our allies were reluctant at best and that the administration planned to use this resolution in an effort to blackmail the UN into agreeing to the war. When this vote came up it was known that only the most sketchy of evidence existed to justify a war on Iraq. When this vote came up it was known that the administration was refusing to disclose any plans for dealing with the aftermath of the conflict and offered only the most vague details on the costs of it.

So why did the Democratic party decide to support the resolution? Because they thought getting it off table would help them in the mid-term elections. Here we are discussion the most important of political issues, whether or not to go to war, and the Democratic party was busy playing politics. Many of those who voted for the resolution expressed strong doubts and concerns about where the adminstration was headed and how they would make use of the resolution. But they voted for it anyway. This is a level of disconnect that I simply cannot fathom. Why do you bother to try to attain a position of power if not to have some say on an issue of this critical importance? I cannot but conclude that the Democratic party and those members of it who supported the resolution are so lost in their pursuit of power that they have forgotten the noble pursuits that led them into politics in the first place. This was an act of the most extreme cynicism and disdain for their appointed duties.

I understand the importance of politics and compromise and playing the game to achieve your goals. But this goes far beyond that. This was a matter of the most vital moral and political importance. That is not a time for playing games. It was unconscienable for the Democrats to view going to war as a matter of political expediency.

And to top it off, it didn't even work. The Democrats lost out on the mid-term elections because people were rallying behind Bush's war. Even having voted for the war they could not rightfully claim they were stronger proponents of it than the Republicans, many of whom voted for the war, not as a matter of politics, but because they actually believed in it. It was a stupid idea, and I believe I said so from the beginning. Signing on to the President's anti-terror agenda cannot help the Democrats. It simply gives these policies their endorsement and strengthens the position on this critical issue of the Republicans, from whom these policies originated in the first place.

And so I cannot in good conscience ever again support any Democratic politician who supported or voted for that resolution, and will not, even should the cost be a Republican victory. This goes beyond a matter of disagreeing on policy, as I disagree with the Republicans. It is a betrayal of everything our political system should be about. I will not stand for it.

:: Joe 1:05 AM [+] ::
...

::The Great Litmus Test::

I have to fully agree with the commentary on the failure of Democrats to vote against the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. This was an abdication of responsibility by many members of Congress... an easy way out of a difficult decision. In fact, I would consider it a dereliction of duty. I use this phrase intentionally. The same phrase is a title of the book Dereliction of Duty by H.R. McMaster. He is a major who extensively researched the leadup to the Vietnam War, with particular focus on the workings of the Johnson administration. The portrait of Johnson in that book is one of the most egregious examples of a politician worried more about "re"-election than he was about consequences of his actions on the American people and the world. He kept Vietnam operations secret from Congress and secret from the American people, all the while leading us further and further into the quagmire. He sacrificed policy for politics, and such individuals need to be banished from our government. Of course, it is incumbent on the American people to carry this out. Unfortunately, they are unlikely to do it.

:: Ryan 5:09 PM [+] ::
...

::Howard Dean Marches On::

There are a couple of interesting bits of news regarding Howard Dean floating around. First, as has been remarked on here, Dean has previously taken a very hawkish, pro-Israel stance on the middle-east. Well apparently he's had a change of heart. He recently got himself into trouble by stating at a campaign rally that he felt the US needed to be even-handed in the conflict, and that an "enormous number" of Iraeli settlements would have to go. Apparently most of the political establishment has gone into shock at the thought that someone could advocate treating the two sides fairly, and so now Dean is already trying to backpedal a bit.

The other news is that he has been meeting with Gen. Wesley Clark, presumably regarding Clark joining him as his vice-president. Were that to happen it would certainly help to cement Dean's lead in the primary race. It's hard to say what impact it would make in the general election without having had much exposure to Clark as a politician.


:: Joe 5:12 PM [+] ::
...

::The Great Litmus Test::

The Washington Post is calling several Democratic presidential candidates to task for siding with Bush on policies they now eschew (see this article). I am less critical than the Washington Post and my fellow bloggers because Congressional representatives must be keenly aware of public tides and they pay dearly for fighting the tide. As I see it, the blame rests more on the public's visceral reaction to contemporary events than on Congress's responsibility to heed its constituents' viewpoints.

I agree with Dean's statement (although made in reference to the Patriot Act and not the war) that members of Congress should not be attacked for what happened during an "atmosphere of enormous emotion." At the same time, I admire those who vote their conscience in spite of potential backlash (e.g., Feingold on the Patriot Act).

I do not mean to suggest that a Congressperson should not account for their votes. Rather, I simply disagree that the Democrats displayed a "derliction of duty." If we are to hold anyone's feet to the fire for poor decisionmaking, it should be the American people, not its representatives.


:: Barry 1:52 PM [+] ::
...

::Right Makes Might::

I was poking around Wesley Clark's webpage (hey, it's been a slow afternoon), and while there isn't much material regarding his policy positions yet there are some old articles he has written. One of them, written a year ago, is an in-depth discussion of his experiences in Kosovo and how they relate to the war on terror. It is a brilliantly written column, and piques my interest in Clark. It certainly puts to shame his rather, ahem, uninspiring announcement speech.

:: Joe 3:01 PM [+] ::
...

::Prepared Remarks != Debate::

I can hardly find adequate words to express my disgust at the fact that the major debate for the California recall election (ie. the only one they could get Arnold to show up for) has released the questions ahead of time. As per my comments previously on this site and in discussion with Barry over the weekend, it is a great failing of the way we conduct our campaigns that major candidates can make it through to election day without speaking more than a few unprepared and unscripted lines. The whole entire point of debates is to get candidates off their scripts and speaking candidly. If you're not going to do that, don't bother holding the debate at all (and that goes for you too, Jim Lehrer).

:: Joe 1:51 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: Prepared Remarks::

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had this editorial "by" California gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger. I don't know how much of this actually came from the man himself, but I doubt it was much. His resistance to contemporaneous discussion casts suspicion on what are truly his core values. Some have argued in the past that it really shouldn't matter, because the people writing the speeches are the ones getting the administrative posts anyway, but there will be tough decisions that cannot be solved by less-than-witty one liners.

Thanks, Joe, for highlighting this point. The bulk of mainstream media seems to have missed it.

:: Barry 8:16 AM [+] ::
...

::Using Power::

I was thinking some on our conversation in the car regarding how the Senate Democrats handled the Iraq war resolution. A good point was made that if even two Democrats defected (and by this I mean for reasons of conscience rather than politics) and voted for the resolution it would have passed, making the votes against (by the reasoning of the Democratic leadership) a meaningless sacrifice. However, aside from a filibuster (which would have required significantly more defectors), there were still strong steps the Democrats could have taken. As the majority party in the Senate, they could have ammended the resolution to require UN involvement or to require certain bars to be met prior to a war being started, or to require postwar plans to be put in front of Congress before the war began, etc. They had the complete power to shape the resolution as they desired. But instead they rolled over and signed a blank check allowing the President to do anything he damned well pleased. The failure is not simply that they allowed the resolution to pass, but that they didn't leverage their power to get any concessions made that would make the resolution more palatable to themselves and their constituents.

:: Joe 12:33 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: Who's to blame for Iraq::

This is my belated response to Joe's post lamenting the fact that the Senate Democrats did not do more to derail or at least modify the Iraq war resolution in October 2002. His points (to recap) are: that the war resolution was the most important item that the Senate faced in the 2001-02 session because it involved potential loss of life, the Democrats (by and large) opposed the war in their hearts, but they played politics in going along with the resolution when they (with a 51-49 majority) could potentially have blocked or amended it.

My response is that, as a preliminary matter, the 51-49 majority is illusory. Several of the 51 genuinely supported the war and wanted the open-ended resolution as a means to begin a unilateral, preemptive conflict. These people would have voted down any amendment just as they would have prevented the resolution itself from being voted down. Therefore, the choice for the rest of the Democrats was, as it usually is these days: filibuster, register symbolic opposition, or go along.

At the time, the following considerations existed: 1) The Bush propaganda machine (largely uncountered by the left) had pushed war support to approximately 70-30 (as Barry points out, the 70 includes a significant chunk who only supported the war if the U.N. were involved, but the available polling failed to bring that out); 2) Bush had sworn to the Senators that he intended to get the U.N.'s support for any action and that open-ended resolution was a bargaining chip to strengthen his hand in international negotiations; 3) the midterm election was less than a month away; and 4) Bush and the Republicans were incredibly effective in using said propaganda machine to smear opponents as unpatriotic. (See Ex-Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.), who got hit with ads comparing him to Saddam AND Osama for the unforgivable sin of insisting that bureaucrats in the newly formed Department of Homeland Security receive the same benefits as other civil servants.)

Given the three points, many Democrats made the strategic decision to pick option #3 in the hopes of taking the Iraq issue off the table and focusing the election on domestic issues. In hindsight, that was undeniably a crappy strategic decision. To label it a moral failing, though, is a bit unfair. They got taken in by Bush. While us lefties knew what Bush's promises are worth, he nonetheless is a very good liar. After all, he even got one of us to vote for him. (I'm not pointing fingers or naming names, but his anagram is N. Rabble Irony.)
The resolution, at that time, was a theoretical exercise. There were no protests or indications that it would lead to anything other than a U.N. resolution.

As to the strategy point, the Dems probably should have figured that Bush was going to slam them no matter what they did, so they might as well have staked out their own position and rallied the antiwar folks. The ideal, in retrospect, would have been to a) do the polling to find out that the swing group are the people who support the resolution but only with U.N. cooperation, and b) pitch the action to those folks. In other words, fight hard for an amendment requiring U.N. cooperation. That's the easy one. Assuming such an amendment is defeated, however, I'm not sure what the strategic course would be.


:: David 3:22 PM [+] ::
...

I also believe that the war debate fits the general game theory model that under our system, the major parties always have an incentive to appeal to traditional centrist swing voters (voters who may vote Republican or Democratic) rather than appealing to the voters on the right (voters whose choice is Republican, third party, or not voting) or left (voters whose choice is Democratic, third party, or not voting).

First, from the perspective of either party, gaining one centrist voter is worth two on the fringes. This is because that one vote adds one to your party's total while also taking one away from your opponent's. For the Democrats to gain a disgruntled liberal or the Republicans a disgruntled conservative, the party gains one vote, but it is a vote that does not come at the expense of the other party.

From the perspective of the individual voter on the right or left, it is better to fall in line with your more preferred major party as well--no matter how far it moves to the center--unless it appears that there is a third party alternative that is more favorable with a legitimate chance to win. Assuming there is no such alternative--and modern polling should be sufficient to determine which candidates have a legitimate chance as an election nears--the options a voter has are vote for their preferred major party candidate, vote for a non-viable third party candidate, and not vote. If the voter takes option two or three, for the purposes of that election they have essentially chosen to give half of their vote to each viable candidate. This is because they had an opportunity to weigh in in favor of one or the other and chose not to. If the voter truly does not have a preference between the viable candidates, that makes sense. Otherwise, it does not.

The only benefits, then, to casting a vote for a non-viable candidate or not voting when the voter does have a preference between the major party candidates, are 1) the hope that such a vote "sends a message"--beyond that, sends the right message--and the major party who the voter would have supported but didn't reads the voter's mind and changes something the next time around to accomodate that voter. This seems kind of speculative to me, and also inefficient. If changing a party's focus is the ultimate goal, it seems far more effective to actively work to influence both the preferred party's candidate/platform selection process and public opinion, which BOTH parties heed, than to passively cast a "protest" vote and hope something good happens; and 2) the personal satisfaction which comes from withholding one's vote for whatever reason--usually having to do with some sort of moral opposition to the particular candidate. Because our one personal vote is part of the larger scheme and has ramifications beyond the person and because, as noted before, the "protest" vote is really an even vote for the two (or three) major candidates, this would seem to be irrational.

Therefore, the party has the incentive to do what it has to to attract swing voters, while party stalwarts have an incentive to support the party. I would argue that the current Republican dominance is the result of conservatives acting rationally and supporting Republicans, while liberals irrationally abandon the party when they are needed most to tilt at windmills.

:: David 3:57 PM [+] ::
...

::Winning The Geek Vote::

Howard Dean continues to impress. Today on his blog Dean took a few steps to establish his tech policy. He announced that he had assembled an advisory group of tech gurus, including our friend Larry Lessig. He released a statement of principles for the internet (vague, but promising). And he released as open source some community building software that his staff and supporters have worked on. These actions were duly noted on slashdot. One sharp /. poster pointed out that Howard Dean's web site runs on FreeBSD (an open source operating system), Wesley Clark's site is on Linux, but George W. Bush runs on Windows 2000. Those geeks don't miss much.

:: Joe 7:11 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: Winning the Geek Vote::

Wesley Clark also seems to recognize the brain power, as he was found discussing the potential of faster-than-lightspeed travel at a campaign event in New Hampshire. According to this Wired article, (thanks to the Drudge Report for pointing it out), Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Senior Astrophysicist Gary Melnick commented, "Even if Clark becomes president, I doubt it would be within his powers to repeal the powers of physics."

:: Barry 8:05 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: Winning the Geek Vote::

That was a good find, Brain By Loren. Or shall I call you Nearly Robbin? Or Nylon Bear Rib? Lob Rye In Barn? Or my favorite, Ornery In Blab?

:: Joe 10:56 PM [+] ::
...

::Our Sad Political System::

[Joe, I released your post--it was "draft" mode. Please fix it if I did wrong.]
[Dave, my post wasn't finished... but I've finished it now, so no matter...]
[Joe, it was I, Barry, who released your post because Dave had already weighed in on it. ;-)]
[Barry, you sneaky bastard. :)]

I think we've been over the brunt of my arguments on this issue before, so I'm just going to take a scattershot approach and hit a few of Dave's points that I find objectionable.

Therefore, the choice for the rest of the Democrats was, as it usually is these days: filibuster, register symbolic opposition, or go along.

I find it difficult to believe that there is no point with regards to constraining the unlimited nature of the resolution, negotiations with the UN, sources of funding for the operation, funding caps, postwar planning, congressional oversight, etc, on which the Democrats could agree. I'm fairly certain that even genuinely pro-war Democrats would not have objected to adding some language on one or more of these issues to the resolution. Of course this would have led to a confrontation with the House and the administration where a compromise would have to be reached. Which is why they made no effort in this regard, and which again goes to my point that what the Democrats did on this occasion was a matter of political expediency, rather than conscience.


2) Bush had sworn to the Senators that he intended to get the U.N.'s support for any action and that open-ended resolution was a bargaining chip to strengthen his hand in international negotiations

I reject the notion that anyone who voted for that resolution with this intention in mind had the least bit of respect of the UN Security Council. The idea that Bush should be able to bludgeon the Security Council into supporting a war with the threat that he would otherwise ignore them is a grave insult to the integrity and authority of the council and of international law and makes a mockery of anyone who voted for the resolution and feigns respect for the UN. Blackmail is not a path to legitimacy. I wrote the following shortly before the bombs started falling back in March:

"When President Bush first addressed the UN regarding his war on Iraq last fall, he presented them with an untenable choice: either fall into line or fall into irrelevance. It was an act of political blackmail. The effect was that even had the security council authorized the war on those terms such a decision would be purely an effort to save the council from irrelevance, which paradoxically would have robbed the decision, and the council, of integrity and legitimacy. The only viable way out that could have salvaged the body's integrity would have been for the UN to deny authorization of the war and for the US to abide by that decision. "

From the perspective of the individual voter on the right or left, it is better to fall in line with your more preferred major party as well--no matter how far it moves to the center--unless it appears that there is a third party alternative that is more favorable with a legitimate chance to win.

Your game theory arguments don't seem to posit much intelligence on the part of politicians. As long as this is the approach of the majority of voters it becomes subject to gaming by the candidates wherein we end up with rather awful politics. For example, 1992 where we had three essentially conservative candidates for president after Bill Clinton realized that "triangulation" made Democratic voters irrelevant to him as long as he was slightly less conservative than Bush. Or the 2000 election wherein Karl Rove was wise to Gore's rehash of Clinton's triangulation and put Bush right there next to him, resulting in possibly the most staid, boring, and lifeless campaign in US history, and a voter turnout of less than 50% of eligible voters (the lowest percentage since these things have been tracked). As long as any politician knows he is guaranteed your vote you have surrendered your primary form of power in the political system.

I like Bill Clinton a lot. But I still blame the guy for destroying the Democratic party. He led the party on a rightward lurch, playing to exactly the sentiment you espouse, and has left the part visionless and grasping for an identity for the past 10 years. He shifted the whole center of political dialogue in this country to the right. He lost Congress for them and allowed one of the weakest GOP Presidential candidates ever, to take the Whitehouse in 2000. Clinton is a brilliant and charismatic man with phenomenal rhetorical skills, and this whole tactic worked out fine for him. But it fucked the party. This is the danger in allowing parties to feel that their traditional constituency will vote for them regardless of what they say or do. Your vote exists within a larger context that the immediate election at hand. You can win the battle but lose the war. And you simply have to make a priority judgement, can I accomplish more by voting for the major party candidate of my choice, or can I accomplish more by not voting for them. It is a perfectly rational decision to evaluate.

Therefore, the party has the incentive to do what it has to to attract swing voters, while party stalwarts have an incentive to support the party.

This rationally suggests that anyone who acts the role of a party stalwart is a sucker. You are inviting your party to ignore you. Whereas if you rebel when they don't please you, either by voting for the other side or by not voting, all of the sudden you're a magic swing voter and the party has incentive to pay attention to you. Frankly, I don't like the Democratic party that much. I am not averse to voting for Republicans, although their core party values have taken a dive over the past 20 years. Whatever happened to their libertarian leanings, fiscal discipline, and support for states' rights? But I digress... If Bush hadn't bought his way to victory in the 2000 primaries I probably would have voted for McCain over Gore. I owe no fealty to the Democrats. If they please me, I vote for them. If I think they're acting like jackasses, I won't.

I am a liberal, this is true. In our country apparently that means I'm stuck with the Democrats. But I can barely tolerate the DNC leadership and have not been impressed with the Democrats' congressional leaders for some time either. If it takes some bleeding to create turnover at the top of the party, I say let 'em bleed. The fact that Howard Dean is the top dog in the primary race suggests that I am not alone in this position. Dean and his staffers get it. His support base gets it. Who's to say that the party's pathetic turnout in 2000 and 2002 didn't have something to do with that?

:: Joe 6:05 PM [+] ::
...

::Manifesto::

I absolutely agree with Joe that, all other things being equal, the rational major party politicians will want to tack to the middle, as Clinton, Gore, and Bush did (at least he presented himself that way). I also agree with Joe that this is not necessarily a desirable thing for anyone but the voters in the center. However, I disagree with his choice of remedy. I absolutely maintain that the general election is too late for a voter to do anything beneficial other than help their most preferred viable candidate win. He didn't like the way Gore tacked to the center, so he didn't vote. The result: Bush wins and the country's policy course has been to the right of center (even without Bush turning out to be even worse than he presented himself)--and to the right of Gore. Had Gore won (and he was a little more honest about his intentions during the campaign), we would have had a policy course slightly left of center. I fail to see how that isn't an improvement from the perspective of those on the left.

Plus, the presidency carries with it the opportunity to use the bully pulpit, set the agenda, and use the power of the office to enact many of your pet policies under the radar. Bush is using all of these to drag the country to the right. While this is going on, Democrats sit and bicker amongst themselves about whose fault it is that we're where we are. It is especially ironic that the very people who sat on their hands in 2000 when they had an opportunity to prevent this monstrosity complain the loudest--blaming the party for abandoning them, rather than the other way around. As Vince Lombardi famously said, winning isn't everything. It's the only thing. We are in this state for one reason: the Republicans have grasped this point while the Democrats have not.

The attacks on Clinton from the left are especially unwarranted. He lost Congress in 1994 because he took the unpopular step of raising taxes to fix the economy. Also, because of the point made above; Republicans united behind their candidates, Democrats hesitated and failed to support theirs. This same phenomenon is the real reason the center of political dialogue has shifted to the right. Rather than take on the real enemies on the right in the court of public opinion, those on the left instead turned their fire on Clinton. The internecine war between the factions of the party presented Republicans an open shot at setting the tone. Don't get me wrong, the Republicans have as many divisions as the Democrats but are simply better able to avoid airing all of their dirty laundry in public and shooting themselves in the ass in the process.

As for this theory that something good can ever possibly come from deliberately trying to sabotage your party and hand an election to the opposition to make a point, it is counterintuitive and unsupported by any empirical evidence. All you do is allow the opposition the opportunity to run things and change minds for four years while at the same time enraging the people who you ultimately want to join in your cause by stabbing them in the back. Plus, you establish yourself (and your faction) as unreliable supporters thus making it less likely that the party will move in your direction.

Therefore, I still believe that failing to support your preferred party in a general election is irrational. However, Joe makes a very good point that the voters on the right and left must have some power to prevent their party from running willy-nilly to the center. They must be able to ensure that their party does not become "visionless" and "grasping for an identity."

Fortunately, voters on the left do have those means. As I mentioned in the previous post, these voters can 1) dominate Democratic primaries and ensure that only true believers win, and 2) make concerted efforts to make a united front in presenting the case to the public so as to shift the political center of gravity to the left. #1 will make the previous argument moot, while #2 both makes #1 easier and also makes an ultimate victory easier. The conservative Republicans do both well. The Christian Coalition and the NRA essentially determine primary results in many places, while Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter preach the word to the ignorant masses. This is why we seldom see Republicans commiting electoral hara-kiri as the Democrats did in 2000 and why we even more seldom see anyone describe their party as directionless.

There is no reason why liberals can't do the exact same thing. The only problem is that it is hard work. On the first point, it involves organizing and participating in tedious party-building activities and get-out-the-vote campaigns. On the second, it involves breaking into the conservative media monopoly and pitching your message in lowest-common-denominator terms. It's much easier to vote for Ralph Nader and then bitch about how the party abandoned you.

Incidentally, the turnout in 2000 was 51% of the voting age population--which means that ineligible noncitizens and felons are included--higher than both 1988 and 1996. See http://www.fairvote.org/turnout/preturn.htm.

:: David 6:20 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: Our Sad Political System::

Blame can only get us so far. I regret that my earlier posts had attempted to assign blame, but I guess my main purpose was to emphasize that we still are (at least purportedly) a system by the people, and if the people are unhappy, then the people should demand change. The problem is that people are either unaware how unhappy they have become or are unaware how happy they could be. So I shift my attention to potential fixes. It is important to identify the problems to know how to solve them, but I think we all know where the problem lies (if you aren't sure what I think, try hitting the shift key with the number four a few times).

One potential for change is to promote a successful third party--one that really, really represents the people. In each of the major shifts in parties that we have experienced in our country's short history, the motivation appears to have been that the options just didn't capture the heart of the people. If ever there was a time where this was true, now seems to be it.

I stumbled across an interesting website online: Multiparty.org, a summary of the thesis of Matt Grossmann, a professor in Berkeley's Political Science Department. In Chapter 7, Grossmann proposes some interesting recommendations for structural reform and is worth browsing.

I mention the multiparty system not as a genuine aspiration--at least not right now, but to emphasize that we should be looking for answers, not assigning blame. I think that some change can be had within the two-party system, and this is probably the best place to start. When the campaign finance laws get shot down by the Supreme Court, what's the next logical step to reform?

We must find a way to detach money from the process, at least as best as practicable. And we must find a way to wake up the people. If enough voters took the issue of campaign financing seriously, we would not need regulations to ensure that candidates did not take hard or soft money, as anyone who did would not get the votes. One sensible approach, then, might be to encourage activism to vote for the candidate that is least tainted by these funds. I'm sure there are plenty of sources to obtain such information online.

I know this post doesn't really speak to our earlier discussion, but we seem to be nibbling at the greater problems underlying the current political climate. If the topic of debate is truly "our sad political system," then why not discuss ways to make it "our happy political system"?

:: Barry 9:49 PM [+] ::
...

::Counter-Manifesto::

I'm not going to take a bunch of quotes here, but this one struck me:

Plus, you establish yourself (and your faction) as unreliable supporters thus making it less likely that the party will move in your direction.

By your own testimony, the effect is exactly the opposite. If you were reliable, the party would see fit to move away from you to pick up the unreliable votes. Game theory and all that...


All that aside, Bill Clinton's tax policy was not such a great factor in 1994. It was his mere existence that pissed off Republicans. Decades of hard work laying down grassroots organizations and developing think tanks paid off for them when Reagan blew Carter out of the water. Over the same period most of the grassroots support for the Democrats had dried up. The civil rights and women's lib movements had for the most part accomplished their goals and dwindled. The labor unions have been in retreat since the beginning of the Cold War. There was no more Vietnam War to rally against, and the hippies were all grown up. The Democratic grassroots had dissolved. The Republicans owned at the grassroots level. They destroyed Carter, destroyed Mondale, destroyed Dukakis. The incumbents in congress carry a lot of inertia, but they were eating away there too. Clinton came as a shock to them. He understood that the Republicans had altered the political landscape, and he won, aside from his considerable personal political skills, by invading their territory (not to mention the massive helping hand that Perot gave him).

The Republicans were infuriated and hated him with a passion from the day he took office, and haven't stopped hating him yet. They won in '94 because they were fired up, and because their tactic for selling the core values their grassroots movement had popularized, the Contract With America, was pure political gold.

When so much had gone against them for the past 20 years, the Democrats were tremendously encouraged by Clinton's success. But they learned the wrong lesson from it. Instead of trying to reclaim the political landscape, they decided, like Clinton, to cede the landscape to the Republicans and try to co-exist in it with them. As a long-term strategy it is suicide. They will never be as good within that context as the Republicans. This is the exact reason why the Iraq resolution failed to have the effect that the Democratic leadership had hoped for. And even when they do win it is only a half victory as they have to abandon a certain degree of their core values to do so. In my opinion any liberals who take action to try to divorce the party leadership from this tactic are not sabotaging the Democrats, but are doing them a service. The grassroots must be reclaimed. Four years of George W. Bush is not too high a price to pay.

I view Howard Dean as a direct response to this problem. I think much of his support has little to do with him personally. For whatever reason the faction of liberals who understand what needs to be done claimed him as their guy and their threw support behind him early. And it has spread like wildfire. I suspect there are many who support him, not for the man himself, but for the revolutionary sort of campaign that his supporters have built around him. I count myself in that category. I made my first-ever political campaign contribution last week, to Dean, for precisely this reason. I still have plenty of reservations about the guy, but his campaign is exactly what the party needs. His campaign is a middle finger extended at the party leadership. It is a statement that we will bring liberal activists back to the front. That we will instill at the ground level of the party the sort of passion and vision that we need to compete with the religious right, the NRA, and the right-wing think-tanks. That we will no longer be embarrassed to call ourselves liberal. If he can win this election, I think (I hope!) he can effect the sort of housecleaning at the upper echelons of the party leadership that is needed to turn things around.

ps. There are number of other sources that cite a 49.3% turnout of voting age people. In any case it's difference of a point and a half and is pathetic in comparison to most other democracies (although one has to wonder what kind of monkey business is going on in Guinea-Bissau).

:: Joe 10:26 PM [+] ::
...

::Addendum::

From this week's TIME Magazine, in awarding their Performance of the Week to Al Sharpton:

Sparks flew when the 10 Democrats vying for the presidential nomination met for a debate in New York City last week. But it was a lagging candidate, the Rev. Al Sharpton, who used his hometown platform to get off the best lines. "Don't be defensive about just joining the party," he counseled General Wesley Clark, the latest entrant. "It's better to be a new Democrat that's a real Democrat than a lot of old Democrats up here that have been acting like Republicans all along." Sharpton got the loudest applause of the day.

:: Joe 11:34 PM [+] ::
...

::Some common ground::

I agree almost completely with everything Joe and Barry have said. I think that money is a problem inasmuch as it requires the Democrats to do the splits--cozying up to the monied interests on the one hand while supposedly fighting for the little guy on the other--and raises the already incredibly high barrier to entry for third parties. My thoughts:

1. While many of Grossmann's fixes would lower the barrier to entry, as long as we have single winner districts won by the majority (or plurality) of votes--the system will always tend toward two dominant parties. Yes, there have been several times in our history when a viable third party sprung up, but it always either went away after one or two elections (Populists, Progressives, Reform Party), or it grew to the point that it devoured one of the then-major parties (Republicans). That said, Instant Runoff Voting would be a godsend and would alleviate the problems with general election voting I am referring to.

2. Joe has pointed out an area which I did not explain well enough. There are two ways to get noticed by one or both of the major parties--become the backbone and driving force of the party or become a swing group. I concede that by abandoning the Democrats en masse, people on the left can become a swing group of sorts. However, as I discussed in my original post on the topic, they would need to be twice the size of the centrists to move the party to you since a centrist vote you lose both deflates your total and increases the Republican total while a lefty vote lost only deflates the Democratic total. A far more effective strategy for liberals to controlling the party would be to dominate it in its organization and in its primaries. This we seem to agree on.

3. I wholeheartedly agree that the grassroots must be reclaimed. I stand shoulder to shoulder with Joe and other disaffected Democrats in that fight. However, that is a liberal vs. conservative fight, not a D vs. R one. If the liberals can turn the tide of what the conservatives have done over the past quarter century, it will be tremendously helpful. Hopefully, opposition to W. will fuel these fires. This, however, is a separate question from what Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives should do at general election time. Unless the claim is that liberals' deliberately putting a (insert expletive here) like Bush into power will help their cause in the long run because Bush engenders so much hatred, I don't think that abandoning the Democratic party to pave the way for Bush helps the liberal cause in any way. If that is the claim, I think that it is a dangerous and irresponsible way to win supporters.

If you'll notice, the conservative grassroots and the Republican party have a symbiotic relationship, but are not one and the same. There is an unspoken deal that the party will do the movement's bidding, within reason, when it is in power in exchange for the movement's unflinching electoral support and efforts to promote the party and undermine the opposition in the court of public opinion. This allows the party leaders to put on the front that they are "independent", "moderate", or "compassionate conservatives." In fact, during campaigns, Republicans often explicitly distance themselves from the rabid right to win votes from naive centrists.

I'm not sure why liberals and the Democratic party have such a comparatively dysfunctional relationship. The movement and the party's interest gropups for some reason demand total public fealty (e.g. the recent forums hosted by NARAL and the NAACP in which the presidential candidates were forced to show up, bow before the throne, and toe the group's line. Stuff like this does nobody any good except the Republicans. Second, the whole "unflinching electoral support" thing is a clearly foreign concept. Third, the party leaders may have failed to do the movement's bidding when in power. All of these things need to change.

At the core is the fact that both the right and the left have, for want of better descriptors, a purist faction and a pragmatist faction. Joe and I illustrate this divide on the left. If we could each become king tomorrow and rule by fiat, I suspect our policies would be nearly the same. The only disagreement is over strategy. The purists seek to force their positions and are willing to go down to defeat rather than compromise. The pragmatists will act strategically to win and will take compromise over defeat. The difference, and a significant one, is that there are far more purists on the left as on the right.

The right also doesn't rely on its elected leaders for passion or vision. They take their own conservative zeal and control the process so that the leaders simply come from their ranks. These leaders are essentially interchangeable. It's a bottom up strategy rather than a top down one. Liberals need to do the same. If the Democratic leaders aren't doing what the movement wants, it's the movement's fault for either being ineffective in seizing control of the selection process or for picking a bad apple.

If a "housecleaning" is necessary, then so be it. As a pragmatist, I realize that the Democrats can't win without keeping their purists happy. I don't have any particular love for anyone in the current leadership. What the purists need to understand is that we also can't win if the liberals transparently seize control and frighten off the centrists.

Because of the purist/pragmatist divide, however, I doubt a housecleaning is necessary. As Joe argues, Dean may be the answer. He is the embodiment of my exhortations for the purists to work within the party. He apparently satisfies the purists who hopefully will not now run to Nader. The pragmatists will support whoever wins the nomination. Ergo, he unites the left. What remains to be seen is whether he can draw enough centrists to actually win the election. If he can, problem solved. If not, we need to find a way to be liberals and work to shift the center while at the same time be Democrats and do what it takes to win.

:: David 10:50 AM [+] ::
...

::The Importance of True Believers::

I think our biggest difference is not necessarily pragmatism vs purism, but a difference in valuation between independents and party supporters. You value independents at a 2:1 ratio over party faithful. I break the party faithful side up into two parts: the passive party faithful (the majority of them) and the active party faithful (the True Believers). Your ratio probably holds for the passive party faithful, but a True Believer is worth 10 independents. They're probably worth more.

Active party faithful are the people who will supply your campaign funds (both from their own pockets and through fund raisers), who will work your phone banks, who will put your sign in their yard, who will stand on the corner and hand out your flyers, who will get their family and friends excited about the elction, who will write editorials to their local papers, who will call in to radio shows, who will bother to show up for boring mid-term elections, and who basically will make your party work. They are your grass roots. If you lose your True Believers, it doesn't matter how many independents you have, you can pack up your bags and go home, because your party is finished. They are dedicated people who care about politics. They are interested in these subjects and are considerably better informed on them than your average member of the public. They will give you their time and their money, their blood, sweat, and tears. But they expect something back.

True Believers don't do it because they are in love with the Democratic party. They believe in certains ideals that they expect the Democrats to uphold. When you betray those ideals (or, more often, ignore them), these will be the first people to notice it. And they will be the first ones to do something about it. They understand politics and don't expect you to win every battle, but they do expect you to at least fight the good fight on issues that are important to them. They have made a personal investment in you, and if you don't respect them, they will find someone who will. And when you lose them, you lose a hell of a lot more than just their votes. This is when you start hearing about how your party lacks passion and vision, and your campaigns start being referred to as dry, bland, and boring. This is the key. These are not just voters, these are your most important supporters. They might even still vote for you if you piss them off, but they'll no longer be active party faithful. They'll just be another voter.

The Democrats spent the the twenty years prior to 1992 ignoring these people, and the ten years since 1992 systematically alienating them. The Clintonian theory of triangulation is a slap in the face to them. Democrats need to expend time, effort, and political capital to build these people up the way the Republicans have. The Democratic support organizations like the NAACP, NOW, and the AFL/CIO are in the midst of long declines, staid, corrupt, and command less money and less loyalty with each passing election. Republican support groups are vital and powerful. This is not by accident and it is not a matter unrelated to party politics. Conservatives have spent considerable effort over a long period of time to build up these groups and to tie them to the Republican party. Why do Republican support groups not force their politicians to kow-tow? They don't have to. Republican leadership respects them, and they know it. The interactions between right-wing organizations and Republican leaders are genuine and meaningful. Those on the Democratic side are symbolic, at best.

Democrats don't need to provide passionate leadership to their grass roots. That's the opposite of what I'm suggesting. They need to nurture these liberal activists, because it is they, the True Believers, who provide passion to the rest of the party. If you don't nurture them, if you drive them out, you end up with a lifeless party with no vision... in other words, the current Democratic party.

I don't think there is this mutually exclusive situation where playing to your True Believers alienates independents. Clearly this is the mindset that has taken over the Democratic leadership, but I think it's a bad assumption. The Republicans have demonstrated that you can win by staying true to your basic ideals and marketing your campaign well. One of Karl Rove's strengths is the knowledge that most independent voters, and even many passive party supporters are such because they are not that much into politics. And that for people not that much into politics, image and intangibles (character, personality, personal appearance and mannerisms) are far more important than policy. They don't know the ins and outs of international trade. They won't spend time to figure out the difference between Gore and Bush's senior drug plans. All but the simplest elements of policy go in one ear and out the other. Having a strong message and selling it well is the key. Being moderate politically won't get you nearly as far with independent voters as having a strong, united party behind you, with legions of True Believers to sell your message.

The point is that I am not unpragmatic. I just have a different understanding of what success means and how to achieve it. In my view the Democratic party has been on a road to ruin for years, and desperate measures are in order to return it to viability. Clinton was a brilliant political mind and gave the party a false positive. Take him away and you're looking at a party that has done nothing but get its ass kicked for 20 years. I am willing to sacrifice short-term success to long-term goals. In your view, they've made a few mistakes, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the party.

I hope that the abstention and defection of a significant number of Democratic True Believers in 2000 will turn out to be a critical turning point for the party. Those actions sowed the seeds of dissent from which the Dean campaign sprouted. Additionally, if Gore had won (which, given his weak opposition and his 2 prosperous terms as VP, he should have done easily), the Democratic party would still be hard at work driving ever more of their True Believers out of politics or into third parties. Nothing like Dean would have happened at least until 2008 or 2012.

In any case, George Bush hasn't been all bad. No president has ever done more to demonstrate the stupidity of pre-emptive warfare, the importance of multilateralism, or the foolishness of imperialism than W.

:: Joe 5:28 PM [+] ::
...

::SecDef on the Defensive?::

You may recall some discussion here back in July on possible fissures opening up in the previously air-tight front presented by the Bush administration. As the situation in Iraq continues to deterioration, it appears that the press (particularly the liberal press) is starting to pick up the scent of blood and are letting the dogs off the leash. In the past few days I've run across this article in Asia Times, a Joe Klein column in Time Magazine, and this Time Magazine article (to answer the title question, he's certainly lost this Mojo). All three of these tend to fix on Rumsfeld. It'll be interesting to see how much longer he can keep his head above water. Not only does he piss off liberals to no end, his operating style tends to upset congresspeople of all types, the press, and the military. He would make an altogether ideal scapegoat for Iraq, if it comes to that.

:: Joe 3:29 PM [+] ::
...

::The Voting Machine Story::

I don't know if any of you guys have been following this, but there is an interesting story that has been emerging regarding Diebold's new voting machines. There has been a lot of coverage of it on slashdot, as it has been mostly hacker activism that has brought the issue to light. Slashdotters have been up in arms from day 1 about that fact that any voting precinct would use voting machines which a) are proprietary (ie do not run open source software), and b) have no paper audit-trail. Then reports started to come that these devices are terribly insecure. On top of that some clever folks swiped Diebold's internal memos and leaked them on the internet. They found a number of interesting messages displaying incompetence and subterfuge. Everyone's favorite seems to be:

“I need some answers! Our department is being audited by the County. I have been waiting for someone to give me an explanation as to why Precinct 216 gave Al Gore a minus 16022 when it was uploaded. Will someone please explain this so that I have the information to give the auditor instead of standing here "looking dumb".

Then, of course, you have the CEO of Diebold making a statement that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year". And last but not least, author and electronic voting critic, Bev Harris, managed to gain remote access to one of Diebold's machines duing the California recall. Good grief. So lately Diebold has decided to start SLAPP'ing folks to get their memos off the internet. Today the EFF announced they will defend two students against Diebold's claims. I have a sneaking suspicion that this company is not long for the world (or at least for the voting machine business).

:: Joe 12:50 PM [+] ::
...

::Dean's Big Decision::

I got an email from the Dean campaign yesterday, stating that I, and the rest of the Dean supporters, will have an opportunity this Thursday, through an online vote, to decide whether or not Dean will accept federal matching funds. First, of all, the decision to hold the vote is a brilliant strategic move for the campaign. It builds on everything that has made his candidacy strong. It is probably a given that his supporters will vote for him to forego the funds, but simply allowing them to have that input is a big pat on the back and sign of recognition on Dean's part of all the work that his supporters have done for him. As he says in the email:

"This decision is no longer mine to make. This is a campaign of the people, by the people and for the people. Your successful effort of raising a historic amount of money through small contributions has made this choice possible. This is why I am putting this decision in your hands."

I am glad to see Dean and his staff continue to seek new ways in which to involve and excite their supporters. Additionally it gives Dean a convenient cover with which to back away from his previous statements that he would participate in the matching program.

From a strategic point of view, it is a significant decision. The matching funds would serve to extend his existing lead and getting a big chunk of cash dropped in his lap would greatly enhance his position for the primaries. However, assuming that he wins the primaries, the $45m spending cap that accompanies the matching funds would severely limit his ability to compete with Bush's media onslaught through next summer to the party nominations. Rejecting the match leaves him with less of a lead (or no lead if one of the other front runners accepts the match) for the primaries, but leaves him free to raise enough money to continue his campaign up through next fall.

I support what I presume will be the decision (to reject). I also hope that Kerry and the other top contenders do the same. I think it will be very important that the Democratic nominee not allow Bush to completely dominate the summer leading up to the election. With the record war-chest he's raising, Bush could blow them out of the water with a media blitz the same way he did John McCain in 2000. I think the amount of money Bush is raising, in conjunction with the $45m spending cap, is a death knell for the federal fund matching program.

:: Joe 11:36 PM [+] ::
...

::It will be interesting...::

if Dean's online vote doesn't come out the way he wants it to. He knows that he needs to forego the matching funds to take on Bush and that he doesn't really need them--his fundraising is phenomenal. I agree that the online vote is a nice PR gesture and provides him with some cover for the fact he initially said that he would take the matching funds. I'm glad, he's doing it; it's a savvy move by our likely nominee, but one not without some risk. I just hope the poll goes the way it's supposed to.

:: David 9:52 AM [+] ::
...

::"Nader Blasts Democrats as 'Whiners'"::

See this article on Yahoo--with the tagline from Madison, WI (and a plug to the National Conference on Media Reform).

It's too bad we missed that speech. With the crowd in attendance, I'm sure there was an interesting reaction from the audience.

:: Barry 11:29 AM [+] ::
...

::Nader article ::

I also direct Barry's attention to paragraphs two and three of the Nader story which speak to an oft debated point...

:: David 1:17 PM [+] ::
...

::Nader redux::

As to the merits of the Nader speech, we have the classic multiple proximate cause situation. He is right that had the Republicans not stolen the Florida election aided and abetted by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, the complicit and lazy corporate media, and the defeatists in the Gore camp, Gore would still be President. However, it is equally true that had Nader stayed out Gore would have won and Katherine Harris would still be an obscure corrupt state official. I think his attempts to avoid responsibility are akin to the very whining of which he accuses others. He should stand up and say that this was his intent all along; as I remember it, the Green party strategy was to spoil the election for Gore so that liberals could wrest the Democratic party back from Gore and the centrists. That has happened. Nader should be doing a victory lap. Instead, he finally realizes the horror of the Bush presidency and attempts to weasel out of his role in bringing it about.

:: David 1:48 PM [+] ::
...

::Nader In A State of Confusion::

I much agree with Dave's analysis of Nader's speech. He says, and I quote, "It was stolen from the Democrats. And they should concentrate on the thieves and the blunderers in Florida, not on the Green Party." That's an interesting statement. Did Ralph Nader actually believe that he was going to win the Presidential election? I don't think Ralph is an idiot, so I'll wager to say no. The two party system is a reality in this country. Nader knew that a) he would not win, and b) he would disproportionately draw voters from the Democrats. The only productive thing he could hope to get out of it was that it have some effect on the Democrats, and force them to pay attention to him. Nader's candidacy cost the Democrats the election and gave Nader a prime platform from which to try to advance the Green Party position, but instead he is deflecting attention from the Green Party. If this wasn't what he was after, why did he bother to run? And moreover, why did he refuse to drop out at the end once his point was made? As has been discussed in depth, I have no problem with people registering protest votes, but at least let's be honest about it.

:: Joe 4:46 PM [+] ::
...

::Dean's Endorsements::

I'm sure you guys have heard about this, Howard Dean has picked up endorsements from two of the largest labor unions. Not only is this a major boost for Dean, but with two of the five major unions backing Dean it's a real blow to Gephardt whose primary selling point has been his strong union support. With the endorsements coming at the same time that Kerry's campaign is showing signs of stress, Dean may be separating himself from the pack. It would be nice if this could be wrapped up before these guys batter each other into oblivion. Howard Kurtz discusses the state of the race. Also worthy of note, John Edwards follows Dean and Kucinich onto Lessig's blog (scroll down a little).

:: Joe 12:50 PM [+] ::
...

::Dean Creates Panic Among Democratic Insiders::

CSM has a sweet article about the panic and fear of Democratic insiders at the prospect of a Dean nomination. Each one has a different doom and gloom projection to make. But the way I see it they all read the same way: "We might lose our grip on the party." Dean has put the fear of god into these ass-clowns and I couldn't be happier for it.

:: Joe 1:01 PM [+] ::
...

::Dean::

E.J. Dionne had an interesting column about the dilemma Dean presents: The upshot is that Dionne draws comparisons between Dean and Barry Goldwater; on the plus side, Goldwater set in motion a conservative movement which is now dominant 30 years later. On the minus side, he lost miserably to Johnson in 1964 and his party got spanked in Congressional elections that year. I think that Barry's series of posts on the administration and their allies in the right wing press's machinations regarding the war in Iraq are a great demonstration of why the country cannot afford another four years of Bush. I think that this is why there is so much hand-wringing on the part of Democrats--not some selfish desire on the part of the "establishment" to keep down an "outsider."

Speaking as someone who considers themselves an establishment Democrat, whatever that means, I would be happy running anyone from Bernie Sanders to Ralph Nader to Howard Dean to Martin Sheen to John Breaux as long as they beat Bush. I'm not convinced that Dean cannot; I'm not even convinced that he has less of a chance than any of the other contenders. However, there are three factors that concern me:

1. Dean has no geographic advantages whatsoever. He comes from a small Democratic base state in liberal New England. Fine, his nomination may increase Democratic chances of picking up neighboring New Hampshire and hanging onto Maine, but the South is as difficult for Dean, if not more, than for "generic Democratic candidate," and he has the same road in the all-important Midwest. This is not to say he can't win in each of the 19 battleground states: New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Florida, Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. He just does not start out with any advantages with the exception of the two small states I mentioned.

2. Dean has fairly consistently fared worse than Gephardt, Clark, Kerry, and Lieberman against Bush in the same national polls that put Dean at the top of the Democratic pack. The conclusion: the perception is that Dean is more liberal than the average Democratic candidate. Thus, his dash to the center for the general election may have more ground to cover.

3. All the gloom and doom prognostications may become self-fulfilling prophecy. Kind of like the Gore-the-liar phenomenon: the media doesn't like Gore and doesn't think he's quite honest, so everything he has ever done or said gets the utmost scrutiny, and lo and behold there are some trivial misstatements or exaggerations, so the media reports them to death and the people decide he's dishonest. Dean has that potential with the liberal-who-can't-win-outside-the-coasts label.

I hope he does win--that the model is Reagan rather than Goldwater or McGovern. But I can't fault political insiders for seeing danger signs or ascribe ulterior motives to them.

:: David 2:54 PM [+] ::
...

::Dean's Doubters::

The problem here with the electability issue is that I am hard-pressed to see how anyone taking an outsider's view of things can think that any of the other candidates can beat Dean on this. In these claims from Democratic party insiders, who as the CSM story says "kept him at arm's length, hoping that one of their own, such as Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, would catch fire", it seems they refuse to recognize that their approval is not the key determination of electability. In the polls you refer to generally they poll only Democrats on the primary, but the full public on the general election. Gephardt, Kerry, and Lieberman serve in the federal government and Clark is a TV personality. Outside of the party, Dean is not well known. But governors tend to have an advantage in presidential politics, and who the hell had ever heard of Bill Clinton before 1992? I don't put too much stock in those poll numbers. As the Democrats are the ones actually following the primary race and learning about the candidates at this point, it's the question of who is exciting them that seems more relevant. The argument that Democrats like Dean because he's a liberal extremist has to deal with the fact that his record is actually pretty moderate, a fact that has been completely ignored by proponents of this view.

With regards to their typical views of what constitutes electability, who could be more electable that Al Gore? An upbeat and friendly moderate southerner with loads of experience and inside party connections who presided over one of the most prosperous and peaceful periods in the nation's history. And he lost to a coke-head alcoholic draft-dodging born-again business failure whose sole distinction is that he's the deadbeat son of a mediocre one-term president. If their measures of electability were accurate Gore should have slaughtered Bush with hardly an effort. Moreover the press loves Dean, just as they loved McCain. The doom and gloom is emenating from party insiders, not the press. The criticism of the press, as noted in the Howard Kurtz column I linked to earlier, is that they're already heralding him as the winner.

I even see Dean in good shape where the regional politics are concerned. The South is a puzzle the Democrats haven't worked out yet. If Gore couldn't deliver any of the south, I don't see Clark or Edwards doing much better. And Lieberman and Kerry are no better off than Dean. Dean's proven record of fiscal conservatism and his straight shooter attitude match up better with midwestern values than any of the competition. Gephardt may also have done well in the midwest, but with the defection of unions to Dean, I think he's nearly a non-factor at this point. None of the candidates have any great claim on the West.

No, I don't think there is a legitimate point to be made that Dean trails in any serious measure of electability. Arguments to that effect strike me as being in a state of denial. The game has changed, they just refuse to admit it. The comparisons to Goldwater and McGovern miss out on the critical role that the internet has played in this campaign and the manner in which it is redefining the way politics operates in this country. Prior to this election party insiders truly did have immense power, the power that comes from controlling the party purse strings and the party machinery. Dean has gone over their heads directly to the party activists. Even as the party apparatchiks worked to push Kerry and Edwards, Dean has raised more money, mostly in small contributions, and has created his own grass roots machinery, in many way superior to theirs. He has successfully made the jump from yuppy activists to picking up Jesse Jackson and major labor unions. The game has changed. Dean's campaign and the likes of moveon.org are doing what many internet entrepreneurs have done before them: cut out the middle men. And like all the other middle men, the party establishment reaction fluxuates between rage and denial. That Dean has accomplished all that he has in spite of them speaks volumes. What could he do with them? Hopefully we'll find out.

:: Joe 12:10 AM [+] ::
...

::Bush Legislative Strategy::

From American Prospect's Matthew Yglesias (as reported by Howard Kurtz):

"The architects of Bushism . . . don't really believe that the government can or should solve problems. But they don't want too come out and say that, or they'll lose elections. So instead they see that the public wants a prescription drug bill and decide they'd better write something called "the prescription drug bill." Then they call up their friends on K Street and ask what the prescription drug bill should say, write the thing, and launch a PR campaign designed to convince people that their bill does whatever it is people wanted the law to do. Sometimes, as with the energy bill, they just take a lobbyist-written piece of legislation and start casting about (terrorism! blackouts!) for some kind of problem it can pose as a solution to."

:: David 3:42 PM [+] ::
...

::A Karl Rove Production::

Starring our President George W. Bush, the latest production features a clandestine fly-in by the president to the bowels of Baghdad. Braving the chaos and violence of Baghdad, from car bombs to rocket attackes, the valiant Bush defies the evil Iraqi terrorists and serves turkey to the American troops. Don't miss this sequel to the awe-inspiring aircraft carrier landing! Coming soon to a theater near you.

:: Ryan 1:14 PM [+] ::
...

::The Anti-Rove::

Christopher Lydon, a Harvard Law fellow, has a great interview with Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi on mp3. It's a very fun listen. I think this guy has what it takes to go toe-to-toe with Karl Rove. The secret? His habit of "dipping Skoal snuff and drinking Diet Pepsi non-stop". As I've said before, I'm voting for this guy and the campaign he's put together as much as I am for Dean. If you do nothing else intellectual-like for the next month, listen to this interview. We ought to send him a Boys' Weekend invite, he would fit right in.

:: Joe 12:03 AM [+] ::
...

::Declining Global Influence::

CSM has a story about how shrewd foreign policy moves by China and policy mistakes on our part have allowed China to become the dominant political force in the Far East.

:: Joe 2:38 PM [+] ::
...

::So much for all the "the Democratic establishment hates Dean and will never support him" stuff::

I think it's hard to get more "establishment" than Al Gore. Hopefully his announcement will do two things: 1. narrow the field and get the naysayers to quit piling on Dean--at least on the charge that he is a fringe wacko (the stuff about him being too much of a centrist fiscal conservative actually helps, I think); and 2. on the other side, get the Dean camp to quit dumping on the party as out of touch and focus exclusively on the real opponents.

:: David 5:31 PM [+] ::
...

::Supreme Court Upholds Campaign Finance Law::

The 298-page opinion is available here, if anyone is interested (the first 19 pages provide a summary).

:: Barry 10:12 AM [+] ::
...

::Howard Dean and the Power of Infomation::

Phenomenal column by Everett Ehrlich on the Washington Post today on the subject of the importance of information in organizations. Ehrlich hits points I have mentioned as to why I don't see Dean's outsider status as having the sort of impact that it did for McGovern or Goldwater, and also speaks cogently about the difference in Dean's relationship to the party as compared to the other candidates. I think much of this is equally applicable to MoveOn.org. A very worthwhile read.

:: Joe 3:32 PM [+] ::
...

::Wesley Clark: Foreign Policy Guru::

Someone on a forum I read pointed out this column Wesley Clark wrote for Washington Monthly. I continue to be very impressed by his foreign policy knowledge and analysis. I also greatly appreciate seeing something written on this intellectual level by a candidate, where you can actually tell that he wrote it, and it wasn't slopped together by some PR hack. If someone beats Dean, I sure hope it's Clark. Whichever one wins, it would be very cool to see them both on the same ticket.

:: Joe 12:20 PM [+] ::
...

::Lieberman's Logic::

Joe Lieberman has outdone himself in his statement regarding the capture of Saddam Hussein. Let's focus on two quotes by this Joe (who does a great disservice to our Joe's name):

"This evil man has to face the death penalty. The international tribunal in The Hague cannot order the death penalty, so my first question about where he's going to be tried will be answered by whether that tribunal can execute him."

First of all, shouldn't the Iraqi people be the primary decision makers in how and when Hussein goes to trial? Second, while Lieberman doesn't directly call for Hussein's execution, it comes close enough. Apparently Lieberman doesn't even want to go through the pretext of a trial before offing Hussein. Next:

"If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, not in prison, and the world would be a more dangerous place. "

Let's look at this from another perspective: If Howard Dean had his way, Hussein would likely still be contained by sanctions and weapons inspections, he would still not represent an imminent threat to the United States, over 500 coalition troops would still be alive today (and how many innocent Iraqi citizens?), our international alliances would be strong, and our federal deficit wouldn't be exploding due to the tremendous costs of war and reconstruction in Iraq. It is good news for the entire world that Hussein is now detained, but let us not forget the grave costs of this endeavor.

:: Ryan 9:14 PM [+] ::
...

::Fulfilling the Promise of America::

Flipping through channels while eating dinner I came across Howard Dean delivering a speech on his foreign policy to The Pacific Council on C-SPAN. I thought it was a pretty good speech, you can find the text here, though a bit more verbose than necessary in some spots. After the speech he took some questions from the audience, and they asked some very good questions, and I found him to be more impressive there than in the prepared material. I don't see it in the C-SPAN archives right now, but I'll check again tomorrow to see if it's added. He handled the questions on Iraq and Saddam very deftly, did ok on Israel (he's still a bit more conservative on that than I'd prefer), and had some very thoughtful and intelligent things to say about US relations with China. There is a lot in common in his remarks with the Wesley Clark article I posted earlier today.

:: Joe 11:28 PM [+] ::
...

::Watch Commercials, Defeat Bush::

You guys may have already gotten an email from moveon regarding this, but moveon.org has a new initiative where they solicited fans and members to create their own 30 second anti-Bush TV add. They've now received over 1000 of them and so have requested moveon members view and rate the ads for them. What a great way to a) gather some data on the ads, b) give your members an easy way to participate and do something useful, c) expose them to your propaganda. Nicely done, moveon.

:: Joe 8:00 PM [+] ::
...

::The Numbers Hurt::

Look at the pretty, pretty graphs.

:: Joe 10:42 AM [+] ::
...

::Politics in the Era of the MTV Attention Span::

I wanted to comment on this, because I've seen a number of similar stories to this one on CSM essentially predicting doom for the Democrats because the economy is doing so well and we got Saddam. These people clearly don't follow politics much. Or if they do, don't pay attention. If they had they would have realized that anything that happens right now is utterly irrelevant to the general election. This will be ancient, ancient history by November of next year. The political attention span of this country is about 3 months. And that is being really generous. What happens this December means nothing. What happens next September, on the other hand, is everything. If there is still fighting and bloodshed in Iraq by next fall, if we're still seeing domestic and international terrorist activity, it will be obvious that Saddam's capture didn't buy us much, and nobody will care. If there is peace and prosperity in Iraq and the new government is off to a roaring start, it wouldn't have mattered if we had never caught Saddam. Either way, whether things are good or bad, Saddam becomes irrelevant. The economy is no different. If the economy is headed south by the fall, this will look like a fool's rally in a long string of poor economic performances. If a strong recovery is taking hold by next fall, then Bush has a strong accomplishment to run on. In either case, voters will be thinking about the fall 2004 economy when they go to the polls, not the fall 2003 economy. It all comes down to what happens when the campaign for the general election is running.

:: Joe 1:13 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: Politics in the Era of the MTV Attention Span::

One small point: in general, the events occurring between the conventions and the election are what matter--with one caveat. Historically, the health of the economy as a factor in a presidential race is most important about eight months out--or about March. There is a good column on this by Charlie Cook late last year which I will try to find and post. Essentially, because "the state of the economy" is such an amorphous thing, what counts is the conventional perception of the health of the economy. This consensus takes a while to take hold and then a while to change. For example, in 1992, the economy had been recovering for a few months before the election. Nobody cared. Bush I was already tarred as the recession guy. I think if the economic news has become so upbeat by March or April that the conventional wisdom is that things are good and the recession is history, Bush II gets undeserved credit even if things get gloomy again in the fall.

As for Saddam, I agree that the December 2003 capture will have no impact in November 2004 other than preventing the Dem nominee from saying: look, Saddam got away. Now, if his trial occurs next fall and reveals evidence of WMDs, al-Qaeda connections, or especially horrible genocidal acts, that's a different story.

:: David 2:37 PM [+] ::
...

::Say It Ain't So, Wes::

Wes Clark has been, in my opinion, the most palatable alternative to Dean among the Democratic candidates. However, yesterday he announced $30b tax cut plan. Is this man not aware of the $500b budget deficit we're running? Has it become necessary for every person who runs for office to announce a tax cut plan? Sure, he has some plans to pay for this, but as far as I'm concerned there can be no tax cuts until the deficit is covered and principal is being paid off on the national debt. Until that time comes I don't even want to hear the words "tax cut" pass a candidate's lips. I'm not giving up on Clark, but this is definitely a strike against him.

:: Joe 11:13 AM [+] ::
...

::More Fiscal Responsibility Blues::

(part 1 of a 3 part tirade :P )

A Washington Post column on John Kerry, while intended to be sympathetic, brought to my attention for the first time his planned fiscal policies. While he refers to the current budget as "fiscal insanity", his grand master plan is to undo some of the Bush tax cuts and to reduce the deficit by half over four years. Half? And even this pathetic endeavour is fueled by what the column refers to as "overly optimistic" projections. That disgusts me.

The nation's fiscal future is currently our biggest crisis. Not terrorism, not health care, not education, not prescription drugs. We are sitting on an economic time bomb (as wonderfully described by a Robert Samuelson Post column) and in the confluence of a number of long term negative economic factors. This is facing up to be the greatest challenge to the union since at least World War II and possibly the Civil War. If nobody takes responsibility on this it is inevitable that the dollar will eventually collapse and hyperinflate, and we will be lucky to emerge from the ensuing slump after a decade or two. There will come a nexus point when our ongoing fiscal foolishness collides with our declining economic stature in the face of globalization and the crushing onrush of baby boomer dependency on government services. It won't be pretty. Who knows how global security would unfold in the wake of the collapse of the world's foremost power.

This is all right there staring us in the face. I don't think there are many people who would seriously dispute any one of the points that: a) Our current fiscal policies are totally unsustainable, b) Economic globalization will lessen the US's dominant economic position and will tend to disperse our concentrated wealth, c) The retirement of the baby boomers will cause a major economic crisis for the US. Is it so hard to put these ideas together and see where they lead? How can it be that this is not a part of our national dialogue? How can John Kerry believe that hopefully, if we're lucky, reducing the deficit by half over four years is a solution? I've been a bit discouraged by Howard Dean's positions on the deficit as well. Sure he says he's going to balance the budget, but he also says he's not going to touch military spending, social spending, education, etc, etc, and that he's going to increase homeland security spending. Doing all of that and balancing the budget would be a neat trick. I suspect that he, like Kerry, is figuring some absurd economic growth rate into his equations. However, Dean's gubernatorial record leaves me optimistic that when push comes to shove he'll do the right thing. He has a reputation of being fairly ruthless when it comes to balancing his budget, cutting services and social spending where necessary to get the job done. In any case the other candidates have not done much to make me believe in them on this issue.

I'm not sure if this is a problem that can be solved at this point. I'm not convinced that it isn't already too late to altogether avoid this crisis. But certainly if we start soon we can try mitigate it. And balancing the budget and paying down the national debt, getting our fiscal house in order, sounds like a good start to me.

(up next time: Democrats, have a clue on globalization)

:: Joe 10:03 AM [+] ::
...

::Fiscal Blues: Bleeding Red::

I agree with Joe (More Fiscal Responsibility Blues, 1/8/04) that the fiscal status of the United States is currently our biggest crisis and one that needs to be addressed quickly. The IMF released a report this week (the overview can be read here) outlining the current fiscal problems that the U.S faces and the implications of not addressing these problems. Some interesting excerpts from the overview of the paper:

"The major tax cuts (as well as some spending measures) enacted in 2001 and 2003 have been estimated to have cost roughly $1.7 trillion over FY2002-FY2011.

There is little doubt that significant macroeconomic gains could be reaped from reforms of the U.S. tax code, with the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA, 2003) citing estimates of potential gains in the range of 2-6 percent of GDP.

As noted in CEA (2003), taxpayers are required to spend roughly 3 billion hours a year dealing with federal tax matters, and overall compliance costs are estimated at around 10 percent of total federal tax revenues.

Simulations reported in Section II suggest that a 15 percentage point increase in the U.S. public debt ratio projected over the next decade would eventually raise real interest rates in industrial countries by an average of ??1 percentage point.

The United States is on course to increase its net external liabilities to around 40 percent of GDP within the next few years?an unprecedented level of external debt for a large industrial country (IMF, 2003b).

The results suggest that the fiscal imbalance [for SS, Medicare] is as high as $47 trillion, nearly 500 percent of current GDP, and that closing this fiscal gap would require an immediate and permanent 60 percent hike in the federal income tax yield, or a 50 percent cut in Social Security and Medicare benefits."

The IMF overview gives a fairly clear summary of the problems we face. Our government has drastically increased spending in recent years, partly in response to terrorism. At the same time, it has decreased its revenue in the form of tax cuts in an attempt to stimulate the economy. While this has likely provided a short-term stimulus, it has also increased our debt and the likelihood of major programs (SS, Medicare) becoming insolvent in the next decade or two. Furthermore, the report states (above) that U.S. debt is projected to raise interest rates globally, which is likely to hinder or depress the global economy. In short, the perfect storm for fiscal disaster is arising.

Our government should be ashamed. These are major issues that need to be brought to the attention of the public (and the public needs to be convinced to care). Conversely, the voters should be holding representatives accountable for such poor fiscal management. We need to immediately begin balancing our budget, likely through a combination of tax revenue increases and spending cuts (for starters, get rid of missle defense). From reading the IMF paper, this should be complemented by reform of the tax system to make it more efficient and consumption based. Furthermore, I see no reason for the estate tax to be phased out. Finally, the paper calls for reinstating and reinforcing the Budget Enforcement Act to ensure long-term fiscal stability and goals.

In the end, our politicians need to be forced to make the tough decisions that individual tax payers make every day. If we want to cut taxes to stimulate the economy, then services or programs will have to be cut to account for it. Or, if one actually thinks long term, one establishes a "rainy day fund" to tap into while enacting tax cuts. As Joe pointed out, none of the presidential candidates (including the current president) seems intent on tackling this problem. Take, for example, our current president: In creating our current record federal budget deficit, the Bush administration has undertaken an arguably unnecessary war and subsequent reconstruction; it (with Congress) has enacted enormous Medicare drug coverage. These are but the biggest items among numerous other spending increases. But wait, there's more! We will now establish a human settlement on the moon and send a manned mission to Mars. I leave you with a quote from the Wash. Post article:

"Officials were unwilling to provide cost figures or details and would say only that Bush will direct the government to immediately begin research and development to establish a human presence or base on the moon, with the goal of having that lead to a manned mission to Mars."

:: Ryan 11:09 PM [+] ::
...

::Can We Have An Independent Thought Here?::

(part 2 of 3 of my rant against the Democratic candidates. I'd rant against Bush too, but it feels too much like beating up on a retarded kid)

First off, that's a blockbuster of a report, Ryan, thanks for pointing it out. They suggest a permanent 60% tax hike or a 50% benefits reduction? Woof! Now that's moving past platitudes and having a serious conversation.

So the next issue to inspire my wrath has been globalization. Now I can certainly understand the candidates having some mixed feelings and confusion on this issue. I've suffered some of that myself. After all, my software development job got offshored to China. Yet, I still believe that globalization has tremendous potential to improve the state of many impoverished nations. Granted, I wasn't laid off, but I was shifted to a less desirable position, which is what prompted me think some deep thoughts about my career path and make a change of direction. The world will likely come to rue the day that motorola made that decision.

But really, this is probably the key driving force that will shape our economy over the coming decades, and what did the candidates come up with? John Kerry: provide tax breaks to domestic manufacturers and "strongly enforce trade laws". John Edwards: trade agreements with environmental and labor protections and tax incentives for domestic businesses. Dick Gephardt: trade agreements with "livable wage" guarantees. Joe Lieberman: tax incentives for domestic businesses and increased federal R&D spending. Howard Dean: trade agreements with environmental and labor protections.

So what have we got? Protectionism in the form of corporate welfare and revised trade agreements that do nothing to account for the fact that even with safe labor practices and a livable wage many countries have labor forces that can afford to work for a fraction of what US workers cost. Is this the best that our best and brightest can come up with? The only one with a hint of creativity is Lieberman's plan to increase research, and even that is a woefully inadequate proposal to double the National Science Foundation's budget, which he cites as being around 0.7% of federal spending. We are facing a structural problem that stands to gut the US economy, and all we get are some band-aids, if these even qualify as that. To top it, all of the candidates, I think, support sustaining or increasing US agricultural subsidies. The last major round of trade talks broke down due to that very factor. Good luck getting those concessions on your trade deals when you aren't willing to make concessions on the top priority issue of your trading partners.

We need new answers, new ideas. We've got more candidates than we know what to do with and they're giving us nothing. We've lost manufacturing and we're in the process of losing whole sectors of the white collar work force. We need to recognize that this is not happening due to unfair trade agreements or a lack of corporate welfare. It's happening for the incredibly simple fact that shit costs ten times more in the US than it does in any third world country. What are we going to do about that? What can we do about that?

I don't think I know. Increasing research and becoming an information economy is a good start. Let's manufacture patents, copyrights, intellectual property of all sorts and sell it to other countries where it can be used to create products. That's something we can do. We still have the best university system in the world and a powerful R&D infrastructure. These are areas where developing nations will be hard pressed to catch up for decades at the least. And by the time they do the wealth disparity should not be such a problem. So let's expand that further and make it a focal point of our economy. But can we expect everyone to get a PhD and work in a lab? Probably not. What do we make of our middle class? I'm really not sure.

These are very difficult questions and I'm not expecting a blockbuster solution. But I'd like to see them asked. Even if the candidate's answer is "well, I'm not sure, but it's a priority and we're going to work on it." This is just another critical area where we're getting all platitudes and no honest discussion. And it bugs me. A bit.

(to follow in part 3, "the vision thing")

:: Joe 1:28 AM [+] ::
...

::World Class Journalism::

Transcript taken from Dean's blog:

PAULA ZAHN: Final question for you, sir. Your candidate, governor dean, has made several references to -- about president bush having alleged advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks from the saudis. Should someone who wants to be president be trading on rumors?

JOE TRIPPI: That's not what the governor said at all. In fact, you're trading on rumors when you keep saying that.

PAULA ZAHN: I haven't said it yet. I'm just repeating --

JOE TRIPPI: Yeah, you're repeating the rumor. Yeah, what happened was the governor said that when the president and the administration mislead people and the war, the American people start asking questions, there's these rumors out there, and we need to talk about them to shut them down because he didn't believe it. And he said that on the air in the interview.

PAULA ZAHN: But there was another interview on npr that has gotten a lot of attention. He basically said, you know, whether this can be proven or not, he suggested that the president had had advance knowledge of what might have fallen on 9/11.

JOE TRIPPI: No. The governor said he didn't believe that, and it was part of the problem. We have this right now with black box voting. You'll find across the country that there are people all over this nation who believe these paperless computer voting machines are a way that the bush administration will steal the election. Okay, what's not important here is whether that's a rumor or not. What's important here is that we shut that down, that we prove to people that there's no way that anybody -- that these paperless machines are going to rob people of their vote. Repeating that is not repeating that you believe it. I don't necessarily believe that those machines do that or not. But if we're going to have a democracy, we have to say so and air it out.

PAULA ZAHN: Let me just repeat exactly what came off the transcript of the npr radio show, and this is governor dean's remark, "the most interesting theory that i have heard so far, he responded, "is that he was warned ahead of time by the saudis."

JOE TRIPPI: And then can you keep reading, please?

PAULA ZAHN: Well, could go on for the next five minutes from the interview. And you're saying he didn't say that, I got it right here.

JOE TRIPPI: No, no, no, I said if you keep reading, he'll say he didn't believe that.

PAULA ZAHN: There is a point at which, but you were denying what he suggested.

JOE TRIPPI: You're forgetting that part, paula.

PAULA ZAHN: I'm not forgetting it. I just wanted to clarify that he had, in fact, repeated something and he did say later on...

JOE TRIPPI: Keep reading the interview, and we'll get to the part where he says he did not believe it.

PAULA ZAHN: No, I am not denying that, but i wanted to challenge your point...

JOE TRIPPI: That's not how you started the interview.

PAULA ZAHN: I think our audience has a pretty good sense now of what was said and what wasn't said. Joe trippi, thank you for your time.


Classic.

:: Joe 11:19 AM [+] ::
...

::Stale and Intellectually Bankrupt::

(part 3 of the 3-part epic poem entitled: These Candidates Suck)

The Dean campaign has caused quite a stir. The Dean Revolution they call it. It's caused all sorts excitement and consternation among Democrats, Republicans, the pundits, and just about anybody who's following the election at this point. Everybody is buzzing about Howard Dean. So what is it that makes him so different? Is it his background, his experience? Not really. He's got some nice credentials, but they're not measurably better than the impressive credentials of his competitors. Is it his policy? Doesn't look like it. His policies are nearly indistinguishable from any of the other Democrats. So what could be causing all the stir? He's angry. That's right, he's downright indignant about what the Bush administration is doing and he's shown it on the campaign trail. Even more disturbing, by all accounts this outburst of emotion seems to actually be genuine. Sometimes he even speaks without running his words past an army of consultants. It's revolutionary. Unheard of.

Does that say anything to anyone else? Should it tell us something that a simple display of emotion summons up recollections of candidates long past? McGovern. Goldwater. Does it mean something that simply seeing a candidate with fire in his belly sets the political world abuzz? It means something to me. It means our democratic process has gone past its freshness date. It's gone past rotten and is starting to ferment. I can smell the stink from here.

What happened to vision? What happened to inspiration? Creativity? More importantly, what happened to honesty? Sincerity? I'm not trying to knock Howard Dean. He stands a level above all his competitors on all of this. But it still leaves him standing 10 feet above rock bottom. How can we have 9 candidates and they all want to do the same damned thing? They want to internationalize the occupation of Iraq. They want to rescind Bush's tax cuts. They want to institute health coverage for the uninsured. They want protectionism and corporate welfare. They want to distort, invent, and massage economic numbers to show how a few minor economic initiatives will put us at record growth rates. They want to contort themselves into funny shapes to impress southerners and other key constituencies. They want to put on a happy face and lie to Americans about the severity of problems facing us.

Can we have someone who will speak to us honestly? Can we have someone with the guts to treat complex issues with complex analysis? Can we have someone with the courage to not remold their identity 50 times in the course of a campaign? Can we have someone who can say something obviously right, like that we need to take an even hand with the Israelis and Palestinians, and not be run off their position by the media heat? Can we have someone willing to acknowledge issues where we're in a bad spot and come up with bold policies to address the problem? Can we have a candidate who will admit to the limits of presidential power, and that there are some issues, the economy being a key example, where the president exerts a limited amount of influence? Can we have someone whose issue research and policy projection numbers come from non-partisan and academic sources?

The convential wisdom says no. The party establishments say no. The pundits say no. But they also get really excited about someone so revolutionary as to actually show a bit of emotion. Could it be that they're all wrong? Not just a little mistaken, but hugely, extraordinarily wrong. If Howard Dean's little sliver of radicalism can rally massive popular support and put his face on the front page of every newspaper and magazine, could a candidate who is honest, bold, and visionary light the political world on fire?

I'm not looking for extremists. Boldness doesn't have to mean socialism or libertarianism or any of the other movements that sit at the fringes of the political spectrum. A moderate who dealt with issues in a fully honest and intellectually robust manner would be a revolutionary.

This is a pipe dream in many ways. As much as some may deny its existence and as much as Howard Dean has tried with some degree of success to circumvent it, there is a political establishment, and it carries tremendous power. There is a group of people, from congressional leaders to pundits to national party committees to editorial boards to lobby groups and major political contributors where the ideas that are driving our election process are deeply entrenched. It's not a shadowy conspiracy, but then I don't believe the neo-con movement is either, and the effectiveness of their exercise of power is readily apparent. It, like the neocons, is simply a confluence of like-minded individuals in positions of power. They are gate-keepers. They hold the power to elevate a candidate into the national spotlight or to dash them into obscurity before a single vote is cast. They have certain ideas of what constitues electability, and the definition is awfully narrow. And those who don't meet the requirements are not worth their time. Howard Dean bucked their expectations, if ever so slightly, and only on the back of brilliant campaign driven mostly by the desperation of a small group of voters to find a decent candidate has he managed to fight his way through the gates.

Even if a candidate could survive that challenge there are still the American people to worry about. It seems clear they yearn for an honest, sincere, and frank politician. Popular culture is rife with depictions of such characters. But they also seem remarkably averse to accepting painful truths and equally averse to intellectual engagement. There was a time before movies and TV when towns would turn out to hear itinerant lecturers and hefty political treatises were published in newspapers across the nation. This tradition is no more. Could frank talk about reality compete with the myths and wishful thinking that our conventional politicians are pushing? Would the relief of having an honest to god effective solution to the social security crisis be able to overcome the necessarily painful costs of implementing it? I can't say, but I'm not optimistic.

I see this as our real challenge. How do we create an environment where candidacies like these can survive and flourish? This may also seem a pipe dream. But it is a problem that is growing ever more critical and the time for solutions is now. We can't allow ourselves to see it as wishful thinking. We need to see it as a solvable problem and start plugging away at solutions. The Dean candidacy is a baby-step in the right direction. We should support that, but there needs to be more. This problem is tougher to crack than any of the others we've encountered in our discussions and lays at the root of many of them. It's the problem that led Henry to conclude that the only solution is to remap the educational system to produce an electorate that not only accepts such candidates, but demands them. That's a legitimate response and may be the right one, but it's an experiment and one that will take a great deal of luck, perseverance, hard work, and time to make reality. Meanwhile we need to keep after it. I don't know the answer, but it's a priority and I'm going to work on it.

:: Joe 1:24 AM [+] ::
...

::Get Your MoveOn Votes In::

I think today is the last day for voting in MoveOn's competition for the Funniest Ad, Best Youth Ad, and Best Animation. There are some very entertaining nominations. In case you missed it MoveOn's contest has gotten a boatload of national attention due to the presence of a couple of submitted ads that compared Bush to Hitler. The Republican propaganda machine caught wind and started . cranking . out . more . attacks . than . you . can . shake . a stick . at. My favorite is this column which attempts to shame MoveOn for their support of Bill Clinton's obstruction of justice and perjury. It's written by Oliver North. That's rich. Certainly not all of . the press . has been bad. And arguably this is one of those cases where no press is bad press. In the past week MoveOn has established pretty significant national recognition, and when their national ad runs come State of the Union time, there will be a lot of people looking for it.

:: Joe 10:17 AM [+] ::
...

::Re: the great rant (here's one of my own)::

I think that Joe gets to the real problem in the last paragraph of part 3. I maintain that the American people are the problem, plain and simple. We are a nation of lazy, overweight, spoiled, barely literate, jingoistic, obnoxious jerks with microscopic attention spans. We expect every problem to have a solution that requires minimal effort and sacrifice on our part. Lazy? Buy an SUV. Overweight? Take diet pills. Unsuccessful? Blame _______ [pick your favorite: the government, the Republicans, the Democrats, whites, blacks, Jews, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Europeans, the Mexicans, your parents, your children, Navin R. Johnson--random bastard, etc.] We have so many sources for virtual and alternate reality now that we have lost our ability to face up to the real one. We truly want to have our cake, eat it, and then not have it go to our asses.

It should therefore come as no surprise that the most popular and electorally successful ideas are those that can be expressed in bulletpoints--preferably involving only one or two syllable words--and involve people GETTING more and GIVING less. Never mind details such as the long term success of the economy and the nation as a whole. Fuck tradeoffs. Fuck difficult choices involving benefits and drawbacks each way. We don't do drawbacks. We're Americans!

How did we get this way? I don't know. Each of us could easily write a book on the deterioration of the American community and corresponding decline of culture--the rise of consumerism and the decline of anything involving strenuous effort, including intellectual pursuits. How do we change this? I think educational revamping is helpful, but we are talking about a fundamental change in Americans' values. I think using religion as a vehicle to combat sloth and materialism would be enormously helpful, if it can be done. Otherwise, we simply need to convert people little by little.

What does this all have to do with our political leaders, specifically the Democratic presidential candidates? Not a whole hell of a lot. Which is the point. I fully support all efforts to inject honesty, both general and intellectual, into our political discourse. I realize, however, that when you have to convince a nation of underinformed spoiled brats with short memories to vote for you, honesty is usually not the best policy. I can hardly blame politicians for giving the public what they want to hear--especially when it's a dead cert that if they don't their opponent sure as hell will. It would be nice if both candidates in an election would just agree to be honest about the problems that face us and their solutions, along with the accompanying benefits and drawbacks. The incentive is always there, though, to cheat and bury the other guy.

I agree with Joe that it is imperative that we change the electorate. Until we do, however, I just can't get upset about candidates who pander and take shortsighted positions to get elected.




:: David 2:04 PM [+] ::
...

::A Wizard Should Know Better::

Dave, you make a very compelling argument, and I agree that much of the responsibility here has to fall on the electorate. However, I am unable to dismiss out of hand the responsibilities of people in positions of power, from the candidates themselves to the pundits and campaign strategists to the party committees and editorial boards to reporters and many others. While each one of these has a duty to compete for public favor, and as such to play to their audience, they also have the power to shape public perception and to influence to the way the public considers the ideas and issues raised in the political sphere. I think there is a great danger in allowing their responsibilities to be shaped in a purely competitive, sort of cut-throat Darwinian sense where their only directive is to beat the other guy. I think these people all carry a responsibility of public service that they should hold in equally high esteem. And they should know better.

This touches back to a number of our previous discussions. In part it comes back to my feeling, discussed in many contexts, that successful democracies require substantial cultural buy-in. You could write the best democratic governmental system with the most amazing constitution ever, and if you dropped it in on China or any number of other countries, I can pretty much guarantee you it would fail. People have no faith in public institutions and the public and political figures alike, up and down the power structure, expect corruption to be the name of the game. It's not even regarded as we regard corruption here. It's just business as usual. No democracy can survive that cultural background. Our own democracy teetered on the brink for its first couple decades and succeeded only when a number of great men established the strong democratic traditions and culture that made it work. Where would we have been without the likes of George Washington or John Marshall? It is often said that Washington could have kept his post permanently if he had chosen and could have effectively ruled as king. This is not an uncommon situation in new democracies and has been the demise of more than a few. Georgia (the ex-Soviet republic) recently only barely escaped that fate, and only because the democratic culture had strongly taken hold with both the populace and the military leadership. I feel that it is not absurd to attach responsibilities and expectations to participants in the system that are not (and often cannot be) specifically required of them by the laws of the land (which these participants often have the power to mold and reshape), and that may at times conflict with their desire to win at any cost. Rather this is a necessity. The right culture is a necessity.

Additionally it touches on our discussions regarding intellectualism and behavioral flaws and such. We've frequently questioned how realistic it is to expect the public to move en masse towards intellectualism, and how susceptible the public is, of no fault of their own, to behavioral flaws and behavioral manipulation. As much as I agree that the public is functioning at a level far beneath its potential, there are legitimate questions as to what level of expertise and insight we can really expect, even under good circumstances. The press and politicos are, as a group, better educated than the general public, and through their specific job functions far better informed on the relevant topics than the general public. This knowledge combined with the fact that their job puts them in the position of speaking to the public on these issues means they, more than anyone, have the opportunity, and I believe the duty, to steer the public right on these topics. If the public is to gain a better understanding of these topics, where else would it come from but the press and the politicians themselves? As Treebeard says, "a wizard should know better."

This last point also leads me back to our discussion of revolutionary thresholds and the tie-in to George Orwell's 1984, where he had a very similar point to make. In 1984 the government had gone to great efforts to construct a perfect system for stifling dissent among educated and relatively upper class citizens, but completely and utterly ignored "the plebes". This general public, in the eyes of the government, was completely harmless, as they are essentially a reflection of what they are fed. Pacify the movers and shakers and you have pacified the plebes. This, I think, is a danger of the movers losing sight of their public service duties and simply playing to the crowd. It becomes a feedback loop on a downward spiral. It doesn't seem that they ask for much, so you don't give them much, they reflect this and ask for even less, you oblige, etc, etc.

What I'm getting at is that a) it is ok (even necessary) to demand certain sorts of behavior out of people critically involved in the political process, b) the fact that they are simply giving the audience what it wants is not a valid excuse, c) it seems reasonable that one of the behaviors that it makes sense to expect is that these people involved in the political process should have a duty to help illuminate the truth of our political issues, instead of obscuring them for personal gain. They have a duty to inform rather than pander. For better or worse, most of what the public knows about political issues come from the way they are dealt with by politicians and the way this is covered by the press. If we are disgusted about what people know about political issues, we need to also be disgusted about the way politicians and the press handle them.

I understand the the point that it's the job of the media to appeal to the audience, because if they don't they'll be put out of business by a competitor that does. And likewise I can see the perspective that if a politician doesn't play to the crowd they'll be beat by the one who does. And this touches back to yet another discussion I recall from one Boys' Weekend or another regarding that fact that in certain respects capitalism and democracy are in conflict with one another. They have competing value systems, the one promoting this Darwinian win at all costs or die approach, the other driven by principles of equality and inclusion and the sense that each person should share equally in decisions. I think what leads to your sentiment that politicians and the press can't be blamed for playing down to the stupid public is an application of the capitalist value system onto the democratic political model. And I just don't think that's a sustainable paradigm. We need to recapture our sense of democratic values, our sense of civic duty, our "ask not what your country can do for you..." And where I see this need most pressing is with the politicians and the press, the people who should know better.

Now, I need to note here that I am on the record as being very much opposed to people trying to solve systemic problems with calls to personal responsibility. It just doesn't work. You can't solve the welfare problem by telling people to get off their ass and get a job. I realize I am dangerously close to this with my position here. However, I really do believe that culture plays a critical role here, and I'm not sure how else you can approach this. Really if the right culture is in place you shouldn't have to be placing these movers in a position where their public service and competitive objectives are in conflict. These people should be policing each other. When some member of the press or politics sells out on their public service duties the others should call them out and ride them down. We've gotten so far from this model that there does exist this conflict though, and it's hard to tell where to go from that. However, I think the least we can do is for those of us who are cognizant of this problem to try to penalize the bad actors and reward the good ones as best we can. We should not excuse people just because they are playing the game. If their peers won't call them out, at least we can.

:: Joe 11:26 PM [+] ::
...

::Watching Sausage-Making::

I just wanted to link this as it came up in a recent discussion with Barry. This is the personal web site of political consultant William Klein, with a listing (and links) to much of his published work. Most of his writing has been for the Christian Science Monitor, but he has also written for a number of other publications, including the Washington Post and alternet.org. He draws a good (and entertainingly satirical) picture of the scummy environment of scam artists that politicians have to exist within. It's easy to see how people in Washington have a difficult time maintaining a grip on their idealism and their connection with reality.. As Klein points out, it all comes down to money. Klein likes to quip "Washington is full of people who came to do good and stayed to do well."

:: Joe 11:47 AM [+] ::
...

::The Dean Revolution::

Opensecrets, the world's most awesome campaign finance resource, has released some interesting data on the 2004 Presidential Election. The Dean revolution indeed. Percentage of funding received from $2000 donors: Kerry 55%, Edwards 65%, Clark 31%, Lieberman 52%, Gephardt 55%. Dean? 13%. Wow. Percentage of funding from donors of $200 or less: Kerry 12%, Edwards 3%, Clark 35%, Lieberman 9%, Gephardt 12%. Dean? 56%. Wow! Now that's campaign reform! Nice to see Clark comes in a clear number two in these rankings. I think a Dean/Clark ticket would be just about unstoppable (more on this later if I have time). I'm off to Iowa tonight (Ryan and Ceci and Mama B. will be there too), wish us luck!

:: Joe 12:45 PM [+] ::
...

::Scrutinizing the Sausage Factory::

This week's NOW with Bill Moyers had an interesting article about a website called Factcheck.org, run by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center to monitor the accuracy of statements made by politicians.

:: Barry 3:20 PM [+] ::
...

::The Storm::

So we're back from two days of wandering around Dubuque wearing silly orange Perfect Storm hats and knocking on doors to spread the Dean religion. We had a good time, froze our asses off, ran into Brian Driscoll (also campaigning for Dean) and got to see Senator Harkin this morning at the Dubuque Dean headquarters (Ryan and I shook his hand, woot). The folks we canvassed were a tough crowd, and Iowa clearly is going to be a hard battle for Dean at this point, but there were some good signs and reasons for hope. Anyhow, imagine my surprise on getting home and checking the news that in among all of the editorials and features about the candidates, the Washington Post is running a lone postcard from the field article about Harkin's stop at the Dean HQ in Dubuque.

:: Joe 11:53 PM [+] ::
...

::Short review of the Bush State of the Union::

God Bless America.

Number of times "terror" or "terrorist" mentioned in the speech: 20.

Some notable quotes:
Different threats require different strategies. Along with nations in the region, we are insisting that North Korea eliminate its nuclear program.

We are seeking all the facts. Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.

Congress has some unfinished business on the issue of taxes. The tax reductions you passed are set to expire. Unless you act, the unfair tax on marriage will go back up. Unless you act, millions of families will be charged $300 more in federal taxes for every child. Unless you act, small businesses will pay higher taxes. Unless you act, the death tax will eventually come back to life. Unless you act, Americans face a tax increase. What the Congress has given, the Congress should not take away: For the sake of job growth, the tax cuts you passed should be permanent.

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

The outcome of this debate is important, and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.


:: Barry 9:07 PM [+] ::
...

::Mr. Bush and Mr. Dean::

Some thoughts on the State of the Union speech. First, Bush has great speech writers. He always has. Their use of language to reframe and favorably slant issues is second to none. Credit must be given. Obviously the main point of interest in the speech has to be the statement regarding the Kay Report and the continuing programs of mass destruction. This hardly lives up to the billing he gave the WMD threat a year ago, nor does it answer the charges of deception, but it did adequately wallpaper over the problem enough to make it look like the issue is still in contention, and the war still justified. I still see most of the public ambivalent on this issue (most of the anti-war Democrats in Iowa caucused for pro-war candidates), and I think Bush only needs to provide a minimally credible defense on this to keep them that way. Bush did a nice dance on the marriage issue, stressing how important it is to defend marriage, never mentioning what it was marriage had to be defended against. I was rather entertained by his deficit reduction plan, which just happened to be exactly the same plan as John Kerry (reduce it by half by 2008). This would rob the Democrats of one of their best cross-party campaign issues if Kerry or someone of his ilk gets nominated. Hands down my favorite part of the speech was where he spoke about how strongly he supported the Patriot Act, while the camera focused in on John Ashcroft. At least the Dems will still be able to nail him on that popular cross-party issue. The most curious part was his plan for a Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative. I'm holding out to hear the gotcha in this plan, but as he described it, it sounded like a very good thing (and long overdue at that). If there is no gotcha, I'd have to say it is the best proposal put forth by his administration to date.

So moving on, I've had a little while to digest the events in Iowa. To begin with, Dean blew it, big-time. There were many factors involved, I'll just highlight what I think was the biggest. Dean's competitors did a great job of feeding dirt to the media. Much of it was petty and ultimately meaningless, but there are few things that the press likes better than dirt on a leading candidate. If you can get enough dirt circulating (and did they ever) the perception matters more than content. This, of course, should not have been unexpected. The trouble came when the Dean campaign was left without an answer. They could have come out strong to counter the negative issues, or they could have ignored them and hammered away at their core messages. They did neither. Dean allowed himself to be distracted by the negative press, but never effectively addressed it. And he got creamed. His ridiculous speech the evening after hardly helped matters.

But after a day to reflect, I'm not as forlorn about the situation as I was initially. Dean's money and his big organizational jump on the other candidates in the later voting states leave him in a position that is still strong if he doesn't allow all of his momentum to collapse right away. It will essentially come down to New Hampshire for Dean. If he can finish in the top two, it will erase Iowa, and he'll be back in the game. A finish similar to Iowa and he can write his withdrawal speech. He's got a number of positives going into New Hampshire. First, somebody hit his campaign with a cluestick (I guess if yesterday didn't spark some introspection, nothing would have). The speeches he gave today were rock solid, and the new ad they're running is a huge improvement over what we saw on the air in Iowa. Next, he's closer to home and in a friendlier demographic. Even while he focused attention on Iowa and Clark zeroed in on him in NH, and NH saw all the same negative news as Iowa, his decline in NH was much slower than in Iowa. According to their new polls, the immediate hit he took from the caucus is less pronounced than I would have expected, although Kerry did take the top spot (it looks like Clark absorbed as much of the Kerry surge as Dean did). If Dean survives New Hampshire without being embarassed, I like his chances in the next couple rounds of primaries.

:: Joe 1:04 AM [+] ::
...

::Re: Bush and Dean::

I largely agree with Joe that Dean needs some sort of bounce-back in New Hampshire. I actually think that with his money and organization, he might be able to survive another 3d place finish--barely--but he would need to win somewhere on March 3. Obviously, that's not much of a scenario since he's better situated to win New Hampshire than any of the seven Feb. 3 states (S.C., Okla., Az., N.M., Del., Mo., and N.D.). Other than Gephardt, the big loser in Iowa was actually Joe Lieberman. The resurrection of Kerry and Edwards freezes him out. Not a bad thing when the night produces a huge surprise showing for my guy (Edwards), finishes my second-least favorite alternative (Gephardt) and puts my least favorite on the ropes (Lieberman). Obviously the damage to Dean will be clearer next Tuesday. I entirely agree that his post-speech may have hurt him as much as the results. I thought he was going for the Jesse Ventura-WWF vote. One note: the polling effects of an event often take a few days to show up, so we should know the true damage by Thursday or so. I agree that Clark also was hurt by the Iowa results. They generated a lot of positive energy for Kerry and Edwards and erased the air of inevitability around Dean. Clark had run his campaign anticipating that Dean and Gephardt would come out of Iowa 1-2 and that he, Clark, would be the guy who stop the frontrunner. Now he's just one of four possibilities.

As for the State of the Union address, I thought it was simply a recitation of Bush's policy positions designed to appeal to the base. There were no surprises, and, as such, it likely will be overshadowed by the campaign rather than vice versa. I tend to agree that he has muddied the waters on the Iraq intelligence enough to keep his supporters from discovering their consciences without lying outright. I frankly was surprised he addressed it at all. I also agree that the prison reentry idea was a really food one. I suspect that it's this year's version of the AIDS research aid to Africa which we hear in the SoU and never again. Either that or it will be coupled with privatized prisons or drilling in ANWR or something.

:: David 9:28 AM [+] ::
...

::We Don't Need Your Stinking Permission Slip::

...but if you don't mind, could you cut us a fat check?

:: Joe 12:51 PM [+] ::
...

::Worth Fighting For::

Today Gov. Dean released his campaign reform policies. They are very aggressive (and progressive) and address an issue that none of the other candidates have really addressed (at least as far as their online policy positions go). Democratic reform is near and dear to my heart and these proposals would mark a major improvement. I once again feel obligated to post opensecrets.org's data on donor demographics in the presidential race. The numbers are stark, and say a lot. I caught a bit of an Edwards speech on cspan tonight, with him railing against special interest big money corrupting politics. Yet here's a guy who has collected only 3% of his funds from small donors. He's only got a little more than half as much money as Howard Dean, but has already accepted almost 3 times as many large contributions as Dean has. He's one to talk about big money and politics.

:: Joe 8:58 PM [+] ::
...

::Let's not pull a Bush here...::

Speaking as a big Edwards fan and one of the "large donors"--we've given a whopping $250 or $300 to date--I think you're being a wee bit disingenuous here. First of all, the small donations always flow to the most popular guy. For both this election cycle and 2000, the guy receiving the most small donations is...George W. Bush. Does this mean he's the candidate of the little guy? What has happened with Dean is that he was able first to tap into the same donor base as MoveOn, and then reap the frontrunner's benefits. Hell, I've sent him about $100 just because I figured he was going to be the nominee. I don't think that I'm going too far out on a limb when I say that had Edwards been described as the "front-runner" and even "likely nominee" for six months, his numbers would be a little bit different.

Second, there's a not so small difference between individual $2000 donors and "special interests." In fact, Edwards has made a big push for reform, both in his speeches and positions. Obviously, Edwards's proposals attack a different stage of the process--but I think their breadth and innovation demonstrates a commitment to reform, as Dean's clearly do. The only special interest which has supported Edwards--and is, I'll admit, responsible for a large number of his big donations--is the trial lawyers. Frankly, I see that as a plus rather than a minus as I personally agree with their issues. In any event, I have confidence in both candidates that they will go after the polluters and the fraudsters; big beef, big oil, and the proteges of Enron. Edwards' corporate reform proposals can be found here. This is not to say that Dean won't also take on these interests. I just have a sneaking suspicion that his bombastic approach might be a tad less successful. Not to mention the fact that I would much rather have a lawyer than a doctor dealing with the health care mess. But I digress.

Third, I note that the donor demographics data provided only has two categories--under $200 and $2000. As noted above, I'm apparently not a small donor. Does this mean that I represent a special interest? If I was more well off than I am, I would have given $2000. What then? I might as well go bribe my congressman, cut down a national forest and erupt a towering geyser of pig shit outside my feed lot.

:: David 10:17 AM [+] ::
...

::Money Talks::

First, to answer your question. You are a lawyer, you support the candidate favored by your industry, you earn approximately 5 times the median US income. Are your interests the same as the average American? Will issues that directly impact lower and middle income familes resonate as strongly with you as with them? You can answer that. On an individual basis that answer may be yes. From an aggregate perspective, probably not. And even you, who earn more than 95% of US households, state that you would give more than the $300-400 you've given now if you can afford it. Who do you think can afford to be giving $2000? If $300 contributors arguably have a different perspective and priorities compared to the general population, how much more true will that be of people who can afford to give $2000?

The frontrunner argument lacks traction in view of the percentages. George W. Bush may have more small contributions than anyone, but his ratio of cash raised from big money contributors to small donors shows who he depends on for his money. That ratio is heavily tilted in favor of big spenders. Edwards's ratio is worse.

I don't think anyone on either side of the spectrum will argue that big money is having a corrupting influence on our political system. Even the Supreme Court acknowledged in their campaign finance decision. This is the form that corruption takes. We don't have a problem with money under the table, with out and out bribes. The problem is that candidates know where their money comes from and they make sure that it will still be there when they come back for more. From the donors' perspective, they simply select candidates who they think will advance their interests and use their money to put them in office. Thousand dollar donors (which used to be the top limit) put over $300 million into the 2000 election. That's a lot of raw political power. With the McCain-Feingold bill that could double this year. Enron employees alone, in the decade from 1990-2000, kicked $6 million in to politicians, according to US PIRG. Just because they are individual contributions does not mean they don't represent special interests. This disporportionate exercise of power undermines the one person-one vote democratic principle.

Edwards talk a good game, as I mentioned from my viewing of his speech. But then both parties do. Just about every candidate of any party at any level that runs for office rails against the influence of special interests and big money. But little has been accomplished. Why? Because they live and die by that money. Being whores to big campaign contributions is a bi-partisan proposition. Both parties let Microsoft off the hook in their anti-trust case, both parties passed the ineffective and pork-laden energy bill, both parties passed Bush's tax cut for wealthy campaign contributors, both parties passed the DMCA and the copyright extensions, both parties allowed the SEC to rot and wither, and when Enron blew up, Democrats couldn't attack Republicans for it despite the clear ties, because they were too far in bed with Wall Street and the accounting firms who were also involved. They can talk all the bullshit they want about special interests and big money. But the evidence shows that when it comes down to it, money talks, bullshit walks.

I've read Edwards's policies and they amount to slapping a few restrictions on registered lobbyists. This isn't the problem. The money, and the dependency of politicians on that money is the problem. As far as I can tell, Edwards would do nothing about this. He likes to make a big deal about being the only candidate not to take money from PAC's, as if that were also the problem. It's not. The total funding Dean, Kerry, and Clark together have gotten from PAC's is less than $100,000. It's small potatoes compared to the $8+ million Edwards has gotten from $2000 contributors. That's 65% of his funding. Without them, he's not even in this race. I can guarantee you he knows that. I don't find him credible on this issue, nor do I believe his reforms would have any significant impact.

Take away all of Howard Dean's $2000 contributions and he's still got more money than any of the other Democrats. That gives him a sort of independence that the other candidates don't have. His reform proposals strike directly at the heart of the problem and move the US much closer to a publicly funded campaign model. I find him to be personally more credible and policiy-wise more effective than Edwards.

:: Joe 1:58 PM [+] ::
...

::A (not so) brief reply::

Obviously I am not going to change your allegiance to my candidate. Nor are you going to change mine. I will pledge that if Dean is the nominee, I will support him 110%--financially and otherwise. I would hope that you would follow the pledge of your candidate should someone else be nominated--as looks increasingly likely.

My responses, in order:

1. Are your interests the same as the average American? Will issues that directly impact lower and middle income familes resonate as strongly with you as with them? Who do you think can afford to be giving $2000? If $300 contributors arguably have a different perspective and priorities compared to the general population, how much more true will that be of people who can afford to give $2000?

This seems like a simplistic view that all people with a certain income level have the same beliefs. You are undoubtedly right that fewer rich people are interested in redistribution of wealth than poor people. However, there is an entire political party devoted to the ossification of wealth. Thus, it is no surprise that there are more wealthy and corporate donors to the Republicans. The ones that through conscience choose to be Democrats should not have to apologize for their wealth--nor should they be accused of having "different perspective and priorities." The important thing is not the average view of people who can afford to give $2000, but the people who actually do. I fail to see how these individuals need to be any different than the people who give $50 to the same candidate.

2. You are a lawyer, you support the candidate favored by your industry

Actually, Edwards's support is derived from the plaintiffs' bar, of which he was a part. This is significant because the interests of the plaintiffs' bar are widely different from those of the corporate defense bar. The plaintiffs' bar is in the business of helping the little guy vindicate his rights against the big and powerful. They oppose restrictions on the access of individual plaintiffs to the courts and on their potential awards. In so doing, they help create incentives for corporations to follow the law and take precautions--succeeding in many cases where the inept regulatory system fails. You tell me how this special interest does not benefit the little guy.

3. The frontrunner argument lacks traction in view of the percentages. George W. Bush may have more small contributions than anyone, but his ratio of cash raised from big money contributors to small donors shows who he depends on for his money. That ratio is heavily tilted in favor of big spenders.

Frankly, I am surprised that Dean has not received more large donations. I suspect that it may have something to do with the risky nature of his candidacy--the main quality his supporters like--and the emphasis on internet fundraising. I certainly am not aware of Dean returning $2000 checks as a matter of principle. My point is more that had Edwards been the frontrunner with his upbeat populist message for six months, his small contributions would be much higher, which would have, in turn, adjusted his ratio.

4. Edwards talk a good game, as I mentioned from my viewing of his speech. But then both parties do. Just about every candidate of any party at any level that runs for office rails against the influence of special interests and big money. But little has been accomplished. Why?

Because the Supreme Court has decreed that money is speech. The organizational interests are going to make their presence felt no matter what. Especially since people still vote for the campaigns money can buy. Short of abandoning capitalism, therefore, the best thing to do is push for full disclosure at all stages of the process. This is how I read Edwards's proposals. I also hypothesize that they have a better chance of being enacted. At any rate, I think he deserves some credit rather than hypocrisy charges for having proposals like these.

5. Both parties let Microsoft off the hook in their anti-trust case, both parties passed the ineffective and pork-laden energy bill, both parties passed Bush's tax cut for wealthy campaign contributors, both parties passed the DMCA and the copyright extensions, both parties allowed the SEC to rot and wither, and when Enron blew up, Democrats couldn't attack Republicans for it despite the clear ties, because they were too far in bed with Wall Street and the accounting firms who were also involved.

I love how the opposition always gets lumped in with the majority. This, to me, is kind of like saying Rehnquist is responsible for Roe v. Wade because he didn't stop it. The SEC, as I understand it isn't even in the legislative purview. Whole lot of Democrats in the Bush administration. I guess it's all Norm Mineta's fault. I also seem to recall a large number of Democrats attacking Republicans for Enron, and even campaigning on it. Edwards himself uses it in his stump speech.

6. Take away all of Howard Dean's $2000 contributions and he's still got more money than any of the other Democrats. That gives him a sort of independence that the other candidates don't have.

Just because he receives donations in different amounts? I agree that the way Dean has conducted himself to this point has shown a willingness to say "fuck you" to pretty much anybody. I guess that that's independence--or arrogance. I dispute that that fact can be gleaned by looking at donation amounts and nothing more.

7. His reform proposals strike directly at the heart of the problem and move the US much closer to a publicly funded campaign model.

Except that he's opting out of matching funds. Which is absolutely the right decision. But it also underscores the fundamental problem with public financing--the opt out option. I think he has some good proposals and hope he--or whomever--finds a way to make them work.

8. I find him to be personally more credible and policiy-wise more effective than Edwards.

This is the fundamental difference of opinion. I absolutely like and trust Edwards, and will be very disappointed if he turns out not to be for real. Dean I am certain will say and do exactly what he wants to at every moment. He's credible until he decides to change his mind. Given that he makes no pretense of hiding the fact that he doesn't give a rat's ass what anyone who isn't Howard Dean thinks about anything, I do question his ability to get things done. Fortunately, as with all the Democrats other than Lieberman, I agree with him 75%+ of the time.

:: David 3:08 PM [+] ::
...

::A Lesson In Logic::

This was written by someone (don't know his real name) on a forum I frequent. It's a far more concise review of the State of the Union speech than I had...

---

What a sad state we're in. Here's what I took from the Bush address:

* We can only achieve peace by pursuing unending war
* We can only save our freedom by giving up our liberties
* We can only fix our half a trillion dollar budget deficit by collecting less revenue and spending more money
* We can only grow our devastated economy by renewing our commitment to the principles that crashed it in the first place
* The three million jobs lost since 2000 pale in importance to the 1000 created last month
* We can only preserve the sanctity of marriage by amending the Constitution to deny rights to homosexuals
* We can only insure good medical care by limiting malpractice lawsuits
* We can only show our commitment to America's schoolchildren by denying schools funding while promoting sexual abstinence and mandatory drugs testing


War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.

---

:: Joe 4:34 PM [+] ::
...

::It begs the question::

Are our president learning? I think I may have the answer though. Buy the man a magazine.

:: David 5:56 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: Worth Fighting For (or Pulling a Bush or Money Talks)::

First, a housekeeping matter--let's try and keep a consistent headline to our discussions so that it is easier to respond.

I think some of the tension that is created among the candidates (or among the supporters of different candidates) arises because any person who hopes to mount a viable campaign must recognize that money is sadly necessary to run a successful campaign, and recent statistics suggest that money can often be the most controlling factor. So I don't fault anyone for taking contributions from any individual who offers them and for any lawful amount. While it might be a noble stand if a candidate were to refuse any amount more than what every American could afford to give, they would simply not last. Even the "$100 Revolution" is out of reach for many. As Edwards frequently stumps, there are millions of Americans in poverty--yet they deserve a voice in the campaign as much as everyone else. We must work to change our crappy system that equates money with (democratic) power and yet begrudgingly recognize that is the system within which we presently operate.

That being said, I think it's fair when evaluating candidates to factor in who their base of support is. Ideally, every candidate wants to represent the "common person," but the reality is that we are a diverse people and sometimes candidates are forced to pick sides. But on that score donations do not give the entire picture. Regional loyalty, historical affiliations, family ties are equally important when trying to decipher exactly who a candidate works for. It seems fair to predict that someone who has spent a great deal of their career as a plaintiffs' lawyer will approach issues differently than someone who was born into a wealthy New England family (or married into one).

The decision always comes down to affection and trust. I don't think that our electoral process gives me the kind of information I really desire to make that choice as effectively as I would like, but again we must take what we got for now. And at least the choice right now does not require that we choose the "least repulsive" candidate--not yet, anyway (November is still a long way off). Let's be glad that we have a few candidates who are raising some good issues and would likely make some good changes.

:: Barry 9:33 PM [+] ::
...

::Please With Sugar On Top::

I've already fired off a one-liner on this issue, and I'm not planning to go into any depth this time either. But what a difference there is between the reality of our desperate need for UN help in Iraq and the strident "we don't need a permission slip" rhetoric of Bush's State of the Union. It amazes me that Kofi Annan still has the patience to deal in good faith with this administration.

:: Joe 12:54 PM [+] ::
...

::Credibility Gap::

I'm not going to rehash the campaign funding issue. I said what I have to say and stand by those comments. I just wanted to point out an editorial the Washingon Post is running today questioning Edwards's credibility on campaign finance.

:: Joe 1:05 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: Credibility Gap::

This is troubling, no question about it. While Edwards has done everything required by law, the fact that he is the only one not taking the extra step of disclosing donors while at the same time making openness and disclosure a campaign theme is problematic. I will be e-mailing the campaign to ask if he's going to make the disclosures, and, if not, if there's a reason beyond "we don't have to." I suspect the list will confirm what we've all been assuming--that there are a lotta lawyers. If not, I'd like to know.

In an unrelated vein, I was bored so I took the govote.com candidate match quiz. There is one caveat: the issues are the same as in 2000, so no terrorism, Patriot Act, or Iraq. At any rate, it gave me Clark, fairly convincingly.

:: David 3:09 PM [+] ::
...