Practical Progress

I know I know

2008-05-05T20:35:00.001-07:00

Ah, my readership, I know I have been missing from your lives. Where have you been, you say? In a hole - a deep hole of trying to figure out which of my years of cultivated information I must shed in order to make space in my brain for the useless crap I need to know to get good grades.

But I digress.

I was watching Chris Matthews today - by which I mean that I had him on for 4 minutes before the blood started dripping from my ears - and I started thinking (a bad pastime in my current condition)

Where would we be in our national dialogue if, say, all the Democratic primaries had occurred on the same day? Or within two weeks, or a month of each other? Would the media and Democrats be screaming bloody murder over this race?

Well, really, we should be focusing on the media. It's their fault we're in whatever mess we may or may not be in right now. Quick Aside: A great little piece on Bill Clinton was in the New Yorker this week describing how two very bored journalists follow him around recording every word he says (which I will admit, is a lot) just to catch him on the few that he may say that are "off message".

But back to the point on hand, really my main point of a few entries on this blog, it's not the candidates fault that this race is dragging on so long and the tone is so painful at times, it's the process and the media. If on July 1, Obama's lead is only single digits in pledged candidates, doesn't that only show that Democrats are more divided on who should be our representative and not that Clinton stayed in too long? It's double-think backwards logic to suggest that this is Clinton's doing, that she's spoiling something that people want - obviously people are ambivalent, that's why we're here.

But to still end on a note of optimism: The economy has taken front seat even to the race. It's the summer doldrums of political coverage in an election year and I still see more coverage on the Democrats - yes the squabbles, but also the policy. That with the economy and a media quiet McCain, I still think that this process, despite all the hand-wringing it's brought us, won't be the end. Democrats will coalesce behind the party's candidate and the whole primary process will be past history in the short attention span political world.

You won this time...

2008-04-06T19:33:00.000-07:00

While I hate, HATE, the citizen proposition system (oh, I loath thee), it does provide some much needed entertainment.

Party Destruction

2008-03-29T15:29:00.000-07:00

We're destroying the Democratic Party!

Well, maybe. That's the conventional wisdom at least when it comes to the long primary process. If this is true, why do we have this long process in the first place? Maybe it's the party's folly. Did no one really sit down and think that if you have a process that goes to July that well, maybe, the process will take until July (or longer)?

I, for one, think that it's good. In a "normal" election, I imagine that voters who are usually left to rubber-stamp the forgone candidate get bored and distracted until after the convention. The fervor gives way to an endless wait until the big grudge match of September, October and November. The candidates get somewhat quiet over the summer while they go off to raise money for the general.

Let's look at the positive effects of a long primary. 1) Late state voters are galvanized to take part in the primary process. 2) Those late states are hearing a lot about the Democratic candidates positions. 3) The national media is largely ignoring John McCain (other than his gaffes) and spending ample time talking about the Democratic contest.

You might say that 2 and 3, with the griping between the campaigns, isn't such a good thing. I beg to differ. Nothing that's been said has come anything to the level of Swift-Boating (or McCain's illegitimate black child in the 2000 campaign) and this airing out of grievances and weaknesses will only make the candidates stronger come the general. Let's assume it's going to be Obama, how is McCain going to attack him with Rev. Wright (which would have been done anyway) in the general? It's the same with just about any attack against Clinton - been there, done that, cue the roll of the eyes.

As was quoted at the end of today's NY Times article, we should all take a deep-breath and tell ourselves "it will be ok". It really will. The problem isn't Obama and Clinton fighting it out, the problem is our collective public hand-wringing over it. The more we say that our party is being destroyed, the more the uncommitted voters will think that Democrats don't have the answers.

Let them eat cake!

2008-03-14T10:21:00.000-07:00

I, along with most Democrats, will be very disappointed if the convention comes down to a battle between Superdelegates that may not reflect the actual votes of party members.

This is especially true if, in this close race, the voices of Michigan and Florida are shut out. Yes, they screwed up and went against the party. Yes, they were rightly stripped of their delegates as punishment. But now we need both states to help make this decision. Not, as Obama would like it, split 50/50 between him and Clinton, but as a real reflection of the will of the party.

It's really the only way for Democrats to finally be comfortable with whoever ends up pulling ahead. I know Obama supporters don't want to risk the votes of these two states putting their horse behind, but if we look at the electoral votes and the popular votes (discounting the "winning streaks" a particular candidate might have state-by-state), the race is truly neck-and-neck. Clinton has no reason to drop out now and should see it through to the end.

Florida and Michigan should revote. It's really the only way. The Clinton camp's insistence on seating Michigan as is is laughably absurd bordering on insane. How should they sit the "other" votes? Florida is at least more of a reflection of the voters wills. Yes, Florida voters knew that their votes would not count, but they still turned out in record numbers and there's no indication that one candidate's base supporters stayed home at larger rates than the other's. Still, in all fairness, Florida should be done over also.

And no, it should not be by caucusing. Chez Progress has had a long-standing debate about caucuses. The better-half thinks their fine. I, on the other hand, think they are undemocratic, or at least undemocratic in the American sense. Secret votes where every eligible voter has a chance to have his voice heard is the only true reflection of the voter's wills. A system where a voter is required to be at a site at a particular time (thereby disenfranchising late-night workers, parents, the elderly, etc.) and a voter must stand up to community pressure doesn't cut it. If I wanted to vote from Gravel, I should have every right to do so and have my vote counted!

Clinton has it right on this one. Yes, she has nothing to lose and if she was on the other side her tune might be different, but that's just an ad hominem criticism of her position. Each candidate should put up 15 million dollars and have Michigan and Florida revote. If the result stays the same, at least we can all sleep easily.

Take this man/woman

2008-03-04T15:56:00.000-08:00

I started drafting this post a week ago, but got sidetracked...

Much of my day last Monday was spent watching the oral arguments in front of the California Supreme court in In re Marriage Cases. It was an uncomfortable three hours sitting in a plastic chair watching a live feed.

It was nearly impossible to tell from the questioning by the bench where the split will ultimately lie in the seven justices. Justice Chin was certainly telegraphing that he believed that CA's Civil Union law was similar enough to marriage that there was no need to rock the boat. On the other end, Chief Justice George and Justice Moreno were working through an interesting distinction - is this case asking the Court to declare the right for a person to enter into a "same-sex marriage" or was the Court being asked to say that "marriage" in the classic sense, was open to anyone? (The question turned on the US Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas where they rejected the previous "right to homosexual sexual relations" and instead based their decision on the more universal right to privacy and free sexual relations for all consenting adults).

Civil Unions, as I mentioned, makes the argument hard for the Petitioners in this case. Chin especially harped on this point. Isn't this the legislature essentially creating gay marriage? Or is this, in the opinion of George and Moreno, a separate but equal situation.

Justice Werdegar asked the simple question, "Is now the right time to do this?" To which I have to wonder if the answer is a simple, "Well you agreed to hear the case didn't you?". Looking back on it, I'm more and more struck by the utter simplicity, and perhaps naivete, of this question. Justice Werdegar must recognize that the Court refusing to acknowledge a right for gays and lesbians to marry will establish in California that marriage is not a basic civil right and will close a major avenue for finally bringing a positive change in the state. I hope that this is not the feeling on the Court as a whole, otherwise they made a tactical blunder in bringing the case up now when there are not seven justices willing to make a final legal determination on the issue.

Comfort Behind the Curtain

2008-02-26T15:11:00.000-08:00

The better half will be very excited by this post, because I will concede a small, little bit of my discomfort with Obama. Things may get a little less heated at Chez Progress.

I got a link today from a similarly wonkish friend pointing me to an article in the New Republic about the policy advisors in the Obama camp. (Can I point out, however, that strangely this article comes from some time in the future?)

The piece deals mainly with Obama's economic advisors who come from the behavioralist school. As you might notice from earlier posts, I am not a fan of economic purism. Sadly, I am not at the vanguard of these arguments and have have been beaten to the punch by a lag time of about 30 years.

The idea is simple, rooted in reality, and, yes, practical: We are not a society of economic maximizers that can be plugged into academic equations of behavior, we are mercurial, selfish, selfless, illogical beings who's economic choices are less routed in what is best in an economically ideological sense, and more routed in the day to day drudgery of life.

So how does this translate? Well, Obama's camp has recognized that increasing employer 401(k) options don't necessarily help retirement savings (and I will assume, therefore, the looming Social Security disaster) because there is a percentage of workers who, for one reason or another, will not take advantage. Is that their moral failing? Maybe. Does it solve our economic problems? Not at all. The solution? Automatically enroll workers in 401(k) programs. That simple act, and the inertia of status quo, will accomplish the task.

Sadly why this idea is not a part of Obama's health care plan (but a part of Clinton's), I don't know. Obama would like to think that it's simply access and affordability keeping Americans (who can otherwise afford it) off health insurance. I can't imagine that this idealistic vision comports with behavioralism.

It's also nice to note that Obama eschews idealism-based foreign policy for a more dynamic practical approach. As the article points out, if we had embraced the reformer President Khatami and eased our economic and diplomatic pressures on Iran, we might not now be stuck with Ahmadinejad.

A point, inside a tempest, at the bottom of a teacup

2008-02-22T09:02:00.000-08:00

Chez Progress has been a-buzz with the recent NY Times article about John McCain's "romantic relationship" with an FCC lobbyist. The better half is pretty incensed that the Times is dipping to a distasteful level of tabloid journalism with this latest article. Needless to say, I didn't read the article and tried to stay out of it.

Until today.

What I'm angry at the Times about (well, more disappointed) is that they've gone and sullied an otherwise valid investigative article with unsubstantiated campaign conjecture. If you read around the controversial statements, you see a politician who is blinded by his own self-sanctimony acting like the televangelist who sins - "It's ok, because in my mind I'm holy."

The challenge then is to read this article again, cross your eyes whenever you see the word "romantic" and see that McCain is as susceptible to Washington's "special personal relationships" as any politician. Whether he thinks the person on the other end of this relationship is attractive is irrelevant (now if he was sleeping with her and peddling favors, that would be a different story, but this seems to be, at most, an inappropriate friendship).

Red State/Blue State

2008-02-13T07:12:00.001-08:00

Just a quick thought:

Does a Democrat winning a "red" state, or taking a "blue" state in the primary mean anything? I mean, doesn't a Democrat HAVE to win the primary in every state?

Law and Religion

2008-02-08T18:07:00.000-08:00

I have been assisting a professor of mine with a book on the relation between moral philosophy (specifically Western moral philosophy) and constitutional government. So the recent furor over Rev. Rowan Williams' (Archbishop of Canterbury) speech on the recognition of Sharia law in England (and Europe) caught my eye.

His thesis seems to be this: The Western secularized system of law that developed after the Enlightenment, while striving to be a universal moral code, is more strongly rooted in European Christian morality than we would like to recognize. This becomes most obvious in the tension between Western law and religious legal systems such as Sharia (and Orthodox Jewish law). If Britain really espouses multi-culturalism, there should be some sort of official recognition of Sharia courts (and Bet Dins) in Europe. He suggests a supplemental jurisdiction where the courts, in matters that comport with the fundamentals of British society, recognize the judgments of a religious court if a citizen so chooses.

I have to say, there is an idea in this. As much as we secular progressives hate to admit, many people choose to, and even gain strength from, living within a strict religious code. If America recognized (or was Constitutionally able to recognize) Sharia courts in any quasi-official way, we would be putting our money where our mouth is. We would be saying that we accept Islam and Islamic society and want to live in peace with it.

This, of course, sounds like an amazingly awful idea given our popular understanding of Sharia law. But as Rev. Williams points out in his speech, Sharia does not necessarily mean repression of women (not to mention an increase in solely right-handed people). There are many aspects of Sharia law that govern social relations from a religious point-of-view. Would it be so bad that, if two litigants agreed, their contract dispute be governed by Islamic jurisprudence and not Anglo-American common law?

Plus there is a such thing as moderate Sharia law. A nationally recognized court would, I believe, almost certainly become moderate, drawing from the great middle of society. And as Rev. William suggested, we need not recognize facets of law that do not comport with our own basic notions of human rights.

This is all in theory though. At least on this side of the pond. I cannot imagine a situation in which separation of church and state would allow any sort of official recognition of a religious court. But if it happened in England, which the recent furor tells me it never will, I would be interested in seeing if it mends the rift between the religious east and the secular west.

***

Update from the BBC

Correlation is not Causation

2008-02-01T08:36:00.001-08:00

The NY Times recently reported on Bill Clinton's involvement in a Kazakhstani uranium mining deal. The long and the short of it is that Frank Giustra, a Canadian financier involved in gold mining, accompanying Clinton on a philanthropic trip to Kazakhstan (along with China and India), walked away with a lucrative uranium mining contract that stunned the industry and turned around to give more than $30m to the Clinton Foundation.

Shady. Very shady.

Or, maybe not at all. The most that I can pull away from this article is that Bill Clinton may, may, want to be more discerning on who comes with him on these trips and that he might want to be weary of his friends dropping his name to get ahead.

The article seems to want us to read the situation this way: Giustra is a sly businessman who has gotten involved with the Clinton Foundation to curry favor with the big man. He somehow pushes Clinton to plan a last minute trip to Kazakhstan to announce an AIDS initiative (plus give some other, truthfully, less well thought out opinions) and hops along for the ride. Or perhaps Clinton knows his game and is a co-conspirator. Once in Kazakhstan, Giustra has Clinton introduce him to the Kazakhstani's president (nee, dictator) and, using the Clinton sparkle, scores a mining coup in pushing through his company's involvement in the uranium mining trade.

Oh, and did I mention he had a shell corporation.

I could easily come up with another narrative. Giustra is a multi-millionaire. He likes Bill Clinton and wanted to get involved with the Clinton Foundation. Clinton, seeing a good source of capital for his works, takes Giustra along on a last-minute trip to Kazakhstan to announce a recently completed deal. Giustra uses this opportunity to be in Kazakhstan, and his newfound access, to sidle up to the Kazakhstani president. The president, seeing that Giustra is with Clinton says to himself, "self, this is probably diplomatically advantageous to me." Clinton, in the meantime, has no idea that this is going on.

When the deal goes through, the newly multi-multi millinaire Giustra has the capital to donate to the Clinton foundation. Is this blood money? Hardly. Giustra is, after all, in the mining business. Yes he has never mined uranium before, but he's a keen business man, and we will assume that he has the experts hired to pull it off.

Oh, and the shell corporation. A shell corporation is simply a corporation that has no activities. One would assume that a businessman, trying to get his door into a business, would incorporate in order to raise capital before his activities get under way. Nothing nefarious. Just the beginning of a business.

Finally, the article makes a lot of stink about how Bill's comments don't fall in line with Hillary's politics. Can we simply not handle spouses disagreeing with each other.?Does Bill have to fall in line with Hillary's political opinions? Play the dutiful political wife?

Yes, it's bad judgment to be seen as going against your presidential candidate spouse's policies, but anything past that is just pure opinion on what it means to be a political spouse.

Hopeful Experience/Experiential Hope

2008-01-31T10:04:00.000-08:00

The Kennedy clan's recent endorsement of Barack Obama has the press likening Obamamania to a new Camelot. Obama's beautiful rhetorical abilities leave many of those left of center (and some right of center) swooning over a perceived ability to "bring the country together".

JFK asked us to think not of what our country could do for us, but what we could do for our country. He represented a trans-partisan coalescing of the American Ideal . . . or is it represents?

No, I wasn't around for JFK. I am not able to give a first-hand account the 1960s fabric of America. But wasn't this the age of police turning dogs and fire-hoses on American citizens? If Americans were truly brought together by JFK's message of hope, why was the election of 1960 so agonizingly close?

The truth is that while America may be existentially polarized today, it was certainly civically polarized in 1960. For us JFK represented something transcendent for America, but the hard psychological truth may just be that it is only what could have been that we long for, not what was. Dallas tragically took care of that.

Hillary Clinton was roundly pilloried for her assertion that it took LBJ for America to realize Martin Luther King's dream. But it was in the end LBJ, the uncharismatic technocratic former congressman, who saw America through its civic crisis of the 60s. Kennedy for some then, and for many more now, represented hope, but the historical change came in a different form.

Perhaps this is simply a message for the cynical. But even the most clearheaded and logical have profound political differences. Is it possible for America to truly come together? And if so, what banner could we possibly all share?

UPDATE:

I seem to have hit a little on something.

Economic History (hidden behind controversy)

2008-01-30T07:25:00.000-08:00

A recent George Soros op-ed in the Financial Times warned the world of an impending financial crisis, the worst since WWII.

This spawned a flurry of repudiations from market fundamentalists - the true believers.

I have yet to see any economists take on the Soros article. I would be willing to bet some real money (albeit, grad student money) that the outlook is not necessarily so bleak. But this isn't the point I'm trying to make.

As the basis for Soros' article is the historical assertion that the financial crises of the last 70 years have been corrected not by the Market (big M), but by governmental regulatory intervention. He goes on to say that it is the intervention that is artificially keeping us afloat, but it is intervention nonetheless that has saved our economy from collapse.

Intervention. Not the Market itself.

Market fundamentalism is the dogged belief that the market is an animal that, unleashed into the wild, unfettered by constraint, will find true harmony. It's the scientific recounting of the age old liberal theory (careful, not Liberal) that the greater good is served by pursuit of self-interest embodied in property. This medievalized dogmatic belief found its age of reason in Free Market economic theory and has since become the religion of America, with Republicans as true believers and Democrats as lapsed agnostics.

Soros is pointing out the agnostic realism of history. We need government, and as is evidenced by our current financial crisis, governmental regulation in order for our "free market" to work. Is this then a planned economy, socialism behind the sheen of capitalism? The question is just political semantics. This is economic/political/social reality.

There has never been a perfect "free market" society. Locke's original man, living happily consuming the fruits of his own labor, is simply a creative myth. Market fundamentalists might be better served politically by dropping the rhetoric, taking a hard look at history, and inserting a little agnosticism into their lives.