Yes We Did. Now We Must.

In the wake of the historic election of Barack Obama, America faces an opportunity to make drastic changes. Democrats hold strong majorities in both chambers of Congress in addition to the White House. By all indications, President−elect Obama is preparing to govern with strength, inclusion, and prudence. If he is able to make good on even half of his campaign promises, then there is real potential to change the “politics as usual” in Washington.

However, for this to come to fruition, we must remember Obama’s victory speech: “This election is not about me. It is about you.” These are words that we must remind ourselves constantly. After all, the vast activist base he built was perhaps the most important factor in Obama’s election. By engaging those previously unengaged, Obama built a movement that could bring change.

But if we’re to actually see change, we must remember that the movement is not over. The movement is larger than any one person or one event. If, after victory, all these new activists go home satisfied and return to the apathy that was prevalent in the pre−Bush era, then we will have accomplished the election of the first African−American President, but nothing else. If Obama had one common theme throughout his entire campaign, it was that the government is responsible to the people, but also that the people are responsible for the government. We elect officials to represent us, but our job is not over after the election. We must diligently demand that our officials are accurately representing our interests. Disengagement of the people breeds complacency in our politicians, and they focus more on themselves and less on the public interest. And as easy as it is to blame gridlock on the government, if the people are disengaged from the process, then we are just as at fault.

So we must stay vigilant. We must constantly hold our leaders accountable. We must constantly demand transparency. This hold true with Obama as well. He will not always be right on every issue. When he isn’t, it is our job to engage him and make our voices heard.

Democrats, we have only won the chance to show that our ideas will work and are in the best national interest, nothing else. Obama is only one man and he cannot magically solve all our problems. What he has done is given Americans the opportunity to make changes through him. Republicans, you must also stay engaged. Not all of our ideas are good, and not all of your ideas are bad. You are now the loyal opposition. If your ideas are the right ones, make the case persuasively and responsibly. Convince us that you are right. If you are right, the evidence will bear it out. Do not take this time to obstruct. Work with the majority to improve America. By no means roll over for the Administration, but engage it positively to accurately represent the interests of all Americans.

At the end of the day, if we are not working for change, it will not come. To place it all on the shoulders of one man, then we are abdicating our own responsibilities and we will have failed. If Obama must be seen as a messianic figure, let it not be because we believe he is The One who will usher in a golden age, but because he preaches activism and community service. This is how he should inspire us. In the end, we govern ourselves. And our work has just begun.

Towards Liberal Foreign Policy Strategy

I have just finished reading Francis Fukuyama's America at the Crossroads:Democracy, Power and the Neoconservative Legacy. In it, he goes through the history of neoconservativism, explains why the movement failed when its members became the foreign policy elites, and lays out his vision for a US foreign policy strategy, taking the idealism of neoconservative and filtering it through a realistic vision of international institutions; that is, promoting democracy abroad, but using several different multilateral organizations as appropriate, rather than through unilateral action. He argues that the concept of a "benevolent hegemon" is fatally flawed, as shown through the mistakes made in the Iraq War, and that the US must use other tools to promote democracy abroad. Rather than focusing on military might, Fukuyama argues that the United States needs to build legitimate NGOs to downplay its dominance and mitigate any backlash against American power.

Fukuyama's book, along with Fareed Zakaria's Post American World, lay out a relatively coherent framework for a liberal foreign policy. I don't think either book gets talked about as much as they should, especially in liberal circles. There hasn't been a coherent foreign policy strategy from Democrats since Truman's policy of containment. Since then, particularly since Vietnam, Democrats have had foreign policy goals, but not a defined strategy. It is something that I would like to see Obama articulate more. This, I think, has been the major problem with the US since the end of the Cold War. There wasn't a sense of how the US should use its role as the only superpower. We waded through for ten years under Bush I and Clinton, and then experimented in neoconservativism and unilateralism under Bush II, which obviously didn't work for us. Democrats need to better articulate what we believe our goals for foreign policy should be and the best way to achieve these goals. This echos what Ezra Klein said yesterday about Democrats needing to spend less time thinking about good economic policies for the military and a little more time about war policy and a coherent liberal foreign policy.

A Small Town Girl

Apparently, the RNC has spent over $150,000 "to clothe and accessorize" Sarah Palin and her family. Andrew Sullivan: "$5 grand for hair styling and make-up? As Americans face a depression?"

My own two cents is that spending that much even though Americans are facing a depression isn't necessarily bad. In fact, it's probably better for the economy if those who can afford to spend money did so to keep some money flowing through the system. However, it would probably be better for McCain if she didn't do this a) while the campaign has made an issue of their opponent wanting to spend other people's money and b) she insinuated that being rich made you an elite and somehow evil. This makes it seem as though she isn't being truthful with the American people about who she really is.

McCain's Highlights

Yglesias lists them:

• McCain spoke derisively of the idea of “spreading the wealth” — he doesn’t want the non-wealthy to get a piece of the action.
• McCain scare-quoted “health” in the phrase “‘health’ of the mother,” and argued that concern for pregnant women’s health is an extreme position.
• McCain dismissed the idea of wanting nuclear plants to be safe as somehow obviously absurd.

The Last Debate (Thankfully)

There wasn't a whole lot here that was new. The biggest thing that I came away from the debate and the early reactions on CNN.com was about McCain being on the offensive and Obama being on the defensive. I think this was one of the memes following the other two debates as well. And I agree. McCain most often was on the attack and Obama playing defense. But I think this is exactly what Obama wanted.

For starters, some pundits said that Obama had to be careful not to come across as an "angry black man." It's a lot easier to do that when your opponent is the one attacking or being angry. Obama just needed to keep his calm and let his opponent self destruct. But, and I think this is more important, the way that he responded to all of McCain's attacks gave the sense that he was an incumbent, taking on a challenger. McCain kept attacking on Obama's terms. Issue after issue, McCain would attack, looking for an opening, and often coming off as snarky or nasty, and then Obama could explain his position, authoratively, reasonably, and calmly.

This is what America saw for 270 minutes. A complete rope‒a‒dope strategy. And McCain kept playing into this, attacking Obama time and time again. It's not surprising that McCain's unfavorables have been so high and people believe he's running a much more negative campaign than Obama. Yes, he is airing many more negative ads. But McCain also was goaded into constantly playing the role of attack dog, making Obama appear much more reasonable and, ultimately, presidential.

Farce.

Farce.

No Blogging Today

Unless something major happens, I will not be blogging today. It is my father's birthday.

Happy 58th, Dad.

Today's Quote (or The Understatement Of The Year)

"I am really hoping the markets recover next week."

–My friend Red. Heh.

Does McCain Think Arabs Are Not Decent?

Last night, responding to a woman at his rally saying that she feared Obama because he was an Arab, McCain took the mic from her and said, "No, no ma'am. He's a decent family man with whom I happen to have some disagreements." There has been a lot of talk today that McCain doesn't believe that Arabs can be decent people.

When I first saw the clip of McCain correcting the woman, this isn't how it seemed to me. Maybe I'm giving him too much of the benefit of the doubt at this point, but I took McCain to be saying "no" to her whole premise that Arabs were to be feared. That he continued by saying "He's a decent family man..." I understood as him saying, in effect, "Obama is an American and believes in American values. I just disagree with him on several policy points so much so that I am running against him for President."

Again, maybe at this point, this is giving McCain too much credit. But when I watched the footage, the way he spoke did not say to me that he held any particular animosity towards Arabs or that he does not believe Arabs are family oriented. He looked like a man who was ashamed at what he allowed, and even encouraged, to be said in his name and was focused on calmly defusing what had become almost violent anti-Obama sentiment. He seemed to be trying to take any emphasis off the idea of "Arab" and replace it with what his base sees as "American values" - being decent and family oriented.

Could McCain have continued and said "Arabs and Arab-Americans are also overwhelmingly decent and family oriented"? Of course. And maybe he should have. That would have been some straight talk to an increasingy nativist and jingoistic base. But that he didn't, to me, doesn't say that he was implicitly demonizing Arabs and Arab-Americans, or Muslims, or anybody for that matter. He simply looked like a man who finally decided to do what was right, knowing that it would probably cost him the election.

Fractured Health Sector

Ezra Klein points out a problem in health care:

Awhile back, a health economist I met made the point that the very high performing systems in the US -- Mayo, Cleveland, Kaiser, the Veteran's Administration -- are all entirely integrated. Indeed, she said, the thing about them is that they actually qualify as systems. The doctors, buildings, machines, and so forth are all owned by the same institution. That, she argued, was much more important than who ran them or whether they were non-profit or socialized or academic or private. The rest of health care, she said, is a sector. When you're dealing with Kaiser or the VA, they have data from and control over every link in the chain. When it's your insurance company negotiating with an urgent care ward that sends you to a hospital who prescribes a follow-up with a private specialist who tells you to pick up a prescription at the drug store of your choice which gives you a reaction which sends you to the emergency room which then puts you in touch with yet another private specialist...well, that's rather a different story. It's just too fractured, and too few of the actors have an actual incentive to coordinate.

McCain Spins And Spins And Spins

"Today's report shows that the Governor acted within her proper and lawful authority in the reassignment of Walt Monegan," said Palin spokeswoman Meg Stapelton. "The report also illustrates what we've known all along: this was a partisan led inquiry run by Obama supporters and the Palins were completely justified in their concern regarding Trooper Wooten given his violent and rogue behavior. Lacking evidence to support the original Monegan allegation, the Legislative Council seriously overreached, making a tortured argument to find fault without basis in law or fact. The Governor is looking forward to cooperating with the Personnel Board and continuing her conversation with the American people regarding the important issues facing the country." (from TPM Muckraker)

What report are they reading? The probe found that Palin had abused her power by trying to get Trooper Mike Wooten fired. From the cnn.com article about the probe

1. Palin DID have the authority as governor to fire Monegan, but
2. Monegan's refusal to fire State Trooper Mike Wooten from the state police force was "likely a contributing factor" to Monegan's July dismissal.
3. Her efforts to get Wooten fired broke a state ethics law that bars public officials from pursuing personal interest through official action.
4. "Gov. Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda," the report states.

Given all that, from what world is the McCain campaign receiving its news that it can say that Palin "acted within her proper and legal authority"? Do they honestly expect people to believe them, or are they just going through the motions at this point?

(Picture downloaded from magazinesmiles.blogspot.com/.../ghost-town.html)

Read The Full Report

You can read the full report here.

Palin Abused Her Power

An Alaskan investigator has found that Sarah Palin abused her power as governor to get her sister's ex–husband, Trooper Mike Wooten, fired. Key point:

Finding Number One

For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.

Finding Number Two

I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.

Finding Number Three

Harbor Adjustment Service of Anchorage, and its owner Ms. Murleen Wilkes, handled Trooper Michael Wooten's workers' compensation claim property and in the normal course of business like any other claim processed by Harbor Adjustment Service and Ms. Wilkes. Further, Trooper Wooten received all the workers' compensation benefits to which he was entitled.

Finding Number Four

The Attorney General's office has failed to substantially comply with my August 6, 2008 written request to Governor Sarah Palin for infomration about the case in the form of emails.

Awaiting a McCain campaign response. (via Andrew Sullivan)

No Sooner...

No sooner did I publish the last post when John McCain said this: "I am enthusiastic and encouraged by the enthusiasm and I think it's really good," McCain said. "We have to fight and I will fight but we will be respectful. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments and I want to be respectful.

He then took the mic from a woman and directly denied that Obama was Arab terrorist, saying "No, no ma'am," he interrupted. "He's a decent family man with whom I happen to have some disagreements."

It's about time. McCain has let this go on long enough, and he risked doing serious damage to both the country and the Republican Party.

(Update. The woman did not call Obama a terrorist. Only an Arab.)

McCain Manages To Defend Remarks?

The McCain campaign is defending members of its base yelling "traitor" and "kill him" about Obama at their rallies. McCain senior adviser Nicolle Wallace says:

Barack Obama's assault on our supporters is insulting and unsurprising. These are the same people obama called 'bitter' and attacked for 'clinging to guns' and faith. He fails to understand that people are angry at corrupt practices in Washington and Wall Street and he fails to understand that America's working families are not 'clinging' to anything other than the sincere hope that Washington will be reformed from top to bottom.

Barack Obama's assault? This is what he said: "It's easy to rile up a crowd," Obama said. "Nothing's easier than riling up a crowd by stoking anger and division. But that's not what we need right now in the United States."

Yes, that's quite the assault. Perhaps Nicolle needs a refresher on the definition of "assault." From dictionary.com, the first two definitions:

1. a sudden, violent attack; onslaught: an assault on tradition.
2. Law. an unlawful physical attack upon another; an attempt or offer to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a stone or club in a threatening manner.

There is nothing violent, unlawful, or physical about what Obama said. And he didn't target McCain's supporters, but rather McCain's tactics. "It's easy to rile up a crowd" is a response to McCain and Palin working their crowds into a frenzy. He makes no verbal assaults on the supporters or their integrity.

Now, obviously, when Nicolle says "clinging to guns", she is referring to remarks Obama made in April. Here is the full paragraph, in context:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

So, in context, Obama's "assault" actually is saying the same thing that Nicolle's press release said. So, her statement a) confuses the definition of assault and b) goes on to affirm what Obama was saying in the speech she quotes out of context. Perhaps Nicolle should pay more attention to what she puts out in her name.

There is nothing funny about calling for the assassination of a presidential candidate. There's nothing humorous about using racial attacks as a way to demonize an opponent. Change will not come from perpetuating ignorance. It's irresponsible and dishonest. It's a desperate attempt to reignite a campaign that is rapidly taking on water.

A More Positive Campaign

The McCain campaign has taken on a tone that's too negative for some Republicans.

David Brooks Discovers The Class War

In his Op-Ed article today, David Brooks calls out Sarah Palin for being unabashedly anti-intellectual:

Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. Her convention and debate performances were impressive. But no American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin. Nobody so relentlessly divides the world between the “normal Joe Sixpack American” and the coastal elite.

She is another step in the Republican change of personality. Once conservatives admired Churchill and Lincoln above all — men from wildly different backgrounds who prepared for leadership through constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking. Now those attributes bow down before the common touch

Anti-intellectualism and anti-sophistication have been the hallmarks of the mainstream conservative movement for the last decade. Indeed, David Brooks knows this very well, as he wrote an article, in the Atlantic, no less, mocking coastal sophisticates. A sample:

We in the coastal metro Blue areas read more books and attend more plays than the people in the Red heartland. We're more sophisticated and cosmopolitan—just ask us about our alumni trips to China or Provence, or our interest in Buddhism. But don't ask us, please, what life in Red America is like. We don't know. We don't know who Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins are, even though the novels they have co-written have sold about 40 million copies over the past few years. We don't know what James Dobson says on his radio program, which is listened to by millions. We don't know about Reba or Travis. (his links.)

Now, eight years later, when the fruit of what he has sown has been reaped in Sarah Palin's ascendancy to a nominee for Vice President, he has changed his tune:

Over the past 15 years, the same argument has been heard from a thousand politicians and a hundred television and talk-radio jocks. The nation is divided between the wholesome Joe Sixpacks in the heartland and the oversophisticated, overeducated, oversecularized denizens of the coasts.

What had been a disdain for liberal intellectuals slipped into a disdain for the educated class as a whole. The liberals had coastal condescension, so the conservatives developed their own anti-elitism, with mirror-image categories and mirror-image resentments, but with the same corrosive effect.

What caused this change? Brooks wrote the Atlantic article right after the election of George W. Bush, who, of course, came from an East Coast elite family and had an Ivy Leage education. He played the role of "middle American", but really, he was, like Brooks, a highly educated man and his administration was filled with men who went to Ivy League Schools. Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft all attended Yale, with Cheney the only one who didn't graduate from there. Scooter Libby also is a Yale graduate. Donald Rumsfeld graduated from Princeton, Paul Wolfowitz from Cornell, and Tom Ridge from Harvard. In short, while the administration represented "Joe Sixpack", they were not Joe Sixpack and they had traditional "elitist" educations.

However, Sarah Palin does not fit this bill. While the Bush administration paid lip service to anti-intellectualism, Sarah Palin has lived it. She bounced around from college to college, finally graduating with a degree in Communications-Journalism and becoming a sportscaster. Prior to her nomination as Vice President, she displayed no interest in foreign policy, and since her nomination has frequently demonstrated her lack of understanding of what her party's platform is, let alone a grasp on what the issues are.

Brooks is not a stupid man. He understands the dangers that come with having an uneducated person a heartbeat away from being the most powerful person in the world. And what intellectual honesty he has forces him to report on this. However, by reporting on this, he is admitting his compliancy in the demonization of education and is, in part, intellectually responsible a potential Palin presidency.

A Recapitalization Plan

Greg Mankiw:

Here is an idea that might deal with these problems: The government can stand ready to be a silent partner to future Warren Buffetts.

It could work as follows. Whenever any financial institution attracts new private capital in an arms-length transaction, it can access an equal amount of public capital. The taxpayer would get the same terms as the private investor. The only difference is that government’s shares would be nonvoting until the government sold the shares at a later date.

This plan would solve the three problems. The private sector rather than the government would weed out the zombie firms. The private sector rather than the government would set the price. And the private sector rather than the government would exercise corporate control.

This would be an interesting compromise between the private and public sectors fixing the current crisis. It would encourage private investors to get involved because they'd have to put up less money, and it would prevent an overreaching government ownership over banks.

Economic Crisis: What To Do

The short version is that I don't know what to do. I don't think most people have any idea. There's no way of telling, for sure, how bad things will get. The major players certainly aren't going to tell us how bad things are or might become. Doing so would risk scaring the crap out of the average person, and this loss of confidence would make all the problems we have now even worse. So the Powers That Be (people like Bernanke, Paulson, etc) are walking a tight rope between letting us know the gist of what's happening and not allowing the public to create a panic that makes things worse.

So what do we do? Again, I don't really know. I think the best thing we can do is just try to go about our business and do as much of what we would normally do which is fiscally responsible for us. At the same time, we should make some slight changes in our daily routine: try to drive less and take public transit or car pool more, don't buy things on credit, and perhaps save more of our disposable income. Most importantly, we can't allow ourselves to panic and try to pull our assets out. That'll only exacerbate the problem.

"That One"

I couldn't really figure out what McCain was thinking when he referred to Obama as "that one". I couldn't think of a way that it would be racist. Still, it exuded contempt. Was it a shot at Oprah declaring Obama "The One"? Was McCain just cranky?

Either way, it was classless and uncivil. Not something you want to see in a debate from somebody who could become the most powerful man in the world in a little more than three months. And, while this might be a mental revision on my part, it made George W. Bush's performances a little less loathsome.

Fact Checks

See ThinkProgress's liveblogging for fact checks.

Debate Reaction

Here are some thoughts on the debate:

• A spending freeze across the board. As Matt explained after the last debate, this won't help, but rather hurt. It would remove money from the economy and slow it down.
• Obama calling out Bush for telling people to go shopping after 9/11. Point made, I guess, it isn't that much of a sacrifice. But it really missed the point of what Bush was saying. He meant that the worst thing Americans could do after the attacks is stay at home and allow their daily routines to be interrupted. His point was "don't be afraid." And I think that's a fair request following the attacks.
• When asked about what sacrifices they would ask Americans to make, McCain repeated a bunch of talking points. Obama was able to elaborate and list how he would ask Americans to sacrifice.
  
• McCain gaffe. He says that the last President to raise taxes was Herbet Hoover in 1929. Well, aside from the semantics that the President doesn't actually raise taxes, his larger point is also not true. Bill Clinton raised taxes early in his first term, and the economy experienced one of the largest periods of growth in US history. (via thinkprogress)
• Early in the debate, McCain mentioned that the next generation was going to be saddled with trillions of dollars in debt. But he doesn’t want to raise taxes. How else are we going to pay down this debt if we don't raise taxes? Is there another option that I'm not aware of?
• McCain talking about Reagan and Tip O'Neill fell flat. Both men have passed away, and McCain is facing questions about whether he is too old or could pass away in office.
• It seemed as though McCain was confusing Hillary's healthcare plan with Obama's. Hillary's had mandates for everybody and fines. Obama only mandates for children. And I don't think that's a bad thing.
• Nice Obama pivot on whether he is unserious and dangerous in foreign policy.
  
• The Obama Doctrine: It seemed a little muddled at first, but then his answer cleared up. There is a moral obligation to prevent genocides, but we must do so with a strong coalition. Decent answer. The McCain Doctrine: Obama was wrong on the surge and won't admit it. Also, what Obama said.
  
• Israel/Iran: It seems to me (and I know this could be naive on my part) that it is presumptuous of us to think that the Israelis would need our help in the event of an attack. They haven't yet needed one, and they still have, by far, the most powerful military in the Middle East. Also, there is no real way for Iranian forces to reach Israel. This means that the only way for the Iranian military to attack would to be with bombs. The presumption here is that the bombs would be nukes. But, despite the unhinged rhetoric, Iran is not stupid. They do not currently have a nuclear arsenel. Israel most likely does. Should they obtain one, it still wouldn't match Israels. Or a probable US response. Please see MAD. Furthermore, I think an Israeli attack to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes is more likely than a surprise Iran nuclear attack. That being said, we should always be willing to support any ally that has been attacked.
  

Foreign Policy Challenges

The next president, whoever it will be, will face a myriad of foreign policy challenges that must be addressed, probably by this time next year. It’s worth exploring all of these issues, but that would make for a very long post. So what I’m going to do is list the major challenges followed by a brief explanation, and then in the weeks leading up to the election, analyze each individual issue in detail.

Of course, this is by no means a list of the only foreign policy challenges the next president will face. Certainly, there are more challenges than could be easily listed. And there’s always a good possibility that a new challenge will emerge in the next four years. However, I’m not in the business of speculating (or wars of prevention), so I’m not going to look for problems where right now there are none. I also realize that there may be some who don’t believe that something I’ve listed is a challenge. That’s fine, too. I’m just calling what I see. So, in no particular order:

1. Iraq − While there has been a lot of progress in the last two years, the next president will have to see continued progress and decide the fate of the troops and decide what exactly our strategy is.
2. China − The world’s fastest growing economy and largest population. This has given them added confidence in world affairs. An upshot is, aside from selling arms to nations that are hostile to the US, they usually keep to themselves on many matters before the international community. The downside of this, however, is that they generally keep out of matters before the international community, such as the recent problems in Burma.
3. Iran − As the country tries to go nuclear, its President, who yields very little actual power, cranks up the anti−American and Israeli rhetoric. They also have, at the very least, projected some of their influence into Iraq. However, the government rules over a relatively modern society that does not necessarily follow lockstep with the government.
4. Russia − After eight years as president and unable to run for election again, Vladimir Putin finds himself the…Prime Minister of Russia. Russia under Putin has become an aggressive state fueled on Petrol dollars. Questions remain whether he prefers the period of history when the Russians were at the helm of the Soviet empire, or of Imperial Russia. Recent hostilities with former Soviet republic Georgia underscore the need to have a coherent policy towards Russia.
5. Sino−Ruso−Iranian Alliance − Currently, the administration pits these countries together, in effect a sort of Axis of Evil. Except the rhetoric is not nearly as strong and the threat is much larger than the original Axis of Evil. But is this a natural alliance of an alliance of convenience? Is it a case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”? Moreover, is this a sustainable alliance that will pose a growing and continued threat to the United States?
6. Afghanistan and Pakistan − The job was never finished in Afghanistan; the Taliban and al Qaeda were removed from power and decimated, but not destroyed. They’ve regrouped in Pakistan. Osama bin Laden is still considered to be alive. There is a weak central government in Afghanistan that is increasingly corrupt. Additionally, the Pakistani government has not been helpful in finding the terrorists in their mountainous regions, and American incursion into Pakistani territory has sparked several firefights in the last few weeks.
7. Decreasing Hegemonic Status − The US has stretched its military might been economically irresponsible over the last eight years. As a result, we are no longer in position to be the sole major power in the world. The EU, while politically unstable, has seen its economy grow in the same time period. Both China and India have extremely large and fast growing economies. The course of the last eight years, unilateralism, is no longer tenable. The United States will need to figure out how to live in a post−American world where there are rising regional powers. The US will need to learn how to adapt to this new world.
8. The War on Terror −If this war still exists (it’s hard to tell in these ever changing times) needs a new strategy. Because of our presence in Iraq, a new generation of radical Muslims have been trained in using guerilla tactics in fighting a major military power, much like al Qaeda in Afghanistan in the 1980s. A new strategy, including but not limited to military means, is needed to combat what has been done in the last eight years.
9. The Middle East − Israel is the target of increasingly hostile rhetoric from Iran, which is attempting to assert itself in the region by becoming a nuclear power and influencing the Shi’a in Iraq. At the same time, Israel was less than easily victorious in its last incursion into Lebanon to fight Hezbollah, also backed by Iran. Finally, the US had called for democratic elections in Palestine, which catapulted anti−Israel Hamas to power. How does the United States act towards a democratically elected government that has interests contra American interests?
10. Latin America −The triumvirate of Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and Evo Morales have produced a lot of anti−American rhetoric, but don’t pose too much of a threat. However, improving relations in Latin America is extremely important, as there are large amounts of Americans of Latin descent and three important economies − Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina − are situated there.
11. Dependence on Oil − This issue is not just a foreign policy issue. Our dependence on foreign soil leaves us open to wild market fluctuations based on global demand, leaves at the mercy of OPEC, which includes many countries who aren’t exactly thrilled at us, as well as helps fill the coffers of many countries that are currently anti−American. However, it is not possible to wean ourselves off foreign oil and replace it with domestic produced oil, and this means the US needs to wean itself off of oil entirely.
12. The War on Drugs − This may seem like an odd inclusion to my list, but it’s an important one. The prohibition of drugs does nothing to fight the demand of drugs, only the supply. And a demand for something with a prohibited supply creates a black market, which are, of course, illegal. Because of black market demand, terrorist organizations are able to fund their efforts by dealing in drugs. Examples are the Taliban in Afghanistan with opium and heroin production and FARQ in Columbia with cocaine. See also the PIRA in the 1980s who distributed drugs in order to fund their campaign against Britain. If we’re going to seriously attempt to squash terrorism, it’s necessary to seriously attack how they fund their actions. Having a realistic policy about drugs that treats people like adults rather than as children who cannot make decisions is one effective way to hurt terrorists, fight crime, and increase government income all at the same time.
13. A Grand Strategy − A Grand Strategy for American foreign policy has been missing since the end of the Cold War. Prior, it was George Keenan and Harry Truman’s policy of Containment. Sure, Bush tried to have the policy of Prevention be the Grand Strategy, but this didn’t work in the first instance of use and is not a tenable long-term strategy. America needs to decide what its values are and how to best promote these values.

McCain, The Crisis, and Polling

John McCain's campaign has taken a major hit from the failure of the bailout bill. This is particularly interesting because he supported the bill, and actually worked to get House GOP members to vote for it. However, what we may be seeing is a backfire at McCain's calculated suspension of his campaign to go to Washington to help reach a deal.

1. He didn't actually suspend the campaign.
2. He didn't do much in Washington while he was there.
3. He originally vowed not to debate if there wasn't a deal by Friday. He did debate and
4. the deal was reached over the weekend.
5. Finally, the deal didn't pass.

This leads me to suspect that the public is starting to see McCain as ineffectual. Certainly, the poll numbers for yesterday won't have a full impact of the House vote yesterday, if it shows any impact. But the fact remains, McCain was in freefall before the bailout failed, and it seems that the economy was already the reason. His erratic moves last week and ultimate capitulation to Obama makes him appear weak and perhaps a little out of touch. And now that the deal he susposedly stopped campaigning to help get passed failed, he has positioned himself to look ineffectual. These are all things the Obama campaign wants. It's almost as though McCain is campaigning for Obama.

More Bainbridge

More Bainbridge:

I’ve waffled on the bailout, but the more facts I’ve learned about the current state of the financial sector, the more I’ve come to the reluctant conclusion that this is one of those projects so big and with so much at risk that government intervention is justifiable.

Too big to fail is bad public policy. But I’m persuaded that the very real prospect of too many to fail presents an entirely different question. We are faced with a situation in which a systemic credit freeze will take down not just one or two banks, but many, including not just Wall Street but also local and regional banks. In turn, as more banks fail, it will become increasingly difficult for non-financial businesses to borrow. The ripple effect could be disastrous:

The Bailout and The Waltons

Stephen Bainbridge suggests watching the Waltons to prepare for what could be a coming depression. He doesn't seem thrilled that the bailout failed.

Speculative Musings

I'm still trying to make sense of everything that's happened in the last 72 hours. I'm not an economist, so I'm relying on expert's opinion about what would happen, economically, if the bailout wasn't passed. But of equal concern was what would happen, politically, if the bailout was passed. In an ideal world, the taxpayers would have been paid back, and then some, and I was hoping that the profits could have gone against the debt and prevented or at least mitigated future tax increases to pay the debt off later. But we don't live in an ideal world, (because, I suspect, in this ideal world, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in, and I might also have better hair) and what worried me the most was such a sudden expansion of government power following eight years of government encroachment into civil rights. The Republic was never meant to be run this way. Perhaps, politically, the bailout was a bad idea, even if it was a good idea economically (which I'm not yet positive it was.) But if we weigh both worst case scenarios, one where the government gains control over every aspect of our lives, or one where we plunge into another depression, how can one decide the lesser of two evils? Surely, I don't want the government to be all powerful, but I don't like the idea that there will be a repeat depression, which required the massive expansion of governmental power. Perhaps the lesser of two evils WAS giving the government the power to address this now and then rolling back the scales as the aftershocks to the economy ended.

Post Bailout I

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly the bailout means for the markets, but I have to echo Megan McArdle here:

I didn't think it was possible to be more disgusted with politicians than I usually am, but I find it impossible to express the seething contempt that I feel at this kind of opportunism. I don't mind when they screw with the normal operation of the economy for venal personal gain. But risking a recession in order to get a cut in the capital gains tax? Letting it tank because you can always blame it on the Republicans?

She's right. It seems, from these reports at least, that politicians were more concerned about politicking than about public policy and the common good. If some believed that keeping the government out of the markets now was for the common good, then that is respectable. If they voted no because they're worried about THEIR job security, well, perhaps they don't deserve the job that they currently have at the behest of their constituents. The same goes for anybody who thought that another compromise would have gotten the deal done but didn't try for the compromise so that they had a line of attack against Republicans for the next five weeks.

Bailout Fails

The Bailout has failed to pass in the House. I'm currently doing some research as to what this means, and will report on it later.

What McCain Did't Do

Greg Sargent:

On reflection, last night's debate is best understood by what McCain failed to do do. With the dynamic of the race hardening daily in Obama's favor, McCain needed to force a moment where Obama's supposed inexperience and lack of global knowledge jarred viewers into a sudden sense that putting him in charge is risky and dangerous -- hence McCain's repetition of that word.

He didn't do that. At all.

The Debate

I don't think that this was a game changer for either candidate. Both performed well. Substantially, both landed a few punches. Nothing to knock the other out. What struck me the most, however, was the difference in body language. I found McCain's to be distracting. When Obama was talking, McCain shifted, sighed, and sarcastically smiled a lot. This goes along with what many other people have pointed out: McCain would not look at Obama. He very obviously hold Obama in contempt. He looked angry at times, unable to keep himself composed. Obama, by comparison, appeared to be much more in control of himself. He didn't let his emotions get the better of him, and his voice didn'trise above the level he decided. To be fair, though, I was distracted enough by McCain that I couldn't pay the same amount of attention to Obama. I'm sure that I was not the only one who was distracted by this.

Polls are saying that Obama won. This was my initial reaction, though the more I reflect, the
stronger I feel McCain did. McCain did not appear to be confused or unknowledgeable. He kept
Obama on the defensive for much of the foreign policy portion. But I think that this was actually
good for Obama. It allowed him to defend his positions while illustrating why McCain was wrong. He looked as though he knew what he was talking about, and that was very important, considering that foreign policy was John McCain's perceived strength. Because Obama was able to hold his ground, he showed that he is just as capable as McCain. And because McCain couldn't control his temper, he showed that he cannot always keep his calm under pressure. And this is important. Who would you rather have answering the phone at 3am?

A Dog Chasing Cars

Ezra Klein compares McCain to the Joker. Key Quote:

Over the past few weeks, he's proven himself so erratic and risk-prone that if he can simply modulate his tone and refrain from accidentally asking Lehrer for a fourth-quarter time out or a third lifeline, the audience will be comforted. The expectations are low, and in some ways, that's a victory. But on another level, it's an incredibly damning judgment, and evidence of how far McCain has fallen.

A Quote From A Former McCain Advisor

"It just proves his campaign is governed by tactics and not ideology. In the end, he blinked and Obama did not. The 'steady hand in a storm' argument looks now to more favor Obama, not McCain," Craig Shirley. (via Andrew Sullivan)

Obama Pulls Ahead

Obama has pulled ahead in several swing state polls, causing CNN to add Michigan to "leaning Obama." FiveThirtyEight.com has several traditional Republican states, Colorado and Virginia, as leaning Obama and puts him at 74.7% odds of winning the election. Key quote:

On the eve of the first Presidential Debate, Barack Obama is perhaps in as strong a position in the polls as he has been all year, now projecting to win the election 74.7 percent of the time. Both the state and the national polls that have come out within the past 48 hours have generally been quite favorable to Obama, and suggest that he may gained an additional point or so above and beyond his "Lehman Leap" from last week.

This puts McCain in the difficult position of having to play catch up. To do so, his campaign would need to be extremely disciplined and consistent for the next month. These are all things that the McCain campaign has not been in the last two weeks.

Bailout Held Up By House Republicans

Apparently, the House Republicans are holding up bailout talks. According to Politico (via Hilzoy), "some House Republicans are saying privately that they'd rather "let the markets crash" than sign on to a massive bailout." While it's understandable that there are concerns about giving this much money for something that may or may not work, to say that a market crash is preferable to a government bailout IS pretty irresponsible. While I'm certainly not qualified to speculate what exactly would happen if the markets crashed, I can say that, historically, market crashes are not a good thing for an economy. And given how globalized economies have become in the last half century, a complete failure of the markets in the world's largest economy would have dire consequences for the world at large. That Republican Congressmen would rather let the markets crash displays either ignorance for America's place in the global economy or utter contempt for Americans and for the rest of the world.

What Is McCain Thinking?

There has been much debate about what the McCain campaign was thinking in saying that it had suspended the campaign (while it didn't actually do this) and trying to postpone the debate. McCain has been extremely inconsistent in the last two weeks, and determining what the real reasons behind anything the campaign does might mean is extremely difficult. The behavior is, to say the least, bizarre. There are some theories, and none of them are particularly encouraging. Whatever the real reason, it reeks of cynicism. I suspect the debate tonight and how it plays out over the next days will provide us a lot of information about which way the election will swing. Right now, the McCain campaign is in free fall, incoherent and increasingly bizarre. Is it possible for McCain to stop the bleeding?

McCain Will Show

I'm surprised, but pleased, by the lack-luster reports of McCain's decision to appear at the debates tonight in Oxford, Mississippi. Despite his weighted efforts to show Americans he will undertake part of the burden to create a solution for the United States' financial crisis, reports show McCain hasn't done a whole lot of contributing... something tells me the meetings and solution-propositions could have continued just fine without him. It's also strange that this take-lead, postpone-debates, economy-first attitude is exuding from the man who admittedly is not strong in economics. Furthermore, his economic advisers did not have much to say in part of their contribution.

Nonetheless, I can't wait to see tonight's debate.

... and thank you to grace us, Sen. McCain.

Where O Where did Bushy Go?

I was flipping through channels yesterday around 9PM looking for Bush's address, and didn't find anything.

I was flipping through channels yesterday at 9:19 PM looking for Bush's address, and didn't find anything.

I was flipping through channels yesterday at 9:28PM looking for Bush's address, and found McCain.

I was flipping through channels yesterday around 9:40PM looking for Bush's address, and found Obama.

I was flipping through channels yesterday at 9:48PM looking for Bush's address, and finally found a recap of Bush's address on one channel: CSPAN.


Where has Bush gone?

Palin is NOT Shakespeare

I want to break away from anything current for a moment, and respond to Drew's post "Lies of Palin: We HAVE Seen This Before," because I believe he misread my post. I did liken the Palin saga to Jacobean tragedies: I did not liken her to Shakespeare; I was not being too nice.

The audience is what makes Jacobean tragedies fascinating. The plays were brutal and bloody, there were more casualties during a Jacobean tragedy than any other play genre at the time. Jacobean tragedies left the "dead" actors onstage for the entire rest of the play to display their deaths, and the audiences LOVED IT! People came from any- and everywhere to watch a disgusting tale unwind, and didn't do anything to stop the carnage onstage. There was a moral vision blurred within the play itself, and within the audience watching it.

The key to comparing Palin with Jacobean tragedy is to note that there were NOTHING nice about the plays. They are not the stereotypical "Shakespeare" play (although there is nothing nice about those either,) and they do not reflect the eloquence we tend to associate with playwrights from the 1500s.

Rather, Jacobean tragedies explored the moral reversal I mentioned in my last post (public/private and surface/depth) within the characters, and directly within the audience. Jacobean tragedies started a social phenomenon that removed people from their everyday quaint lives, and stuck them into their sadistic haven. That is what we see the Palin campaign doing with the American audience. Our moral understanding of private and public have been switched, and we like it.

Often, we look at Shakespearean contemporaries in an untouchable light. Considering 500 years difference between the 1500s and now, the names of the remaining playwrights ARE famous and well-respected (although, it was often due to reprinting and editing that made them well-written.) And I would ask you, as a scholar, to remove the social "wow factor" from the time of Shakespeare's contemporaries, so we can look at the real issue- Palin's campaign is a Jacobean tragedy because it is brutally affecting our social morals.

As writers, if we can't compare something brutally disgusting, and morally inept with Shakespeare's contemporaries, what can we do?



**For more information on Jacobean Tragedies, or for a good read, I would recommend starting with Thomas Kyd and read his play "The Spanish Tragedy."**

Lies Of Palin: We HAVE Seen This Before

Peggy likens the Palin saga to a Jacobean tragedy, filled with lies, deception, and metaphorical bloodshed. And to be sure, the last few weeks certainly have been filled with lies and deception. The reversal that Peggy speaks about, the personal above the public, has been very real. Her family has been paraded in front of us as evidence of her personal virtue all while the McCain campaign struggles to keep out any talk about her public virtues, or lack thereof. Their belief is that the personal IS the public, and that's all the voter needs to know. This race is not about the issues.

But Peggy is being too kind. The most famous author of Jacobean tragedies is, of course, Shakespeare. He is well spoken, fluid, and coherent. His works are considered masterpieces. The characters involved often create or redefine their own archetype. You cannot say any of these things about the McCain campaign.

Rather, I would liken the campaign to a Benny Hill farce. The pick of Sarah Palin is just one example. It seems as though McCain picked her on a whim, with very little vetting. And for the last month, McCain and his senior staff have been chasing after Palin, "Yakety Sax" blaring in the background, trying to cover up her lies and misleading statements, with the occasional stop motion to allow a McCain aide to call the media sexist. When Palin finally did speak, it was clear that she did not know what current US foreign policy was or what John McCain's stance was. Cue "Yakety Sax" and Palin chasing the McCain campaign.

I don't blame Peggy for wanting to compare McCain's campaign to Shakespeare, or any sort of great literature. But the sad truth for McCain is that the campaign isn't mature enough to be considered a Jacobean Tragedy. No, that designation should be left for all time greats such as Richard Nixon. Farcical is the only word to describe what the McCain campaign has become.

Lies of Palin: Haven't we seen this before?

The blurring of Private and Public entities- on all levels. We're seeing it EVERYWHERE: Palin pregnancy scandals, political lies, government stepping in with the economy, not to mention our sick history with reality TV and celebrealities. Sometimes it's easy to tell what has meaning, and what doesn't.

That's because there is a dynamic between the private and public that parallels the dynamic between surface and depth. Circumstantially, we should be able to parallel each pair, and make sense of our priorities in doing so. What we give weight to might not always deserve it, and this throws off the balance between Private/Public and Surface/Depth, resulting in a paradox where nothing can mean anything. Yes yes, this sounds vague, but we can apply it to something: I respond to Drew's blog Lies of Palin.

In terms of a politician, I want the private issues to be known but not exploited, and the public issues to be addressed. In this circumstance, I give private the surface value, and public the depth value. What a politician did in the past, and in their previous experiences, will weigh more to me than whether or not they got oral in the oval office (per say.)

However, the media, and the Palin campaign has told me the opposite: that I'm expected to give weight and depth to Palin's personal issues. I'm supposed to weigh in, and hop aboard the waiting list on a pair of red pumps? I'm supposed to invest emotional time in yet another unwed and underage pregnant teen? I don't think so. Furthermore, as Drew mentioned in his post Lies of Palin, the issues that SHOULD have been made public weren't, and continue to go unaddressed.

Therefore, in my eyes, Palin has flipped the dynamic, that I expect and value, between private/public and surface/depth. And in doing so, created a paradox; how can I possibly care about "Tina Faye glasses"? So we don't care: and in Palin terms, this just means the Republican party can ignore the facts and keep on keeping-on.

"Wait!" you may be shouting, "Haven't we seen this before?!"

Why yes, we have. A flip in the natural and expected relationships between the private/public and surface/depth happens a lot in literature. We can see some disgusting results of it as well:

Welcome to Jacobean tragedy, folks.... our heroes and villains are set. We see lies and deception everywhere. We are told one thing, and expected to feel intuitively different about it. And in true style, we're seeing the brooding of bad blood get exaggerated, but intercepted, only by the carnage-to-be.

But the best part: we all came to see the bloodshed.

A Rundown on Paulson's Plan

I was going to post a rundown on the Paulson and Bernanke bailout plan. However, thus far, I've only been able to find paragraphs similar to the following:

The Bush administration has proposed granting unfettered authority for the Treasury Department to buy up to $700 billion in distressed mortgage-related assets from private firms as part of a program that Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said “has to work.”

I have yet to find any other details about this program, and my friends who work on Wall Street don't seem to have any more information to offer me.

This should be scary. It IS scary. After the movement towards socialism last week, the government now wants a blank check to spend $700 billion in tax payers money. Unfettered authority? I understand the need to remove toxic assets from the system, but giving the government unfettered authority over anything tends to end poorly for the citizens of that country. I have no doubt that this is a serious crisis and that something needs to be done. But, like I said last week, this is another flashback in dystopian movies.

Dodd's plan is better. For starters, it gives the US taxpayers equity in the bailout so that should the assets recover, the people will benefit from the sale of the assets. It also creates an oversight board to supervise the Treasury Department's purchases. The board would be consist of the chairmen of the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Securities and Exchange Commission, along with two members of the financial industry chosen by Congress. The board would create a credit review company to review all purchases made by the Treasury.. The Treasury Secretary would be required to give weekly reports about assets bought and sold. Dodd proposes penalizing executives who take "inappropriate risks" by reducing executive severance packages and force executives to give back earnings based on inaccurate accounting measures. Finally, this authority would expire on December 31st, 2009.

First off, again, giving this kind of authority to the Treasurer for any length of time is scary. The abiliity to nationalize companies is a huge expanse in executive power. However, while I'm not an expert on this subject, those who are see very little choice. So, if we must have a bailout, then we must have a bailout.

Dodd's bill hopefully mitigates the dangers the expanse in power creates. It also creates, as I indicated earlier, a disincentive for executives to allow their companies to get to the point where they need a government bailout. If executives face punishment for risky behavior, then they'll have less reason to engage in risky behavior. Under the Paulson plan, there is nothing to discourage executives from letting their company require a government bailout. Like I said earlier, the bailout conditions should be structured like that of the IMF's.

Finally, this post by Hilzoy should be read, as I'm sure it echoes the feelings of many people on the left. Key quote (Hilzoy is quoting Matt Stoller of Openleft.com)

"I also find myself drawn to provisions that would serve no useful purpose except to insult the industry, like requiring the CEOs, CFOs and the chair of the board of any entity that sells mortgage related securities to the Treasury Department to certify that they have completed an approved course in credit counseling. That is now required of consumers filing bankruptcy to make sure they feel properly humiliated for being head over heels in debt, although most lost control of their finances because of a serious illness in the family. That would just be petty and childish, and completely in character for me."

Musings

Do a lot of people actually live on Main Streets in Smalltown, USA? Or are the pols referring to small businesses that operate on Main Street in Smalltown, USA?

Why So Much Immediately?

Matt makes another good point.

Punitive Measures

Ben Bernanke believes that there should be no punitive measures for firms that participate in the bailout. But as Matt Yglesias points out, "if some measure of bailing out is truly necessary then the money will be provided, but it shouldn’t just become handouts for bankers. Punitive measures mean that only firms that genuinely have no alternative will enter into the program, and their corrupt or inept managers will be duly punished."

This is basically how the IMF works for entire countries. The IMF doesn't force itself on countries, but if the countries want to receive loans from the IMF, presumably because their credit is so bad nobody else will lend to them, then they have to meet several preconditions and change the way the economy works in order to get the loans.

While the shape the bailout will take hasn't been set yet, it seems to me that the IMF is probably the best model for it. As Matt says, if there are no punitive measures, then it's just free money, a handout it you will (we all know how much Americans hate handouts) If there are punitive measures then companies will be forced to behave in a more responsible manor, rather than taking risks that they shouldn't take and expect to get free money to fix their mistakes.

What If

What if Congress had not allowed themselves to be railroaded into rubber stamping the PATRIOT Act or military authority in Iraq?

CNN Vs Palin

For the last three weeks, the McCain campaign has very thoroughly restricted access to Sarah Palin, making it impossible for the press to get any answers from her. So, CNN today decided to restrict Sarah Palin access from its airwaves in response. Seems like a fair trade off. McCain relented.

Obama Leads In Polls

In four current polls – Gallup, Rasmussen, Hotline/Diageo, and Research 2000 – Obama has a slight lead.
The Palin/convention bounce seems to have dissipated.

Preemption vs. Prevention

In foreign policy and international law, there is a difference. The American people were not told th difference before the invasion of Iraq. In fact, the invasion was called a war of preemption. However, a war of preemption is "an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war before that threat materializes." This is allowed under international law. However, a war of prevention is defined as "initiated under the belief that future conflict is inevitable, though not imminent." In other words, a country is not currently a threat but someday, it could become a threat, and so, war must be waged to prevent this possibility. This is not allowed under international law. It is also known as a war of aggression.

The Bush Administration, of course, changed the meaning of "preemptive war" to "preventative war" to invade Iraq. This is the Bush Doctrine, and as long as it is in effect, America will be looked at as an aggressor nation.

The Bailout

I'm still sorting through the debate on the bailout proposals, and I have to admit, a lot of this is beyond my expertise. I'll try to post some sort of analysis on it later. What I do want to say right now is that I am glad to see that Congress is pushing back against more expansion of executive power. Both Democrats and Republicans alike are resisting the Paulson plan, which would give the government a blank check to purchase bad debts.

Lies of Palin

Andrew Sullivan compiles the list of lies of Sarah Palin. Money quote:

Just for the record, I asked an intern to go back and double fact-check the twelve documented lies that Sarah Palin has told on the public record. These are not hyperbolic claims or rhetorical excess. They are assertions of fact that are demonstrably untrue and remain uncorrected. Every single one of the lies I documented holds up after several news cycles have had a chance to vet them even further.

George Will and Bush Republicanism

He hits the nail right on the head:

Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism.

It's worth noting that this socialism has also come to power with attacks on the separation of church and state.

We all want to fly.

We forget. In our hustling, emotional, important, unbalanced, average, spiritual, and cynical lives- we forget. We forget to sit down, put our feet up , and open a book. We forget the way a good book can make us feel, can change the way we feel. We forget how a book can capture lessons of a different life, from a different time and place, and bring them right into our hands. We forget that literature is an artifact, a relic, reprinted and rebound, maybe with a new flashy cover, or larger print for older audiences, that is made just for us to open and continue.

I'm going to make it a point not to forget. We can look at the past to better represent our ideas and perceptions of the present. We can take away so much more than joys and laughs, if we put the work into reading literature.

In a world talking and buzzing about politics (and rightfully so,) I think we should put forth our efforts, and refocus our attention on some words of a different time. I'm going to take a look at a short story by Katherine Mansfield written in 1922, The Fly. Written post-World War I, Mansfield's story collects the physical and emotional wreckage left behind, and invites us to compare. We can make striking metaphors of the main characters, and apply their struggles with those of today's political parties, nations at war, and homes in turmoil. Katherine Mansfield was a spectacular writer and admired by Virginia Woolf. Deeply promiscuous and true to her time, Mansfield tore into human experiences, and was able to expose patterns of human emotion.

If you haven't before, or want to again, read Mansfield's short story The Fly.

I know you're twisting and burning in anticipation for me to spell out some comparison; to do the work for you. You want me to tell how the boss is filled with resentment and burdened with the inability to grieve properly, and the fly is a symbol of the pain and grief families and people experience years after a loss, seconds after they've "cleaned" themselves off. Well you're right, and there, I said it.

However, I know Mansfield's story speaks more than metaphors. It speaks to the human condition. How can six years of pent up grief lead to an undoing of the boss's character? Why does he allow himself to go down that road? How many times have we acted destructively because we can't handle how or who we are presently? And how many times have we expected miracles from mortals, in a vain effort to keep ourselves from hearing a reality that tells us, "maybe not this time,"?

"What does this have to do with politics? What does this have to do with the election?" you might be asking yourself- or me for that matter.

But I've set the path to walk down, and you have feet.
You're smart, you can figure it out.

Another Palin Lie

Another Palin lie.

A Word About "Liberal"

Over the last forty years, the word "liberal" has become a pejorative, synonymous with "unAmerican." As a result, many Democrats have shied away from being called liberal. "Liberalism" is railed against by culture warriors such as Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly. However, this is a mischaracterization of the ideology. Liberalism is defined as "a political ideology that seeks to maximize individual liberties."

Today, there are differing views on how best to maximize liberties. One view, referred to as "classical liberalism" seeks to limit the size of the government and allow the individual as much freedom as possible. The other view, popularized in the early 20th century, is "social liberalism" seeks to maximize individual freedoms by improving social conditions, usually through government intervention and regulation. The use of government programs often puts classic liberals at odds with social liberals. For much of the 20th century, "liberals" referred to social liberals and "conservatives" described classic liberals.


Surely, there have always been traditionalists in the United States. In terms of liberalism, there were always people who were more liberal and people who were more conservative. Throughout American history, there were liberals and conservatives in most major parties. For the most part, the broad difference among these people was the best way to preserve and expand the liberal ideal of freedom.

However, over the last twenty years, the Republican Party has skewed towards classic conservativism, which historical has been absolutist in nature. It is unconcerned about the size of the government but obsessed with preserving or restoring traditions. It demands an emensely strong executive branch. It itches to flex its military prowess And we see this with the Bush Administration, which has increased the size of the government, both financially and in terms of executive power and has started a war of prevention. Working to preserve civil liberties has become an unAmerican and "liberal" scheme to ruin the country. We are told to believe that liberalism is a foreign ideology and contrary to American ideals.

However, this ignores history. The United States was founded very specifically on liberal ideals. Liberal theorists such as Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Locke in particular had major influences on the Founding Fathers and their beliefs. The Declaration of Independence reads very much like a John Locke treatise, and the Constitution borrows many ideas from Montesquieu and other liberal writers. Liberalism is at the core of the United States and its institutions. To claim otherwise is factually inaccurate and intellectually dishonest.

Todd Palin Won't Comply With Subpoena

Todd Palin won't comply with the subpoena issued to him, either. More from Glenn Greenwald.

It appears that there's nothing Alaska's legislature can do until January. That's a shame. It would be nice to finally see one of these subpoenas enforced when it really matters. It's obvious that the Palins are just stonewalling until after election day. They're doing so by breaking the law. The law should be enforced. Immediately.

More About Obama And Voter Suppression

Talking Points Memo makes a point here.

Tony Blaair on The Daily Show

Just watched last night's interview of Tony Blair on The Daily Show. He still ignores a lot of nuances, such as equating al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah as if they were one in the same. Of course, this isn't true. Hezbollah is a Shi'a organization while Hamas and al Qaeda are both Sunni. Also, Hamas and Hezbollah were established to fight Israel, whereas is a fundamentalist religious organization. Indeed, there are many differences between all of these organizations that need to be acknowledged. Putting all Islamic groups under one blanket grouping shows an ignorance of Islam and politics in the Islamic world. Such ignorance is detrimental to American foreign policy goals.

However, it's good to see Tony Blair talking candidly about the topic. Jon Stewart asks hims some hard questions, and he tries his best to answer them straightforwardly. He is not shy about standing up for what he believes in by making actual arguments for his way of thinking, even if the mindset is fundamentally wrong. That's something, as Jon notes, that our president won't do.

Rangel's Tax Troubles

Rep. Charlie Rangel is in some legal and tax trouble.

McCain Blames the SEC

McCain is blaming the SEC Chairman for the financial meltdown. Stephen Bainbridge responds.

Foreign Policy Direction

Andrew discusses the direction the Republican Party has gone in regards to its foreign policy — 100% neoconservative. He is correct in saying that the
realist faction — those who believe that our foreign policy should be "reality-based, idealistic within clear realist boundaries, cognizant of America's mounting fiscal collapse, aware of the fact that power politics never ends, chastened by the Iraq fiasco, concerned about reinforcing alliances and maintaining a solid military" have their work cut out for them. He then links to an article in the new online conservative magazine Culture 11 where they advocate a much more Washingtonian foreign policy. The quote he selected is worth quoting in full, and the article itself is a must read:

"There are two Washingtonian principles which I believe should serve as the basis for a long overdue audit of U.S. foreign policy, certainly since the end of the Cold War. The first is Washington’s admonition that 'permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded.' t begs the question as to whether the current configuration of U.S. alliances, forged during the Cold War, is still the most optimal way of securing key American priorities.

The second (and here perhaps the Address should be updated from merely referring to Europe to every region of the world) is for the United States to reconsider the level of involvement in the affairs of others: “it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.” Are American interests served by involving the United States in a multitude of regional problems that do not touch directly on our affairs? And do we need to continue to divide the world into categories of “friend” or “foe”, into leagues of “democracies” versus “the autocracies?”

Such is alien to the Washingtonian ethos. The first president took as his guide the following: “Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity and interest.”

They go on to say:

This, by the way, when reinterpreted in 21st century conditions, lays the basis for a renewed U.S. leadership of the community of nations — and works to restore confidence and trust in America’s judgment. Keeping lines of communication open, working to reduce conflicts, and creating conditions for the emergence of more open societies raises the likelihood of other countries remaining as stakeholders in an American-led global order. Washington would have been confused about the call for a “crusade for democracy,” but he and his successors, including John Quincy Adams, would have been very comfortable with the notion of “the great capitalist peace” (to cite the term coined by John Hulsman and Anatol Lieven) — where “all the major states of the world … have or could have a major stake in the stability of the international economy, the international trading system, the international investment system.

This, I believe, should be the central aim of any new Grand Strategy. It is a more conservative Wilsonian foreign policy; it encourages the spread of democracy, but allows for culturally relevant democracies in places that are different from the United States. This is a change from the aggressive Wilsonianism that Bush has advocated. This would position the United States to be a leader on global affairs without unilaterally (and futilely) trying to preserve its current hegemony in a world of many growing powers and without domestic policies being held hostage by foreign policies that are not in the best interests of the country.

Furthermore, the US needs to finally admit to itself that its hegemony is untenable and contra to most of its foreign policy interests. Because of the globalizing economy, there are many emerging powers. Some of these are not democracies. However, if the US seriously believes that democracy is the best form of government, then the way isn't to spread it with the sword, but rather with an effort to discover and foster conditions that allow democratic institutions to grow organically in countries. A more humble foreign policy that doesn't presume that the US has the final say in all matters across the globe would be a good start.

Today's Quote

"PBR: it's not just for hipsters any more." — Megan McArdle

McCain's Interview

A partial transcript of McCain's interview with Union Radio.

How Far Is Too Far?

Is it fair of the media to target Sarah Palin the way that they have? It makes sense to me. Granted, there seems to be a lot of useless and simply inflammatory information going around, but I suppose that is to be expected when nobody knows anything about the woman. She was a virtual unknown before being chosen as she's only been a statewide elected official for two years in a small state that is not directly connected to the US. She had no prior national exposure, and there's been little reason to give her any, save for her innitial support for the Bridge to Nowhere.

She was a surprise and ridiculous pick. She brings very little to the ticket in terms of governance. She's not widely seen as an expert on much of anything, despite McCain's claim that she knows energy policy better than anybody in the country. She has no foreign policy experience or even any interest in it, as evidenced by her reponse to Charlie Gibson's question about the Bush Doctrine.

So no, the press isn't overstepping its bounds by "targetting" her. She was a blank canvas up until three weeks ago, and Americans deserve to know who is going to be their Vice President and potential President. It isn't the press's fault that the McCain campaign didn't vet her enough to prepare for all the stories that have come out since she was anounced. Its the press's job to inform Americans, and her being unavailable for questioning prevented the press from getting any straight talk about who she is and they've filled this vacuum by writing story after story after her. More over, it's their duty to expose her for what she is: an unqualified liar. Both her and McCain have ramped up the lying to an almost pathological level. Reporting this isn't media bias. It's reporting facts proven nearly every time either speak.

McCain And Spain

The blogosphere was alive last night, confused about what John McCain meant by saying that he wouldn't meet with the Spanish Prime Minister. Today, his campaign attempted to clear the confusion by confirming that McCain was not committing to meeting with Prime Minister Zapatero. There is no doubt now that McCain was not confused about who he was talking about but was indicating that he would continue cool relations with Spain that the US has had since Zapatero came to power in 2004 and removed Spanish troops from Iraq. This contradicts an earlier pledge to normalize relations with the NATO ally:

"I would like for [President Zapatero] to visit the United States. I am very interested not only in normalizing relations with Spain but in obtaining good and productive relations with the goal of addressing many issues and challenges that we have to confront together."

This adds to a number of foreign policy inconsistencies and gaffes that McCain has made. Perhaps this isn't quite a gaffe, but it's certainly bad policy. Spain is a NATO ally and the 8th largest economy in the world. Sure, Zapatero is a left to center leader, but it would give us more credibility if we associated with democracies that have different beliefs than us, especially if our Grand Strategy is spreading democracy across the globe (though it's probably safe to say that there is no Grand Strategy.) And since Spain is still fighting with us in Afghanistan, and that's where Osama is, and McCain is committed to following Osama to the gates of hell, it would probably be wise to talk to an ally without preconditions. McCain couldn't have forgotten that al Qaeda is responsible for a major terrorist attack in Madrid, in name if not in personnel. This makes it appear as though the only thing that McCain is actually willing to committ to is winning the White House. I don't think that qualifies as putting your country first.

McCain, The Market, and Privatization

Ezra Klein discusses John McCain's history of supporting the privatization of Social Security.

Contra European Goodwill

Daniel Kennelly responds to Andrew Sullivan's post about Europe's goodwill torwards Obama and following al Qaeda into Pakistan.

Palin's Staff Won't Comply With Subpoenas

Apparently, Sarah Palin's staff won't comply with subpoenas issued in Troopergate. Maybe I have an incorrect idea of what a subpoena is, but I was sure that if you don't comply, you face punishment.

I'd really like to see SOME legislative body, be it state or federal, issue a subpoena and back it up by punishing those who refuse to comply. When a subpoena is issued, it's not a request. Attendance isn't an option. It's mandatory. The word itself is Latin for "under penalty." Legislative bodies need to start reigning in these executives who clearly believe the law does not apply to them.

Don't tell us that you feel like "Charlie Brown after Lucy moved the football." Don't give us phony outrage. You have the power to make these subpoenas stick. Use it.

Then again...

Of course, for the most part, the last four years have yielded more government deadlock than actual governance, and one could make the case that the country needs strong unifying leadership to prevent a decline in federal power. Another 4 years of similar leadership could cause such a decline. This could prompt the states to form regional confederacies to deal with problems that the federal government normally would have. Whether that outcome is good or bad depends entirely on where you think government power should rest. If you would prefer to see such problems dealt with on the federal level, then you would want to have a strong leader who could unify the many factions of the country under a common cause.

Then again, this is also usually a flashback scene in those dystopian movies.

The Fed Buys Out AIG

The Fed will be purchasing up to 80% of AIG for an $85 billion loan. And it keeps on crumbling.

I have a couple friends who work at investment banks in New York; one works at Merrill Lynch and another in the mortgage division of UBS. I talked to them both today and they stressed how chaotic everything has been in New York the last couple of days.

On another note, Matt Yglesias points out that the past week has resulted in the nationalization of quite a few very large corporations. And the auto industry is calling the government for help, as well. Matt is right to question how the companies are going to be run. With any luck, they can be removed from the political process and eventually sold off and taken out of government hands. I'm pretty sure that what happened this past week is shown as a flashback in most dystopian movies.

Obama Files Suit To Prevent Voter Suprression

From the Daily Kos. It's good to see Obama starting early to prevent voter suppression. This is an issue that hasn't received enough attention.

Obama and Pakistan

Andrew on a Hitchens essay about attacking Al Qaeda inside the borders of Pakistan.

Starting a new war right now (even though it would technically be a continuation of the first war) strikes me as a little irresponsible, given the state of the American military and also given that Pakistan is a nuclear power. However, not pursuing the Taliban and allowing them to rebuild in Pakistan seems at least equally irresponsible. The biggest issue, nuclear arms aside, is this being seen as a unilateral action against Pakistan. I suppose that is what will determine whether or potentially provoking Pakistan is irresponsible. Andrew believes that Obama would be well positioned to make sure it isn't unilateral. I hope that ends up being true because the US cannot afford to lose anymore prestige in the world.