Boris weighs in

From London´s comically English mayor Boris Johnson comes my favorite Obama endorsement yet.  Notwithstanding typical Boris insensitivity to cultural etiquette (referring to his preferred candidate as Barack Hussein Obama, a full name generally reserved for use by the columnists of American nativist blogs and Fox News) and amusingly verbose praise (¨[of Obama for having] no difficulty in orally extemporising a series of grammatical English sentences¨), Mayor Johnson actually delivers a rather compelling endorsement.  It´s worth a read, if only to understand how Europe (or a small and very English part of it) views the American elections.  Plus Boris is American (he was born in New York City) so maybe one day we´ll be treated to a Boris candidacy on our side of the Atlantic.

Political hackery at its worst

If you repeat lies long enough do they become true? Thomas Sowell tests this theory in his latest column. Among his most offensive insinuations: that Obama might be a Communist Russian circa the Russian Revolution, or Jim Jones, or Hitler, or Mao, promising “change” and delivering the worst kind of it. Plus Sowell repeats the popular “we don’t know anything about Obama” mantra. But not only is that not true (we know plenty about Obama), but also it implies that Obama supporters are a bunch of delusional cult members (something Sowell suggests earlier in his piece).

Sowell’s a professor a Stanford University. Stanford should be ashamed.

Colin Powell endorses Obama: the end of the McCain campaign?

Earlier today Colin Powell announced his endorsement of Barack Obama for President. What does this mean?

[1] Fewer people making an issue of Barack Obama’s limited experience.

[2] More people wondering what John McCain was thinking when he picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate.

[3] More people criticizing McCain for the Bill Ayers guilt by association attacks on Obama.

[4] More people accepting Obama’s claim that he can work with Democrats and Republicans alike.

[5] Some people wondering if race had anything to do with Powell’s endorsement.

Powell’s endorsement is big, much bigger than any other previous endorsement (although that’s been said about many endorsements including Kennedy’s and Kerry’s). I don’t see how McCain can recover, especially since so many of his attacks on Obama (lack of experience, liberalness, Bill Ayers association) are directly or indirectly refuted by Powell.  I’ll be interested to see what the McCain campaign does for the next two weeks.

The fallacy of a more liberal (or progressive or left-wing) Europe

By common consent Europe is more liberal or progressive or left-wing than the United States. Europeans say it, Americans say it, and hardly anyone objects.

I object. By only the narrowest of criteria is Europe more liberal or progressive or left-wing than the United States. To my (future) sympathizers I present a defense of this position; may it serve you well in pub/bar/cafe debates with unconvinced Euro-philes. A disclaimer: I don’t mean to say the United States is more progressive or that it is “better” or that progressive is good. I merely suggest that we should not so blindly accept the argument that Europe is more progressive.

The most common “Europe is more progressive than America” argument goes something like this: “In Europe we have social welfare, secular government, gay marriage, and a humble foreign policy. In America you have guns, religion, capitalism, and imperialism. Thus we are more progressive.”

Why should we be suspicious of this argument? Consider these points/rhetorical questions:

[1] What does “progressive” or “liberal” or “left-wing” even mean? In the 1930s “progressive” in the United States meant prohibition (of alcohol), moralist legislation, and economic empowerment of the poor. Today it means something very different. “Liberal” implies free-market in Europe and the rest of the world but in the United States it refers to those of the tax and spend persuasion. And “left-wing” includes groups as diverse as social democrats, communists, and anarchists. Who knows what a “left-wing” policy agenda would look like? Thus our standard for evaluating this claim (of European progressiveness, or whatever) is already flawed. We hardly know what to evaluate.

[2] Europe isn’t Holland. Not every European is smoking marijuana during an interracial gay interfaith marriage at a vegan restaurant (nor are the Dutch, I suspect…). Italy has Silvio Berlusconi (who owns practically the entire Italian media), France has Nicolas Sarkozy, and Eastern Europe remains a bastion of social conservatism. Plus let’s not forget the rise of the far right in France (Jean Marie Le Pen), Austria (Jorg Haider), Belgium (Filip Dewinter), etc.

[3] The United States is remarkably liberal, even on domestic policies frequently ridiculed by Europeans. Consider gay marriage, which is legal in four European countries: Belgium, Norway, Netherlands, and Spain. Not a very impressive record for the supposedly more tolerant Europeans, especially given that gay marriage is legal in California and Massachusetts (and thus must be recognized in the other 48 states as required by the Constitution).

[4] Immigration. This is the big one, and Europe is miserably regressive on this issue. Consider the immigrant ghetto riots in Paris three years ago, or the burning of immigrant businesses and homes in El Ejido, Spain in 2000, or the total marginalization of Germany’s Turkish minority. Europeans love to joke about American rural rednecks who think Barack Obama is a Muslim or won’t vote for him because he’s black, but there’s absolutely zero chance of any European country electing the interracial son of a Kenyan immigrant to be President (or Prime Minister or Chancellor or whatever). Whereas the United States has made remarkable progress towards integrating its immigrant minorities (although terrible problems persist, such as the Minutemen or institutional racism or the North Carolina GOP), Europe has done pathetically little. Consider the racist chants during Spanish soccer games (Atlético Madrid, La Selección, etc.) compared against the non-issue of minority or immigrant athletes in the United States. The EU, celebrated as an example of transnational cooperation, appears more fortress than post-modern paradise when viewed from North Africa or the Middle East or elsewhere.

[5] Parts of neo-conservative foreign policy are actually quite liberal, progressive, and left-wing. Whereas Europeans celebrate very conservative notions of international governance (the inviolability of national sovereignty, for example), American neo-cons have (disastrously) embraced a more cosmopolitan perspective on international relations. Consider that in recent years Europeans have preferred a foreign policy of diplomacy and maintaining the balance of power (at least outside Europe) while Americans have preferred democratization and radical systemic change. Which seems more liberal/progressive/left-wing to you?  Remember the Comintern as an example of aggressive left-wing foreign policy.

There’s undoubtedly more to say, but I’ll stop here. Please comment; this is such a popular and controversial topic of conversation and definitely merits a closer look.

A good article and my personal debate scorecard

This is a good article by Joseph Nye discussing something we probably know but don’t want to admit:
Bin Laden’s Potential “October Surprise”

By my count, here’s how the debate went:

1) On the basis of trade issues, Obama locked up Iowa and made big gains in Ohio, Missouri and Florida. The first rule of domestic trade politics is you don’t speak out against the interests of a concentrated faction in a key electoral constituency. That is precisely what McCain did by speaking out against ethanol subsidies (very popular in Iowa, probably popular in Missouri and Ohio) and sugar subsidies (an important component of the Florida economy).

2) McCain locked up the key Joe Wurzelbacher vote. If he loses the election, at least McCain will have gained a friend.

The NAFTA stuff was FINALLY brought up by McCain, about 2 years too late to have any solid impact, and Obama did enough to toe the line that he would be pro-free trade without casting aside unions. I do think he is right to re-evaluate our enforcement of trade agreements, although he’s opening up a pandora’s box where other countries can start looking at our unfair trade practices. Target #1 will be Obama’s most aggregious piece of pork, the farm bill. I still think McCain has been publicly right on trade: for example ethanol and sugar subsidies are highly distorting in the world economy and I would speculate that ending them could have the greatest immediate impact on increased energy efficiency and independence from Middle-East oil out of any action taken by the government (for reasons why, read up on Brazilian sugar ethanol). However, I also think Obama is bluffing on trade. The president plays a different role in trade politics than that of a Senator: the president is supposed to understand and promote trade due to the good it will do for the county as a whole, while a Senator is supposed to represent it’s constituents’ interests in any trade agreement. It may be a somewhat baseless assertion, but given Obama’s uncanny ability to understand his role, I am confident he will adjust his conduct smoothly and accordingly if he reaches the White House.

Common sense does not point towards the common man (or woman)

To put it extremely lightly, the presidency is an uncommon position with uncommon challenges. So why do candidates seem determined to prove that they are common people? The obvious answer is that voters demand that of them. So the better question is why do voters crave a common president? This is particularly puzzling given that President Bush, who ran and governed as a self-professed commoner, has not had an approval rating above 40% since the end of 2006. If you add that to the “change” theme of this election, the circumstances would suggest that the candidates would make a point of demonstrating their uncommon qualities.

Yet, nonetheless, Joe Biden and Sarah Palin made frequent arguments that they are really just down home folks who understand the problems of average America. Gov. Palin made this statement to that effect:

“But it wasn’t just that experience tapped into, it was my connection to the heartland of America. Being a mom, one very concerned about a son in the war, about a special needs child, about kids heading off to college, how are we going to pay those tuition bills? About times and Todd and our marriage in our past where we didn’t have health insurance and we know what other Americans are going through as they sit around the kitchen table and try to figure out how are they going to pay out-of-pocket for health care? We’ve been there also so that connection was important.”

Senator Biden made a similar appeal, during which he almost teared up:

“Look, I understand what it’s like to be a single parent. When my wife and daughter died and my two sons were gravely injured, I understand what it’s like as a parent to wonder what it’s like if your kid’s going to make it.

I understand what it’s like to sit around the kitchen table with a father who says, “I’ve got to leave, champ, because there’s no jobs here. I got to head down to Wilmington. And when we get enough money, honey, we’ll bring you down.”

I understand what it’s like. I’m much better off than almost all Americans now. I get a good salary with the United States Senate. I live in a beautiful house that’s my total investment that I have. So I — I am much better off now.

But the notion that somehow, because I’m a man, I don’t know what it’s like to raise two kids alone, I don’t know what it’s like to have a child you’re not sure is going to — is going to make it — I understand.”

I appreciate the need for a candidate to show that they can relate to the problems of mainstream America. If a candidate can’t comprehend the worries of the average citizen then they have no business attempting to solve them. However, merely demonstrating that you can understand these issues does not qualify you for the presidency. What should qualify you for the presidency is demonstrating that your insight into those problems and the solutions you propose are truly uncommon. I don’t intend to offer any further opinion here, I only hope to re-frame the discussion. Who offers that uncommon solution, that uncommon intellect?

The vice-presidential debate: Joe Biden vs. Joe Six-pack

The catastrophe that is Sarah Palin knows no bounds. Tomorrow night she debates Joe Biden, the absurdly more qualified Democratic vice-presidential candidate who is expected to restrain himself from criticizing Palin too heavy-handedly (lest she rally the pity vote). But Biden’s strategy may be too timid. In recent days Palin has styled herself the “Joe Six-pack” candidate, a reference as pathetically self-congratulatory as McCain’s “original maverick” intonation in the presidential debate last week. But who knows, maybe this phrase will stick and Palin will reverse the Democratic gains from the past two weeks.

Which is exactly why Biden can’t be timid in tomorrow night’s debate. If Sarah Palin wants to call herself Joe Six-pack, so be it. There’s little Biden or Obama can do to dispel the notion that our moose-hunting friend from Alaska shares more in common with the average Joe than career politician Biden or ivy leaguer Obama. But what Biden can do (and Obama should do) is suggest that while Palin may indeed be Joe Six-pack incarnate, she doesn’t have any answers to the big important questions like Iraq, the financial crisis, Russia, inequality, education, etc. In other words, don’t let her claim to be a more capable representative of the people. But this shouldn’t be so hard. As we saw in the Katie Couric interviews, Palin is more than capable of embarrassing herself without too much effort from the other party. Biden, however, would serve himself and Obama well to highlight these mistakes and explain, humbly but directly, why Sarah Palin is unfit to serve as vice president of the United States.