Category Archives: 2012 Election

by | November 8, 2012 · 9:52 PM

Pundits are Entertainers!

The Christian Science Monitor believes the change will happen to  political punditry with the advent of Nate Silver:

Heading into the next election cycle, more and more media outlets will want their own Nate Silvers. After all, in the run-up to Election Day, 20 percent of all New York Times web visits included a stop at Silver’sFiveThirtyEight blog. In that sense Silver has dented the old way of doing things, which may never be quite the same. The future of political journalism includes more numbers. We, um, veteran types will have to get used to that fact.

But the Dick Morrises of the world aren’t going away either. In today’s polarized media landscape, one purpose is to inform, but another is to make the news consumer feel comfortable. Fox News will give lots of air time to pundits who just happen to lean Republican.  MSNBC will do the same for liberals. Viewers who want to break out of partisan closed-feedback loops will need to try to discern which “experts” know what they’re talking about and which are just repeating what they think the partisan skew of the audience demands.

While Nate Silver can now claim himself as “Lord of the Pundits” with his discovery of this magical thing called “statistics,” people are missing the point about why the pundits failed.  The second paragraph basically gets to the point that pundits are entertainers, not predictors of the future.  Rush Limbaugh, Dick Morris, Chris Matthews, and everyone else, have an audience that their shows cater to and then they tell those people what they want to hear.    It is how the entertainment business has worked for years.  Sometimes, pundits do make insightful points and are occasionally right.  Most of the time, they just come on television and give a point of view that will get people talking.  Silver, by contrast, is a statistician who’s goal was never to entertain, but to predict.  He’s exciting not because he made punditry better, but rather, he was never a pundit to begin with.

Leave a Comment

Filed under 2012 Election

Tagged as , ,

by | November 7, 2012 · 9:58 PM

Why Did Obama Shift to the Right?

William Saletan has an interesting column at Slate where he notes:

Yes, Obama imposed an individual mandate to buy health insurance. You know who else did that? Romney. You know where the idea came from? The Heritage Foundation. Personal responsibility—insisting that people carry private insurance so we don’t have to bail them out in emergency rooms and hospitals—was a Republican idea. Same with Wall Street reform: There’s nothing conservative about letting financial institutions gamble with other people’s money in ways that would force us to bail them out again. Even Obama’s cap-and-trade proposal echoed the market-based emissions-control policies of the 1990 Bush administration and the 2008 McCain campaign. And last year, when the EPA proposed a new air-pollution limit, Obama ticked off environmentalists by killing it on the grounds that it might jeopardize the recovery.

Remember how Democrats ridiculed George W. Bush’s troop surge in Iraq? Obama copied it in Afghanistan. He escalated the drone program, killing off al-Qaida’s leaders. He sent SEAL Team 6 into Pakistan to get Osama Bin Laden. He teamed up with NATO to take down Muammar Qaddafi. He reneged on his pledge to close Guantanamo Bay. He put together a globally enforced regime of sanctions that is bringing Iran’s economy to its knees. That’s why Romney had nothing to say in last month’s foreign policy debate. No sensible Republican president would have done things differently.

I don’t disagree with his point.  Many of Obama’s domestic policies were formerly Republican ideas and Obama stayed center-right on foreign policy.  The question is why?  Part of it has to do with hoping for bipartisan support.  During the healthcare debate, the Democrats tried a public option, which failed, and then switched to the individual mandate in order to garner some GOP votes.  Needless to say, the Republicans weren’t interested.  For other issues, like cap and trade, the Democratic Party basically gave up trying to sell carbon taxes and large scale alternative reform plans since the late 1990s, partially to protect those Democrats who live in coal dependent states.  Once again, they also hoped to get some support from Republicans, and they did for a while from Senator Lindsay Graham.

On foreign policy, the president knew he couldn’t just withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan overnight, so he took a cautious approach and used a slow timetable after his initial surge in Afghanistan.  Obama also decided to do as he promised in 2008 and begin more covert operations that target specific terrorist suspects.  Remember, many Democrats voted for the Iraq War and other “counter-terrorism” measures.  The Democrats also have a more hawkish wing of the party that the president needs to keep together (it gets ugly when the two sides split apart).

Basically, Obama’s move to right is caused by numerous trends, ranging from pragmatism to keeping certain coalitions together.  That answer is not nice and neat, but then again neither is politics.

Leave a Comment

Filed under 2012 Election, Democrats, Obama

Tagged as , , ,

by | November 5, 2012 · 1:53 PM

My Endorsement of President Obama

I’m not usually a big fan of online endorsements.  For most pundits, it is pretty clear who they are going to vote for by reading their blogs. Endorsements also don’t change the outcome of the election.  No one is going to have their mind changed by tomorrow because of what I write here.  However, I do have a few thoughts that I want to share about why I will be voting for President Obama on November 6.

I am a foreign policy voter.  Not many people say that.  In my view, presidents have a lot of sway over foreign policy by acting as the chief statesman for the U.S.  In today’s world, presidents also make major calls about going to war, what regimes to support, authorizing covert action, picking foreign policy personnel, and signing treaties (until the senate ratifies them).  In 2008, I also voted for Obama because I thought Senator John McCain was too hawkish and erratic.  Picking Sarah Palin, who knew very little about foreign affairs in a world where the vice-president is a crucial decision maker for foreign policy, also scared me.

In terms of foreign policy Obama has a lot of accomplishments.  He brought to a close the War in Iraq and is continuing to drawdown troops in Afghanistan.  He signed the START Treaty with Russia.  Osama Bin Laden is dead and (though not by the hands of the U.S.) Moamar Ghadaffi is no longer living.  The U.S. participated in more multilateral efforts through the U.N. and NATO than under George W. Bush.  U.S.  The administration continues to use cautionary diplomacy on Iran, I do think that Iran is blustering more than people will admit.  Overall, I would say the U.S. image abroad is much better than under the previous administration.

With that in mind, Obama has disappointed me on a number of occasions regarding foreign policy.  The number of drones has increased in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.  The U.S. plans to put more troops in the Pacific to curb China’s influence, which is not necessary.  Guantanamo Bay is still open as detention center.  Let’s also remember that the President also only called for the ouster of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt at the last minute.  The administration continues to add sanctions to Iran and I’m not convinced that military action is not completely off the table.  Finally, the handling of the Benghazi attack was not that impressive and there were some lower-level administrative failures that should not have occurred.

Despite the disappointments, I’m still voting for Obama because I think he has done a very good job on foreign policy.  I’m also not that supportive of Mitt Romney’s worldview.  Romney strikes me as someone who will move away from multilateral engagements and could be convinced to be a hawk on Iran or any issue by his advisers.  The two parties have a great separation on how U.S. power should be used around the world and the Democratic Party is much more in line with my philosophy.

Finally, Obama and I match on domestic policy.  While the Affordable Care Act was not perfect, and I would have liked to see a Medicaid for all system, that just was not possible at the time the bill was passed.  Obama also supports gay marriage, increased contraception for all, higher taxes for increased social services, and he did a good job at making sure the financial system did not collapse when he came into office in 2009.

In the end, most endorsements of candidates come down to ideology.  I consider myself to be a typical American liberal.  I support a cooperative foreign policy working within the international system, equal opportunity for all, a strong social safety net and more public services, and policies that save the environment.  I do not consider myself to be a deficit hawk (although I do care about it and think some structural reforms are needed).  However, I do not think we will be Greece tomorrow.  I also like pragmatic leaders who understand that the political system is complicated and that policymaking is a messy process with a lot of compromise.  I did not get everything that I wanted from the President for the last four years, but I knew that the way Washington works I wasn’t going to.  I don’t expect miracles if he is re-elected, but for the direction of the country, I think Obama is the best choice.

Leave a Comment

Filed under 2012 Election, Obama

Tagged as , ,

by | October 25, 2012 · 10:02 PM

The Cuban Missile Crisis and Foreign Policy

Monday’s presidential debate on foreign policy was opened with a line by CBS’s Paul Schieffer, the moderator on the Cuban Missile Crisis:

Tonight’s debate, as both of you know, comes on the 50th  anniversary of the night that President Kennedy told the world that the Soviet Union had installed nuclear missiles in Cuba, perhaps the closest we’ve ever come to nuclear war. And it is a sobering reminder that every president faces at some point an unexpected threat to our national security from abroad.

In all due respect to Schieffer, I think this is the wrong way to look at the legacy of the Cuban Missile crisis in 1962.  There are a few reasons for this.  First, the U.S. is the only superpower today.  Therefore, it would be unlikely that a showdown over nuclear arms would occur like it did during the height of the Cold War.  Even nation-states like Iran, for as much bluster that exists about Iran, do not compare to power of the Soviets.  Second, the Cuban Missile crisis is often cited as an foreign policy case study of executive leadership, but it rarely gets credit as case study in the process of making foreign policy.  I challenge you to read the transcript from the tapes inside the White House during the crisis (I had to act out some of the parts for a class exercise once).  You will notice that the advisers offer a wide variety of military options, negotiation tactics, and questioning of intelligence.  Essentially, this will show that foreign policy is complicated and the decision process is messy, even in the executive branch.

Finally, the Cuban Missile crisis is defused because of the art of negotiation by Robert Kennedy.  The Soviets agreed to remove the missiles from Cuba in exchange for the U.S. removing some of its missiles from Turkey (we never did), and after a swift military blockade of Cuba.  If there is a lesson to be applied to Iran from this, its that negotiation matters and playing the waiting game can serve to benefit that process.  It is risky, but it does get results.   I agree with Schieffer that the Cuban Missile crisis is an example of executive leadership, but there are so many better lessons to take away from that moment when the Cold War almost turned hot.

Leave a Comment

Filed under 2012 Election

Tagged as , ,

by | August 13, 2012 · 11:14 AM

Three Ways Picking Paul Ryan Helps Mitt Romney and the GOP

 

I wanted to wait a few days before commenting on this story, especially since it was wall-to-wall coverage most of the weekend.  There is a lot to digest with this pick.  The golden boy from Wisconsin is loved by conservatives and hated by liberals.  He’s a wonk with sex appeal (how often do you get to say that), and he is not a bad speaker either.   Most of the coverage has focused on the central question: what is going through Mitt Romney’s mind?  While I don’t know the details of Mitt’s vetting process, I do have three reasons why this pick is important for the Romney campaign:

1) Ryan excites the Republican chattering class:  The intellectual wing of the GOP likes Paul Ryan.  I mean they really like Paul Ryan.  If the Weekly Standard was a high school, all the writers would have pictures of Paul Ryan inside their lockers.  I watched Fox News for part of the morning after Ryan was pick and the atmosphere was electrifying.  Every commentator called this pick a “game changer” (of course that may not have good connotations).  While the writers at National Review plan to vote for Mitt Romney without this pick, having them excited will make the conservative base excited.  Fox News and conservative media have a lot power and the base does listen to them.  Elites have the power to persuade (to borrow a phrase used for presidents).  By picking Ryan, Romney is going for a top-down persuasion strategy through conservative media.

2) This Pick Separates Him from W.:  George W. Bush has not been mentioned much this election.  Currently, he is like Voldemort on the right (no one dare speak his name) and Romney does not want to be compared to Bush.  This is especially true on the deficit.  There is a fear in the minds of some on the right that Mitt will promise deficit reduction, but, in the end, he will spend like drunken sailor once he gets into office.  Republicans already have a trust deficit with Romney over his healthcare plan looking exactly (in fact the model for) President Obama’s plan.  By putting a man with the plan on the ticket, Mitt Romney shows that he really cares about the deficit and will not repeat the Bush years.

3) No Sarah Palin PTSD:  When Barry Goldwater (a conservative ideologue) lost the 1964 presidential race to Lyndon Johnson in a landslide, the GOP made a collective vow not to pick another candidate that was too far to right.  It could be argued that Ronald Reagan was the byproduct of that campaign 15 years later, but there is certainly some disagreement I have on that point.  As time passed, Goldwater’s legacy loomed pretty large over the Republican Party, turning to legend.  I think a similar argument can be made about Sarah Palin and the vice presidency.  To some Republicans, Sarah Palin was a risky choice as John McCain’s running mate and that risk partially caused his downfall in 2008.  This time around, Republicans wanted Mitt Romney to play it safe and pick someone who was plain (like a Tim Pawlenty or Rob Portman).  Picking Paul Ryan as VP gets the GOP past another Goldwatereque legacy with Sarah Palin.  Romney shows the Republican Party that it should not be afraid of risky vice presidential picks, which is easier to do now than forty-years from now.

These are probably not the reasons Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan, but they are affects of choosing Ryan.  Certainly this changes the tone of race.  It will take until election day to decide whether it changed the game in Romney’s favor or not.

Leave a Comment

Filed under 2012 Election, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Republicans

Tagged as , , , ,