Nashville debate

I’m just not seeing the change to believe in.

Yes, during the debate, it became more clear that there is a difference between Obama and McCain. But the differences are in things which hardly matter: domestic policies. Let’s look at:

Tax policy. Yes, it’s true that McCain wants to lower taxes even further for the rich. With a slumping economy, even more people would get caught in the Alternative Minimum Tax and end up paying more. But I can’t worry about that; such plans would never survive in Congress. And for the same reason, Obama’s promises on taxes (cuts for the people making under $200,000; more taxes on people making over $250,000) simply can’t be kept. Obama could campaign on a promise to give every new baby a chocolate éclair, and why not? Congress would end up crafting some compromise with a far less progressive profile, and Obama will shrug, say it’s out of his hands, and it’s the best that could be come up with. So, don’t vote for the guy who promises to lower your taxes – he’s not a dictator, he can’t deliver.

The same goes for health care. Clearly, Obama has a more sane set of suggestions than McCain, even as his proposal falls far short of H.R. 676, which establishes a single-payer health care system in the US and effectively puts health insurers out of business. It doesn’t matter; anyone who lived through the Clinton “plan” in the 1990s can tell you that. On top of that difficulty, Obama and McCain just voted for a massive transfer of wealth to Wall Street, which will constrain what help they can provide to ordinary citizens; expect to see Obama’s proposed expansion of eligibility for federal health insurance go away first.

On issues where the President actually has a lot of latitude, they differ far less. Both would rush troops to Israel were it attacked. Both want to add the Ukraine and Georgia to NATO, effectively forcing our troops there as well in case of a conflict with Russia. Both would violate the sovereignty of any country which may be rumoured to house “terrorists”, including Osama bin Laden. And both speak of “killing” bin Laden, instead of bringing him and his ilk to justice. Such bloodthirsty rhetoric from the two men who would lead a nation built on the concept of laws and justice, where civilized people are glad the Wild West no longer exists.

So, where’s the change we can believe in? In areas where he can’t unilaterally deliver. Don’t be fooled.

Should third party supporters vote for Obama?

Democratic operatives and apologists, asking Nader voters to support Obama in swing states, need to understand that this is a two way street; you can’t ask supporters of third party candidates for their votes while participating in activities which are inimical to third party politics.

It’s pretty simple: if Democratic candidates want our votes, they will need to pledge some things in return:

1. You must allow third party candidates to participate in Presidential debates. A reasonable threshold (such as appearing on ballots in states which total over 269 electoral votes) is acceptable.
2. You must pledge never to work against the enfranchisement of third party candidates in their quest to access a spot on the ballot of any state. The track record of the Democratic party is particularly bad on this issue.
3. You should pledge to implement instant runoff voting or another approval voting system for Presidential candidates. This will allow third party supporters to express their approval of the policies of a third party candidate, while allowing them also to avoid the potential of hurting their second choice candidate (who might be the Democrat!).

If you, as a member of one of the parties in power, can’t pledge to make the playing field more available to third party candidates, then there’s really no reason why we should give you our votes.

Barack Obama has lost my vote

Look, I know that a McCain presidency would be a disaster for the country. So don’t bother writing that in the comments.

What I can’t do is vote for Barack Obama. On FISA, he voted the same way John McCain did. On the disastrous Wall Street Bailout, same as McCain. He wants to now “reduce” the troops in Iraq – not withdraw. He’s all for invading Pakistan, for supporting Israel against the Palestinians and Iranians, and for admitting Russia’s border states into NATO. The rationale may or may not be different; no matter, the policies are the same.

His speeches expose underlying philosophical differences with McCain. I can respect that. But I don’t see those principles being reflected where it matters – in the conduct of the Executive Branch. Many of Obama’s progressive proposals (funding renewable energy research, altering the health care landscape) will live and die in the legislature, with or without him; at best, he’d not be a threat to veto as McCain would. And his support for the current bailout package means he’s admitting that in the next four years, there will be less money to spend on investment at home: infrastructure building and repair, education, supporting small businesses. There’s no change – never mind change to believe in.

I’ve been leaning toward voting for Ralph Nader but had not yet made up my mind. I think a Ralph Nader presidency would be interesting; his irascible nature may make it difficult for him to work well with Congress to get things done. That would be a shame, but shame on Congress in that case. Would we really want to repeat the Carter presidency all over again? Why would a potentially sympathetic Congress not work with someone who has good intentions and great ideas?

Still – I can’t give my vote to Obama and endorse his policies. I have to make the statement that this candidate (Ralph Nader) embodies my vision for how the country should be run. He won’t win, but at least it will be clear that these ideas have a significant constituency; and maybe in 2012, more of these policies will make it into the debate, and hopefully into the campaign of one of the candidates.

Executive vs. Legislative promises

As I mentioned in a previous post, I’d like progressive voters to evaluate the promises of the various candidates with a critical eye. Presidential policies can be implemented directly by their administration using Executive powers; or they’ll need to be passed by Congress or created in collaboration with some other body (WTO, UN, the private sector, etc.). I think we need to weigh the first very heavily over the second. If I think a candidate would be a miserable Commander-in-Chief, or if their DOJ would be a danger to civil liberties, then I really don’t much care what their position on health care or education is.

Here are just a few areas which would be affected directly by the next Administration through Executive policy. I may update these periodically:

• Withdrawal from Iraq
• Negotiating with Iran
• A two-state solution to Palestine
• DOJ/DOD: ending torture and the “legal justification” for the use of torture
• FISA, warrantless wiretapping (and related in the short term: telco immunity)
• TSA/border search and seizure of laptops and electronics
• BLS: logging and drilling in public lands
• Treasury: bailing out banks and other speculators
• Labor: supporting workers’ rights including the right to organize
• OSHA: passing meaningful safety guidelines and enforcing what’s already in effect
• Suppressing science in departmental reports, suppressing whistleblowers
• Re-implementing the collection and reporting of economic statistics on unemployment, underemployment, and the distribution of wealth

Here are some topics I would like to agree with the candidate on, but they’ll need a sympathetic Congress etc. to get them implemented:

• structural solution to the mortgage crisis
• implementing an immediate reform of the minimum wage (to a “living wage”)
• healthcare reform, preferably a single-payer system
• cessation of the creation of ethanol from corn for fuel
• energy: cap and trade emissions control system with full initial auction, proceeds to fund research in low-emissions technology, carbon sequestration, and alternative fuels
• education: reform of NCLB
• poverty: fully funding UN and other international programs to reduce poverty and build economic infrastructure in poor countries, avoiding neo-liberal institutions such as the World Bank (or, reform of the World Bank)

etc.

One of the “in between” areas is judicial appointments. This should be a collaboration between the Administration and Congress, but lately Congress has been abdicating its role. So I’d put judicial appointments in the important category given the amount of influence the Administration has over them

Please add comments to help us determine how best to prioritize the importance of the candidates’ policies and promises.

Senator Chris Dodd vs. telco immunity

Everyone needs to read the comments of Senator Chris Dodd on 24 June 2008 as he attempts to block passage of the fatally flawed Senate version of the “compromise” FISA bill.

Please read that and then call one of the senators below. Please make sure you include a call to the campaign of Barack Obama.


Obama’s offices:
Senate DC office: (202) 224-2854
Senate DC fax: (202) 228-4260
Campaign: (866) 675-2008 (choose option 6)

Bayh (202) 224-5623
Carper (202) 224-2441
Obama (202) 224-2854
Inouye (202) 224-3934
Johnson (202) 224-5842
Landrieu (202)224-5824
McCaskill (202) 224-6154
Mikulski (202) 224-4654
Nelson (FL) (202) 224-5274
Clinton (202) 224-4451
Nelson (NE) (202) 224-6551
Pryor (202) 224-2353
Salazar (202) 224-5852
Specter (202) 224-4254
Feinstein (202) 224-3841
Webb (202) 224-4024
Warner (202) 224-2023
Snowe (202) 224-5344
Collins (202) 224-2523
Sununu (202) 224-2841
Stevens (202) 224-3004
Byrd (202) 224-3954
Lincoln (202)224-4843
Reid (202) 224-3542
Coleman (202) 224-5641
Durbin (202) 224-2152
Smith (202) 224-
Stabenow (202) 224-4822
Kohl (202) 224-5653
Leahy (202) 224-4242
Schumer (202) 224-6542

Don’t Focus

Professor Larry Lessig recently requested that we don’t lose sight of “the goal” – electing Barack Obama as President of the United States. There are a number of ways in which his argument fails, both logically and personally.

1. Perhaps most important is the conflation of avoiding a McCain presidency with electing Barack Obama. These are clearly not the same goals, given that there are more than these two candidates for President. Granted, so far only these two seem to be on the ballots of all 50 states; however, if any other candidate appears on enough ballots to gain 271 electoral votes, then they are viable alternatives to both McCain and Obama.
2. Prof. Lessig asks us to worry first about electing Obama, and then about bringing pressure on President Obama to espouse progressive values and legislation. However, it’s clear that after the election it’s too late for influence, except perhaps as an implicit threat not to vote for him for a second term. If progressives don’t make it clear right now that their candidate must espouse progressive values, then they won’t have any seat at the policy table.Voters faced the same dilemma when pulling the lever for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Progressives decided to hold their noses and vote defensively, avoiding a GHWBush second term and a Dole presidency. What they got was certainly better than what we have now, or a so-called McBush presidency, but it was not an administration which pushed aggressively for a progressive world-view. I think this was made clear by the abandonment in this cycle of Hillary Clinton as a candidate.
3. Professor Lessig encourages us to have a particularly short-range focus over a long-range focus. The long-range strategy is to use the political system to make it clear to the Democratic Party and to individual candidates that they cannot win the Presidency without the support of progressive voters. Democratic candidates should therefore be courting the Edwards/Kucinich/Nader supporters, not alienating them in an attempt to “move to the (non-existent) center”. You’d think that after Gore lost in 2000 (with Lieberman! as his VP), and John “reporting for duty” Kerry lost in 2004, the party would have gotten the message.In fact, you’d almost have given Barack Obama credit (during the primary) for learning that lesson. It certainly sounded like “change” was synonymous with a new progressive approach to policy. His background would have given one “hope” that he’d buck the typical interests in Washington. Certainly his declarations around foreign policy (“meet with anyone”) were bold and appreciated. However (and I’ll go into these in a later post), we have these missteps:
   • Supporting conservative Democratic Congressional incumbents (Barrow, GA) over progressive primary challengers.
   • Support for corn-based ethanol as a fuel alternative, despite its horrible effect on world food prices and its own huge carbon footprint.
   • Auctioning off carbon credits to polluters (in a cap-and-trade system) and using the proceeds as energy credits for consumers?
   • Uncritical support for Israel’s occupation of Palestine.
   • Opting out of public financing – yes, we all know the system is broken, and yes, we know you can’t win without doing this. But it’s a disappointment all the same. It would be nice to be on the podium with McCain and Feingold and discuss why this might be necessary.

I’ll put more in a subsequent post about this, but I thought I’d plant the seed here. Progressives need to look hard at the promises made in the Obama campaign and evaluate each of them in terms of their likelihood of implementation. The most obvious distinction is between executive and legislative prerogatives. For example, when Obama promises a health-care proposal, it’s nice but it’s hot air, since it can only be implemented by the legislature. And we’ve seen how well that worked for the Clintons. Same with a lot of the education and environmental policies (except those which can be implemented by Executive Order). On the other hand, if you have warmed over Clinton foreign policy hawks as advisors, you can predict where the Commander-in-Chief might stand with respect to Iraq, Iran, Palestine, etc. And of course check out Senator Obama’s voting record on judicial appointments.

I fear that Professor Lessig’s post reads like the first in a series of disappointments; if we’re unlucky, leading ultimately to heartbreak. Much like the couple planning to get married in November, you can’t go into this with the idea that “we’ll get married first, then I’ll work on my partner to change later”. You need to work on your partner first, and if they’re not who you need them to be, then don’t marry them in November.

Some Advice for Barack Obama

We now seem to be in the home stretch of the Democratic Primary, with Hillary Clinton looking less and less appealing as a Presidential candidate. As an aside, I think she could be doing herself some long lasting political harm by clinging so tenaciously to her increasingly unlikely chance to be nominated by her party. She has a chance now to step down graciously on her own terms. I’ve supported her right to be in the race up to this point, but it’s been a position which has been harder and harder to hold; if she had run a campaign on the issues alone, I think the country would have benefit from the debate. Instead, her ad hominem attacks on Barack Obama, and her whining about esoteric Party rules have made this at best an extremely unpleasant experience, and a detriment to her potential image as a states(man).

With that said, here’s my advice to Barack Obama as the putative Democratic candidate:

1. Debate everyone, including Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader. Don’t come across as a wimp; if you’ve got the right plan and the right ideas, come out and defend them against all comers. Yes, the televised debates are little better than sound-bite carnivals. Shame on the networks and moderators for choosing that structure. But here’s your chance to show the voters of America that your ideas and plans stack up well against the available alternatives.
2. In particular, don’t try to alienate Nader supporters.The Democrats have, since 2000, attempted to propagate two simultaneous and contradictory statements:
   1. Ralph Nader is insignificant. We don’t need to address his constituency, debate him publicly, etc.
   2. Ralph Nader cost the Democrats the elections of 2000 and 2004 and can do it again in 2008 if he’s not stopped.

   You can’t have it both ways. If he’s significant enough to cost you the election then you have to appeal to his supporters, with something more substantive than “If you vote for Nader then the Republican wins”. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar; and don’t assume that the people who will vote for Nader would have turned out for any old Democrat including yourself (they may have instead have stayed home). Show some support for a single payer health care system; eschew violence against Iran; have a firm timetable for withdrawal from Iraq; address the destructive policy of treating corporations as natural persons; etc.

3. You won’t pick up votes by moving to the right.Don’t make the same mistake Gore did in 2000 by choosing Lieberman as his VP. Don’t try to appear “tough on terrorism” like John Kerry tried in 2004. In this election you’re defending the high ground; as in 2004, this is the Republican’s election to lose. The more contrasts you can show between yourself and Bush/McCain, the better. Moving left will shore up your base and will get you the progressive votes you need to coax out to the polls to win the election.
4. Make sure every vote counts. Don’t do what John Kerry and Terry McAuliffe did in 2004 – don’t solicit funds for recounts and challenges before the election, then sit on your hands after the election and leave the Green Party to investigate irregularities and fund recounts. As an African-American, you should make it your top priority to ensure that traditionally disenfranchised populations get the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice. After having been burned in 2004, you’re unlikely to be able to raise any special funds for that purpose; but then again who knows? The Obama campaign has shown that if nothing else it can turn out the voters and contributors in droves.

And those are my suggestions today. I’m sure I’ll have even more later. Feel free to ignore them, of course.

The Progressive Pledge

Well.

The news today from the March 4 primaries is a bit disappointing. I have to admit that although Barack Obama would be at best my third choice for President (after Kucinich and Edwards), I prefer him to Hillary Clinton. After Edwards dropped out of the race I had to think long and hard about whether I could vote for either of the two candidates left in the Democratic Primary. After reading their campaign sites and doing some soul searching, I’m pretty sure at this point I could place a vote for Obama, but am pretty sure I can’t say the same for Clinton.

The setup: Reading the policy positions on the web sites, and thinking about where change happens on the federal level, I’ve realized that many of their proposals are nice to read, but will be impossible for them to achieve as President without the Congress making them happen. Health care, economic proposals, energy efficiency, etc.: these are all legislative prerogatives. So while it’s nice that they want to try to do all these things, the bottom line is that they just can’t, unless there’s a progressive majority in Congress doing the heavy lifting.

So, much of what they can accomplish in office will depend on what comes out of the legislature. I can see in general three different possible legislative outcomes:

1. Their proposals come through Congress intact and unscathed.
2. Bills are passed which implement some but not all of their proposals. In which case:
   1. The partial implementations make conditions better; or
   2. The partial implementations make conditions worse (for example: mandated health care coverage [which puts a huge wash of insurance premiums into the insurer's pockets] without regulation [such as requiring companies to issue coverage despite pre-existing conditions]).

   OR

3. Bills are passed which end up being more progressive than what the President has in mind.

Here’s how I would ultimately want to tell the difference between Obama and Clinton: I want each of them to take The Progressive Pledge:

I pledge that if elected, I will work with Congress to achieve my stated goals. If I am presented with an implementation which is more progressive than what I have outlined, I will sign it into law. If I am presented with a partial implementation of my proposals which ends up being less progressive than my proposals, I will veto the partial implementation and send it back.

Any candidate which starts with progressive proposals and which can take that pledge has my vote in November. Unless there are more than one such candidate? – boy that would be nice, to have a choice.

Don’t mention Reagan

This is supposedly a link to the interview with the Reno Gazette Journal, in which Barack Obama compares the current times to 1980 when he alleges the country was “ready for a change” and that Ronald Reagan effectively capitalized on that desire.

Let’s see. I’ve read follow up articles from Obama supporters in which they try to pitch this as a nuanced expression – Obama was discussing the times, and the Gipper’s ability to capitalize on the mood of the nation, but not praising Reagan’s policies? (Friends, Democrats, countrymen, I come to bury Reagan, not praise him?)

Problem #1: Obama makes this reference during a time in which the Republicans are falling over themselves comparing themselves and their policies to Reagan. Even Rudy Giuliani repeats “Reagan, Reagan, Reagan” in between saying “9/11, 9/11, 9/11″. So this comparison or analysis is not happening in a vacuum; it’s not part of an abstract debate. Either Obama knows this and is trading on the popularity of Reagan anyway, or the man is inexcusably clueless (the Ken Lay problem).

Problem #2: Obama calls Reagan’s popularity a reaction to the “excesses of the 1960s and 1970s”. This in fact may have been true about his election and perhaps even re-election. But Reagan was also very clearly saying one thing and doing another. The “shining city on the hill” was also selling arms to Iran to fund covert operations in Nicaragua; participating in violent regime change in and Panama; busting PATCO; allegedly negotiating with Iran to hold US hostages until after the election; blowing out the budget and deficit to fund the military-industrial complex, etc. Does this bring back any fond memories? Is this what the country needs – an affable wolf, who will try to run covert circles around Congress and the Judiciary?

Problem #3: Reagan’s election was a reaction to the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s. Obama gives the American electorate too much credit here for both foresight and historical memory. One doesn’t have to look too far back to see why Reagan was elected: high interest rates, gas/oil embargo, Iran hostages, Carter’s uninspiring personality. Reagan could have explicitly promised all the things he ended up doing: blowing out the budget and deficit, invading small defenseless countries, extending the power of the executive branch through covert operations, etc., and he still would have been elected. And it would have been just a lot more of the same as the 1960s. Americans were reacting to Jimmy Carter, not voicing a desire for some paradigmatic shift.

I don’t want to go on and on. I think the bottom line is: if you’re trying to appeal to Democrats, especially progressives, it’s crazy to bring up the reminder of the last long dark period in American politics. Between Reagan and Bush I, there were twelve years of the same crazy neo-cons who re-surfaced in the administration of Bush II. Mentioning Reagan favorably in a speech or interview rubs a raw wound for Democrats and progressives; it should be considered the third rail of especially primary politics. At best, that kind of pandering to conservatives should be saved for the general election.

Not a good idea – Loyalty Pledge

The Democratic Party is trying to nullify your influence in the primary process by asking for a loyalty pledge. It would be a bad idea to take them up on it.

According to Wikipedia, a loyalty oath typically comes at a time of stress, crisis, or conflict. One has to wonder whether that crisis or stress is internal or external to the Democratic Party. For example, the Party could argue that the current Administration has caused various crises domestically and in foreign relations, that the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination will likely continue policies which extend and exacerbate the situation(s), and that this is a time to strengthen the Party by a show of solidarity.

However, the crisis may also be internal. Unfortunately for the Party, the candidates from the Democratic nomination for President differ in their policies recommendations; the expressed policies of some of the candidates may in fact also extend or exacerbate some of the problems engendered by the current Administration. Voters in the Democratic primaries and caucuses actually have a real opportunity to express how they feel about the current crises facing America, and by their choices for the nomination, express their priorities. Do you want a candidate who will reverse course from the current Administration, in effect being diametrically opposed to all the Administration’s tenets? Vote for Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards. Were you initially in support of, but currently frustrated with the Iraq war? And still rather hawkish on Iran and Pakistan, and do you want tepid health care “reform”? You may prefer Hillary Clinton. Are you a candidate for change, despite your voting record in the Senate? You might choose Barack Obama, who was endorsed today by John Kerry, a man with so little conviction and charisma that he could not defeat a wildly unpopular sitting president.

Wouldn’t it benefit you as a liberal or a progressive to express support for the Party and whomever is their eventual nominee? No. It might help the Party advertise how “strong” it might be in the general election; how many votes its nominee might be able to count on. But keep in mind one very important fact: once the Party can ‘count on’ your vote, you have lost any ability to expressed a nuanced opinion of the candidates’ positions. Simply put, if you commit now, they don’t have to listen to you any more. Especially if you don’t have any big money to bundle or contribute.

If you believe that there is any difference between the candidates on issues which are important to you, make it clear to the Party that they either need to support sympathetic candidates, or put pressure on their nominee to support your position, or you will ‘walk’. You can only have influence within the Party as long as your defend your right to vote for someone else: the Republican, a candidate from another party, or for no one at all.

And how depressing is this news? What is happening to the Democratic Party – it is intent on eating itself? I hope the Party in TX loses this case. If they don’t, I hope they lose a large number of members and accelerate their slide into insignificance. This is a state party which doesn’t support candidates for state-wide office, has state-wide candidates who endorse Republicans for governor, Lt. Gov, and Speaker of the House, and when they do run candidates, make absurd choices like Tony Sanchez. They might as welll just fold up their tent and go home.