New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

Speaking at the Janesville General Motors Assembly Plant, Barack Obama finally laid a concrete and comprehensive plan for economic development during an Obama presidency.  The location of the speech is somewhat symbolic given the announcement by GM yesterday of huge losses and issues with the unions.  The Page has full coverage of his plan, but we’ll outline it below.  Commentary and opinions on the plan will be posted shortly.

We are not standing on the brink of recession due to forces beyond our control. The fallout from the housing crisis that’s cost jobs and wiped out savings was not an inevitable part of the business cycle. It was a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington – the culmination of decades of decisions that were made or put off without regard to the realities of a global economy and the growing inequality it’s produced….

I don’t know about a time-out, but I do know this – when I am President, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers. And I’ll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I’ve been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate – we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America….

My energy plan will invest $150 billion over ten years to establish a green energy sector that will create up to 5 million new jobs over the next two decades – jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced….

In the end, this economic agenda won’t just require new money. It will require a new spirit of cooperation and innovation on behalf of the American people. We will have to learn more, and study more, and work harder. We’ll be called upon to take part in shared sacrifice and shared prosperity. And we’ll have to remind ourselves that we rise and fall as one nation; that a country in which only a few prosper is antithetical to our ideals and our democracy; and that those of us who have benefited greatly from the blessings of this country have a solemn obligation to open the doors of opportunity, not just for our children, but to all of America’s children.

Those who claim that Mr. Obama has been all style and all substance should finally have something to chew on today, whether they like his plan or not.  We’ll soon see how the public reacts.  February’s primaries are supposed to be skewed heavily in Obama’s favor, and results like yesterday’s in upcoming primaries could help seal the nomination for a candidate who was once thought of as a long shot.

Popularity: 41% [?]

By 10 pm EST most news outlets called DC, Maryland, and Virginia for John McCain on the Republican side, and Barack Obama on the Democratic one. Obama won by greater margins in all three with at least 60% of the vote. McCain won by decisive margins except in Virginia which, at an 8% margin, was at least contested.

As McCain continues his march to the nomination, Obama appears to be pulling out in front of Clinton on the other side of the process. He has now won eight contests in a row (WA, NE, LA, ME, DC, ME, VA, and the Virgin Islands) and has taken the lead in total delegates (exact numbers often vary; here are the numbers from CNN and the AP; on the right side of your screen you can see NBC’s estimates).

Here are CNN exit polls (MSNBC has not published theirs for some reason) which show Obama eating into Clinton stalwarts (i.e. in Virginia he won 45% of white women and actually won hispanic voters with 54% of their vote). This is big news going into the big Texas primary on March 4th in which 50% of Dem voters could be hispanic. I do not think that Obama could possibly win such a large block of Hispanic voters (VA’s was only 5% of the electorate) as the pattern so far is that heavier hispanic communities (such as in California and New Mexico) are much more apt to vote big for Clinton.

And so the campaign goes on with McCain poised to become the GOP nominee and needing less than 400 more delegates to clinch, while Clinton and Obama are neck and neck. Here’s what’s ahead in terms of significant delegate distribution and primaries for the tightly contested Dem nomination:

February 19: Wisconsin - 70 Delegates

March 4: Texas - 193 Delegates

Ohio - 141 Delegates

April 22: Pennsylvania - 158 Delegates

May 6: North Carolina - 115 Delegates

Indiana - 72 Delegates

May 20: Oregon - 52 Delegates

Kentucky - 51 Delegates

June 7: Puerto Rico - 55 Delegates

August 25-28: Democratic National Convention - 796 Superdelegates (currently 398 have tentatively endorsed: 242 for Clinton and 156 for Obama)

Wisconsin is likely to land in the Obama column; then come the big states. Key traits however give Clinton an initial advantage: Texas Dems are about half hispanic; Ohio and Pennsylvania both have a large amount of lower/middle class blue collar whites; on top of that, the governors of both PA and OH have endorsed Clinton. Nevertheless, Obama’s “big mo’” could be enough to nullify those factors, at least in OH and PA.

A bit further down the road, North Carolina would probably go to Obama because of the large southern black vote. Indiana has a lot of factors at play (For Hillary: its rural, and she has the endorsement of popular Sen. and ex-Gov. Evan Bayh; For Barack: its right next to his home state) so I’ll call it a tossup for now. Oregon is liberal and in the northwest so its advantage Obama. And I would gander that Kentucky and PR are advantage Hillary because of rural whites and hispanics, respectively.

Most importantly though are the Superdelegates (which Frank explains well here; also here is a link to all of the 796 Dem Superdelegates) who make up 20% of all Dem delegates. Only half so far have announced their intentions (which are subject to change), a disproportionate amount of which are higher ranking Dem Officials (Governors and Senators, for instance). There are two things important to remember about what influences unpledged Superdelegates in their decisions: (1) they are party institutionalists, which gives Clinton an obvious boost and (2) they are politicians, aka opportunists, who will wait to see which way the wind blows before they commit.

Of course those are just rough handicaps and do not take into account externalities like future momentum and events yet to be seen. Currently, Obama is the one with all the momentum in the world and is, by most measures, more likely to win the nomination. Nevertheless, unless one of the two sweeps the next three or four big states, the process could very well go all the way to the convention, where the New School will have the privilege of bringing you coverage of the first undecided national convention since 1952.

Popularity: 26% [?]

President Bush’s new stimulus planned, now approved by Congress, will send checks of at least $300 to over 100 million American in an effort to jumpstart the lagging economy.  For the plan to work it is necessary that citizens receiving these rebates go out and consume right away.  However such a plan is only a minor fix and will end up exacerbating the original problem that caused this recession: debt. 

The major event leading to the downward economic spiral we find ourselves in today was the subprime mortgage crisis, which essentially meant that many new lower income bracket homeowners could not pay their mortgages, leading the banks to have to foreclose.  Furthermore, Americans, as a whole, owe more money than they are taking in because of widespread ignorance about how to properly use a credit card and budget.  Our government is even having major issues with budget management as our outstanding national debt is approximately $9 trillion, with over $2 trillion of that being owed to foreign governments.  In fact, we borrowed the $168 billion for this stimulus package from China.   

At a time when the American people and government have so much debt to pay off, how does a plan help in which the government has to borrow billions of more dollars, and encourages the people to go further into debt by buying a new television, computer or DVD player?  Temporarily there will be a surge in profits and sales, but as soon as monthly payments for product with low down payments and high interest rates are due we will see how the economy does then.  My prediction is not too good. 

Popularity: 49% [?]

From Walter Williams:

Professor Don Boudreaux, chairman of George Mason University’s Economics Department, wrote “If Trade Surpluses Are So Great, the 1930s Should Have Been a Booming Decade.” According to data he found at the National Bureau of Economic Research’s “Macrohistory Database“, it turns out that the U.S. ran a trade surplus in nine of the 10 years of the Great Depression, with 1936 being the lone exception.

During those 10 years, we had a significant trade surplus, with exports totaling $26.05 billion and imports totaling only $21.13 billion. So what do trade surpluses during a depression and trade deficits during an economic boom prove, considering we’ve had trade deficits for most of our history? Professor Boudreaux says they prove absolutely nothing. Economies are far too complex to draw simplistic causal connections between trade deficits and surpluses and economic welfare and growth.

I think Boudreaux, who writes at Cafe Hayek, is right on the money. It is no surprise that the depression years were the years in which America experienced its most “favorable” balance of trade. After all, if you look at the US trade deficit compared to GDP over time the US trade deficit has tended to grow in times of prosperity (mid/late ’80s, mid/late ’90s, early/mid ’00s) and shrink in times of slowdown (early ’70s, early ’80s, early ’90s).

Nevertheless it’s all too often that we hear politicians demogauging about trade imbalances, especially that with China, whose devalued currency is responsible for delivering even cheaper goods to the market. Policy-wise reducing the trade deficit would require some sort of trade barriers (i.e. tariffs), devaluing our currency (which we are indirectly doing by making money easier), or compelling other nations (like China) to stop devaluing their currencies. Either way, the policy means higher prices and less purchasing power for the American consumer. Moreover, it does not make the US any more productive, and as a matter of fact it makes us less productive by discouraging foreign investment.

But amidst the Fed’s devaluing of our currency and our economic downturn, I would expect the anti-trade polls to be happy because our trade gap has been narrowing in the meantime (at least in the past year since our financial woes began).

Moreover, recently released numbers show that the trade deficit closed in December and in 2007 overall as bad economic news continues to pour in.

Ultimately, as Boudreaux said, the trade deficit doesn’t really matter because as Adam Smith first articulated specialization and comparative advantage and other intricacies govern trade balance. However, based on theory and data, I must take my conclusion one step further to say that a trade deficit is usually indicative of economic strength and growth, rather than an economic problem. I say this because in any economic system you can only consume as much as you produce (Say’s Law) and concurrently a nation can only import if it has the purchasing power to compensate. The more a nation produces the more it can buy, hence the more it imports. Moreover, the greater share of global product it produces, the greater share of global goods and services it will import. This is why American slowdowns have resulted in less imports and a tighter trade gap. And most importantly, upon realizing this, it is imperative that our country does not submit to economic sensationalism, and does not spite itself by instituting protectionist policies which only hamstring American living standards.

Popularity: 23% [?]

I have posted three videos which are of significance to the presidential race since last week.

First, is Ann Coulter speaking at CPAC. She has recently made news for announcing that she would support Hillary Clinton over John McCain in a general election. While there are many laughs to around at the prospect of this, it does raise a serious point: whether a general election whooping can discipline and improve the party in the long run; and moreover, whether a party member should vote against their nominee if the nominee shies from their views.

This is likely to be the key question for conservatives this election cycle. My own thoughts are yes; and yes. But in this case I, personally, am still inclined to vote for McCain because I do not think that his taste for reducing (or not) the size of government differs significantly from any other viable candidates who ran for the nomination (save the great Ron Paul). A scenario where I would have voted against the Republican candidate is if Huckabee was nominated for the sake of castigating Republicans for getting too religious.

Anyways, the video is entertaining. Much of it is quite funny, some is not all that “appropriate,” but you should judge for yourself. Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 30% [?]

For any entry-level liberal, say an angsty young 13-14 year old reaching out for the arms of Papa Bono and Mama Greenday to lift them up into the simplistic world of catchy revolutionary slogans, publications like Rolling Stone often provide kindling for the fires of righteous adolescent fury. But once you grow up a little and do your homework, you find out that the Rolling Stone reporters, the Nader freaks, anarchists, and yes, even the opinionated pamphleteers-turned-bloggers(thanks to the advent of technology to quicken the pace of kvetching worldwide), have always been in the losing corner of the losing side, flanking the port on the half of the boat that is first to sink. One such recent article, entitled “The Chicken Doves,” offers some lopsided reporting in the way of first-hand accounts of

anti-establishment fringe elements, paired with a healthy helping of expletives to balance it out, and finally coming to this conclusion: Democrins or Republicrats, the establishment is out to get us. The establishment will always lie to you, and every time Nancy Pelosi blinks (that’s 103 times since you’ve started reading this post), an angel loses its wings. My point? My point is to ask columnist Matt Taibbi, or any cynical nihilistic young gun running his mouth off, what his point is. What is the point of cyclical logic and endless bitching about blockades in progress. That’s democracy, constant back and forth until you arrive at a compromise. The Reid and Pelosi team may have stopped fighting to end the war prematurely, but it does seem logical to focus energies on installing a Democratic president for four years, then ending the war in the next 8 months, and it does not constitute a betrayal of the American people as Mr. Taibbi suggests. Ok, Taibbi isn’t the worst example, as a writer for Rolling Stone, being cynical and foul-mouthed is practically in his job description, but this particular column is a step down from his coverage of the 2004 campaigns.

This is what’s so great about Barack Obama. Though he’s seen much of the world, much of the misfortunes of working class people all over the world, he’s come out relatively free of cynicism. He has the audacity to hope. He’s a mensch in every sensch. But if and when he gets into office, the American people can expect the same kind of political stagnation they can expect from any new leader, and even with a majority in the house and senate, progress will be slow. And it should be, because hasty moves are for dicatorships and autocrats, and that kind of governance-by-mandate has an efficiency that is always short lived. What we can hope for in the leaders of tomorrow is competence. Not inspiration, not a new dawn, but competence and an understanding of the issues that stems from the New School of Politics. The idealism of Free Love and social revolution turned out to be a failure, but our generation, with its overexposure to information and media and suffering in the world is as prepared as any to deal with the oncoming crisis of terrorism and an economy so interconnected that on ripple can send global shockwaves in days. Just because we didn’t live through the poverty of the Great Depression or the fear of Nuclear Holocaust doesn’t mean we’re uneducated and unprepared for dealing with the issues of the rise and fall of the market, and nuclear nonproliferation. We’ve had experiences of our own. We know fear, we saw the towers fall. We know failure, we invaded Iraq on false pretenses, alienating our friends and allies of the world. And we know that far flung idealism and a huge government organ that mandates what it thinks is best for the people will never get far. We’re pragmatists. We’re the New School of Politics. So shutup, dig in your heels, stop dreaming, and start working.

I recommend reading all of Matt Taibbi’s article here.

Popularity: 21% [?]

While President Bush may be “the Decider” of American politics, Super Tuesday may have been the crucial decider in the race for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations. As candidates traversed the country in a rapid attempt to get out the vote, Americans turned out in record numbers to support their candidates. Candidates that appeal to the youth, like Barack Obama, helped to make the 2008 primaries one of the most trafficked in recent history. Tsunami Tuesday, as some called it this year, featured the highest density of primaries in one day in the history of the political system in the United States.

The Straight Talk Steamroller

John McCain, favored by most as the future Republican nominee, scored big wins across the country. The surprise of the day, however, came as Mike Huckabee swept across the South with dozens of victories, blocking a viable candidacy from Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. In prior debates, and throughout the news media, Romney and McCain had attempted to transform the Republican race into a two candidate contest. Romney, however, may be squeezed out of a system of his own doing as Huckabee’s victories catapulted him back to the spotlight he basked in following the Iowa caucuses. Pundits like FOX News’ Sean Hannity believe that the McCain campaign transpired to throw Huckabee back into the limelight by throwing some of their delegates to him in crucial states. West Virginia, for example, was handed to Mitt Romney after the first round of caucusing. The second round, however, produced markedly different results. Huckabee, bolstered by the support of McCain’s voters, quickly became the victor. It’s tactics like these that seem to have blocked Mitt Romney from successfully winning the conservative votes he needed.

  Republican Frontrunner John McCain

  [Photo Credit: VictoryNH]

As McCain wins victory after victory across the country, conservatives keep attempting to block the Straight Talk Express on its route to the Republican presidential nomination. Dr. James Dobson, director of the conservative organization Focus on the Family, said in a statement yesterday that he would never support a McCain candidacy. Similar statements by conservative pundits like Ann Coulter (who said she’d actively campaign for Hillary Clinton in the general election if McCain was the Republican nominee) haven’t quite put a dent in the perceived viability of a McCain presidency. Commentator Sean Hannity remarked upon McCain’s reported party flip-flops in prior years, noting that he debated running with John Kerry in 2004. McCain is reminiscent of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, the Independent Democrat who has endorsed his run for President.

  Does Anyone Else?

  [Photo Credit: jaquina]

Romney’s withdrawal from the race the other day truly makes McCain the only viable candidate. The Huckabee campaign is still active, even if it may be fighting a race it cannot win. When asked why he was going to stay in the race the other day, Governor Huckabee made some comments typical of his candidacy thus far,

I didn’t major in math. I majored in miracles.

Luckily, that’s what Huckabee will need to win the Republican nominations. McCain has a tough task ahead of him in uniting the Republican party, but he has months to do it.

Decision Time for Democrats

The Democrats, meanwhile, have no such candidate. Opinion polls are locked between the two candidates, and the primaries show similar results. When contrasted with John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, Barack Obama is the candidate who fares far better. Yet within the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton still maintains a large following. So, come the Democratic Convention, will Democrats choose the candidate who fares better nationally, or better within their own party?

Retribution for Republicans?

The Bush Presidency will leave the next president with a mess to clean up. Yet it seems as if most Americans aren’t taking out their anger on Republicans. McCain, it seems, is able to separate himself far enough from President Bush. Super Tuesday painted Obama as viable, Hillary as beatable, and McCain as the inevitable candidate. Still, Americans are indecisive. The coming weeks, and coming primaries, will help to narrow the field for the inevitable two person campaign coming for November.

Popularity: 56% [?]

With Mitt Romney now out of the way and the path to the Republican nomination clear, Arizona Senator John McCain has the ability to unite the Republican Party and lead them forward into the upcoming election.  Mark Halperin, of Time Magazine’s The Page blog, has a great list of things McCain can do now that he’s the only viable candidate for the Republicans.  The Democrats may suffer from infighting for the next couple of months, but McCain finally has the capability to start his campaign for the presidency.  Huckabee is all but an afterthought at this point, even as endorsements from conservatives like James Dobson of Focus on the Family pour in.  McCain may have some support stolen by Barack Obama, who seems to be attracting many Republicans to his potential ticket as well.  The list is well worth reading, and should make some Democrats a bit frightened about the potential of two candidates fighting until the Democratic Convention.  Several of the list’s highlights are published below:

1. Raise and save money for the spring, summer, and general election.

2. Formulate and implement a general election and Electoral College strategy.

12. Travel overseas to heighten his foreign policy credentials.

13. Look and act presidential.

14. Charm independents without offending his base…

Popularity: 43% [?]

Tonight, the Senate passed a slightly moderated version of the compromise stimulus bill settled on by the White House and the House of Representatives 81-16. The bill was immediately rushed back to the House, where Speaker Pelosi got it passed rapidly. Senate Democrats’ version of a stimulus bill fell flat earlier after being fillibustered by Republicans and coming one vote short of qualifying for an up-or-down vote on the floor.

The Senate passed the House’s $150 billion bill, and tacked on an additional $18 billion in spending for those not paying income taxes but earning at least $3,000, as well as Social Security recipients and wounded veterans. Harry Reid alas’ decided to accept the original bill–which primarily features rebates for those earning less than $150,000/year and business tax credits–after vowing to stand for his bill whose price tag stood around $204 billion. The failed Democrat’s bill included bolstered unemployment insurance, heating subsidies for the poor, and incentives for investment in renewable energies, coal, and home building (because higher prices and more demand for energy, not to mention more home construction, are exactly what our economy needs right now).

All of the 16 who voted against the bill in the Senate were Republicans. They included such spending hawks as Tom Coburn (OK), Jim DeMint (SC), and Bob Corker (TN), the last of whom opined that Congress had just done the equivolent of throw $150 billion “into a mud puddle.” Wise words from the junior Senator from Tennessee. Unfortunately, John McCain apparently was never graced with Corker’s bout of wisdom, as the presumptive GOP nominee returned to the Hill on Thursday to vote for the muddled spending. Of course this is disappointing to see from the AZ Senator who has lauded himself as a great deficit hawk and budget cutter. On top of that, I have never–in any speech or debate–heard him explain what he believed on stimulus, nor even enumerate what his opinion was up until this point.

Hillary Clinton (in addition to Barack Obama) flew back just for the first vote. On the trail, Clinton has offered her own stimulus plan which has baffled me for its economic irrationality for some time now. It includes a provision to freeze rates on adjustable rate mortgages (of which there are currently 11 million in America) for the next five years. Here is a solid article from two prominent economists demonstrating the would-be consequences of such price fixing.

Despite the Federal Reserve cutting its federal funds rate substantially in recent months (from 5.25% all the way to 3% already), European central banks have been resolved in keeping their rates generally steady to combat inflation and avoid reinflating any credit bubble. Just today the Bank of England cut its rate by .25% but indicated that is unlikely to trim it any more, while the European Central Bank has yet to ease rates at all (announcing tonight that it would continue to keep them steady). Jean-Claue Trichet, the President of the ECB, made the case that the fundamentals of the European economy are strong and that inflation, which is currently above 3% and will probably remain above 2% for some time, is a more daunting worry.

More importantly, he noted that M3 growth remained fervent, as did borrowing by non-financial businesses, reaching highs in December 2007. The scary thing is that Europe is not having the same credit problems as we do, as Trichet noted, yet we are the ones debasing interest rates to the potential end of reinflating existing financial imbalances. The current mess we are witnessing is little more than the consequence of the Fed doing the exact same thing that it is doing now, when it lowered the federal funds rate all the way to 1% in 2003 in order to respond to the same type of economic slowdown. Even worse, the downturn in ‘01/’02 was less related to credit woes, so this time by loosening credit we are putting fire to even more flamable substances. Nevertheless, Trichet was wise to note that there is only so much we know–only so much data available to paint a realistic picture of the economy–and that “further data and analysis will be required in order to obtain a more complete picture of the impact of the financial market developments on banks’ balance sheets, financing conditions and money and credit growth.”

The ECB President’s speech also brings me back to the topic of fiscal stimulus, as he used some of his time to rebuke the idea of government spending to boost the economy saying:

With respect to fiscal policies, a discretionary fiscal loosening in EU countries should be avoided. There is ample evidence that activist fiscal policies were not effective in stabilising European economies but rather led to sustained increases in the ratios of government expenditure and debt to GDP. Allowing the free operation of automatic stabilisers in countries with strong fiscal positions and safeguarding the long-term sustainability of public finances are the best contributions that fiscal policy can make to macroeconomic stability.

It looks like American officials from Bush to Bernake could take use some advice from the Frenchman, who is right on the money when it comes to warning about intervention to encourage more economic spending. Add him to the coalition against fiscal stimulus.

Also of interest is NYU Prof of Econ, Will Easterly’s critique of Bill Gates’ concept of “creative capitalism,” which the Microsoft founder spoke in favor of in his speech at the World Economic forum in Davos. In response to Gates, who argued that self-interest and the profit motive do nothing for the poor and that foreign aid and a sense of social responsibility are necessary to improve the plight of the world’s poor, Easterly makes the case that charity does little to lift poor peoples out of perpetual poverty. His rebuttal is in line with his book, The White Man’s Burden, as he argues that indeed self-interest and unfettered capitalism makes the whole world better off in the long run because it is most productive and creates the best incentives for third-world nations to build an economic system through a sense of individualism and self-reliance.

Finally, on a happier note, the writer’s strike appears to be over. A deal has been reached between corporate media and the writer’s guild, according to ex-Disney CEO Michael Eisner.

Popularity: 67% [?]

With Mitt Romney out of the picture (giving McCain a virtual lock on the Republican nomination), Obama and Clinton are left to duke it out in a prolonged struggle for the Democratic nomination that might very well end in a skirmish on the floor of the convention. Although both candidates are very intelligent and appealing, exit polls suggest that most young voters are leaning towards Senator Obama. But before we, the proud Democratic youth of America, get behind the charismatic, well-groomed superstar senator, it is imperative that we stop and consider the consequences of putting this guy behind the big desk.

As someone who voted for Barack Obama in the Connecticut Super Tuesday primary, it’s my duty, and the duty of my fellow Obama supporters, to remind ourselves what we’re getting into. “Change We Can Believe In,” and “Spread Hope” are taglines, not policies. And although these messages may sound positive, the ideas of Change and Hope are really negative campaigning and attack advertising at its finest. Obama isn’t here to talk about what change he is bringing to the White House, he’s talking about what we as a nation are looking to get away from: the Bush administration’s failed policies. Running against the backdrop of Bush’s presidency is a lot easier than running against the experience and hardened policies of either Hilary Clinton or, down the road, John McCain. But let’s face it, for a junior senator, this method is the smartest method, and perhaps the only way to win this political competition.

Obama’s got some good policies: his ideas about healthcare are more fiscally sound and realistic than Clinton’s, his populist tendencies and promises of a transparent government give the impression of a man with nothing to hide; his position on the war, while perhaps a little naive, still stands to be very appealing to Americans who have never felt that turning the Middle East into a love-fest of Western Thinking is possible, or even a good idea, and his background as a community leader gives him a strong moral high ground.

But regardless of his policies, any newly minted American president as inexperienced as Obama has a good chance of being put under the microscope, especially in the area of foreign policy. Nations who have not been so fond of American neo-imperialism, such as Russia and France, will undoubtedly issue litmus tests in one form or another. Outright hostile nations such as Iran and North Korea might test the new administration’s diplomatic skills through aggressive acts of escalation. Senator Obama’s calls for diplomacy, and offers to sit down with Iran and others, may well come back to haunt him, paralyzing the beginning of his presidency while he fends off one challenge after another. George Bush was tested a year into his presidency, and that test defined his two terms in office, which are now widely viewed as a failure. As Obama supporters, we must ask ourselves if his offers of diplomacy are so very different from Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s ideas that appeasement might achieve “peace for our time,” an irony that has echoed throughout history. Is the young Senator from Illinois too young and too naive to hear those echoes?

I believe he is not. Barack Obama is an “A” student, and despite a having a few sadsacks from the Carter administration hanging around his advisory room, I have confidence in his ability to stock the new ExComm with smart people to help him out with foreign policy. And though the proponents of radical Islam may issue a lot of ultimatums, in the end, I have to believe that there are people in Middle Eastern nations who are looking for a U.S. leader who will reach out to them, rather than cast them into the same lot with Al Qaeda, and chase them to the “gates of hell,” as John McCain has promised to do.

That’s putting a lot of “hope” into “change,” and if you don’t have that kind of faith to spare in Senator Obama’s abilities, then you should be voting for Senator Clinton, whose chances at winning a general election are slimmer, but whose foreign policy is well worn, and whose husband showed a good deal of competence concerning foreign affairs while in office.

This is Ben’s first post at New School Politics. To find out more about him, please visit the about page.

Popularity: 45% [?]