Who is Playing the Race Card?
Friday, August 1, 2008
Obama and McCain are both charging eachother with playing the race card. The truth is that both of them are, but each is trying to bait the other to engage in a debate about race that proves advantageous to their respective campaigns. The stakes in this game are very high, and there is no telling how the game will turn out. That will depend to a large extent on how effective the campaigns are at spinning the media, which seems to take delight at being used so transparently. I guess stories about this issue generate ratings. But anyone who care about the nation should be very worried about this high stakes game of cat and mouse because it has the potential to divide Americans is some very ugly ways. Will Barak Obama turn out to be the Willie Horton of this election cycle? Will John McCain become the next Swift Boat victim?
Let’s also be clear that Obama has been very effective at using his African heritage as a positive throughout his political career. He has written two books detailing his inspirational life story. Although I have read neither book, the media has repeated so many annecdotes from them that they have become part of the culture. Taking pride in one’s heritage is admirable and thinking well of one’s self is healthy; I simply point out that Obama’s heritage has permeated his presidential campaign (mostly by Obama’s hand) to a degree that is unusual, as least in the recent past. John Edwards told that inspirational story about his daddy working in the mines so many times that it was nauseating, but then he’s not as good an orator as Obama. Thankfully, John Kerry spared us his inspirational life story for the most part, and limited our knowledge about him to his days in Vietnam.
The reason he has done this is because his lifestory is not only inspirational, it is also much of what he has implicitly argued is his main qualification for the presidency. He is a total newcomer to federal politics. He has no foreign policy experience and no experience in domestic politics at the federal level. He was elected to the U.S. Senate but he clearly saw it as a stepping stone to higher office all along; in fact, he has said that Washington is a place where “good ideas come to die.” He has disdain for the place as it is. His professional credentials for president, however, include his impressive educational credentials, his experience in state politics, and his oratorical gifts.
Obama Has No Foreign Policy
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Listening to Barak Obama, one is inescapably led to the conclusion that his major foreign policy goal is the fulfillment of his obsession to undo the foreign policies of George Bush. In addition, he does not seem to understand that foreign policy is more than diplomacy; it is an approach to engaging the world that has consequences for our domestic security and our economic prosperity. Foreign and domestic affairs are inseparable. This is the fruit of globalization.
This country cannot be prosperous if its leaders cannot assert policies that advance its interests. The US’s economic prosperity requires stable trading partners. Democracies create the conditions for the establishment of institutions that support free trade and freedom. Our moral values coincide with our business interests because democracy also provides the greatest level of freedom for individuals to accomplish their goals. We must support democracies worldwide.
In contrast, Barak Obama envisions the US as primarily the head policeman of a multinational peace force. This peace force will fight terror whenever it has “actionable intelligence”; it will try to chase the Taliban and Bin Laden out of Pakistan, and it will give people everywhere hope. In concrete terms, this means surrendering Iraq to Bin Laden, and moving on to Afganistan and Pakistan. (What he doesn’t provide is the date that he’ll abandon these countries.) It will rid the world of nuclear material somehow in four years. Most importantly, it will only order our military to attack terrorists who pose a direct threat to America.
A foreign policy is more than a promise to fight terrorists and safeguard WMD. It’s also more than abandoning a country that is trying to build a democracy because it’s politically advantageous to do so. It’s more than a laundry list of promises to give every child all over the world an education, a hot meal, and a future.
Deconstructing Barry
Friday, June 13, 2008
Now that Senator Clinton is out of the race, Republicans can focus their attention on deconstructing Senator Obama. At the moment, he’s overconfident. And this is a good thing. So was Senator Clinton. The longer he can be kept overconfident the better (and the throngs of “Yes” men and women who undoubtedly surround him now at all times should do the job well). He’s in the bubble.
The bubble is a place where only good news gets in, and all bad news is spun as good news. In the bubble weaknesses are spun as strengths. In the bubble one picks out the White House drapes and China. In the bubble one plans the first “100″ days.
In the bubble one thinks one can change one’s positions on the issues whenever it is convenient to do so, and imagine that no one is paying attention. To the party faithful it’s “Open negotiations with Iran”; to AIPAC it’s “I’ll do anything in my power to prevent them from getting nukes”; to the teachers it’s “no vouchers or merit pay”; to the free marketers it’s “well, maybe a little merit pay”; in San Francisco it’s “they cling to guns and religion”; in Pennsylvania it’s called “reaching out to the middle class.” B.S. everybody but do it with style, with “vigor.”
Meanwhile, reality goes on outside the bubble. By the time the bubble breaks, it’s too late. This was Senator Clinton’s problem. It’s now also Obama’s, because the “Best and the Brightest” on Clinton’s staff are now looking to work for him. This is also a good thing.
The outcome of this election may well depend on running mates. Should Obama choose Clinton he will undermine his campaign because he ran against everything she stood for during the primaries: her “insider” status; her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq; her partisanship. To chose Clinton is to reach for the illusion of unity.
Republicans Pray for Clinton Victory
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
In homes across America this evening, an unlikely figure is in the thoughts and prayers of Republicans: Senator Clinton. Republicans are praying for Sen. Clinton; they are beseeching the Lord to extend a mighty hand and smite her opponent Senator Obama.
“Oh Lord, protect thy servant Sen. Clinton and mayest thou deliver her from her foe Sen. Obama.”
Aside from Sen. Clinton winning the Democratic nomination, the only event that could energize the Republican base more is the sudden announcement that Bill Clinton is running for office again. Sen. Clinton is the dream opponent for Republicans: she actually runs against herself. The sound of her last name alone almost guarantees that every registered Republican will come out and vote against her. Whoever is left over will fall into one of three groups: those who love Sen. Clinton; those who wanted Sen. Obama and feel they were cheated; and those who are undecided. The last two groups are ripe for the pickings. Should Sen. McCain choose an African American as his running mate, those who felt that it was Sen. Obama’s time could vote Republican. Some undecided voters will be attracted to McCain once Sen. Clinton is exposed for the left-winger that she is. The Republicans will hang an enormous sign around her neck that says “LIBERAL.” After that, the only thing that could save her is a poor economy. Even if Iraq is in shambles, she voted for the war and can’t make that an issue. Obama is much more difficult in some ways to defeat. He is not as divisive as Sen. Clinton. And if he wins the nomination, he will go centrist big time. Sen. Clinton can’t pull this off, and even if she tried, it wouldn’t fly. She has too long a record to go centrist now. Obama, on the other hand, at least before Rev. Wright had his fifteen minutes, has the potential to peel off voters who dislike Sen. Clinton, President Bush, and by extension, McCain. It remains to be seen how much staying power Rev. Wright has in the minds of undecided votes come November.
Sen. Clinton must pray that the economy tanks and gas costs $5.00 a gallon.
Rewrite the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Why does the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty allow nations to possess and build nuclear facilities for peaceful purposes when having them gives a country the ability to develop nuclear weapons? It’s time to scrap the treaty and write another one. At the moment, this treaty is making it much harder to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. The treaty is defeating the very goal that it was enacted to accomplish.
The only reason I can think of for allowing a country to have a nuclear reactor is the profit than can be made by selling equipment and expertise to build the facility. There are a relatively small number of countries that have the capability to do this: the U.S. Russia, Pakistan, North Korea, China, India, and some of the EU nations.
Supreme Court Upholds Indiana Voter ID Law
Thursday, May 1, 2008
The latest decision by the Supreme Court to uphold Indiana’s voter ID law may help prevent some kinds of voter fraud. Are voters the main source of election fraud? According to the Court’s majority opinion “The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history.” Why have the law then?
- Question: How does requiring a voter to have an ID prevent fraud if the voting lists are fraudulent?
- Question: How does requiring a voter to have an ID prevent fraud if the ID is fake?
- Question: How does requiring a voter to have an ID prevent fraud if voting machines are faulty?
- Question: How does requiring a voter to have an ID prevent fraud if the vote-counters are dishonest?
By definition, Individuals acting alone to vote more than once are less capable of affecting elections than groups conspiring to stuff the ballot box, and the Indiana law does not protect the state’s elections from the dangers posed by groups and voter rolls that include the names of the dead and other non-taxpayers.
At least we can thank the Supreme Court for taking legal objections to requiring IDs to vote off the table as a potential source of legal challenges that could throw the upcoming presidential election into court. In this sense, upholding Indiana’s law may make a lot of sense.
Good for him!
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Whether Barak Obama wins or loses the Democratic nomination, he made a good start in becoming his own man.
Great ambition can precipitate a tragic downfall; however, sometimes ambition forces individuals to let go of prejudices. Ambition can force an individual to embrace the nobler parts of their character. In reaching for the Democratic nomination–and a chance to become the first African American president–Barak Obama let go of Reverend Wright. Here is part of what he said:
You know, I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992. I have known Reverend Wright for almost 20 years. The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.
That’s not a bad start. He might also have added “Rev. Wright is a manipulative, self-serving demagogue.”
For too long, people have made excuses for haters like Wright and Farrakhan, instead of calling them what they are. So, all in all, Obama’s comments are a good start toward correcting the damage people like Rev. Wright and Farrakhan have done to race relations in the United States. It may be Obama’s most important political accomplishment.
MSG To Renovate Not Relocate, For Now
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Madison Square Garden has decided to renovate rather than relocate across the street. This is good news for people who believe that this building is worth preserving for future generations. If we must build a new train station, we should do so and leave the Garden alone.
Bear Stearns Post-Mortem
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Although the media has mostly finished covering the recent demise of Bear Stearns, it’s attention is now shifting to the question of whether Wall Street has opened itself up to greater federal regulation because of loans guaranteed by the Federal Reserve to facilitate the sale of Bear to JP Morgan. Representative Barney Frank recently suggested that it might be a good idea for Congress to regulate financial institutions so that when there are emergencies it can more easily intervene, and do something.
Heavy-handed regulation is unwise. Regulatory agencies that make decisions in secret are undemocratic and potentially partisan. Their authority over the life and death of companies that fall on hard times will make them a target of lobbyists, who will attempt to buy their protection on behalf of their clients. As a result, there will be little to prevent the corruption of such an agency, to say nothing of the potential for conflicts of interest.
The risks investors will face should Congress or The Fed. become super regulators was evident when Bear Stearns was sold for $2 a share to JP Morgan. Without warning and without waiting for a better counter offer, a publicly owned company was sold for a pittance. The investors and employees who have been harmed by the sale have little recourse against the Federal Reserve for not acting in their best interest. And The Fed, by definition, had no financial or legal motivation to get the best price for Bear’s investors. In fact, one might say that they went overboard to avoid the “moral hazard” of “bailing out” Bear by making sure that it was sold for a lousy price.
Worst of all, giving investment banks the ability to borrow money from the Fed discount window puts taxpayers on the hook when the banks fail. Some will no doubt argue that denying the ability to borrow from the window risks greater damage. Not necessarily. Banks that can’t survive get bought or merge with healthier competitors and the sky doesn’t fall.
Those who claim The Fed’s intervention was justified say that it prevented the failure of additional banks. This is the so-called “domino theory,” which hypothesizes that one bank’s failure will cause a cascade of bank failures, leading to the collapse of the entire financial system. At the very least, the burden of proving this dubious theory rests with those who tout it. Proclaiming its truth in a moment of panic does not suffice.
Companies usually fail because they are poorly managed. Bear’s executives may have been successful managers in past markets, but they could not manage successfully in today’s market. We will learn more about whether Bear’s demise was accelerated by short sellers, but right now it looks like it was far too leveraged.