Why Not Yemen?

It’s pretty clear that Obama wants to make Afghanistan his war. He’s not only pledging thousands of more troops, but also is willing to use both domestic and international capital to procure as much support as possible. In other words, he’s putting a lot on the line. The justification for the increased presence emanates from the belief that Afghanistan has become a failed state, meaning that terrorists can more easily operate in the country. To fix this, it is said that America must send more troops there to both kill terrorists and train the local police. Using this logic, the necessary question to ask is why America does not commit itself to bringing stability to Yemen.

There is a consensus in the foreign policy community that Yemen warrants the title of failed state. Al Qaeda has a strong foothold there and the government cannot carry out its basic responsibilities. And more than simply being an isolated area that harbors terrorists, it has the potential to disrupt US interests in oil rich Saudi Arabia. Could you imagine the implications of terrorists interfering in the oil production of its northern neighbor?

Asking key Obama administration officials this question might provide a valuable window into the real reasons behind going into Afghanistan. Since they won’t foolishly disagree with the premise of Yemen’s increasing difficulties, the way in which they navigate the question would be interesting. Will their answer imply that the Afghanistan move is mostly about Pakistan? Might it be about increasing pressure on its other bordering country—Iran? Is the Atlantic Monthly’s Robert Kaplan onto something when he says that bringing stability to Afghanistan would allow the transference of energy from  Central Asia to India? Is that part of the equation?

In December of last year, it was very telling when former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice told David Gregory on Meet the Press that the US ultimately decided not to go into Darfur because it is part of a far away and complex Muslim country. She essentially used the same argument that Iraq War critics did. The comment proved the obvious; Iraq was not really about bringing freedom as was commonly said. Using ostensible parallels can help tear down some of the rhetoric that politicians employ.

At Obama’s last press conference, the media received a lot of flack for failing to elicit meaningful answers to big questions. Before the Q&A session though, Politico’s Mike Allen had a good piece on how reporters try to make news. Major Garret of Fox News said the best way to do this with Obama was  ”to push him in an explanatory direction. He loves to explain things, and sometimes in the explaining he makes news.” Therefore, effectively asking Obama, “Explain why Afghanistan and not Yemen when they share many of the same problems,” might actually give the public some clues into his foreign policy—-policies that are always much more opaque than domestic policy.

Government Pork: The Exclusivity Illusion

Republicans and some conservative Democrats have been complaining about the almost 800 billion dollar stimulus bill. Their grievances lie in giveaways like the $150 million for the Smithsonian and the $ 30 million project for San Francisco to restore wetlands. Their moral outrage, however, is unsophisticated. In theory, it is abominable for a taxpayer in Oklahoma to fund a museum more than a thousand miles away. But if those critics disdain that, they ought to extend that same disgust to the private sector as well.

There is undoubtedly more of a bottom line in the private sector than the public sector. Gimmicky accounting measures can temporarily hide the true worth of a firm, but investors will ultimately flee if a firm cannot eventually generate positive cash flows. The  real effectiveness of a government program can be more easily concealed from taxpayers. The complexity of laws and government funding make it easier to dupe the public. And the private sector measures profitability, while  government programs can be justified using other arguments. Homeland Security, for example, can claim that there has not been another attack since 9-11. That indisputable statement does not necessarily mean they deserve the credit for that. Perhaps there hasn’t been another attack despite their efforts—-not because of them. Having said that, investors still have some of their money used for wasteful things, just like taxpayers do.

The most common criticism of waste in corporations is on such luxury items as jets and expensive meals. But how about the distribution of jobs? Senior executives can frequently convince Human Resources to hire a family member or close friend even if they are not the most qualified.Or how about a big corporation giving money away to a local school even if there are no tangible benefits of doing so? Or how about a corporation hiring a certain bank not because it is the most competitive, but because the CFO of the company is friendly with a certain Managing Director from one of the banks?  If  shareholders agree that those costs aren’t very burdensome, then it should follow that taxpayers accept pork as an infinitesimally small percentage of GDP.  

Not only do investors acquiesce to those examples, in many cases they gladly acquiesce. If the price of keeping top money makers at the company is giving them more favors, so be it. And if the price of having a government that works and functions is minimal corruption, so be it. If investors think unnecessary expenses are too excessive, they can sell their assets. And if taxpayers think they are getting ripped off, midterms are at maximum two years away.

It is true that Americans have no choice but to have some type of government-unlike investors and their respective financial instruments- but is that such a bad thing? States will always fight vigorously over federal resources, but no one complained about the infusion of Republican money into Democratic New York after 9-11. God forbid another natural disaster like Katrina happens in Louisiana, I am sure Obama will unflinchingly come to their rescue. During the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict in 2006, America made sure to take care of and rescue its 25,000 citizens in Lebanon—regardless of party. 

This is not to suggest that citizens should stop demanding and expecting a more perfect union. All it is saying is those citizens that complain the most, who are ironically the most well off, should try to have some perspective. They might be overtaxed, but at least their wealth is protected through laws more than any other country in the world. That insurance outweighs the personal cost of paying for the Smithsonian.

Structural Lessons from The Bush Presidency

We often hear personal criticisms of former President Bush. He didn’t listen, was incurious and unintelligent, acted stubbornly, and didn’t know how to manage big egos. These characteristics, supposedly, explain the failures of his presidency. Some of these might be true, but it’s hard to say. Unless you were a Bush intimate, you can’t intelligently speak about the man himself. We can instead look at structural impediments, which might have been the source of his mistakes.

Reelection as a distraction- The Iraq War is and will continue to be a hotly contested war. Was it necessary? Is the realpolitik assertion that Sadaam Hussein impeded Iran from becoming a hegemonic Middle Eastern power true? Will Iraq turn into a democracy? Those questions will not be answered for some time. We do know one thing, however; many consequential decisions concerning the Iraq War were made during 2004—-Bush’s reelection year. Bush, for example, outsourced the choice to disband the Iraqi national army to Paul Bremmer during that time. Many critics cite that singular decision as the reason behind Iraqi violence from 2004 to 2007. Many exit strategies were implemented that year as well. And Abu Ghraib (the torture prison), one of the few mistakes Bush has owned up to, began in 2004. If he did not have to focus on another election, would the US have made so many mistakes in Iraq? Regardless of who the President is, running a presidential campaign in the era of 24/7 news will take away that person’s energies from presidential duties. The only other precedent is Richard Nixon, who made mistakes about Vietnam in 1972. The question is: can the President be an effective commander in chief during politics season? Perhaps not.

Popularity Matters-Bush wore his low approval ratings as a badge of honor. In his mind, it meant that he made bold and courage decisions, eschewing the temptation to be well ephemerally received.. There is certainly some validity behind this thinking. Winston Churchill, Harry Truman, and John Adams were unpopular men who have been vindicated by history. At the same time, Bush’s unpopularity prevented him from using the bully pulpit to tackle objectively bad policy. A prime example of this was last year during a legislative fight over a grotesque farm bill. The US government bought food at two times cost, and then sold them for twenty cents on the dollar to appease  farming constituents. This move not only hurt taxpayers, but it disallowed farmers in Africa to rise out of poverty since they cannot compete with artificially low prices. Bush vetoed the bill, but Congress overrode him easily. If Bush were more popular, then he could’ve waged a stronger fight through favorable media coverage and with the American people’s trust. He was, on the contrary, ineffective. He might’ve been defeated anyway because of lobbyists, but he at least would’ve been able to put a fight. This example also applies to his failed efforts in achieving a Free Trade deal with Colombia and getting immigration reform. So even if Bush were confident in decisions that the media and opposition condemned him for, more humility and gimmicky media appearances might’ve made him more popular to stand up for the things he believes in. Yes he would’ve been “chasing popularity,” but it would’ve been for the right reasons.

Lobbyists will win- Although I just wrote how popularity can prevail over lobbyists, there are some fights that even the most popular President cannot win. The debacle of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac illustrates this very well. On The View last September, former President Clinton said that he, like Bush, tried to reform those mortgage businesses. Just as Bush encountered, he said lobbyists money to congressmen and senators took away his ability to get real reform done. And President Clinton had high approval ratings, so unpopularity clearly had nothing to do with it. The Founders created three somewhat equal branches of government, meaning that some things are neither to the President’s credit nor to his fault.

This piece is not to serve as an excuse for President Bush’s mistakes. I think his immediate handling of 9-11, something most folks accredit him with, is in many respects a function of context as well. Any President would’ve strongly condemned those actions and struck back. I don’t know how exceptionally stellar his performance was. This piece is also not meant to say a President doesn’t have real power to make real decisions. It was ultimately up to Bush to start Iraq just as many other decisions were. But some decisions, or parts of those decisions, transcended the power of the President. Scholars should figure those out, instead of blaming bad decisions on unprovable character attributes.

 

 

 

 

The Irrationality We Should Acknowledge

Turn on the television, read an op-ed, or even listen to that antiquated radio and you’ll hear commentators and citizens alike subscribing to the theory of how unique this moment is in American history. Barack Obama is going to be the first black President in a nation scarred by slavery. But more than that, this economic crisis presents an opportunity for us to come together and finally tackle our nation’s ills. We can create better schools, better hospitals, and a better foreign policy. And Obama, who consistently projects the best in us, will lead the way. It is this sense of possibility that drives a country on the verge of bankruptcy to devote unprecedented resources to experience “history.” For the wealthy, it means spending fifty thousand dollars on a fancy ball to shake his hand. For the less well off, it means doing whatever it takes to be in our nation’s capital. Even if it means sitting far away, it’ll still be worthwhile because at least you can say you were there. Imagine, instead, if all those resources were  spent on carrying out Obama’s aspirations.

If 1.2+ million people were as enthusiastic about solving our nation’s inequities as they were about the inauguration, we’d most certainly  have solved them. No child would starve. No student would be denied entrance to school on the basis of cost. No sixty year old would be turned away from a necessary surgery because he or she made too much to qualify for Medicaid yet was too young to qualify for Medicare. Given this, why will everyone in one form or another give a disproportionate amount of their time to hear a variation of a speech we’ve heard so much that it sounds like a bromide?It’s a complex question, but I’ll take my best shot.

We spend the time hearing someone else tell us how we’ll tackle these infinitely daedal quandaries because we want to feel a part of something. If we spent the time individually helping, we’d feel like we were making a marginal difference at best. Yet if everyone is helping, then we might actually be able to make a difference. If one man takes the helm, we can follow him and finally make genuine progress. Any observer of human history, however, understands the egregious failures of collective action. Our selfishness impedes the potential to create the utopia that philosophers and artists have dreamt of ever since we were capable of thought. Anyone who seriously cogitates about it will inevitably have to laugh at the irrationality of it all. 1.2 million celebrating one man’s ability to navigate the political winds better than his opponents. Come on, how does that personally help anyone who isn’t part of Obama’s team or at least tangentially part of politics? It doesn’t. On January 21st we’ll be as rich or poor, happy or unhappy, God hating or fearing as we were on January 20th. We’ll do better or worse based partly on our merit and partly on life’s randomness, not because of some distant man in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

We do it because, simply, we need faith to believe that tomorrow will triumph yesterday. It’s no different than somebody accepting that Jesus Christ died two thousand years ago  for our sins. It’s no different than believing you were put here for an ad hoc purpose. It’s rooted in a belief that cannot be proven— something we all share in some fashion  or another. Its manifestations vary, but we all share it. Ideally, those who mock liberals for believing so much in Obama would realize that  they, in practice, do the same thing in their house of worship. Conversely, those who believe in Obama should admit that doing so makes as much intellectual sense as religion. Of course the cleavage between both sides will not shrink. But hey, that’s the change I’ll dream about on Tuesday.

P.S. If an Obama like figure were about to embark on the Presidency twenty years ago while Barack was at Harvard Law, would he be in D.C. celebrating? We know the Clintons worked on Jimmy Carter’s campaign in 1976, and Obama never has done the equivalent. Then again, there were no compelling Democratic figures in the 1980s while he came of age.

The Swinging Pendulum: Obama’s Move to Universal Acceptance

In politics, new administrations often try to do the opposite of what their predecessors did. Proponents of this thinking cite Bush’s refusal to play peacemaker between the Palestinians and Israelis as a prime example. For the last few months of President Bill Clinton’s term, he worked extraordinarily hard to get a deal done. Once Bush came in, he arrantly abandoned those efforts. Once again we are confronted with a marked change in approach. For the last few years, President Bush has taken the my way or the highway approach. To his admirers, his actions reflect those of a principled and tough leader. To his detractors, his actions are rooted in stubbornness and delusion. But it is indisputable that Bush alienates a good chunk of lawmakers. Barack Obama, however, is charting a fundamentally different route; he really is attempting to unite everyone around the economic crisis.

Barack Obama’s real economic philosophy is opaque. He frequently appears to be an acolyte of Keynesian economics, where the government has a moral imperative to put equality ahead of efficiency. This was evident when he told ABC News’ Charlie Gibson that capital gains should be raised even if it decreases revenue for the government. This is evident when he tells college graduates to eschew the private sector to join the government to solve our nation’s ills. This was probably most evident when he told New York Times senior economic correspondent David  Leonhardt that one of his favorite quotes concerns the pitfalls of strictly measuring GDP. He spoke affectionately of Robert F. Kennedy’s point that GDP “counts special locks for our doors and jails for those who break them…but not the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play.”

There must, however, be cognitive dissonance with his beliefs. He prefaces every economic argument by displaying a healthy respect for free markets. He thinks free markets have no rival in their ability to efficiently allocate resources. He told Chris Wallace of Fox News last spring that deregulation during Ronald Reagan’s presidency positively impacted the middle and lower class because prices came dramatically down. And he said last summer that one of his favorite economic thinkers of the twentieth century is Friedrich Hayek, a man who passionately argued for the minimization of central planning.

His seemingly bipolar views of the economy are in full force with his bailout proposal. A major part of his proposal is stimulating demand; give people money and they will spend it, creating a multiplier effect that stimulates the production of goods and services. This is an inherently Keynesian idea. He also believes the government is prudent and intelligent enough to figure out how much money should be invested in education, healthcare, and alternative energy with very little respect to market mechanisms. This is another Keynesian belief. He, at the time, advocates for many supply side measures to stimulate business. This includes a reduction in certain taxes and a tax credit for hiring or rehiring workers.

The only possible answer to why he wants such a contradictory bill is to maintain or increase his popularity. One of his aides told the Wall Street Journal that he wants at least 80 out of a 100 senators to vote on the bill, even though only 60 would be required to make it law. It is as if the bailout is a direct indictment on presidential power without popular backing. It’s another example of history moving from one extreme to another. Whether it’s the fierce intellectual movements of foreign policy from realism to neoliberalism or free markets to state control, the zeitgeist seems to change in 180 degrees. The execution of these ideologies certainly don’t move with such extremes. President Woodrow Wilson, a President who wanted to spread democracy and liberty around the world, still had good relations with the Ottoman Empire while they were killing millions of Armenians. And the free market Ronald Reagan never cut spending that much, evidenced by the US’ sizable deficits during the 1980s. But the average belief out there, which a President tries to match with rhetoric, always seems to move in extremes. So now it is about the President making good with everyone. But we should remember that President Roosevelt didn’t enter WW2 soon enough because of the country’s protectionist attitudes after WW1. And we should remember how worthwhile it was for President Harry Truman to desegregate the troops even though it almost cost him his reelection. Yes Obama should try to reach across the aisle more than Bush did. But reaching across too much might be counterproductive. The point of a representative democracy is to elect people who we think have good judgment, not to elect people to vote on how we think with our limited views. Let’s hope Obama doesn’t pamper we the people too much.

Looking Forward: Notes and Ideas for the Weeks Ahead

• Imagine if John Edwards were still politically viable. He’d probably be Attorney General, meaning he’d go after everybody on Wall Street in light of this financial turmoil with the sole purpose of making headlines by playing class warfare. It would have been extraordinarily counterproductive and made Spitzer/Giuliani look like benevolent prosecutors. Thankfully, he was busted for who he is.
• In a previous piece, I argued that If Obama wins he should choose McCain for Secretary of Defense. This will obviously not happen, but an added bonus for him would be that McCain would vacate his Senate seat. This in turn would give AZ Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano the power to fill his seat with a Democrat, meaning that the Democrats would be closer to the filibuster proof sixty seat majority.
• Speaking of getting sixty seats, Obama should consider that type of thinking by looking at Republican senators who come from states with Democratic governors. He could choose Judd Gregg from New Hampshire for Commerce Secretary or Homeland Security since he has experience on those matters.  TN Republican Lamar Alexander for Education and Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley for Agriculture  also come to mind. Obama can defend these choices in the name of bipartisanship while these Senators should consider these positions because they are old and are effectively powerless as Republicans.
• If Ted Stevens pulls of the Senatorial win, he will have to step down because of his conviction on seven counts of bribery. This means that Governor Sarah Palin can choose who she likes to replace him. She should consider herself for the job. It would eliminate her from the 2012 Republican nomination, but it would give her a national platform. She wouldn’t face another election until 2014, meaning that she could really buff up on the issues for 2016 or 2020.
• Republicans are already trashing Barack Obama’s choice of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff. It’s pointless to do given that every Chief of Staff is partisan, and he engineered moderate measures like NAFTA through Congress in the Clinton White House. Obama will certainly give them food for fodder, but this is not it. Republicans should learn that old cliche: Pick your Battles.
• Emanuel’s choice should also reassure wary Jewish voters. Given that Emanuel is openly Jewish and a steadfast supporter of Israel, it’s hard for anyone to truly believe that Obama will be anti-Israel. Former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleisher should quit trashing Obama on Israel.
• Liberals consistently make sweeping generalizations about how the world hates the Bush Administration and Democrats need to repair the US’s image around the world. But many countries have appreciated, or at least have somewhat appreciated Bush’s foreign policy. Including, but not limited to: Australia; India; China; many countries in Africa; Japan; Turkey; and Colombia. On Australia, lets see if Obama continues Bush’s warm outreach. During the election, McCain went out of his way to write an op-ed praising them; Obama did not. In the primaries, Obama’s campaign trashed Hillary Clinton’s relationship with India. Will he show steadfast support for India’s nuclear ambitions? Will he alienate India’s Hindus by speaking about their persecution of Christians? Does Obama alienate the Chinese government by bringing up the Tibet issue, or does he only speak about it infrequently like Bush? Will he continue Bush’s successful AIDS program in Africa? And will he employ Bush’s realpolitik of not really speaking about human rights violations in Africa in return for vital information about terrorists? Japan was offended when the Bush Administration recently started to engage North Korea because they fear that America would not defend them from North Korea. Obama supported these talks; McCain did not. Will he change his position or will he alienate Japan? The Turkish government was very upset when Pelosi, Obama, and other Democrats wanted to bring up a resolution condemning their genocide of Armenians in the 1920s. Will he back away from this or will he bring it up? And Turkey desperately wants stability in Iraq, so how will Obama consider that? Colombia really wanted a free trade deal passed this year. Bush, McCain, and Republicans gladly supported it, but Obama did not. Will Obama make good with Colombia? These are all complex foreign policy questions that Bush has a mixed record on— certainly not a “horrible” record. Let’s see how the whiz kid will do.

The Alternative Strategy: How McCain Can Win without CO or PA

As we get closer to election day, political discourse almost exclusively focuses on the map. From the number crunchers to the pundits to the casual follower, everyone has an opinion on the electoral college. In this dialogue, it has become conventional wisdom that McCain absolutely has to have Colorado. McCain’s camp has somewhat rejected this thinking, evidenced by recent reporting from CNN’s John King. His sources say they are transferring resources from Colorado to Pennsylvania. Their internal polling supposedly shows that he is only down 7 points there compared to RealClearPolitics’ 11.4 average lead for Obama. Regardless of which number is more accurate, this strategy is severely flawed. Instead, they should look to New Hampshire and a district in Maine.

Pennsylvania has been a very good state for Democrats. Many thought they had to worry in 2004, but Kerry won by a decisive three points.  It also plays into the political calculus that Obama has banked on throughout his entire political career— having a near monopoly on an increased black, youth, and educated vote (Philadelphia) and minimizing the rural losses with  economic populism. It will be very difficult for McCain to overcome this. Republican operatives  point to  Republican Senator Arlen Specter’s success with his commanding eleven point win in 2004. They think McCain can borrow his strategy by winning the Philadelphia suburbs and dominating the state between there and Pittsburgh. This is terribly flawed because Specter is pro-choice. One of the cardinal rules in political analysis is not to substantiate an argument on the presidential level by pointing to gubernatorial or congressional races. Presidential candidates have a lot less flexibility in their policy positions than a governor or congressman has. McCain could never have won the primary by being openly pro-choice.

The other problem with McCain looking at Pennsylvania is the state’s expensive media market. McCain’s financial disadvantage must make him that much more careful with his money. A real effort in the state would certainly take away significant resources from other must win states like Florida and Ohio.

If McCain loses CO and gives up PA, most people  say he has no shot of winning this election. These critics adduce their argument by saying that he cannot even look at Midwestern states that used to look promising (Wisconsin, Michigan,or Minnesota) because of his large deficits there. So is it still possible that he can win without the Midwest or CO or PA? Yes.

McCain must obviously win Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, and Nevada. He is competitive in all of these states. If he can gain an extra point or two in the next two weeks parlayed with a minimal Bradley effect, he’ll get these states. That puts him at 265 assuming there are no anomalies like Texas or Georgia going to Obama. Since the Democrats win if they tie (they have more state legislatures than the Republicans), McCain must get 270. The formula for that is New Hampshire and a district in Maine.

McCain’s political career is arguably owed to the state of New Hampshire. His 2000 win there made it a race versus Bush and his primary win this year was the catalyst for his nomination. He is well liked there because of his independent image. It is a state famously known for being pro gun and staunchly anti-tax. This is an easy argument to be made against Obama in light of Obama’s condescending comments about guns and moral opposition to low taxes for high income earners. And New Hampshire is a relatively inexpensive media market. Some parts require paying Boston prices, but on the whole it is much cheaper than Pennsylvania. McCain is down 9.4 points  according to the RealClearPolitics average. Anyone who has paid attention to politics in New Hampshire knows that this can made up. Or, more precisely, it is much likelier it can made up there than  it can in Pennsylvania. The state barely went to John Kerry in 2004, who had the Boston edge, and Bush beat Gore there in 2000. McCain can win in NH.

Maine and Nebraska are the only two states who break up some of their electoral votes based on congressional districts. There has never been  a split in either state, but no underdog party has ever really tried.  McCain has made a commitment there and should keep it up. The district in Maine has many libertarians who dislike several Democratic proposals. If McCain dominates the media market and spends a day or two up there, it could make all the difference.

McCain can also use Sarah Palin effectively in New Hampshire and Maine. She and her husband make the pro gun argument better than McCain can. She can stick to her belief in the power of low tax rates to stimulate the economy. And to cap it off, they can talk about winter sports. It might sound silly to think that winter sports could help a candidate. But there have been a lot more gimmicky things done in politics than two average people from Alaska talking about cold weather, hockey, and snowmobiling with Northeasterners familiar with the travails of brutal winters. Perhaps she can talk about a McCain tax credit for heating oil this winter. I don’t know the specifics, but Republicans are great at executing stuff like that.

Underdogs always have a shot, but they have to be creative. The  Miami Dolphins, a 1-15 team last year, had their running back take several direct snaps against the then undefeated New England Patriots in week three of the NFL. The repetition of this unusual play led to four rushing touchdowns and a whopping 38-13 win. In game seven of the ALCS against the Boston Red Sox, the underdog Rays used a rookie pitcher to finish the last four outs of the game in light of a struggling bullpen. To win, McCain has got to use a strategy like this to pull off the biggest political comeback since Harry Truman’s 1948 win.

Post Partisanship: The Deal Obama and McCain Should Make

Throughout the campaign trail, Obama and McCain consistently talk about their desire to move beyond traditional party lines. Obama communicates this with his echoes of “change” and frustration over “petty politics.” McCain’s favorite slogans are “reform” and “bipartisanship.” Both have committed to choosing a diverse cabinet. Obama holds Sec. Robert Gates and Sen. Dick Lugar in high regards, while McCain shows deep affection for Sen. Joe Lieberman and former Sen. Gary Hart. Obama even extols far-right Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn and McCain boasts about his work with far-left Sen. Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform. That’s all nice and good. But if these two men want to show genuine boldness, Obama should choose McCain for Secretary of Defense if he prevails or the self- proclaimed maverick should pick the brilliant Harvard Law Review President for Attorney General if he wins.

            Any honest Washington defense official will admit that the Pentagon is bloated. Yet the problem is it is horrible politics to stall or decrease funding for defense. This is in no way to diminish the importance of a strong defense for the United States. This is a dangerous world, which requires the most advanced nuclear capabilities. And there is no other nation on earth who could commit hundreds of billions of dollars to rescuing broken financial institutions while being able to borrow money at almost zero percent. America’s financial strength and flexibility is strongly correlated to its military strength. This does not mean that America needs a four hundred plus billion dollar military budget, which by the way leaves out the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If Obama brought McCain into his administration, McCain would have the political authority to truly reform the Pentagon. He could cut a lot of the fat out without being accused of being weak on defense. President Dwight Eisenhower provides us with a terrific historical example. After leading the front in World War II, he had enough defense credibility as President to dismiss the Pentagon’s cries for more money. Could you imagine the political repercussions of Barack Obama cutting defense funding with an all Democrat cabinet? He would need a McCain like figure to do such a thing.  In addition to using McCain’s ability to reform defense, he can use his counsel on foreign affairs. He might be uninterested in economic matters, but no one questions his inquisitiveness and knowledge concerning foreign policy. It is in McCain’s interest to accept because this would be a meaningful swan song. He would never get to be President, but he would make an indelible mark from the executive branch. Being President is certainly the top job, but fifty years from now a lot more people will read about Secretary Kissinger than President Carter.

            McCain’s real ambition is to make Washington a less corrupt and more honorable place to carry out the people’s work. So if he were to win, he would not have to look much further than the Justice Department for a place that desperately needs reform. During the Bush Administration, it has primarily served narrow Republican interests. This phenomenon has always existed, but it has been amplified in recent years. Bush made a mockery of it by appointing the incompetent Alberto Gonzales who almost exclusively investigated Democrats, circumvented laws against torture, and illegally eavesdropped on American citizens. To palliate this damage, McCain would be wise to give Obama a chance to make a meaningful difference at the federal level. Not even the most partisan Republicans would dispute Obama’s legal qualifications. From Obama’s perspective, it would give him an opportunity to quell the animadversion that he cannot work with Republicans and that he has no meaningful accomplishments under his belt. This would position him well for a future presidential run.

            When David Brooks visited the University of Chicago last May, he talked about a recent dinner he had with former Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry. He said that the one pledge Kerry was absolutely going to carry through on was his commitment to bring Republicans into his cabinet. Brooks said that Kerry felt excessive partisanship hamstrung he and his colleagues from making Washington work. It is possible that Kerry pandered to Brooks during this dinner. And it is plausible that Obama and McCain are employing old-fashioned empty rhetoric to get elected. But if they are serious and want to improve the U.S. government, they should consider such an idea. It is certainly on the idealistic side, but it is an idealism that could genuinely help unite this country after November 4th, when just under fifty percent of voters will walk away unhappy.

Thinking Ahead: Why Smart Republicans Should Want John McCain to Lose

When the sub-prime junk surfaced in the fall of 2007, financial companies were struck with two options. They could either come clean or avoid telling the truth. The smarter ones wrote down many of their  worthless debt instruments. Of course the share prices of those companies plummeted,  but in the end most of them will survive. Others deferred doing that and are suffering much more as a result. In basketball, the Boston Celtics made some questionable moves in the 2003-2004 season, forcing fans  to wonder if the team’s recent trades were in their best interest. In the short-term they were not, evidenced by two consecutive first round losses followed by two years of missing the playoffs altogether. The Celtics’ front office is now extolled for those moves  because it gave them salary cap space to trade for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett last season. With those signings, the Celtics had an historic regular season, capped off by an NBA Championship. Republicans are faced with a similar dilemma now. Do they want some power now, or should they ante up for 2012?

There is a reason why Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and many other conservatives were rooting against McCain in the Republican primaries. The heart of the party does not find him to be an authentic Republican. When speaking about the abortion issue in 1999, McCain remarked, “certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” On the economy, he was adamantly against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. More telling than that is his deep admiration for former President Teddy Roosevelt. He consistently says that Roosevelt is his favorite President. The chief reason behind this sentiment is Roosevelt was profoundly skeptical of the markets. He was an anti-trust crusader who went after big business. Modern-day Republicans believe in the magic of the markets and very rarely advocate for government intervention. These are two of a myriad of policy differences between McCain and the base.

Another glaring reality the base faces is McCain has always boasted of his bipartisan approach in Washington. So even on issues where McCain is in lockstep with die-hard Republicans, those are jeopardized by his desire to work with Democrats. And it is almost a guarantee Democrats will have a sizable majority in Congress.

The most reasonable grounds to root against McCain is the President usually takes the blame for the nation’s ills. Republicans certainly have the right to take partial credit for President Clinton’s successes in the 90’s because they held power in the legislative branch. And some of the mistakes made in the last two years lies with the Democrats in Congress. Yet those political science arguments generally do not resonate with the average American voter. Given the nation’s current economic and foreign policy struggles, things in all likelihood will be no better in 2012. If Obama wins and withdraws from Iraq, he’ll blamed for the probable violence that will break out. If he stays there, he will be considered a liar and fiscally irresponsible for reneging on his promise. If he prioritizes reducing the deficit, Republicans will condemn him for not following through on his promised health care and educational benefits. If he sticks to his campaign policy prescriptions, conservatives will scoff at his profligate spending. They will argue that he has nothing to show for his spending, except for excessive deficits. Obama could, and probably will be, intellectually correct in  these scenarios.  It will obviously take a while to see tangible benefits from increased funding in pre-kindergarten expenditures. Yet, Republicans will write something like that off as wasteful spending. If McCain is at the helm, they cannot make these arguments.

David Brooks, David Frum, and other intellectual bigwigs in the Republican party foolishly expatiate about the dénouement of conservatism. Their faulty logic says conservative thought reemerged with Ronald Reagan and is now moribund because of increased income inequality. If they were around in 1964, these thinkers would’ve said that liberalism was the exclusive political philosophy in America in light of Lyndon B. Johnson’s dazzling victory. They would have said that conservatism was over after Richard Nixon betrayed the party’s principles. All of this is unalloyed hokum. America has and always will be a center-right country, with liberal sprinkles when times start to get tough. If Obama wins, the conservatives might be able to execute an impressive political comeback in 2012. If McCain wins, they will have an epigone of Reagan who will be forced to take the blame. And liberalism will take more prominence, something that irritates the heck out of Republicans.

Unasked Questions: Policy Topics That Should Be Addressed in the Coming Months

The upcoming policy questions that the media will ask of the presidential candidates are pretty predictable. In terms of foreign policy, they will question Obama and McCain’s respective stands on the surge and long-term strategies in Iraq. They will bring up the bromide about how the Bush Administration “took their eye off the ball in Afghanistan.” What to do about Russia, Iran, and North Korea will certainly be covered. And they will throw in a cursory question about the United States’ moral responsibility to ameliorate the hardships in Darfur.  On the oh so famous “economy” questions, they will probe each candidate’s tax plan. They will try, but  fail, in getting substantive answers on what Obama and McCain will specifically spend less on besides “pork.” McCain will advocate for more free market solutions on healthcare, education, and energy while Obama will accent the need for more government intervention.  There are a few questions, however, that have been mostly ignored, but have major implications for the United States.

The debate over whether or not the U.S. should help India further their nuclear capabilities is a crucial one. By virtue of the fact that India has a growing economy and is the second most populated country in the world makes all Indian military questions extraordinarily important. Yet the question of lifting a 34 year-old ban on selling them nuclear fuel  has much broader implications. Firstly, it gives the voter a sense of how much McCain and Obama value international agreements. The rationale behind the current ban is that India refused to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty in 1974. If McCain and/or Obama ignore the treaty, it is legitimate to question if they would stand by an international agreement when it does not suit their interests. Would the U.S. shy away  from protecting a NATO member if a certain member were attacked by Russia? Secondly, many speculate that the US wants India to have additional nuclear capabilities to counterbalance China, an emerging superpower in that region. If probed enough, the voter can get a clue in to how these candidates will approach China. Answering this India question also shows where these candidates stand on nuclear power. India says having more nuclear fuel will lessen their dependence on fossil fuels and thereby reduce their impact on global warming. Do these candidates buy this argument?

Syria is another country that has major foreign policy implications. Do these candidates think that there is a real possibility of a peace deal between Israel and Syria? Is McCain willing to distance himself from Bush’s rhetoric against Israel engaging Syria? Do they have any issue with  Sarkozy’s recent meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, given that he is the first Western leader to meet with him since 2005. Is the West capable of making Syria distance itself from Iran? If so, how can they? Getting these candidates to talk about rarely asked foreign policy matters lets us into their brain more than the constant reiteration of their plans for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The one  economic issue that unites both left and right, nonprofit and for profit people is the vital need to revive the US’s crumbling infrastructure. Practically all American journalists who went to the Beijing Olympics commented on the magnificent airport there vis-a -vis the almost dysfunctional airports in New York City. In addition to airports, this country needs to repair highways, railroads, and schools. The debate arises over how to do this. The left wants the government to take it over to create “living wages.” The right wants to privatize it for higher quality and efficiency. On August 26th, the Wall Street Journal wrote about this current debate  in Pennsylvania over their Turnpike. With Goldman Sachs leading the way, there is an ample amount of money willing to finance this project. Yet, unions are against it because they fear an increase in toll prices with a decrease in wages. Surprisingly, Democratic governor Ed Rendell supports this measure because of the  increases in efficiency, elimination of cronyism, and cap on price increases. Similar arguments are expected over Chicago’s Midway Airport and key roads in Florida. As the piece shows, the federal government is not absolved from such issues. With the Interstate highway system as it is, the government will play a major role. Barack Obama and John McCain will hopefully have a healthy debate over privatization. 

There are countless questions that are not asked that certainly should be. But  these three questions, in particular, will give us a much better understanding of how these two men plan to govern. McCain says he significantly differs from Bush on foreign policy, but will he demonstrate a much higher regard for international law? Does McCain see potential progress with Syria, or does he permanently consider them a member of the “axis of evil”? Meanwhile, Obama loves to talk in generalities about his appreciation and admiration for the free market, but does that apply to infrastructure? Good questions give voters specific answers and provide them with a window into who these candidates are. These items achieve that. Ideally, someone will bring them up.