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?

Defending the Iraq War

Last week former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was brutalized on the Daily Show for his friendship with President Bush and his support of the Iraq War. Blair’s defense was fairly standard: ‘we thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction’, ‘even if he didn’t he was still a threat’, etc. Although I disagreed with the Iraq War at the time, and continue to disgaree with the Bush/Blair decision to launch the 2003 invasion, I think I can present a better defense of the War than Mr. Blair.

Consider the timeframe. The War began in early 2003, over five years ago. Five years may seem like a long time to those with a short memory, but in terms of human history, or world history, it’s nothing.

Those familiar with Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, & Steel will understand how seemingly trivial details (like the geographic distribution of grain species at the beginning of history) can continue to impact human interaction tens, hundreds, and thousands of years down the line. Diamond suggests that the potent concoction of favorable grains, domesticated animals, and east-west geography enabled Hernan Cortes to conquer Moctezuma’s Aztec Empire, and I don’t doubt that his explanation contains at least a kernel of truth.

In that sense, it’s an error of gross proportion to prejudge the results of the Iraq War. The body count may be high (and hence that price is known), but history doesn’t end today. We must balance our current assessment of the War against all potential returns in the future. Might today’s Iraqi chaos yield to democracy and peace if we resist passing judgement (and withdrawing troops/giving up) for just a little while longer? Will future Iraqi democrats revere President Bush as their liberator? That may seem unlikely, but it is also unknown. Our feeble ability to predict the future should make us wary of all so-called “certainties”.

But of course we must act, not forgetting that omission (not withdrawing troops) is logically equivalent to action (withdrawal). Either option entails a decision. So we make the best decision possible based on the most information available.

I caution critics, however, who claim that the War was uncontestably a mistake. They’ve passed judgement far too soon, and thus their policy prescriptions tend to be short-sighted and reckless. It’s vitally important to look at the Iraq War from outside the narrow context of this moment in time. Only with this broader perspective can we hope to understand the implications of our actions.

George W. Bush and the Rule of Law

I would like to draw your attention to an article by Elaine Scarry in the latest issue of the Boston Review. Scarry raises an important, but admittedly difficult question: We now have a president and a vice president, who, according to all available evidence, have carried out grave crimes, including but not limited to the official sanction of torture, “does our already existing knowledge of what they have done obligate us to press for legal redress?”

Scarry goes on to give a dispassionate and diligently referenced analysis of the case for prosecution. She concludes that based on the Geneva rules, prosecution is not only possible but necessary in order to restore the rule of law.

I encourage you all to read it.

Is her case convincing? Should the American people (or an international body) pursue what would certainly be an “utterly exhausting” prosecution of an American President and Vice President?

Open Question: What should 9/11 mean?

Quite appropriately, today is a day remembering the victims of the September 11th attacks. In New York and Washington DC, family members are once again gathering to remember fallen loved ones at ground zero and the Pentagon. Thankfully, the presidential candidates are also stepping back from politics to participate together in a forum on public service at Columbia University. The day itself remains sacrosanct.

However, our memory of September 11th is not so holy in American politics the other 364 days of the year. Politicians use their roles on that day or what that day now symbolizes in the war on terror for their own gains on a regular basis. Perhaps we are still not far enough removed from that day politically for us to have the proper perspective. A good indication of that is the fact that Giuliani and George W. Bush, the mayor of New York and the President on September 11th, are still very active in American politics. I think we are already starting to see from McCain and Obama that politics is moving on, albeit at a very slow pace.

Personally, I think the day should eventually be remembered as an everyman’s version of December 7th 1941. Something that unites us as a country into remembering that there are bigger things than politics. That we are all citizens of this country, that at our core we all stand together, and that we all have the potential to stand for something heroic.

That´s just my opinion though, and I think this merits some discussion.

A New Values Debate

Henry Paulson’s proposed bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has justifiably sparked a lot of debate. I won’t attempt to add to that, but I’ll simply direct you to a few predictions and rants by frustrated economics professors: here’s one by Paul Krugman, here’s one by RGE Monitor’s Nouriel Roubani, he cites one by Willem Buiter in the FT. Then there’s another one published by the Wall Street Journal. All of these are worth reading, and they all have differing opinions about the severity of the problem and who is really to blame. However, as with most crises, there isn’t just one group at fault, but a number of different complicit wrongdoers. Certainly, the two mortgage giants and the financial industry in general were overzealous in selling and packaging mortgages that perhaps didn’t deserve to exist and the government stood by so idly that they are rightfully accused of negligence. Even American consumers are duly ridiculed for their rampant debt accumulation. But placing blame is one thing, solving the problem is another.

Part of the difficulty in addressing this problem is that it seems to require altering economic behaviors that are part of the American identity. The American economy is designed—through a number of mechanisms—to promote radical risk-taking and innovation. That general attitude is not something we will change, nor is it necessarily something we should abandon. However, we clearly crossed a line into excessive risk-taking, and we need to send a message that we should take a step back at every level. Sending a message that condemns excessive risk-taking without opposing the practice in general is a politically difficult maneuver, but one that presidential and congressional candidates will have to make.

One way of addressing this might be by making this the new debate over “values”. Previous elections were one or lost based on claims to having superior values on issues of moral import like gay marriage, gun rights and abortion. I could see the candidates addressing these economic problems with the same language of values—starting a journey back to the “culture of thrift” perhaps, as David Brooks calls it. One candidate could (should?) claim that they are the candidate of responsibility, the torch-bearers of the protestant work ethic that used to have Americans spending what they had and, as a result, having more to spend; a candidate that could reintroduce us to the values of modesty and hard work. This seems like a traditionally Republican mantra, but the Bush era of fiscal profligacy lost them that mantle. McCain could make this turn to traditional values, but his support of the Bush tax cuts loses him some credibility. Obama doesn’t exactly seem like a fiscal conservative either, but he could argue that having the government spend more on health care and education helps keep people out of the debt that is perhaps the root of this problem. Whether or not either candidate picks up this undertone, it is clear that getting out of the credit crisis will require more than a new set of regulations; it may require a more substantial change towards a new set of values and social ideals. What are those values and does either candidate have the capacity to lead us down that path towards change? I think those questions deserve some discussion.

Chavez makes Russian friends

In a move sure to catch the eye of Washington, Russia’s new President Dmitri Medvedev has agreed to an arms and energy deal with Venezuelan provocateur Hugo Chavez. Medvedev believes that Russian-Venezuelan cooperation is “essential for regional security” in Latin America. Chavez says he’s thrilled with this “strategic alliance” between the two countries.

Isn’t Medvedev supposed to be more liberally minded than his ex-KGB predecessor? Not in this respect, anyway. Selling arms to Chavez can’t be a very good way for Russia to improve its relations with the US, even if Bush is on his way out.

Developed vs. Developing: The difference may be obsolete but the normative implications remain

I wrote the following in relation to a New York Times article during the G8 summit, but the message is relevant for election ’08. A major difference between Obama and McCain will be how they approach the host of countries considered “developing” as they direct their foreign policy. Since climate change diplomacy was the subject of the G8 meeting, I took a quick look at what both had to say regarding how they would address the developing world. McCain’s website talks about the need to integrate “India and China” into any climate change initiative—this could be a repetition of the Bush demand that those two countries be involved in any new agreement, but it could also mean that McCain understands their importance in addressing global warming and understands that they require a different approach. Obama’s website suggests that he wants to create a “Global Energy Forum” including the G8 and the same “outreach 5” from the G8 summit, except he wouldn’t make India, China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa sit at the kiddie table. These websites are probably not the best predictors of what policy might come out of a McCain or Obama presidency but, at least on climate change, it does show that the two candidates might be moving a little bit past the dubious distinction between “developed” and “developing”. With all that said, here was my take on the matter, as of July 9th:

The debate over climate change between developed and developing countries (or, perhaps more accurately, between George W. and China) points to the fact that the distinction between “developed” and “developing” is of decreasing utility. Most often, this distinction is made with reference to per capita GDP, which alone demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the definition. Russia (a G8 member, although on the outskirts by most people’s calculations) is ranked #54, which is a mere 4 spots ahead of Mexico. The difference between them is less than $600 per person. What makes this distinction more ironic is that Mexico is a member of the OECD (another rich country club; South Korea is another member) and Russia is left out of that one. Brazil and South Africa, two other members of the “outreach five” are within the next ten. To be fair, the difference between the two main agitators–the US and China–is nearly 100 spots on the list of 179 ranked countries and the US average per capita income is roughly 20 times that of China, but this whole line of argument presupposes that GDP per capita is a useful measurement for assigning obligations when it comes to international policymaking. Perhaps more useful measurements would look at a country’s total GDP or its share of international trade, because those would demonstrate a country’s clout when taken as a whole. Both measurements completely muddle the field. For example, the US ranks highest in total GDP and China is third highest behind Japan. On this basis, is China a developed country and the UK, France, and Italy are developing? Or, more generally, who is developed and who is developing? The point here is not to clarify or answer that last question, but to demonstrate that the segregation is utterly meaningless.

Perhaps what would be better is to think about this on a case by case basis, and in the case of international environmental regulation, this group should probably be unified. The problem is that these countries use their designations as political tools. China uses its “developing” status to argue that this problem was created by past (now developed) emitters, therefore it is their responsibility, and that it is their right as a developing country to emit freely as a part of the development process. On the other side, the US (or, again more appropriately, George W.) would like to dictate the course of action as the “developed” nation and demand that the “outreach 5″ sign on. The two countries are hiding behind a flawed economic distinction and reaping their benefits through political posturing. The reality is that in this situation, nobody is developed or developing, but everybody is screwed if we don’t do anything. Both groups of countries should probably have the same rights and responsibilities, because as far as the environment is concerned, we are all about equal. The problems with this distinction go beyond environmental regulation to a number of other issues (read: UN security council, WTO, regulation within the IFIs and pretty much anything else you can think of that would fit in here) but I won’t address them all right now. However, questioning of the developed vs. developing distinction and its normative implications needs to happen. In each of the areas I’ve mentioned, a country’s designation as developed or developing has unnecessary and often harmful implications. Any suggestions?