Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Giving credit where credit is due

While there seems to be a lot of rewriting of history going on these past couple of days, I must give credit where credit is due here to the Democrat party.

It is a wonderful thing that a black man can gain the nomination of a major American political party. The Democratic Party, which didn’t admit black delegates to one of its conventions until 1936 (the GOP did nearly a half-century earlier) has done a great and historic thing. It's another example of America's greatness many fail to appreciate: We are better at racial and ethnic reconciliation and assimilation than pretty much all of these countries that are supposed to be more enlightened than we are. I sincerely doubt the French, British, Germans et al. will be considering a candidate of African descent like this for quite a while.

And, if Obama is elected president, on this narrow but important criteria, it would be a wonderful thing for the country to elect a black man.

Now, I don’t think we should elect the guy, for all the obvious reasons and a few less-than-obvious ones. I don’t think you should vote for a man just because of the color of their skin (just as I don’t think you should vote against someone because of the color of their skin). And I don't think having our first African-American president be a failed president (which I think he would probably be) would be a wonderful thing for race relations either. I've long thought the first black president would be a Republican. I still think it would be better for the country if that were the case, and if Obama loses I'm sure the next African-American with a shot at the job will be a Republican.

But it’s worth taking a moment to say this is an exciting benchmark in racial progress. Congratulations to Barack Obama, the Democratic Party and the United States.

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Supporting the Mrs. Obama

What a great speech from Mrs. Obama last night at the convention. Given many of her previous statements and comments about the country that her husband hopes to lead, last night was very different and very interesting.

If I am not mistaken, she sounded an awful lot like a very strong and sound Republican. If that is the direction that they are headed, than all the best to them. I do not believe that that was what she was going for and I am a bit appalled by her re-branding as a middle of the road American to try and sell us a bill of goods, but it was a fine speech.

Have a read of the transcript and see the video:
http://www.eyesonobama.com/blog/content/id_28144/title_Michelle-Obamas-Convention-Speech-Transcript/

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

"Prosecuting Terrorists": In Defense of the Obama Doctrine

In early July, the terrorism issued reared its head as the country debated whether we should allow terrorists their "day in court" and access to the American justice system. As these enemy combatants are not US citizens, the McCain camp had much to say. From Senator Obama, we heard the following:
What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks - for example, the first
attack against the World Trade Center - we were able to arrest those
responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in US prisons, incapacitated.
And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a
situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on
trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all
around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries
that say, "Look, this is how the United
States treats Muslims."

While it is very debatable that we have indeed arrested even half of those terrorists (lead prosecutor on those cases Andrew McCarthy talks at great length as to how we failed in this case in a new book and on National Review (www.nationalreview.com) ) McCain would find issue with the portion of his speech where Obama talks about "prosecuting terrorists". McCain understands (in the Republican mind) the evil of terrorism at the gut level and wants to fight it with the military, using big guns and bombs. Democrats like Kerry and Obama are accused of a wimpy approach by Republicans and of preferring to send nerdy prosecutors to "serve our enemies with legal papers," as President Bush would like to say, rather than being "tough on terror".
McCain and his allies accuse the Obama camp of trying to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue rather than as a "clear and present danger" to the United States. They throw out the accusation of a "September 10th" mindset and accuse the law school educated Obama of favoring lawyers over the Marine Corps.
However, looking deeper at Obama's doctrine reveals some odd inconsistencies for McCain. First, Obama never said, or even implied, that legal prosecution should be the sole method of preventing terrorism. Second, terrorist often operate in our country, and in friendly countries, which makes military action against them tricky. But, when the terrorists are holed up in New York City as they were in 1993, simply arresting them seems more efficient than leveling their apartment or town-house with a drone-fired missile.
Third, when terrorists have been found outside the reach of law enforcement, Obama has explicitly proposed to strike them militarily. Last summer, he commented in the New York Times after a cancelled attack on Al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan that such a failure was "a terrible mistake," and promised, "that if we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." McCain criticized Obama for this, too, saying he "once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan."
Lastly, none other than Rudy Giuliani once prosecuted terrorists. In 1994, Giuliani said that the conviction of World Trade Center bombers "demonstrates that New Yorkers won't meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon - the law." This could be pre-September 11th jargon that would be different today, and, if he caught terrorists again, he would use tactical weapons against them. The problem here is that he continued to tout his prosecution of terrorists during his presidential campaign and was became the face-man and representative of being "tough on terror".
Despite Giuliani's tough talk on using the law and nerdy prosecutors, against the tough talk of his campaign, McCain often trouted out Giuliani to talk to reporters and support the campaign whenever talk of 9/11 came up. Oddly enough, Giuliani's own lasting legacy to the political culture may be taking a concept (9/11) that was freighted with the strongest emotional and patriotic overtones and relentlessly milking it. He did so because, as McCain himself pointed out during the primaries, he had no foreign policy experience and repeatedly demonstrated his ignorance of basic facts about his alleged area of competence. The same situation that led the Bush administration into action and that the administration continually brings up everytime support for anti-terror measures are questioned.
McCain has a very credible line of foreign policy attack against Obama: that Iraq is improving and could be imperiled by a pullout. It's as if, by invoking 9/11, he can summon the return of the mentality that prevailed in the years after the attack.
It seems that Obama has talked some good talk that has been supported by McCain and some of his supporters in the past. His pursuit of prosecution for terrorists within our borders and behind the borders of our allies sounds like good policy, and policy that the Republicans have used in the past. If McCain's hawkishness in the Middle East and Obama's hawkishness on actionable intelligence can be comingled, we might have something. Add to it Obama's insistence on prosecuting these disgusting people and getting them in prison and not in Guantanamo, we might be able to take away one of the terrorists selling points that we do not uphold the law and do not unfairly treat Muslims. Holding the higher ground, even against the scum of the earth, is not such a bad idea.

Colin Powell Endorsing Obama


According to this Fox News article Colin Powell will endorse Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention.

Colin Powell is a member of the Republican Party, and his endorsement of Obama could do good things in Obama's effort to woo disaffected Republicans and centrists. If Powell did officially endorse Obama, it would certainly boost Obama's foreign policy credentials. Certainly, by offering his endorsement to Obama, Powell would be securing a place in Barack Obama's Presidential Cabinet or Administration. Secretary of Defense? Secretary of State? or even VP?

I don't know if Powell would be interested in pursuing such a course, but he could secure any position in the Obama administration that he desires. A Republican, Colin Powell is well respected by members of both political parties, across every spectrum. He brings bona-fide military experience, while having a rich diplomatic resume as well. Having Powell on his side, Obama could potentially silence many of the nay-sayers about his lack of administrative experience. Indeed, Powell endorsing Obama would be a very interesting development.

Powell's office, of course, denies any reports that he will officially endorse any candidate.

Monday, August 4, 2008

Political Ads

Disclaimer: the purpose of this post is not to discuss the policies put forth in these ads; rather, it is to explore the delivery, format, and content of the ads.

There has been a lot of press covering the latest political ads from both the McCain and Obama campaigns. Visit the following links to view the Reuters reports (here and here).

Here is one of the latest ads from John McCain, entitled "The One".






Here is Obama's latest ad, entitled "Pocket".





Let's break down each ad as objectively as possible.



The McCain Ad: From the beginning of the ad, there is a very sarcastic tone. The commentator speaks in pseudo-scriptural language referring to Barack Obama as "The One" who will bless the world. It says that Obama has "anointed himself" to take on the burden of solving the world's problems. The ad continues by showing Barack Obama say some self-aggrandizing things, followed by a clip of Charlton Heston parting the Red Sea in the epic movie, "The Ten Commandments". The ad concludes by asking if Barack Obama is ready to lead. There are no policy statements in this ad whatsoever.



I have watched this ad several times; each time I view it, it strikes me how immature it is. There is no real substance to this ad. It seems that all it is aiming to do is to satirically show Obama as a Messiah-like figure. This ad does nothing to promote John McCain's campaign; instead, I feel it exposes the cynical nature of John McCain. Seriously, is the only thing that McCain can do is take jabs at Obama's wide ranging appeal? Seems immature and juvenile to me.



The Obama Ad: This ad begins by showing somebody filling up the gas tank in a car, and states that each time you fill up gas companies are making record profits. These gas companies have contributed two million dollars to John McCain's campaign. The ad continues by highlighting a difference between Obama and McCain. It states that McCain wants to give the gas companies further tax credits, while Obama seeks to tax their wind-fall profits. It then shows a picture of President Bush with John McCain by his side, saying that we cannot afford another president who is beholden to gas companies like these two. At the conclusion of the ad, it says that Obama will give a $1000 energy rebate to consumers, paid for by the wind-fall taxes received from the big gas companies.



I felt that this ad did a great job of highlighting a difference between the two candidates and then showing what Obama's plan to improve the situation is. I felt it was unfair to lump McCain's energy policy together with President Bush's. However, I felt this ad did a good job of stating a problem, a differing solution, and then putting forth Obama's solution.



To restate what I said at the beginning of this post, the object of this discussion is not whether the policies are good. Instead, it is to discuss the overall tone, content, and delivery of the ads. Obama's ad stayed above personal attacks (aside from the pairing of Bush and McCain... but that in and of itself is not necessarily an "attack", per se: they are both Republicans). From an objective point of view, I felt Obama came off looking better. He focused on his policies, rather than trying to mock McCain.

In this recent exchange of political ads, I felt Obama came off victor.

Paradoxically, McCain has improved in the polls. Apparently Americans like McCain's tactics.

Read this Telegraph article for further discussion on that topic.

Obama's Economists

This writing positives about Obama is really hard to do. I struggle finding good things to say about his positions, policies, and ideas. But I like the premise of our site here.

One of the most prominent people on his domestic team up until now has been Austan Goolsbe, a University of Chicago professor who many expect will to head President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors. He is currently the Robert P. Gwinn Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business (GSB) among many other distinguished positions and recognitions; many of them progressive and aligned with the Democratic party. Although a UofC professor, he was not a part of the Milton Friedman school of thought as he received his degrees from Yale and MIT (PhD).

Economics is the only academic discipline that in recent decades has moved in the direction that America and much of the world has moved, to the right. Goolsbee no doubt has some quirky ideas, after all he is a Democrat, about how government can creatively fiddle with the market's allocation of wealth and opportunity. But he seems to be the sort of person -- amiable, empirical and reasonable -- you would want at the elbow of a Democratic president, if such there must be.

Mr. Goolsbee has a record and history towards supporting globalised capitalism and no apparent desire for large scale redistribution. If you recall, he caused a bit of turmoil earlier in the year for telling the Canadians not to worry about Obama's anti-NAFTA language in the primaries and while campaigning. Although those were low level discussions and Goolsbee did not necessarily speak for the administration, his record in writ and in the classroom tend to support his free-trade tendencies. This is further supported by Obama's other economic director, Jason Furman, an economist in the Clinton administration and a top aide to John Kerry in 2004. Furman is a staunch free-trader who once praised WalMart and has even favoured lower corporate taxes.

Back to Goolsbee: he is a proponent of markets when it comes to income inequality as well. The stagnation of middle- and working-class incomes, and the anxiety that has generated, is, he says, a most pressing problem, but policymakers must be mindful about trying to address its root cause, which Goolsbee says is "radically increased returns to skill."

In 1980, people with college degrees made on average 30 percent more than those with only high school diplomas. That disparity has widened to 70 percent. In the same year, the average earnings of people with advanced degrees were 50 percent more than those with only high school diplomas; today, it is more than 100 percent.

The market is shouting "Stay in school!" and Goolsbee's conservative colleagues at Chicago say a high tax rate on high earners is "a tax on going to college." Conservatives say: Don't tax something unless you are willing to have less of it. But Goolsbee says: Conservatives often exaggerate the behavioral response to increased tax rates. The solution is to invest more in education, which will raise wages, reduce inequality and move toward equilibrium. The GI Bill was, he says, so prolific in stimulating investment in "human capital" -- particularly, college education -- that for a while the return on it went down relative to high school.

"Globalization" means free trade and various deregulations that supposedly put downward pressure on American wages because of imports from low-wage countries. Goolsbee, however, says globalization is responsible for "a small fraction" of today's income disparities. He says that "60 to 70 percent of the economy faces virtually no international competition." America's 18.5 million government employees have little to fear from free trade; so do auto mechanics, dentists and many others.

Goolsbee's rough estimate is that technology -- meaning all that the phrase "information economy" denotes -- accounts for more than 80 percent of the increase in earnings disparities, whereas trade accounts for much less than 20 percent. This is something congressional Democrats need to hear from a Democratic economist as they resist free trade agreements.

As regards China, Goolsbee -- who favors a tougher approach, especially through the World Trade Organization -- notes that all imports are only 16.7 percent of the U.S. economy and imports from China are a small portion of all imports. Those from China amount to 2.2 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. Mexico, he says, is genuinely stressed by China, whose exported products "overlap" with nearly two-thirds of Mexico's. China's exports overlap with 5 to 10 percent of America's economy. Rising imports from China predominantly replace those from other lower-skilled countries. Were China to be pressured into revaluing its currency in isolation, Goolsbee says, America would not start making the kind of toys it has been importing from China -- America would import toys from Vietnam.

Thus, if we have to have Obama in the White House, it is nice to know that at least a little bit of Chicago's business culture has rubbed off on one of his economic consultants.