The Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee made fair and equitable rulings on the allocation of delegates for Florida and Michigan today. How Hillary Clinton and her supporters react will determine Barack Obama's prospects against John McCain in 2008 and her own prospects in 2012 or 2016.
To penalize the two states for moving their primaries ahead of the schedule the party set, the Committee cut the votes of both delegations in half. That is the same penalty the Republican Party imposed on the two states in its primaries. Florida will still send 172 pledged delegates and Florida 128 to the convention in Denver, but each delegate will only be able to cast one-half of a vote. This is a reasonable compromise, which is why both parties came to the same decision.
For Florida, the Committee approximated the voting results in parceling out the delegates. Clinton took 50% to Obama's 30% there, in a race in which neither candidate campaigned. Clinton will take 52.5 votes to the convention and Obama 33.5.
Michigan presented a more difficult choice, since Obama withdrew his name from the ballot after the DNC and both candidates agreed its vote would not count. Clinton's name stayed on the ballot, and she received 55% of the vote there to 40% for "Uncommitted." The committee decided to follow the Michigan Democratic Party's recommendation to consider the anti-Clinton votes as votes for Obama, and apportioned 34.5 votes for Clinton and 29.5 for Obama.
The day's deliberations produced 87 delegate votes for Clinton and 63 for Obama, a net gain of 24 for the New York Senator. Obama has 2051 and Clinton 1875, including superdelegates who have declared their support for a candidate. 2118 delegates will now be required for a majority at the convention, so Obama needs 67 more and Clinton needs 243.
86 delegates are at stake in the last three contests in Puerto Rico (55), Montana (16) and South Dakota (15). If Clinton does extremely well, say a 70% win in Puerto Rico, a narrow win in South Dakota and a close loss in Montana, she could pick up 54 delegates to Obama's 32 this week. That would put him at 2083 and her at 1929. So, even if Clinton has the best imaginable week at the polls Obama will need the support of only 35 of the remaining 179 superdelegates to secure the nomination. His nomination is about as certain as anything can be in politics.
Party leaders Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean are busy pressing the superdelegates to declare their intentions as soon as possible after Tuesday's votes in order to avoid a prolonged and divisive fight leading up to the convention. The upshot is that Obama ought to be able to declare victory within a week of the last balloting, around June 18. That's where it gets very sticky.
Clinton spokesman Harold Ickes spoke strongly at the end of today's committee meeting about her votes being "hijacked." He informed the committee, "Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her right to take this to the Credentials Committee." The Credentials Committee meets at the convention. The meeting had been frequently disrupted by angry shouts and chanting from Clinton supporters.
If she follows this course, claims the nomination was stolen from her, conducts a desperate fight at the convention and polarizes her followers against Obama's cause he will surely lose to McCain in November. That is completely within her power to bring about.
But if she does so, or fails to enthusiastically endorse him once he has the nomination in hand, she will be blamed by millions of Democrats for fracturing the party and costing the election. In that case she would also destroy any possibility for herself of becoming the party's standard bearer in 2012 if Obama loses or 2016 if he wins. She obviously wants to be president very badly, and knows that in 2016 she will be 68, three years younger than John McCain is now. That is why, unless I miss my guess, she will close ranks and endorse Obama soon after the voting ends.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Bush Economy: 2001-2008
George W. Bush campaigned in 2000 as an apostle of the "supply side" economic theory championed by Ronald Reagan back in the 1980s. When he took office in 2001 he began putting it into effect right away. A look at the past 7 years is in order because the presumptive Republican nominee for president, Senator John McCain, has embraced the supply side tenets as the centerpiece of his economic policy.
This economic model is based on large tax cuts, particularly weighted in favor of the wealthy, investors, and corporations. It also entails cutting regulation and as many government services as possible. The idea is that flush with cash, the well-heeled will plow it back into the economy and create millions of good new jobs that will ultimately benefit the middle and working classes as well. The theory holds that cutting government revenue with the tax cuts will not result in deficits because the economy will grow tremendously and the newly-prosperous workers will need fewer government services.
When implemented in the 1980s, this plan resulted in reasonable growth, but it all went to the upper class. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer and the middle class worked longer hours to stay even. The deficit grew to all-time highs. Critics of the supply side theory began derisively calling it "trickle down," a sobriquet correctly implying that little did trickle down. So how has it done in its second go-around?
On the debt, Bush inherited a surplus of $236 billion. This year there will be a projected $354 billion deficit. The national debt has grown by $3,500 billion ($3.5 trillion) during Bush's 7 years in office, an all-time record.
All this borrowing has contributed to the devaluation of the dollar. The Euro was worth $1.01 in 2001 and is worth $1.45 now. Gold was $319 an ounce then and is $892 per ounce now. Oil sold for $26 a barrel and is currently over $130. The average price of a gallon of gas has gone from $1.47 to $3.96. The annual trade deficit has gone up from $380 billion to $759 billion.
Have there been any benefits from this policy? Well, the overall economy (GDP) has grown by an average of 2.65% these past 7 years, though that is less than the average 4.09% growth during the eight years of the previous administration. The ruinous price increases and job losses have, of course, left most people worse off. But it has been very good for some. Productivity per worker has gone up by 18%. Corporate profits after tax have grown from $503.8 billion to $1,351.9 billion. The profits of the Standard & Poor's 500 top companies were 8.6% of GDP in 2006, a record high. The number of billionaires has increased from 186 to 415, and their combined wealth has quadrupled from $816 billion to $3.5 trillion. The top 1% of Americans have received cumulative tax cuts of $546 billion. For the biggest corporations and the wealthiest individuals, times have been good indeed.
How about for regular working folks? Well, the median household income has fallen from $49,158 to $48,201. We have lost 3.1 million manufacturing jobs. The official unemployment rate has gone from 3.5% to 5%, an increase of 2.1 million people. The percentage including those discouraged and no longer seeking work and those underemployed (the real unemployment rate), has grown from 6.3% to 9%. Consumer credit debt has gone from $7.65 trillion to $12.8 trillion, home foreclosures are up 68% and the savings rate has fallen from +2.3% to -0.5%.
In addition, there are 46.9 million Americans without health insurance, an increase of 8.5 million. The average cost of family health insurance has gone from $6,230 to $12,106 a year. The average cost per year at a 4-year public university has gone up $4,600 to $13,000 and at a private university has risen $7000 to $29,000. The maximum Pell Grant now leaves a student $8,746 short of covering public university costs. These factors have resulted in a 75% increase in the average debt a graduate leaves school with, which now stands at $21,000.
I regret deluging you with all these figures. It may have seemed a bit tedious going through them all. But seeing them in print may provide a tangible picture for what you have probably been feeling in your gut. Giving more money to the top few percent and cutting services to everyone else has not resulted in general improvement for the American people. It has instead resulted in an enormous accumulation of wealth at the top, a steady worsening of conditions for the overwhelming majority and has left the nation awash in debt. These are the same results produced when the supply side theory was applied in the 1980s. You might want to keep this in mind when considering how to cast your vote this November. I know I will.
This economic model is based on large tax cuts, particularly weighted in favor of the wealthy, investors, and corporations. It also entails cutting regulation and as many government services as possible. The idea is that flush with cash, the well-heeled will plow it back into the economy and create millions of good new jobs that will ultimately benefit the middle and working classes as well. The theory holds that cutting government revenue with the tax cuts will not result in deficits because the economy will grow tremendously and the newly-prosperous workers will need fewer government services.
When implemented in the 1980s, this plan resulted in reasonable growth, but it all went to the upper class. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer and the middle class worked longer hours to stay even. The deficit grew to all-time highs. Critics of the supply side theory began derisively calling it "trickle down," a sobriquet correctly implying that little did trickle down. So how has it done in its second go-around?
On the debt, Bush inherited a surplus of $236 billion. This year there will be a projected $354 billion deficit. The national debt has grown by $3,500 billion ($3.5 trillion) during Bush's 7 years in office, an all-time record.
All this borrowing has contributed to the devaluation of the dollar. The Euro was worth $1.01 in 2001 and is worth $1.45 now. Gold was $319 an ounce then and is $892 per ounce now. Oil sold for $26 a barrel and is currently over $130. The average price of a gallon of gas has gone from $1.47 to $3.96. The annual trade deficit has gone up from $380 billion to $759 billion.
Have there been any benefits from this policy? Well, the overall economy (GDP) has grown by an average of 2.65% these past 7 years, though that is less than the average 4.09% growth during the eight years of the previous administration. The ruinous price increases and job losses have, of course, left most people worse off. But it has been very good for some. Productivity per worker has gone up by 18%. Corporate profits after tax have grown from $503.8 billion to $1,351.9 billion. The profits of the Standard & Poor's 500 top companies were 8.6% of GDP in 2006, a record high. The number of billionaires has increased from 186 to 415, and their combined wealth has quadrupled from $816 billion to $3.5 trillion. The top 1% of Americans have received cumulative tax cuts of $546 billion. For the biggest corporations and the wealthiest individuals, times have been good indeed.
How about for regular working folks? Well, the median household income has fallen from $49,158 to $48,201. We have lost 3.1 million manufacturing jobs. The official unemployment rate has gone from 3.5% to 5%, an increase of 2.1 million people. The percentage including those discouraged and no longer seeking work and those underemployed (the real unemployment rate), has grown from 6.3% to 9%. Consumer credit debt has gone from $7.65 trillion to $12.8 trillion, home foreclosures are up 68% and the savings rate has fallen from +2.3% to -0.5%.
In addition, there are 46.9 million Americans without health insurance, an increase of 8.5 million. The average cost of family health insurance has gone from $6,230 to $12,106 a year. The average cost per year at a 4-year public university has gone up $4,600 to $13,000 and at a private university has risen $7000 to $29,000. The maximum Pell Grant now leaves a student $8,746 short of covering public university costs. These factors have resulted in a 75% increase in the average debt a graduate leaves school with, which now stands at $21,000.
I regret deluging you with all these figures. It may have seemed a bit tedious going through them all. But seeing them in print may provide a tangible picture for what you have probably been feeling in your gut. Giving more money to the top few percent and cutting services to everyone else has not resulted in general improvement for the American people. It has instead resulted in an enormous accumulation of wealth at the top, a steady worsening of conditions for the overwhelming majority and has left the nation awash in debt. These are the same results produced when the supply side theory was applied in the 1980s. You might want to keep this in mind when considering how to cast your vote this November. I know I will.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Dear Mr. McClellan
Mr. Scott McClellan
Deputy Presidential Press Secretary, 2001-2003
Presidential Press Secretary, 2003-2006
Dear Mr. McClellan:
Thank you for setting the record straight about the despicable tapestry of lies the Bush Administration wove to mislead the American people into supporting an unnecessary war in Iraq, explain away its many other pathetic policy blunders and cover up its endemic criminality. The nation owes you a debt of gratitude.
Because of your new book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," you will stand in history as the first of Bush's inner circle to break ranks and tell the truth. What has up to now been informed conjecture has been exposed to the light of day by one who stood in the middle of events. Your conscience has placed you in the company of John W. Dean, whose honesty helped lead to the resignation of that earlier criminal president, Richard M. Nixon.
As one who was at the heart of crafting the Bush message, your description of a President who ran things according to "permanent campaign mode instead of the best choices for America," and who "convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment," while engaging in serial "self-deception" have the ring of authority. These are the kinds of things citizens need to know when they are choosing their highest public servant. No doubt you had good reasons for not disclosing these traits as the President was running for re-election in 2004.
All Americans will applaud your forthright assessment that you knew the war in Iraq was "a serious strategic blunder" being foisted on the nation by a "political propaganda campaign" based on the President's "decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed." Your observation that this campaign of deception was abetted by a compliant press too tame to ask the hard questions or investigate the truth of the rationales you propounded to them from the lectern in the White House Press Room while you smeared the patriotism of skeptics marks you as a man of courage. Certainly the families of the 4,500 dead and 32,000 wounded U.S. troops will thank you for revealing these facts now, five years later.
Historians, too, will be glad you set the record straight about the President relying on the counsel of Presidential Political Adviser Karl Rove for his response to Hurricane Katrina. That explains to us why "the White House spent most of the first week in a state of denial," until "One of the worst disasters in our nation's history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush's presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush's second term." This is the kind of thing one can expect when a leader is more concerned about the political effects of problems than in actually preparing for them. Your candor will help writers of history better analyze why things went so wrong and will surely provide solace to the families of the 1,000 citizens who perished in the storm.
Your book will also contribute greatly to American justice and the principle that no one is above the law. By revealing that not only Scooter Libby but also Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and the President himself were involved in obstructing the investigation into the outing of CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame Wilson you have shown your fearless willingness to tell all and name names. And now that the trial is over and President Bush has only a few months left to serve you have done so while sparing the taxpayers the expense of several additional messy trials and possible impeachment hearings. The families of the agents Wilson was running in Iran can also rest easy now, knowing who was responsible for the arrests or disappearances of their loved ones. Sometimes truth can be its own reward.
So for all these reasons, Mr. McClellan, I salute you. The American people will now know the full extent of the venal and corrupt character of this President from one who knows him best. Now that he is about to complete his second full term thanks in part to your steadfast defense of his record in hundreds of press conferences, your timely memoir will help cement his reputation as one of the worst presidents of all time. You are a great American.
Admiringly yours,
Steve Natoli
Deputy Presidential Press Secretary, 2001-2003
Presidential Press Secretary, 2003-2006
Dear Mr. McClellan:
Thank you for setting the record straight about the despicable tapestry of lies the Bush Administration wove to mislead the American people into supporting an unnecessary war in Iraq, explain away its many other pathetic policy blunders and cover up its endemic criminality. The nation owes you a debt of gratitude.
Because of your new book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," you will stand in history as the first of Bush's inner circle to break ranks and tell the truth. What has up to now been informed conjecture has been exposed to the light of day by one who stood in the middle of events. Your conscience has placed you in the company of John W. Dean, whose honesty helped lead to the resignation of that earlier criminal president, Richard M. Nixon.
As one who was at the heart of crafting the Bush message, your description of a President who ran things according to "permanent campaign mode instead of the best choices for America," and who "convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment," while engaging in serial "self-deception" have the ring of authority. These are the kinds of things citizens need to know when they are choosing their highest public servant. No doubt you had good reasons for not disclosing these traits as the President was running for re-election in 2004.
All Americans will applaud your forthright assessment that you knew the war in Iraq was "a serious strategic blunder" being foisted on the nation by a "political propaganda campaign" based on the President's "decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed." Your observation that this campaign of deception was abetted by a compliant press too tame to ask the hard questions or investigate the truth of the rationales you propounded to them from the lectern in the White House Press Room while you smeared the patriotism of skeptics marks you as a man of courage. Certainly the families of the 4,500 dead and 32,000 wounded U.S. troops will thank you for revealing these facts now, five years later.
Historians, too, will be glad you set the record straight about the President relying on the counsel of Presidential Political Adviser Karl Rove for his response to Hurricane Katrina. That explains to us why "the White House spent most of the first week in a state of denial," until "One of the worst disasters in our nation's history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush's presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush's second term." This is the kind of thing one can expect when a leader is more concerned about the political effects of problems than in actually preparing for them. Your candor will help writers of history better analyze why things went so wrong and will surely provide solace to the families of the 1,000 citizens who perished in the storm.
Your book will also contribute greatly to American justice and the principle that no one is above the law. By revealing that not only Scooter Libby but also Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and the President himself were involved in obstructing the investigation into the outing of CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame Wilson you have shown your fearless willingness to tell all and name names. And now that the trial is over and President Bush has only a few months left to serve you have done so while sparing the taxpayers the expense of several additional messy trials and possible impeachment hearings. The families of the agents Wilson was running in Iran can also rest easy now, knowing who was responsible for the arrests or disappearances of their loved ones. Sometimes truth can be its own reward.
So for all these reasons, Mr. McClellan, I salute you. The American people will now know the full extent of the venal and corrupt character of this President from one who knows him best. Now that he is about to complete his second full term thanks in part to your steadfast defense of his record in hundreds of press conferences, your timely memoir will help cement his reputation as one of the worst presidents of all time. You are a great American.
Admiringly yours,
Steve Natoli
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
McCain Floats Interesting Ideas
Jonathan Alter of Newsweek has gone beyond the headlines to write about some interesting ideas John McCain spoke about recently. http://newsweek.com/id/137530?from=rsswww. While the Republican candidate has gotten more publicity for seconding President Bush's thinly-veiled characterization of Barack Obama as an appeaser, he has also floated some intriguing proposals on government transparency.
One is "pledging to abandon Bush's pernicious habit of attaching signing statements to bills." This practice, when it is used to change the intent of Congress when it passed the bill, is, in my view, unconstitutional. Bush has used it for that purpose time and time again.
Another is a promise to restore weekly press conferences. This would be a welcome change from the secretive conduct and the rare and highly scripted nature of most Bush press conferences. The American people miss out on quite a bit when their President does not share his mind with them extemporaneously. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Reagan were very open in this way.
But the bombshell idea was this one: "I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions, and address criticism, much the same as the prime minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons." Alter comments, "As C-Span viewers of the weekly British Question Time can attest, this would be revolutionary, even if our version proved far tamer."
That is certainly true, and even an understatement. It indicates McCain possesses a tremendous confidence in his knowledge of government operations, given that he could be asked practically anything under the sun by Democratic Senators or Representatives. He would also need to study hard to prepare for these sessions, and that would keep him on top of innumerable programs and issues.
One thing is for sure; a proposal like this certainly shows McCain has guts. And if he were able to pull it off successfully it would do much to help him advance his agenda in office.
One is "pledging to abandon Bush's pernicious habit of attaching signing statements to bills." This practice, when it is used to change the intent of Congress when it passed the bill, is, in my view, unconstitutional. Bush has used it for that purpose time and time again.
Another is a promise to restore weekly press conferences. This would be a welcome change from the secretive conduct and the rare and highly scripted nature of most Bush press conferences. The American people miss out on quite a bit when their President does not share his mind with them extemporaneously. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Reagan were very open in this way.
But the bombshell idea was this one: "I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions, and address criticism, much the same as the prime minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons." Alter comments, "As C-Span viewers of the weekly British Question Time can attest, this would be revolutionary, even if our version proved far tamer."
That is certainly true, and even an understatement. It indicates McCain possesses a tremendous confidence in his knowledge of government operations, given that he could be asked practically anything under the sun by Democratic Senators or Representatives. He would also need to study hard to prepare for these sessions, and that would keep him on top of innumerable programs and issues.
One thing is for sure; a proposal like this certainly shows McCain has guts. And if he were able to pull it off successfully it would do much to help him advance his agenda in office.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Class: The Other Taboo
The candidacy of Barack Obama has inevitably raised the issue of race. It is a topic most Americans would rather not talk about. Yet there is another issue that remains if anything an even greater taboo, and that is class.
If you want to make any number of predictions about a person's prospects at birth there is no surer way than by learning the income and educational level of his or her parents. This provides a more accurate barometer than race. Life expectancy, income, crime and incarceration figures, even traffic accident prediction are most accurately achieved by applying socioeconomic factors. Auto insurers know this. That is why they base insurance rates so heavily on a customer's zip code.
With race, there is a palpable discomfort level with most people. There are those who see its influence everywhere and others who feel that society is completely past it, that anyone who brings it up is simply whining or making excuses. But with most there is an underlying sense that it still matters, though how much or how little is difficult to determine and to talk about it is to walk on eggs. With class, however, there is usually the blank stare of incomprehension.
Sociology is the discipline that studies how people behave in groups. Put people in poverty and you get a consistent pattern of overall behavior. Overcrowd people and you get another. Expose them to danger or to greater or lesser degrees of opportunity and you get high correlations of definite behavior patterns. These understandings run counter to the propensity of upper and middle class Americans to believe that group factors do not matter; that everything is determined by individual choices for which individuals are personally responsible. They point to poor individuals who have "pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps" as evidence.
Yet the aggregate numbers are clear. Tulare County, California, where I live, is a good case in point. The county is largely rural. The unemployment level is about triple the national average. The demographics approximate rural Mississippi or rural Appalachia quite closely. They share similar high school dropout rates of around 40%, high teen pregnancy rates, divorce rates, incarceration rates, lower than average life expectancy rates and so on down the line. The economic conditions of poor Mexican-Americans in rural California, poor whites in Appalachia and poor blacks in the rural South lead to similar societal ills.
What worries me is the apparent national abandonment of a consensus to do anything about this problem. Historically, the national calamity of the Great Depression led to a great move toward egalitarianism. Millions from all walks of life got jobs with the CCC or the WPA. In World War II, the draft brought Americans of all sorts into the national service together. The GI Bill that followed it provided a hand up that moved millions into the white collar middle class. Brown v. Topeka and the Civil Rights Act began ending legal segregation. The 1950s and 1960s saw the formation of the greatest middle class society and the greatest widely shared growth of opportunity and prosperity in the nation's, and perhaps in the world's, history.
But the commitment to that vision ebbed and has seemingly been replaced in many places by a return to fear. Gated communities proliferate. More people send their children to private schools, which are no longer segregated by race but by income. Even public schools vary enormously depending on the wealth of their supporting community, and people with means move to where the schools are reputed to be better. There is a vibrant home-schooling movement. Tuition rates at public colleges and universities go up while scholarships are cut. The volunteer military increasingly is bifurcated into an enlisted mass drawn from the lower and lower middle classes and an officer corps drawn from the upper middle and upper classes. The national political, business and media leadership is nearly completely in the hands of people from these upper strata as well. People increasingly get their news from opinionated niche outlets that tell them what they want to hear, reinforce their own world views without contradiction, and demonize those who think differently.
Unlike those earlier eras, there exists very little impetus to recreate the shared experiences that once drew the nation's people closer together. There seem to be few who call for addressing these developments by making a concerted effort to improve life for those at the margins and integrate them into the middle class mainstream; instead that seems to have been relegated to the status of a lost cause for which the only answer is to hunker down behind protective walls to keep the riff raff out.
It seems as though we lived in a different America in 1967. That summer my father took me to a baseball game in Kansas City. During the game he sent me on an errand. I took my game program and a pen about three rows down and a few seats over to get the autograph of Warren Hearns, Governor of Missouri. That the Governor of the state would be sitting in the stands along with everyone else was just how it was. No one thought anything of it. Today a governor would be in a sky box behind glass with other mucky-mucks, shielded there from contact with the hoi polloi by astronomical prices and by security officers whose job it is to refuse entry to that stadium level to those who do not bear a golden ticket.
President Kennedy said, "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." Can it be that knowledgeable people are not aware from historical example where the balkanization of a society into class-based enclaves leads? Can we have forgotten Kennedy's words so soon?
If you want to make any number of predictions about a person's prospects at birth there is no surer way than by learning the income and educational level of his or her parents. This provides a more accurate barometer than race. Life expectancy, income, crime and incarceration figures, even traffic accident prediction are most accurately achieved by applying socioeconomic factors. Auto insurers know this. That is why they base insurance rates so heavily on a customer's zip code.
With race, there is a palpable discomfort level with most people. There are those who see its influence everywhere and others who feel that society is completely past it, that anyone who brings it up is simply whining or making excuses. But with most there is an underlying sense that it still matters, though how much or how little is difficult to determine and to talk about it is to walk on eggs. With class, however, there is usually the blank stare of incomprehension.
Sociology is the discipline that studies how people behave in groups. Put people in poverty and you get a consistent pattern of overall behavior. Overcrowd people and you get another. Expose them to danger or to greater or lesser degrees of opportunity and you get high correlations of definite behavior patterns. These understandings run counter to the propensity of upper and middle class Americans to believe that group factors do not matter; that everything is determined by individual choices for which individuals are personally responsible. They point to poor individuals who have "pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps" as evidence.
Yet the aggregate numbers are clear. Tulare County, California, where I live, is a good case in point. The county is largely rural. The unemployment level is about triple the national average. The demographics approximate rural Mississippi or rural Appalachia quite closely. They share similar high school dropout rates of around 40%, high teen pregnancy rates, divorce rates, incarceration rates, lower than average life expectancy rates and so on down the line. The economic conditions of poor Mexican-Americans in rural California, poor whites in Appalachia and poor blacks in the rural South lead to similar societal ills.
What worries me is the apparent national abandonment of a consensus to do anything about this problem. Historically, the national calamity of the Great Depression led to a great move toward egalitarianism. Millions from all walks of life got jobs with the CCC or the WPA. In World War II, the draft brought Americans of all sorts into the national service together. The GI Bill that followed it provided a hand up that moved millions into the white collar middle class. Brown v. Topeka and the Civil Rights Act began ending legal segregation. The 1950s and 1960s saw the formation of the greatest middle class society and the greatest widely shared growth of opportunity and prosperity in the nation's, and perhaps in the world's, history.
But the commitment to that vision ebbed and has seemingly been replaced in many places by a return to fear. Gated communities proliferate. More people send their children to private schools, which are no longer segregated by race but by income. Even public schools vary enormously depending on the wealth of their supporting community, and people with means move to where the schools are reputed to be better. There is a vibrant home-schooling movement. Tuition rates at public colleges and universities go up while scholarships are cut. The volunteer military increasingly is bifurcated into an enlisted mass drawn from the lower and lower middle classes and an officer corps drawn from the upper middle and upper classes. The national political, business and media leadership is nearly completely in the hands of people from these upper strata as well. People increasingly get their news from opinionated niche outlets that tell them what they want to hear, reinforce their own world views without contradiction, and demonize those who think differently.
Unlike those earlier eras, there exists very little impetus to recreate the shared experiences that once drew the nation's people closer together. There seem to be few who call for addressing these developments by making a concerted effort to improve life for those at the margins and integrate them into the middle class mainstream; instead that seems to have been relegated to the status of a lost cause for which the only answer is to hunker down behind protective walls to keep the riff raff out.
It seems as though we lived in a different America in 1967. That summer my father took me to a baseball game in Kansas City. During the game he sent me on an errand. I took my game program and a pen about three rows down and a few seats over to get the autograph of Warren Hearns, Governor of Missouri. That the Governor of the state would be sitting in the stands along with everyone else was just how it was. No one thought anything of it. Today a governor would be in a sky box behind glass with other mucky-mucks, shielded there from contact with the hoi polloi by astronomical prices and by security officers whose job it is to refuse entry to that stadium level to those who do not bear a golden ticket.
President Kennedy said, "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." Can it be that knowledgeable people are not aware from historical example where the balkanization of a society into class-based enclaves leads? Can we have forgotten Kennedy's words so soon?
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Talking to the Enemy
One of the most refreshing prospects for this year's election is that the two major candidates offer strikingly different views on a number of issues. This promises to give voters a clear choice in November. One of the issues that has been in the news lately is whether the United States should engage in diplomatic talks with international adversaries. John McCain seems to want to give the silent treatment to international rivals and Barack Obama wants to talk with them.
The item first got on the national radar screen in a Democratic debate. Obama said he would have face to face talks with leaders of countries like Iran, and without preconditions. Hillary Clinton jumped on that one right away, calling Obama naive. Since then, Obama has refined his stance a bit, admitting that preparatory work would first need to be done at lower levels of officials below the president. But he has stuck to his guns on this one.
The issue was rejoined when President Bush was in Israel. He likened speaking to enemies as appeasement and explicitly mentioned the Nazis to his Jewish audience. McCain joined in the attack so quickly there is little doubt he and the Prez had planned this as a one-two punch together. Due to a couple of factors, though, it did not have the effect they expected.
First of all, Bush is practically without credibility at this point of his tenure. With approval numbers around 30% for two years, no one but the already-committeed diehard core of the Republican base even listens to the man anymore. Nothing helps a Democrat more these days than to be able to directly engage Bush on an issue.
Second, Obama held his ground, offered historical examples and caught McCain advocating the practice himself. Kennedy stared down Khruschev. Nixon went to China. Reagan talked with Gorbachev. McCain himself was shown in a two-year old tape saying we would sooner or later have to deal with the Palestinian organization Hamas.
Obama dug in further with recent remarks in Florida about the issue of relations with Cuba. He called for "direct diplomacy with friend and foe alike," to "turn the page," to allow unlimited visits to relatives on the island and the sending of remittances to relatives there. His appeal is similar in some ways to part of the detente approach of the 1970s in that an increase in personal contacts between Americans and citizens of the adversary regime was welcomed and even pushed as a way to undermine support for the other nation's system. Older Cuban exiles are highly skeptical of Obama's idea, but many of the younger generations appear much more open to it.
How has the diplomatic cold shoulder policy been working these past fifty years? Well, the Castros are still in power. Meanwhile, 10 U.S. Presidents have come and gone. The rest of the world trades with Cuba, so the U.S. embargo has very little effect. The embargo policy stands actually as evidence of its own impotence.
Meanwhile, diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe hastened the day when those regimes fell. Relations with China have eased that nation's entry into the capitalist world economy and given it a stake in the global system. Engagement with Libya has been successful in weaning that country from the terrorist orbit.
Will constructive engagement always result in success? Certainly not, but the alternative idea that rogue regimes are "punished" and brought to reasonability if we refuse to talk to them is silly. The key is to understand that negotiation and appeasement are not the same thing. Negotiation is talks; appeasement is giving countries to the enemy. McCain's narrative of Obama the naif, with whom talks can only lead to capitulation, is of course nothing but a cartoon caricature meant to define his opponent unfavorably for the election. Just as is McCain's own image of himself as one who will not treat with the bad guys at all. He has shown he will when the opportunity appears worth it.
The item first got on the national radar screen in a Democratic debate. Obama said he would have face to face talks with leaders of countries like Iran, and without preconditions. Hillary Clinton jumped on that one right away, calling Obama naive. Since then, Obama has refined his stance a bit, admitting that preparatory work would first need to be done at lower levels of officials below the president. But he has stuck to his guns on this one.
The issue was rejoined when President Bush was in Israel. He likened speaking to enemies as appeasement and explicitly mentioned the Nazis to his Jewish audience. McCain joined in the attack so quickly there is little doubt he and the Prez had planned this as a one-two punch together. Due to a couple of factors, though, it did not have the effect they expected.
First of all, Bush is practically without credibility at this point of his tenure. With approval numbers around 30% for two years, no one but the already-committeed diehard core of the Republican base even listens to the man anymore. Nothing helps a Democrat more these days than to be able to directly engage Bush on an issue.
Second, Obama held his ground, offered historical examples and caught McCain advocating the practice himself. Kennedy stared down Khruschev. Nixon went to China. Reagan talked with Gorbachev. McCain himself was shown in a two-year old tape saying we would sooner or later have to deal with the Palestinian organization Hamas.
Obama dug in further with recent remarks in Florida about the issue of relations with Cuba. He called for "direct diplomacy with friend and foe alike," to "turn the page," to allow unlimited visits to relatives on the island and the sending of remittances to relatives there. His appeal is similar in some ways to part of the detente approach of the 1970s in that an increase in personal contacts between Americans and citizens of the adversary regime was welcomed and even pushed as a way to undermine support for the other nation's system. Older Cuban exiles are highly skeptical of Obama's idea, but many of the younger generations appear much more open to it.
How has the diplomatic cold shoulder policy been working these past fifty years? Well, the Castros are still in power. Meanwhile, 10 U.S. Presidents have come and gone. The rest of the world trades with Cuba, so the U.S. embargo has very little effect. The embargo policy stands actually as evidence of its own impotence.
Meanwhile, diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe hastened the day when those regimes fell. Relations with China have eased that nation's entry into the capitalist world economy and given it a stake in the global system. Engagement with Libya has been successful in weaning that country from the terrorist orbit.
Will constructive engagement always result in success? Certainly not, but the alternative idea that rogue regimes are "punished" and brought to reasonability if we refuse to talk to them is silly. The key is to understand that negotiation and appeasement are not the same thing. Negotiation is talks; appeasement is giving countries to the enemy. McCain's narrative of Obama the naif, with whom talks can only lead to capitulation, is of course nothing but a cartoon caricature meant to define his opponent unfavorably for the election. Just as is McCain's own image of himself as one who will not treat with the bad guys at all. He has shown he will when the opportunity appears worth it.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Clinton's Support Collapsing
New polling data that you will soon see in the national news indicates that at long last, Democratic voter opinion is beginning to move decisively in the presidential race. Hillary Clinton's support is collapsing across the board and is coalescing around the candidacy of Barack Obama.
Ever since Obama's stunning victory in the Iowa caucuses back in January, Clinton had avoided his knockout punch. First in New Hampshire, then in Ohio and Texas, and finally in Pennsylvania, Clinton's support had held firm and kept her in a race that had clearly become an uphill struggle for her. While party leaders fretted about party unity, surveys consistently showed the party faithful wanted the contest to go on. The rank and file appear now to have joined the movers and shakers in the view that the race is settled and it's time to wrap it up.
Brave Gnu Whirled reader Jeff sent me the latest Gallup daily tracking poll. It shows Obama surging 12 points to a commanding 16-point lead over Clinton among Democrats nationally. From May 1 to May 13, Obama led 49% to 45%. The 3-day tracking poll conducted May 16 to 18 saw that margin grow to 55% to 39%.
All subgroups evidenced movement toward Obama. He increased his lead among men from 55-39 to 63-31. He caught up among whites, going from a 52-41 deficit to a 47-47 tie. For the first time, he gained the upper hand among Hispanics, going from a huge 56-39 deficit to a 51-44 lead. Even more ominous for Clinton, Obama has even taken the lead among women, going from down 50-44 to up 49-46. You can see all the data at http://www.gallup.com/poll/107407/Obama-Surge-Fairly-BroadBased.aspx#1
These findings are corroborated by the Real Clear Politics averages of national polls, which show Obama suddenly leading Clinton by 12.2%. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ The RCP averages showed a dead heat from May 1 through the 11th, with the race tied 7 days, Obama up by 2 one day and up by 1 the other three days. On May 12, the day before West Virginia, he jumped to a national 5-point lead. It stayed between 5 and 8 points for the next eight days, until May 19, the day before Oregon and Kentucky, when it jumped to 9. It went to 11 on the 20th and 12 on the 21st.
The RCP average is considered as good a bellweather as there is in polling, since it consists of an average of several polls and is thus thought to minimize the anomalies inherent in the results of any one poll. If they're all saying the same thing it gives added statistical weight to the findings by greatly increasing the sampling size. The only time it has been drastically off this year was just before New Hampshire.
If the next Gallup tracking poll and RCP average duplicates what these are saying, expect the talk urging Clinton to withdraw to get increasingly pointed and direct. Even more important, expect to see the superdelegates begin declaring for Obama in droves. Superdelegates are, after all, politicians. They are naturally skittish about taking chances that might antagonize a lot of voters, voters who seem to have wanted to see the battle to go on until May 12. But on that date they decided they had seen enough. Neither Clinton's West Virginia win nor the Oregon-Kentucky split changed their minds; indeed they appear to have hardened their resolve that the race is over, Obama is the nominee, and it's time get on with it.
Ever since Obama's stunning victory in the Iowa caucuses back in January, Clinton had avoided his knockout punch. First in New Hampshire, then in Ohio and Texas, and finally in Pennsylvania, Clinton's support had held firm and kept her in a race that had clearly become an uphill struggle for her. While party leaders fretted about party unity, surveys consistently showed the party faithful wanted the contest to go on. The rank and file appear now to have joined the movers and shakers in the view that the race is settled and it's time to wrap it up.
Brave Gnu Whirled reader Jeff sent me the latest Gallup daily tracking poll. It shows Obama surging 12 points to a commanding 16-point lead over Clinton among Democrats nationally. From May 1 to May 13, Obama led 49% to 45%. The 3-day tracking poll conducted May 16 to 18 saw that margin grow to 55% to 39%.
All subgroups evidenced movement toward Obama. He increased his lead among men from 55-39 to 63-31. He caught up among whites, going from a 52-41 deficit to a 47-47 tie. For the first time, he gained the upper hand among Hispanics, going from a huge 56-39 deficit to a 51-44 lead. Even more ominous for Clinton, Obama has even taken the lead among women, going from down 50-44 to up 49-46. You can see all the data at http://www.gallup.com/poll/107407/Obama-Surge-Fairly-BroadBased.aspx#1
These findings are corroborated by the Real Clear Politics averages of national polls, which show Obama suddenly leading Clinton by 12.2%. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ The RCP averages showed a dead heat from May 1 through the 11th, with the race tied 7 days, Obama up by 2 one day and up by 1 the other three days. On May 12, the day before West Virginia, he jumped to a national 5-point lead. It stayed between 5 and 8 points for the next eight days, until May 19, the day before Oregon and Kentucky, when it jumped to 9. It went to 11 on the 20th and 12 on the 21st.
The RCP average is considered as good a bellweather as there is in polling, since it consists of an average of several polls and is thus thought to minimize the anomalies inherent in the results of any one poll. If they're all saying the same thing it gives added statistical weight to the findings by greatly increasing the sampling size. The only time it has been drastically off this year was just before New Hampshire.
If the next Gallup tracking poll and RCP average duplicates what these are saying, expect the talk urging Clinton to withdraw to get increasingly pointed and direct. Even more important, expect to see the superdelegates begin declaring for Obama in droves. Superdelegates are, after all, politicians. They are naturally skittish about taking chances that might antagonize a lot of voters, voters who seem to have wanted to see the battle to go on until May 12. But on that date they decided they had seen enough. Neither Clinton's West Virginia win nor the Oregon-Kentucky split changed their minds; indeed they appear to have hardened their resolve that the race is over, Obama is the nominee, and it's time get on with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)