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!

At 7 pm EST, the time polls closed in Vermont, sources predict Obama to win the state of Vermont. It comes as no surprise considering Vermont is one of the most liberal states in the union. Contrary to most states, the Iraq war was tied for the most important issue with the Economy, and Obama won by a lot among voters who identified with the Iraq issue (exit polls). While this victory is no surprise, it is interesting to note that Obama could net more delegates from Vermont (winning +5, if he ends up with 65% of the vote) than Clinton could if she won a narrow victory in Ohio.

Polls just closed in Ohio, where McCain was declared the victor while its too close to call on the other end. Polls had Hillary up by about 7 pts in the poll averages, in large part due to the fact that it is a blue collar state with large economic concerns, although the latest Zogby poll says the race is tied.

Texas polls close at 9 pm EST, and polls indicate the Dem race is razor close there. While Obama pulled ahead in the averages in the past two weeks, Clinton seems to have wrestle that slim lead back from him. She appears to be up by about 2 percentage pts. Because of the mix of caucuses and primary in Texas, Obama is expected to win the Texas delegate count, but the popular vote is up for grabs and has a particular momentum value for the campaigns.

Rhode Island has 35 delegates, the majority of whom are anticipated to go to Sen. Clinton.

Meanwhile, on the GOP side, John McCain has already wrapped up VT and OH. The big test for the GOP tonight is whether McCain will win enough votes to wrap up the official nomination tonight.

NSP will have coverage throughout the night, so stay tuned.

Popularity: 33% [?]

Bill Buckley, the conservative writer, commentator, and founder of National Review, died yesterday at the age of 82 in the town neighboring my own. I have subsequently spent time reading more on the man and watching more of him. His prominence is owed to his unfettered defense of conservatism throughout the post-WWII era when the Left really dominated the zeitgeist and moderates, in the mold of Nelson Rockefeller, had a hold of the Republican Party. Today, American politics is centered noticeably further to the right in part because of Buckley’s promotion of figures from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Regan. And the fact that it is now hard to imagine the Nixons and Rockefellers of the world leading the GOP is a tribute to Buckley’s way with words.

In the second-ever issue of his brain-child, the National Review, he declared the magazines mission statement, which included its famous vow to “stand athwart history yelling, stop.” While this represents my own fundamental discontent with the philosophy of conservatism–for no philosophy can have merit by virtue of being the status quo–it appeals to both my romantic sense, by unequivocally promising to fight for a successful tradition, and my rational one, by standing for limited government and individualism at a time when collectivism was rising to the top of the intellectual order.

The doctrines of conservatism, which today is often cast as a three-legged stool consisting of aggressive national defense, traditional social values, and economic libertarianism, was different in many ways from what it was in 1955. Perhaps the biggest change from early Cold War conservatism, was the relative rise of the third prong, economic libertarianism, which Buckley was particularly known for. As a matter of fact, he claimed that he floated between the self-label of conservative and libertarian for some time during the latter part of his career. Additionally, he came out against the war on drugs later in life, but at the same time his reasoning was rooted in the impracticality of the fight rather than individual rights–hardly the essence of a true libertarian.

Politics aside, what remembrances seem to have concentrated on are the style of the man himself and his unmatched way with words. Watching him and hearing him and reading him, I gained a sense of an aura of refined elitism–and I mean that in only the best way–that arose from his able mind and own rebelilon against the liberal intelligentsia. His quick wit and sesquipedalian vocabulary were second to none and made his writing unmistakable.

Of all the obituaries I read today, here are the links to the five best:

from The New York Times

from Ann Coulter

from The Nation

and from the the two most Buckley-esque journalists left: Peggy Noonan and George Will

While the sources of these articles generally mix as well as water and vinegar, all of their memorials include great recollections of the man and are well done. The irony of the timing of Buckley’s death is that it coincided with the nomination of a Republican presidential candidate who is out of favor with self-proclaimed conservatives and who appeals to the center of politics, while the Democrats may be running on their most liberal platform in decades this year. The question remains: did Buckley die alongside the modern conservative movement for which he served as a fountainhead? I think that is probably overly-simplistic, but the question has been asked and is well worth asking. I anticipate that the American conservatism is still politically strong despite an unpopular president and will remain more like the party of Ronald Reagan than that of Gerald Ford in the years to come.

Popularity: 60% [?]

Today billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City wrote an OP-ED piece in the New York Times that confirmed he will not be seeking the run for the white house this election. It does seem to suggest that perhaps the deciding factor in his bid for the white house was who received the Republican ticket.

Mayor Bloomberg may have billions of dollars to spend on an election, but unless he saw a serious void between the two parties he would have no reason to run. McCain and Obama are both candidates who will attract many independent voters (voters who Bloomberg would have depended on in his White House bid) and with McCain only several dozen delegates away from the Republican nomination it seems clear that at least one of the political parties will be offering a candidate who will bridge the bipartisan divide and evolve from “traditional party orthodoxy,” as Bloomberg said in his article.

The most telling quote from Bloomberg’s piece in the New York Times suggests that if Obama gets the nomination from the Democratic Party, that both he and McCain will have to fight for his endorsement. “If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House.”

Obama’s rhetoric promises to unite America and the two parties; McCain has been an affectionate son of America’s independent voters for 8 years and his record in the Senate is one of fierce independent (and perhaps maverick) behavior. For the first time in American presidential politics the independent votes may be seriously contested by both Republican and Democratic candidates.

If the race shapes up to be close, Bloomberg’s endorsement is one that could be vital to a victory in New York-a victory that both candidates will be tirelessly seeking.

Here is an excerpt from the piece, follow the link or pick up the February 28th NYT to read the article-
______________

WATCHING the 2008 presidential campaign, you sometimes get the feeling that the candidates — smart, all of them — must know better. They must know we can’t fix our economy and create jobs by isolating America from global trade. They must know that we can’t fix our immigration problems with border security alone. They must know that we can’t fix our schools without holding teachers, principals and parents accountable for results. They must know that fighting global warming is not a costless challenge. And they must know that we can’t keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals unless we crack down on the black market for them.

The vast majority of Americans know that all of this is true, but — politics being what it is — the candidates seem afraid to level with them.

______________

Popularity: 39% [?]

The candidate who manages the economy least.

At least that is the theme of John Stossel’s newest article, which hits the proverbial nail on the head. So often the question regarding the economy in presidential elections is who will best “manage” it. But that question, especially the term “manage” really implies that inevitably the president will be exerting a great deal of control over the economy, and the issue is relates more to how the president will then allocate spending and taxation and regulation–how he or she will “man the controls.”

But in reality, the question should be more open-ended and have more choices. Rather than ask, how the president will manage the economy, we should first ask, will the president manage the economy, and if so, how much.

By addressing the basic issues of government’s place in the economy, which voters systematically ignore in favor of the same amount of executive control year after year, Stossel is able to put into perspective the economic nonsense that Congress or the president is directly responsible for growth.

He writes:

Sen. Hillary Clinton told The New York Times recently, “I want to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market. … You try to find common ground, insofar as possible. But if you really believe you have to manage the economy, you have to stake a lot of your presidency on it.”

Notice that she equates government power and market power. That is absurd. “Power” in a free market means success at creating goods and services that your fellow human beings voluntarily choose to buy. Government power is force: the ability to fine and imprison people.

Politicians who talk about managing the economy ignore the fact that, strictly speaking, there is no economy. There are only people producing, buying and selling goods and services. Keep that in mind, and one realizes that government action more often than not interferes with the productive activities that benefit everyone. When politicians propose regulations to fix some problem, they should ask if some earlier intervention created the problem and if the new regulations will make things worse. The answer to both questions is usually yes.

The economy is far too complex for any president — no matter how smart — to manage. How can politicians and bureaucrats possibly know what hundreds of millions of individuals know, want and aspire to? How can government employees fathom what trade-offs to make in a world of scarce resources?

They can’t. That’s why free people are more prosperous than unfree people.

Presidential candidates should promise to keep their hands off the economy.

Popularity: 42% [?]

While defeated GOP candidates, such as Giuliani, Romney, and Tancredo,  have been perfectly willing to endorse another candidate following their withdrawal, deposed Democrats have in no notable way gone out on a limb to endorse. Still much speculation remains as to who an Edwards or Richardson (or Biden or Dodd) might support, if they chose to do so at all. The two are in constant contact with both campaigns, and whereas Edwards managed a far larger portion of voters, the qualified Richardson appears to be an especially hot commodity of late.

Listening to the New Mexico Governor on Wolf Blitzer a few days ago, the hispanic pol said, not only that he was “genuinely torn” between Hillary and Barack, but also that he expects to make an endorsement some time in the next week. Moreover, Richardson may become even more important with the upcoming March 4th primaries ,which include Texas, where about one in every two Democratic voters may be hispanic.

Here is a very illuminating story from the NYT on Richardson and each campaigns’ effort to earn his endorsement:

Barack Obama calls every three days or so. He called on Friday of last week, but Mr. Richardson was tied up with the Legislature, so he tried again on Monday and left a message on voice mail (“following up from Friday”) before finally connecting with his defeated presidential rival late Tuesday, and then again two days later.

Mr. Richardson took a half-hour call from Bill Clinton on Tuesday and received about 10 others — a typical day — from people calling “on behalf of Hillary”: former cabinet secretaries, mutual friends, elected officials. “Heavyweight types,” Mr. Richardson calls them.

“Barack is very precise,” the governor observed, sitting in his office at the New Mexico Capitol. The Obama campaign rarely pesters him with surrogates. Mr. Obama’s approach is like “a surgical bomb,” he said, while “the Clintons are more like a carpet bomb.”

While Richardson is notable for his ties to Bill Clinton and his administration (both as Energy Secretary and Ambassador to the UN), he does not seem to have developed as much of a liking for Hillary as he has for, not only her husband, but Barack Obama as well.

But, just as with John Edwards, it is very possible that we are beating a dead horse, and that all of the major ex-candidates remain neutral as the race is neck and neck.

Popularity: 25% [?]

Contrary to his 2004 bid, where he ran independently, “consumer advocate” and Democratic ball-buster Ralph Nader announced his candidacy president today.

Of course, for Democrats with a Nader complex this is an ominous prospect in for the upcoming election. But lest liberals worry too much, the truth is that this news really doesnt matter, and I am quite surprised that the announcement has garnered as much attention as it has this Sunday.

While Nader certainly had an effect in 2000, garnering 2.7% of the vote, after much ado was made of the roll he played, he only managed .3% in 2004–virtually identical to the Libertarian candidate in the same election. Nader has over-stayed his welcome in the mind of liberals, and along with the enthusiasm of Democrats in this election, there should be no reason to think that he will affect the results in November. Don’t believe me? Take Nader at his word:

The consumer champion, who will turn 74 this week, rejected suggestions that he would damage the prospects of the Democratic candidate. “If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form,” he said.

Lastly, while Nader compiles little in the vote column, he never ceases to raise that age old question of whether to vote for the candidate who you are most closely alined with even if they dont have a chance, or vote for the least of evils among those who do have a shot at victory.

My own answer is typically somewhere in between. Not only does it depend on how much publicity the candidate can get–and ultimately how they can affect the discussion and undertone of the American political landscape–but also how close the candidate is to my views. As is, I may be closer on most issues to the Libertarian Party, but not only are they not close enough to my political philosophy but they have a negligible effect on America’s zeitgeist. To the contrary, my many reservations aside, I chose to support Ron Paul for the GOP nomination this year because he had a big enough forum to influence how voters–at least a notable fraction of them–think.

With all the money he raised, he hopefully was able to move the GOP a little further towards a platform of limited government than they were before. It may sound modest, but by focusing on the political discussion rather than number of votes, one can look towards affecting who is elected not just immediately, but also in the long run.

Popularity: 32% [?]

Yesterday, the New York Times broke an eight year old story announcing the possibility that McCain had an extramarital affair with a much younger DC lobbyist. The story cited former McCain aids who grew suspicious of the Senator for appearing more than usual with the woman thirty years his junior back around the time he was first running for president . Of course, the Times had no evidence of the impropriety but chose to feature the aspersion in the first paragraphs of an article entirely criticizing McCain for his involvement with wealthy and influential donors.

The thing is that some of the story may actually be relevant–regarding the “maverick” of a Senator, who is known for his battles on campaign finance and ethics reform, who may have gotten a little to cozy with some wealthy patrons–but the Times chose to relegate that story while featuring the aspersion of an allegation of McCain maybe having a crush.

Now, here is valid criticism from Megan McArdle:

McCain is not a classical liberal; he’s the product of an intensely hierarchical honor culture that he seems to think would substantially improve the rest of us if we adopted more of its values. I have no shortage of respect for the military, and their willingness to place their own lives between the rest of us and war’s desolation. But that doesn’t mean I think America would be a better place if we had a more martial state. His record bespeaks little respect for spontaneous order and individual freedom. What free-market instincts he evinces seem to have come as part of the conservative ideas combo-pack he bought because it was cheaper than buying the parts individually–all he really wanted was the national greatness and the moderately conservative social structure.

This is the most accurate description of McCain I have ever read and it goes to the heart of why I am not too fond of him. But, at the same time, I foresee myself voting for him because he is effectively less harmful to the economy and the country as a whole (”100 years in Iraq” not quite withstanding). On the other hand, Barack Obama is the image of a more rational, intelligent, thinking man’s president on the surface (juxtaposed with McCain’s traditional-patriotic image), but underneath it he will rule with a more heavy hand over the economy. My constant inclination is to vote for the political substance under the facade which is why I lean towards McCain. I don’t think there is much evidence to say that if America votes for what they perceive as a thinking man’s politician over a military-traditionalist one that it will in the long term lead to enough positive, free market reforms to necessarily outweigh Obama’s anti-market plans.

Hence, I disagree with the libertarian blogger’s assessment and endorsement of Obama, and choose to stick by McCain, who as of now appears to be the least-worst choice.

UPDATE: McCain responded to the allegations of the Times in a press conference this morning. The full video thereof can be accessed by clicking the link below:

Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 47% [?]

Today, President Bush signed the $168 billion stimulus package that has received much coverage in its bipartisan pursuit to address the economic slowdown with more spending. From the AFP:

Treasury officials say tax rebate checks of up to 600 dollars for individual taxpayers and 1,200 for couples, plus 300 dollars for dependent children, could boost consumer spending which has been pressured by sinking home prices and tight credit.
The White House said the package will provide tax rebates to 128 million American households and that the first checks should arrive in mailboxes in May.

Of course the signing is not much of a surprise, but I would also like to use this post to make a valuable addition to the Coalition Against Stimulus. John Stossel, who conveys free market ideas to a wide audience like no other member of the media, joins the club with an article, “Stimulating Nonsense,” released today.

He envokes Russ Roberts, as several have, who had perhaps the most the most memorable line of the anti-stimulus campaign:

It’s like taking a bucket of water from the deep end of a pool and dumping it into the shallow end. Funny thing—the water in the shallow end doesn’t get any deeper.

In other words this bill will (a) not augment gross product in any way and (b) all it does is redistribute money from one place to another–rich to lower/middle class; savings to consumption. If anything, from what we know about the effect of redistribution on economic incentives as well as the importance of savings to economic growth, “stimulus” will do anything but stimulate overall.

Popularity: 40% [?]

We had mentioned last week that we attended rallies for presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain. Video footage and our impressions will be along shortly, but we’ve just uploaded a batch of photos from the events. They’re embedded below.

Popularity: 33% [?]

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: 43% [?]