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!

George Will’s latest column in Newsweek consisted of a series of questions he would like to see Senator Obama answer during this campaign. It is worth reading the whole thing, but here are a few of my favorites:

• ExxonMobil’s 2007 profit of $40.6 billion annoys you. Do you know that its profit, relative to its revenue, was smaller than Microsoft’s and many other corporations’? And that reducing ExxonMobil’s profits will injure people who participate in mutual funds, index funds and pension funds that own 52 percent of the company?

• You say John McCain is content to “watch [Americans'] home prices decline.” So, government should prop up housing prices generally? How? Why? Were prices ideal before the bubble popped? How does a senator knowideal prices? Have you explained to young couples straining to buy their first house that declining prices are a misfortune?

• Michelle, who was born in 1964, says that most Americans’ lives have “gotten progressively worse since I was a little girl.” Since 1960, real per capita income has increased 143 percent, life expectancy has increased by seven years, infant mortality has declined 74 percent, deaths from heart disease have been halved, childhood leukemia has stopped being a death sentence, depression has become a treatable disease, air and water pollution have been drastically reduced, the number of women earning a bachelor’s degree has more than doubled, the rate of homeownership has increased 10.2 percent, the size of the average American home has doubled, the percentage of homes with air conditioning has risen from 12 to 77, the portion of Americans who own shares of stock has quintupled … Has your wife perhaps missed some pertinent developments in this country that she calls “just downright mean”?

• You favor raising the capital gains tax rate to “20 percent or 25 percent.” You say this will not “distort” economic decision making. Your tax returns on your 2007 income of $4.2 million show that you and Michelle own few stocks. Are you sure you understand how investors make decisions?

• You denounce President Bush for arrogance toward other nations. Yet you vow to use a metaphorical “hammer” to force revisions of trade agreements unless certain weaker nations adjust their labor, environmental and other domestic policies to suit you. Can you define cognitive dissonance?

Most of these questions capture economic illiteracy that is commonplace in politics. It especially suggests the arrogance of a politician who think that he can make economic decisions better than individuals can in the free marketplace. The second question really gets to the heart of it–could you even imagine him trying to answer?

Popularity: 7% [?]

Moments ago outlets called Pennsylvania for Hillary Clinton. This however was not much of a surprise. The real test will be at the margins. Polls had Clinton winning by around six points, but earlier today, exit polls had the race closer.

But to clue you in on what the final margin may be tonight, the following blogger takes note of how initial exit polling has consistently favored Obama by five to eight points relative to the final outcome going back to New Hampshire.

Given that, exit polls such as the following one released at 5pm indicated Clinton winning by four. If that was the average exit poll numbers, it would mean that Hillary may win by more than 10 pts. tonight.

But what really matters in the grand scheme is the delegate count, which Obama leads by around 150. Even if Clinton wins big tonight, she probably wont even be able to net 20 delegates.

When you consider that PA is a big state and that Hillary is bound to win big, and will not even dent Barack’s lead by 15%, it shows how difficult it will be for her to retake the delegate lead before the madness is over.

Popularity: 12% [?]

Here was a good article that I found in today’s Op-Ed section of the NYT.

“I haven’t read much Karl Marx since the early 1980s, when I taught political philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania. Still, it didn’t take me long this weekend to find my copy of “The Marx-Engels Reader,” edited by Robert C. Tucker — a book that was assigned in thousands of college courses in the 1970s and 80s, and that now must lie, unopened and un-remarked upon, on an awful lot of rec-room bookshelves.”

“My occasion for spending a little time once again with the old Communist was Barack Obama’s now-famous comment at an April 6 San Francisco fund-raiser. Obama was explaining his trouble winning over small-town, working-class voters: “It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

To read the rest of this article please follow the link to the NYT page.

Another take on the Obama controversy comes from Peter Wehne. It takes a slightly different take than the one written by Bill Kristol but provides an equally important analysis.

Senator Barack Obama finds himself in the midst of a controversy in the aftermath of comments that he made at a private fundraiser in San Francisco on April 6, during which he explained his difficulty appealing to working-class voters in Pennsylvania. He said, “It’s not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment. . . .”

Senator Obama’s words are significant because they were said off-the-record, meaning they provided a more authentic glimpse into the attitudes of Obama than a carefully scripted event. Nonetheless, his words were not merely careless; his comments were based on a carefully constructed, if deeply condescending, explanation.

To read the rest of the article please follow the link to the National Review Online.

Popularity: 25% [?]

The notable economist Greg Mankiw had a very sensible article in the Economic View column of the New York Times regarding Nafta, trade, and this campaign. Its main contentions include:

1. That economists are far more fond of free trade than the general public. For instance:

A 2006 poll of Ph.D. members of the American Economic Association found that 87.5 percent agreed that “the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade.”

On the other hand, a minority of the general public (around one in four according to many polls including one mentioned in the article) think that free trade is beneficial to the economy.

2. John McCain has been a constant champion of free trade throughout his career and is the only of the three candidates who will stand strong for the concept as president.

3. The issue of trade has become mired by populism recently and divorced from economics which could lead us towards more protectionist policies.

Its a good article which reaffirms one of the themes that I have been focusing on especially during this campaign: how populism and economic illiteracy is driving protectionist rhetoric and proposals from politicians not entirely limited to the left (will Mike Huckabee please stand up).

Popularity: 33% [?]

In the 1984 Democratic presidential primary the once heavily favored former Vice President Walter Mondale and young, post-partisan upstart Senator Gary Hart were running neck and neck by March. Hart, who was running on the slogan of “new ideas,” had momentum up until a debate in which he was expounding on that phrase. In a rebuttal, Mondale quipped, “When I hear your new ideas, I’m reminded of that ad, ‘Where’s the beef?’” That sound bite was the nail in Hart’s coffin. With New-Deal Dems as his foundation, the former Veep went on to capture the nomination only to be defeated by Ronald Reagan in an electoral landslide.

Twenty-four years later to the month the Democratic presidential primary is similarly juxtaposed. Senator Barack Obama, who has only a third the experience in the Senate that Gary Hart did in 1984, actually has a slight lead in the delegate race, a lead that almost no one would have predicted two months ago. And while Senator Hillary Clinton has essentially been asking for the beef for more than a year now, it appears that this campaign’s “where’s the beef?” moment will never come.

But what is so great about Barack Obama that has prevented him from meeting Gary Hart’s fate? How in the world could this man, who was in the Illinois state legislature just three years ago and would have trouble answering “where’s the tofu?”, overtake the juggernaut that is the Clinton political machine?

The answer is essentially found in the nature of both Hart and Obama’s campaign.

Both senators were underdogs. Both were going up against a candidate with more experience, more institutional support, and more policy expertise and issue familiarity. Both harnessed the power of rhetoric and idealism that reigns supreme among many Democrats. Both appealed to the wealthier, more educated, more liberal, less partisan, less politically needy Democrats, dubbed in this election as “latte liberals.” Winning these voters is almost like a popularity contest, the winner is the one with the blank slate, the non-partisan image, the high-falutin rhetoric, and the cool-kid reputation.

The simple reason that Obama is actually winning this race, while Hart met his demise, is that Obama is more of those things to more people than Hart could ever be. Hart was a popular politician. Obama, on the other hand, has become a phenomenon. The media adores him, celebrities glorify him, and the young and idealistic revere him. A new cult of personality has rallied around Barack Obama, casting him as the savior of a nation without ever auditing him for substance. The sad irony for Hillary Clinton is that she can’t get rid of the guy with the funny name for no other reason than he’s as slick, if not slicker, than the only other politician who has ever been able to overshadow her.

But while “Slick Willy” won two terms by building a coalition, Obama is making headway by rallying the political equivalent of idol worshipers. Rather than center the campaign around a platform, accomplishments, or a track record of any kind, the Senator’s candidacy has been built around his image as a post-partisan messiah–the second coming of Jack Kennedy, perhaps. Serious voters should have ceased to take Obama very seriously when Oprah started going around telling people that Obama “is The One.” They should have been similarly squeamish when they saw a music video called “Yes, We Can!” created independently by about a dozen celebrities consisting of them singing along to an Obama victory speech.

The concept was creepy in the first place, but the fact that the video was created without the sanction of the Obama campaign should also raise alarm. Powerful politicians are supposed to have their own heroic self-image, but when others start buying into that same self-regard it ceases to be cute and becomes just frightening. In the same way it was frightening when at a rally in Texas “The One” interrupted his stump speech to blow his nose and the 17,000 in attendance responded with resounding cheers.

I had the opportunity to witness the phenomenon first hand when I attended an Obama rally in Hartford last month. During his speech, he stopped to toss water and call medical attention to a woman who had fainted in the front of the crowd. I didn’t think much of it at the time, but not too long thereafter, while watching the news, I discovered that the episode was not at all random. In fact, the woman in Connecticut was the sixth to be documented fainting at an Obama stump speech this election season. The severity of the trend has led the Obama campaign to ensure medical teams remain in close proximity to the crowd at all times. It raises the question, how much credibility should a candidacy have when its events feel more like a rock concert than a political rally and it’s fanatics behave more like teenage girls at an NSYNC concert than partisans?

The media hasn’t carried itself much better. In a recent study, the non-partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs found that the Senator has received the most favorable coverage of any candidate by a country mile. The study, which evaluated about 800 election stories by the major TV news outlets in December and January, counted 84% of stories about Obama as favorable. Meanwhile, the ever-oppressed Hillary Clinton received the least favorable coverage, with only 51% positive. This shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, for anyone who opens a newspaper, news magazine, or watches a news channel semi-regularly. At least for me, watching the likes of Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, and Wolf Blitzer futilely try to hide their man-crushes becomes unbearable at times.

The media’s fetish reached an apex of sorts in the last debate between the Democrats, hosted by the Obama sycophants at NBC. At one point, Tim Russert essentially asked Clinton a pop-quiz question, testing her familiarity of the political situation in Russia. Then the question shifted to Obama, but at that point the hard part had already been answered for him. Not only was it emblematic of the media’s general bias, but it was also a missed opportunity for them to really test Obama’s issue knowledge. Those paying attention are well aware that Clinton knows all the intricacies of policy and details of geopolitical situations better than anyone. Obama on the other hand, who has not been in a serious elected position for four years even, needs to be vetted.

For all the empty jabbering about change, there has not been a lot of talk about what Obama’s concept of change actually means. The whole notion that Obama is so fabulous because he’s offering change is fundamentally nonsensical. What’s so special about a presidential candidate offering change? Is not the point of almost every campaign–incumbents aside–that they will offer something unique to the presidency?

To the extent of my knowledge, there has never been a candidate who ran on the slogan “A status quo we can believe in.” Moreover, it is not even as if the “change” that Obama is offering is unique in 2008. There is almost no part of his platform that is exceptional when juxtaposed with the other Democrats who ran for the nomination. His domestic agenda is so hard to distinguish from Senator Clinton’s, for instance, that the Clinton campaign has even accused Obama of copying her economic plan.

Allegations of plagiarism aside, there remain absolutely no new political ideas coming from Senator Obama’s head. For those who have actually looked over his policy positions–which I surmise does not include many of his supporters–they will have little trouble deciphering that Obama is little more than a populist proposing a greater government tyranny over the market place. Despite talk of the “audacity of hope,” his campaign has been based on an extraordinary amount of fear: fear of free trade, fear of “predatory lending,” fear of global warming, fear of the price system and a free market in things like healthcare, the list goes on.

People have become so entranced by Obama’s rhetoric that they are failing to recognize the realities of his candidacy. Behind the deep, facund voice, Barack Obama is little more than a Gary Hart with a third the experience. While I realize it may be the political equivalent of little kids discovering there is no Santa Claus, young voters need be told there is nothing substantively special about the glorified Democrat with the funny name. When push comes to shove, an Obama presidency will mean more government, more spending, more regulation, and less freedom. The scary part is that Obama can sell even a useless, tarnished agenda like that one to voters. If he really offered hope and change, he would put his silver tongue to use by advocating market reforms and the roll back of massive government programs that are on track to bankrupting us in the near future. But the fact is he’s not doing that. As such, Americans will need a significant reality check, and quickly, because by November, it will be too late.

Popularity: 52% [?]

With David Patterson being sworn in today as the first blind and black governor of New York, I thought I would back track and drop my two cents on the sex scandal that is responsible for his assumption of the office.

I am typically a believer that personal issues should remain just that even for politicians, and they should be judged on their political ideology and leadership even if they are a bit scummy. In Elliot Spitzer’s case however, the hypocrisy may have been just too stark to ignore. As governor, for instance, he signed a bill upping the penalty for patrons of prostitution, making it possible for johns to go to jail for up to a year.

The hypocrisy shouldn’t come as to much of a surprise for a politician as arrogant as Spitzer. It was not just prostitution where he sought to intrude on people’s private lives and dealings: it included was music advertisers, banks lending to the less wealthy, and individual companies like AIG as well. And yet, he thought he was above the laws that he created and enforced.

But while Spitzer’s sexual escapade was individually scummy, there was nothing fundamentally sinful about it the social sense. Spitzer and the prostitute’s actions did not harm anybody, they did not coerce anyone, nor violate anybody’s rights. The arrangements of their relationship were voluntary and mutual. Of course my reasoning brings into question the illegality of prostitution, but it deserves such examination despite popular opinion being for the ban.

I find the legal status of prostitution strange because while sex is legal when its free, it isn’t when it costs money. I can think of no other good or service on the market whose exchange is legal when it’s free, but illegal when there is a monetary fee attached. Moreover, prostitution could be made substantially more safe if it were legalized. By bringing the industry out into the light, there would be better checks on infected prostitutes and STDs.

Next, much of the defense of anti-prostitution laws I’ve been hearing in the past week’s relates to the exploitation of women. This invites a two-pronged response: first, it does not constitute exploitation when women chose to venture into the industry themselves–as is mostly the case. Second, when a prostitute is indeed exploited–coerced, harmed, etc.–who is she going to go to for help? The police? Not as long as prostitution is illegal. Because prostitution is illegal, all the “exploitation” remains in the dark, and the woman exploited remain unprotected. If the practice was legal however, these woman would have the same protection anyone else does, and thus would be substantially safer.

If people really wanted to demote exploitation of women, they would make prostitution legal, as a means of granting women who chose to engage in it equal protection under the law.

And that’s that single most important issue at hand amidst the ado about Elliot Spitzer.

Here is a column elaborating on the things I am talking about from the opinion pages of the Chicago Tribune.

Popularity: 31% [?]

In all honesty, I am getting very sick of how the Obama campaign calls foul when someone even makes the most basic observation about his skin color. We already know that 9/10 African-American’s nationwide have voted for him in the Democratic Primaries held so far-so if they are so willing to confront and identify with Obama’s race, why isn’t he himself?

______________________________________________

Here are some quotes from the video of his sermons-

“The government lies, the government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color, the government lies, and the government lies!”

“Barack knows what it means to be a black mean living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people, Hillary can never know that, Hillary ain’t never been called a N****r.”

“Hillary is married to bell, and Hillary has been good to us; no he ain’t, bill did us just like he did Monica Lewinski, he was riding dirty.”

“The government gives them the drugs, gives bigger prisons, passes the three strike law and then wants us to sing god bless America? No no no, not bless America, goddamn America! That’s in the Bible, for killing innocent people, god damn America for treating its citizens as less than human.”

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and the black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done over seas is now brought back into our own front yards.”

“If they don’t find weapons of mass destruction they gona do just like the LAPD and plant them some weapons of mass destruction.”

_________________________________________________

Well apparently, he has been confronting his race and his personal identity with his long time close friend and Reverend, Jeremiah Wright. After hearing Wright’s comments it would be an understatement to call them objectionable; they are down right despicable, racist, sexist, and anti-American. They are some of the most offensive comments I have heard from anyone this close to any political candidate. Not only did Wright marry Michel and Barack Obama in his church (a sign of the couples close relationship with the minister), but according to the Huffingtonpost.com, he is an official member of the Obama campaign staff. He is a sitting member on Obama’s African American Leadership Committee. Now, we can all expect Wright to loose that post quickly after these videos were leaked online, but what does it say about Obama that he was on his committee in the first place? It is apparent that Obama has known about these remarks, again he has been a member of the Chicago based Church for over 20 years.
I would not be raising this as an issue if a. the remarks were not so offensive, b. Obama did not have him as part of the official campaign, and c. if Obama and his staff did not accost anyone who raises Obama’s skin color in any way shape or form.

According to Reverend Wright, all things being equal, his followers should vote for Obama simply because of his skin color. Now explain to me how that isn’t playing the race card, especially when he is an active member in Obama’s campaign?

I do not mean to demean Obama’s accomplishments (which are however lacking compared to those of say Bill Clinton, John McCain, or Mitt Romney), but lets be serious for a second-Obama was not part of the generation of struggling and oppressed African American’s fighting for their most basic forms of human dignity. He is no Martin Luther King, he never marched in the streets with water guns and attack dogs violating his natural rights. No! Barrack Obama did not grow up facing race riots in Watts or KKK killings in Mississippi; instead he attended one of the most prestigious private schools in the country. Obama went to the exclusive Punahou preparatory school in Honolulu, Hawaii. The school has had over $50 million in recent renovations and has received massive contributions from alumni such as AOL founder Steve Case. It does not sound to me like that child hood education is reminiscent of what most minority students face in their early years, especially considering the location of exotic Hawaii where the mixed racial population meant that people would likely have not even noticed Obama’s skin color.

His father left when he was only 2 and he spent several years raised in a single parent household (I too live in a single parent home, does that hardship also qualify me to be the commander and chief?). He spent several years in Indonesia (something his campaign claims gives him foreign policy experience; does that mean my summers in Greece also qualify me to rule the free world?) and later returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents while finishing his secondary education.

In his own memoirs, he claimed that he tried using drugs to cope with his identity crisis, according to Jeremiah Wright however, it is the US government who provided those drugs to Barrack Obama so as to subjugate him because of his race. If Obama’s campaign says that by not dropping Ferraro from Hillay’s campaign, that Hillary was endorsing and condoning Ferraro’s racist remarks, then wouldn’t it be fair to say that by not dropping and disowning Wright that Obama is endorsing the theory of a massive government conspiracy to subjugate African-American’s?

My point by bringing up Barack’s past is not to suggest that he was some rich and entitled young man. He had to work hard to transfer from Occidental to Columbia and he had to have displayed talent in becoming the head of the Harvard Law Review. Despite this, it is clear that Obama has played the race card. He cannot be the man who transcends race in one sentence, while in another is pandering and fully excepting the support of someone who espouses black nationalism.

John McCain recently came under fire for having the support of an evangelical Christian support him who believes that it is America’s duty to destroy Islam. There is one clear difference-McCain is not an active member of Rod Parsley’s church, he and Cindy were not married by him, and Parsley does not sit as an active member on his campaign.

Before Obama calls for one more staff resignation or formal apology because of what someone says about his race, he needs to disassociate himself from this radical and racist Reverend once and for all. Unless he does that he will remain the biggest hypocrite of this campaign. He is permitting Wright and others like him to advertise him as an African-American who understand their hardships and their pain, while at the same time he says to white America that he transcends racial boundaries. His childhood makes it apparent that he has little in common with the average American, let alone oppressed minorities; for his Reverend to suggest otherwise is despicable and a disservice to the hardships that civil rights activists fought for.

Popularity: 45% [?]

Just before 1 am EST, with 75% reporting and a margin of 3%, NBC News calls Texas for Senator Clinton.

So the final popular count for the night is three states for Clinton and one for Obama, with both big states going to Clinton. And even though this popular vote does not include the caucus results nor the TX delegate count, both of which will probably go to Obama some time next week, it is a moral victory for Clinton and will give her momentum going forward.

Next big stop is Pennsylvania on April 22.

The complete schedule can be seen on the linked article above.

This campaign is far from over. Its exciting and historic. And, if we’re lucky, it will go all the way to the August convention in Denver…

Popularity: 32% [?]

While Hillary Clinton ended her 12 state losing streak with victory in Rhode Island, the highly prized popular votes tonight in Texas and Ohio were still up for grabs.

But just recently, Ohio was called for Hillary before the 23rd hour on this Super Tuesday. With over 50% reporting a current margin of about 15%, her victory is pretty robust despite the state’s voting complications today.

(ADDENDUM:) Currently, to preempt any momentum change from a possible Obama victory in Texas, Sen. Clinton is making a victory speech in Ohio at this hour. The idea is to marginalize what is currently a close, and confusing, vote in Texas. Either way, now that she has won Ohio, I think there is no way that she will drop out before the Pennsylvania primary in April, where polling and the blue collar demographic similar to Ohio is favorable to her.

Additionally, here are the exit polls for Texas which look slightly better for Sen. Clinton. With more than half of precincts reporting the vote count is about tied, but Clinton’s numbers have been accelerating. Caucus numbers are expected to come in a little later, but it is expected that Obama will win a majority of the Texas caucus goers by enough of a margin such that he wins more actual delegates from the state even if Hillary wins the popular vote.

The minimal requirement of the night was met for Hillary Clinton, now, if she could pull out a popular victory in Texas she could meet a second milestone and perhaps capture overall momentum in this turbulent campaign.

Popularity: 32% [?]

Here are Ohio exit polls which generally seem to indicate good news for Senator Clinton.

Additionally, there has been a shortage of ballots reported in 15 Democratic precincts indicating a very large turnout. Consequently, a judge has approved an motion from the Obama camp to keep polls open due to this and poor weather that the state experienced today. Here is the story.

Texas results will be coming in within half an hour.

Popularity: 26% [?]