Silent generation
In a moment of calm between the two political conventions, I and find myself reflecting on where we are, and what we need to do, if anything, to fulfill are responsibilities as citizens in the political sphere. I have said this before: it is imperative that we not repeat the complacency that led to eight years of the Bush-Cheney administration.
By “we” I mean roughly speaking my demographic, i.e. the people I went to college with plus and minus, say, five years.
I am particularly concerned that the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate. It has stimulated the first post primary real wave of enthusiasm and activity in the Republican Party. The choice, crazy as it is, significantly alters the arithmetic of the election by creating the likelihood of a very large turnout among right-wing evangelicals, and a great deal of uncertainty about how women who supported Hillary Clinton will vote.
Given the results of the last two elections, and the short period of time before the next one, this high degree of uncertainty right now is a major cause for concern.
When our generation was in college there was a sense of drift, a lack of conviction, or propensity to analyze things to death without becoming committed and then to condemn the "paralysis of analysis." Oberlin students organized a silent march in Cleveland to protest the Soviet invasion of Hungary. This was viewed as too radical by about half of the student body, and, although the Oberlin Review editors considered themselves liberal, they split down the middle on whether to support the demonstration. Fifty years later I'm not sure we have changed all that much.
A year and four months ago I wrote the following:
"I have met many public policy analysts over the years and they are usually both tough-minded and cynical—and with good reason. If this describes you, get involved now: do not miss what may well be the best chance of a lifetime to influence a presidential outcome.
"It is frustrating to face reality. Many of us--concerned about the conduct of the federal government and reasonably informed about politics—know that there is only so much we can do. One vote des not count for much among millions, especially in jurisdictions such as mine, the District of Columbia, which are overwhelmingly red or blue. Even the maximum financial contributions—, which most people cannot afford--seem ineffective against individual contributions by millionaires and now billionaires through surrogate institutions that are exempt from campaign finance limits
" Moreover, much of the selection process has been predetermined through the primaries, which has given some states disproportionate leverage through early voting dates and the accompanying publicity about the results.
" Perhaps you have noticed. Reality has changed.
"Right now the stars are aligned in a way that unusually -- perhaps uniquely -- favors moderately inclined, independently-minded, progressive democrats and independents. To some extent this is simply because the disasters of the current administration lend political weight to the policies of this group. However, that is not what I mean here. Rather, there is a unique opportunity for a relatively small group to have a disproportionately large effect on the outcome of the next election and the future of the country. This can be done by supporting Barack Obama now."
That was April 2007. There is a lot more, but you get the idea. My interest in Obama came from reading his first book, which spoke to the development of his intellect and character, and his second book, which was a tour de force that went beyond public policy analysis into the realm of public policy resolution. I began following his ideas and attended an early fundraiser in Washington at which he outlined many of the points that became more widely known as the campaign ran on.
At that early stage Obama's appeal for me was his highly analytical mind combined with his explicit commitment to run on the basis of what he has labeled a new form of politics. Every conceivable attempt has been made to shake him from this commitment. These efforts were to be expected from political opponents, but they have been both exacerbated and augmented by the media's insistence on horserace politics with as much day to day excitement and as much long and short-term uncertainty as possible so as to generate as many news stories about conflict as possible, whether real or manufactured. Even respectable journalists have seemed overcome by the day-to-day pressure to say something new and different -- and very, very up to date. The institutional hypocrisy has really been incredible, with, for example, repeated criticisms of Obama for not laying out issues, while at the same time refusing to cover them as and when he laid them out. This has become a continuing astonishing phenomenon.
For Obama skeptics who are my friends and of my generation I have had to say repeatedly that you can no longer find out the candidate's position from a careful reading of the New York Times, Washington Post, or Wall Street Journal -- you have to go on to the web and find it. Many of my contemporaries seem to resent this and seem almost to blame it on Obama somehow. "Why doesn't he get his stuff covered better," they almost literally ask.
It is actually quite easy to find out what is going on through the Internet. Many of those who claim they don't know how, or can't find things, or think it is too complicated, nevertheless seem to thrive using their e-mail, ordering their books from Amazon, making cheap airline reservations online and paying their bills through checking account websites.
Not only that, with a modest amount of effort you can see videos of some truly extraordinary Obama speeches -- not rock star appearances, an appellation that the press pinned on Obama very early and now seems to blame him for.
Because we do believe Obama represents a new style of politics, we early Obama supporters have enjoyed moving with him through the process of developing his original policy positions in to more and more explicit proposals over the last 16 months. We do not expect that in each policy area his positions will exactly reflect our own preferences. There is a lot of discussion about these positions, as there is about campaign tactics. But most of us are overwhelmingly dedicated to getting this man elected and following his lead towards that end. On the Web we Obama supporters keep reminding each other to stay on message, to follow the lead of the campaign on tactics, to always treat others with dignity and respect, to stick to facts, and to not get personal. There are many times when we deviate from these guidelines, which is why there are plenty of messages reminding us of their importance.
I don't think I convinced very many people with my initial pro-Obama arguments. Most of them wanted to wait. Many were skeptics, waiting for an almost endless list of questions to be asked and answered. Many had litmus tests on the war(s), feminism, choice, policy towards Israel, the environment, and healthcare. There is a convenient out for people who really don't want to be bothered by committing to improving the terrible state of politics in this country. If you wait long enough, a candidate will either remain so vague as to not deserve your support or come out with some policy statement someplace with which you have a genuine disagreement, or, failing that, an accusation from someone else that the candidate has a position with which you disagree. In addition there is the surprisingly frequent statement, "yes but... he still makes me uneasy."
Uneasy relative to what? Relative to maintaining four more years of Republican dominance in the White House? That "uneasiness" can lead to the complacency that put Bush into the White House not once, but twice. Anyone who thinks McCain cannot win is simply ignoring the history of the last two elections. I was complacent, particularly the second time around, and I was not alone. Not that I did nothing, rather I did little and certainly not enough.
Every time I find someone saying that Obama has switched his positions or weakened his commitments to principle, I try to check to see what has been going on. One of the things that Obama supporters have learned to do is to check his statements themselves. His positions are often nuanced. He qualifies his recommendations. This is important, because a consistent theme of his politics is that it is essential to seek areas of agreement and develop solutions on the basis of a responsible consensus rather than sacrifice solutions to triumphant inaction. We have heard Obama say over and over again that when a solution to national healthcare is developed the drug companies will have a seat at the table -- but they won't have the ONLY seat at the table. Obama supporters expect compromise. They know policies will not turn out precisely as he wants them or they want them, but they will turn out a lot better than they do now. Obama explicitly advocates not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
In this environment it is difficult when his positions are compressed and simplified as they typically are. For example NOW's statements on his abortion positions and actions were simply wrong, damaging, and irresponsible. His position on FISA was one with which many his own supporters disagreed, but one that he explained fully to his supporters and can hardly be viewed as irresponsible. I have just finished listening to his entire speech on energy policy. He is very careful about what he says about offshore drilling and nuclear power. On offshore drilling we are in the hypocritical position of supplying markets for offshore gas and oil near Canada and in the Caribbean but cannot tolerate any drilling off the US coast. Anyone who takes the position that no offshore drilling of any kind off any American coast is acceptable is willing to pay a political price for a useless principle. The correct principle is Obama's: we may be able to do some safely, but it won't solve our problem. As for his position on gun control, as a part-time resident in both the District of Columbia and the State of Maine I'm entirely comfortable with his (unchanged) position and I find criticisms of it, which are normally inaccurate anyway, come from people who live neither in a high crime inner-city nor a state devoted to hunting with very low rates of gun related crime despite very widespread gun ownership.
And so on. But the main point is that we long-run Obama supporters are here because of the basic principles of government that he is attempting to bring to this nation. Once he's president we can start quibbling about the details, but in the meantime we have to shrug off our cynicism and our fatigue (this has been a very long campaign) and make sure that the opportunity literally of a lifetime is not lost.
This leaves me concerned about those who feel that Obama has been turning out to be a disappointment, which, I fear, really means that he does not, in all respects, conform precisely are to their views. Because of this I decided to try a “one-last-gasp” donation appeal to the people of our generation.
i
A short while ago, someone on the Obama rapid response website asked if anyone had a simple list of 10 reasons to support Obama and 10 reasons not to support McCain. There were lists like this around, put together by volunteers, during the primary campaign. But I had not noticed any recently dealing with the presidential contest itself. I decided to try my hand at it and the results are below.
This is a draft. I solicit comments from any source willing to take the time to review it. However, for those who wish to comment, I am applying some simple rules.
1 Send your comments directly to me (policydebate@verizon.net) NOT to the Obama Rapid Response listserv. The reason for this is obvious there is no point cluttering up the listserv traffic, which is already very large with back and forth editorial exchanges best handled on a one-to-one basis anyway.
2 Editorial changes are welcome but only in the form of suggested specific alternative language.
3 Feel free to add to the list of 10 but only as a substitute. Alternatively, you can combine two of the current reasons and add another one. But do so with specific alternative language. The point is to keep the list down to 10.
4. All statements must be facts not opinions. In addition superfluous and redundant adjectives are to be held to a minimum. They detract from the tone of objectivity that is an important feature of these lists and they are vastly overused in the present political atmosphere. What do I mean by this? Say “American troops” rather than “brave American troops;” say “Bush tax policies,” not “the past discredited and unfair Bush tax policies.” But it is OK to say “the Bush tax policies that favor the rich,” because this is factual.
TEN REASONS TO SUPPORT OBAMA
1. Obama will work with the military leadership to end the war in Iraq in a responsible way that redeploys American troops so that they can be more effective in dealing with military threats elsewhere such as Afghanistan.
2. He will increase our standing as a world leader by reducing antagonism of caused by the Iraq war and American arrogance in the conduct of foreign affairs. He will reestablish close ties with our European NATO and other allies so as to strengthen the forces against terrorism and other forms of international oppression.
3. He will establish a system of national healthcare which will make insurance available and affordable to all Americans while maintaining the flexibility to satisfy individual preferences in the selection of healthcare providers.
4. He will initiate a major and dramatic set of energy policies which will move the United States on a credible path to independence from oil imports, acknowledging the need for sacrifice and their true costs while avoiding false promises and fake solutions.
5. He will immediately propose a set of economic stimulus programs to restore economic growth and employment in the context of longer-term policies that sustain non-inflationary growth through the expansion of domestic industries that support our environmental and energy national needs.
6. Relying on his 10 years as a professor of constitutional law, Obama will recommend justices to the Supreme Court and other federal courts who are highly qualified and respected and that appreciate such established judicial principles as a women’s right to choice, privacy, and civil liberties.
7. He will reverse the decline in an the real income and wages of lower and middle class working Americans by restructuring the tax system and protecting Social Security,with emphasis on tax relief for middle-class workers and senior citizens.
8. He will bring integrity to the federal government by insisting on high ethical standards, eliminating conflicts of interest, and dealing with all segments he of American society, regardless of their wealth or political power, on a fair, equitable, and transparent basis.
9. He will work to develop a consensus immigration policy for the United States based on the principles of secure borders, an improved immigration system, removal of incentives to enter the United States illegally, and bringing people out of the shadows of Society.
10. Obama will continue a campaign based on issues, integrity, and honesty, and reject support from those who do not follow these principles. He will continue to speak openly and thoughtfully about such sensitive issues in American society as race and religion.
TEN REASONS TO REJECT MCCAIN
1. McCain supports an indefinite commitment of US forces to occupy Iran in spite of the Iranian government’s own request for a schedule for their departure.
2. McCain supports an increase in the size and composition of our armed forces but no money for it. He supports continuing $10 billion a month for the war in Iraq and extending the Bush tax cuts for the very rich. Since he has proposed no specific spending reductions, there will be only borrowed money available for defense increases.
3. McCain’s plan calls for reducing the budget deficit but provides no specific measures to avoid continued record deficit spending and ever higher levels of national debt. McCain plans to increase expenditures for national defense, which accounts for 20% of the budget. He states that the only way to keep the budget balanced is successful reform of the large spending pressures in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but has proposed no specific reform measures. Interest on debt held by the public is 10% ,of the budget but cannot be reduced except by lowering the debt, so it is increasing. Since McCain is unwilling to consider any tax increases – even on the very rich individuals or corporations. The result: historically high deficits and increases in the public debt indefinitely.
4. McCain says that he will nominate judges to the Supreme Court that reflect the judicial attitudes of Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
5. McCain favors $300 billion in tax cuts for corporations and $3 billion for oil companies. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, McCain offers a $270 THOUSAND tax cut, while Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $702 THOUSAND -- a difference of nearly $1 million. (From the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.)
6. McCain’s energy policy is promoted using PR gimmicks, such as A $300 Million Prize to Improve battery technology for cars, offshore oil drilling that the Congressional budget office says will have no impact for eight years, and a temporary suspension of the Federal gas tax, the most likely result of which will be to increase oil company profits.
7. His campaign is supported overwhelmingly by wealthy corporations and individuals to whom he will be beholden as president.
8. He is anti choice and favors repealing Roe vs Wade. He has said “the respect and commitment to the rights of the unborn …has a lot to do with national security….because it says very much what kind of a country we are….” In August 1999, McCain told the San Francisco Chronicle that he would "not support repeal of Roe vs Wade because it would force women to undergo illegal operations,” but has subsequently reversed his position and said that he was speaking about the need to change the "culture of America."
9. He believes that the Constitution established religion in America. "I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation." (Interview with Beliefnet.com, September 2007.)
10. McCain issues personal attacks on Obama’s character (questioning his patriotism, for example) and makes inaccurate statements of his positions, and such as claiming he favors higher taxes on middle-income wage earners. McCain’s campaign is supported by widely refuted provocative rumors, which he does nothing to discourage. These include totally false charges that Obama snubbed wounded troops by not visiting them on his foreign trip, that he wants to tax homes, IRA’s, and even water, that he can’t produce his birth certificate and is secretly a Muslim and that Michelle Obama isn't proud of her country and is shown using a racial epithet on a video tape that does not exist.
There are four additional reasons that I support Obama and do not support McCain. They are Elizabeth, David, Emily and Peter, my grandchildren.
Barack and Michelle Obama will bring to the White House the intelligence of FDR and Eleanor, the style of JFK and Jackie, and the integrity of Harry and Bess Truman.
Chip Pitts writes:(http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/chippitts/gGxfxK)
"Today was a dark day indeed. Our candidate, the candidate of change “we can believe in,” certainly changed his position on filibustering a terrible FISA bill."
First, he did exactly what he told us he was going to do and the reason he was going to do it.
He is OUR candidate. Not yours. OUR job is to get him elected.
You say "The members of this group are only the tip of the iceberg." Let's look at what the iceberg might look like.
Suppose
one-third of Obama's registered supporters favor your position,
one third think that his decision was correct, balancing real security threats, the need to get legislation in place and political consideration one the one hand against providing immunity for PAST civil (but not criminal) misdeeds on the other.
And suppose one-third don't care and are happy to leave it to Obama. Now suppose 10 percent of your supporters are active and noisy, 2 percent of the supporters Obama's compromise are, and everyone else is quiet. Neither you nor I know exactly what the iceburg is like. My bet is that Obama has a much better sense. Seems like to me he did the right thing.We are talking about support, not agreement; and an entire program, not a single issue.You state, "an immunity deal that will in all likelihood forever prevent the public from learning the full truth behind Bush’s illegal domestic spying." Really? Why? And if so, it that worth "chipping" away at winning the election? Don't Nader us. DGM
Yes Pecan! Ice Cream
After Barack Obama won Vermont, SLATE called on its readers to help name an Obama ice cream flavor. Ben & Jerry's is famous for such flavors as Cherry Garcia (named for the Deadhead), Phish Food (named for the Dead successors), and Americone Dream (named for the not-dead Stephen Colbert) If Obama supporters Ben Jerry delivered a victory for Obama, SLATE reasoned, then it should also honor him with a taste of his own.
Responses included Peanut Butter Barackle, Obamana Split, and Barackadamia Nut. But, in the view of SLATE, Aaron Nathan of Amherst, Mass reached the highest level of ingenuity when he sent in his entry: "Yes, Pecan!"
As it turned out the phrase was first coined on Obama's official blog.
But it was an independent discovery by Aaron.
(http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/03/05/obama-the-ice-cream.aspx)
My contribution is an actual recipe for this ice cream. It is simple. elegant, and very very good—all Obama characteristics.
It was evaluated for the first time on Sunday March 16, 2008 by six Obama supporters, all of whom are generous contributors. They judged it to be truly American, demonstrating that ordinary ingredients can produce an extraordinary ice cream.
ingredients
1 cup Blue State Northern Grade B maple syrup*
2 cups heavy cream
1 cup whole milk
1/4 teaspoon salt
2 large eggs, brown, white or one of each
2/3 cup Red State Southern Pecans, toasted and chopped
1 teaspoon butter
Special equipment: an ice-cream freezer
*available at Trader Joes and some other specialty foods shops or ordered from The Baker's Catalogue (800-827-6836) Dakin Farm (800-993-2546) or Bob’s Sugar House (207 564-2145.)
preparation
Boil syrup in a 2-quart heavy saucepan over moderately high heat until reduced to 3/4 cup, 5 to 10 minutes. Stir in cream, milk, and salt and bring to a boil over moderate heat.
Whisk eggs in a large bowl, then add hot cream in a slow stream, whisking. Transfer to saucepan and cook over moderately low heat, stirring constantly, until slightly thickened and an instant-read thermometer registers 170°F, 1 to 2 minutes (do not let boil).
Pour custard through a fine sieve into a clean metal bowl, then cool, stirring occasionally. Chill, covered, until cold, at least 3 hours.
Spread pecans in a frying pan with the butter and toast; then cool.
Freeze custard in ice-cream maker until soft-frozen, then, with motor running, add nuts. Continue churning ice cream until frozen, then transfer to an airtight container and put in freezer to harden.
Cooks' notes:
• To cool custard quickly after straining, set bowl in a larger bowl of ice and cold water and stir until chilled.
• Custard can be chilled up to 24 hours.
(Thanks to Jeff and Judi Burke - Keeper's House Inn Isle au Haut, Maine for the basic recipe.)
I have been an Obama supporter for a year, and now it’s crunch time. For super Tuesday I have decided to put together bits and pieces of stuff that I have written and or collected over the past year.
Perhaps you will find something useful here. For those who are not yet sure, perhaps these materials will be helpful. For everybody they are a reminder to vote.
The OUTLINE follows. The TEXT is in the Extended Post Section
Letters to the Editor
WEB References
Character
My Day with Martin Luther King Jr.
Working for Obama
Camp Obama
First Impression: Obama in person
The Journey to Iowa
Obama's fiscal stimulus package
King and Obama
1/30/08 11:51 AM
Fifty years ago I spent the day with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I had not given much thought recently about my youthful encounter with Dr, King until the comment by Sen. Clinton comparing his contribution to the civil rights struggle with that of President Lyndon Johnson. Her point was that, notwithstanding Dr. King's historic role in leading American society towards greater racial equality and justice, it was the white, Southern President who was indispensable to securing voting rights for African-Americans. The veracity and wisdom of this statement has been widely disputed and discussed, and it is not my intention to revisit the ensuing arguments. Rather, it is to reflect upon my own experience with two African-American leaders, Martin Luther King Jr. and Barack Obama.
I met Dr. King when he was president of the Montgomery Improvement Association in February of 1957. This was after Montgomery Bus Boycott and during the time he and others were forming the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The March on Washington and the "I have a Dream Speech" would not take place for another six years. I was a junior at Oberlin College, which was the first coeducational college in the United States and the first white college to admit blacks. Among the many extracurricular activities, such as a yearbook and the student newspaper, was something called the "Forum Board," a student-run organization that was given a small budget with which to finance visiting speakers. It was this organization that invited Dr. King to the college and for reasons I can no longer remember I was chosen to be his host.
My introduction to Barack Obama was, as with so many, through his books. The first, “Dreams from My Father," spoke to me about the character of this person; the second, "The Audacity of Hope," spoke to me of his intellect. Together, they led me to a Washington, D.C., fundraiser in April of last year, shortly after he announced his intention to run. That event led me to write,
"When people discover that I went to an Obama fundraiser I am often asked question "what is he like?" As a lifelong policy analyst, my inclination is to describe what he said, or outline his policy positions. But by "what is he like?" I think people mean is "what is he like in person?"
"The press, with its incapacity to understand or process what the Obama phenomenon is all about, treats him as a celebrity and describes him as being like a rock star, which then makes him subject to cute and glib characterizations by the likes of Maureen Dowd. In person he is the opposite of a rock star. At the fundraiser I was standing about five feet from him when he delivered his remarks. But it did not make any difference where you were in the room. People felt that he was talking directly to them. He gave the impression that he would say what he was saying if you were sitting across from him at a dining room table or if you were in a small private strategy meeting of five people or if you were in Madison Square Garden.
"What he brings to a crowded room is exactly the opposite of the mass hysteria generated at a rock star concert. He brings quiet and stimulates concentration. He is not interrupted much by applause, and boisterous hoots and hollers are rare. At this event he stood alone, without notes, without a podium, without bunting, without a row of local dignitaries behind him. He seems, of all things, vulnerable at first. In his second book he used the term "audacity," which he continues to use, although he is careful not to overdo it. But when he is standing alone, he seems to say to the crowd “I have nothing here but my beliefs and my commitment and I think, with your help, those alone can make me president." It is not audacity that he projects, but rather courage and confidence. When he talks about ordinary people doing extraordinary things he really does seem to be talking about himself and leads people to start asking themselves if they could not, by exercising a little courage themselves, help further the values he and they share."
That was almost a year ago. There is nothing I would change today, except to admit that not that many people were asking me about Obama; I really just want to express my feelings.
Once the word got around that Dr. King was coming to Oberlin, there was widespread interest. As a result, during the one day he was with us, he spoke not only at our student forum, but at the weekly college assembly (for which, at that time, student attendance was compulsory) and at the Congregational Church, which still today occupies a prominent space at one corner of the central square that defines the college campus. As his host, I got to ride with him to and from the airport and was one of the students at dinner as well. I attended all three of his addresses, and I have the typewritten notes that he gave me for one of them.
In those notes he said that "the great tragedy of physical slavery was that it led to the paralysis of mental slavery. So long as the Negro maintained this subservient attitude and accepted the 'place' assigned to him, a sort of racial peace existed. But it was an uneasy easy peace.... It was a negative peace. True peace is not merely the absence of some negative force -- tension, confusion, or war; it is the presence of some positive force -- justice, goodwill and brotherhood." He said, "And so the tension which we are witnessing in race relations today can be explained, in part, by the revolutionary change in the Negroes of valuation of himself, and his determination this struggle and sacrifice until the walls of segregation have finally been crushed by the battering rams of searching justice."
I was editor of the Student Newspaper at the time, and we ran an editorial that said in part:
“The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. brought to the campus Thursday the story of how Southern Negroes are resisting vicious and illegal oppression with nonviolent resistance, a mature combination of sociology, economics, philosophy, and religion.
“He brought us more than simply an historical account of the development in the Montgomery bus boycott. He gave us also the philosophy behind that movement. Here both the breadth and the depth of the man came out. He was not just talking about Negroes in Montgomery, nor in Alabama, nor in the South, nor in the United States; rather he was talking about oppressed peoples throughout the world. He was not talking either about the present situation alone and what should be done, but about the past, and more important the future as well.
“Rev. King did not only present a plan for freedom. He went into the very meaning of freedom and the ethics involved in achieving it. He is, as he said, a theist; he is also a minister. It is not surprising than that his philosophy is a religious one. But this does not mean that it is unacceptable for those who do not hold his faith. For Rev. King presented a philosophy based not only on spiritualism but also on true scholarship and hard-boiled practicality. While handling the realities of ignorance, bigotry, prejudice and hatred, Rev. King was also able to discuss the force of love, something other scholars that we have heard rarely consider.”
There was much more. But like Obama, King also seemed to be saying “I have nothing here but my beliefs and my commitment.”
Anyone who has followed Obama’s speeches over the past year will see the similarities with Dr. King, both in style and content. Actually, his style has more Adlai Stevenson in it than King. But the content does have the same reach. Globalization is as much about the spirit as it is about the economy.
I am not trying to make the case that Obama is a latter day Dr. King. On the contrary. Rather, I go back to the point Hillary Clinton made about President Johnson. We know a lot about him. He escalated the Viet Nam war and was arrogant, self-centered, abusive, devious, a late arriver to the cause of racial justice, and, yes, he did get the voting rights act that Kennedy introduced passed. But the point that Clinton made—that you need a white Texas politician to transfer an African American’s quest for justice into reality—is no longer relevant. The point is not that Obama is a new Dr. King, it is that if King had been born one generation later – in 1961 rather than 1929 – he would probably be a lot like Obama, and, if he were so inclined, a Presidential candidate. We do not need a Lyndon Johnson anymore.
I used to put together fiscal stimulus packages as a career civil service employee in the budget office of several presidents of both parties. Here are some guidelines that have proved useful.
Keep the purpose clearly in mind, which is to offset some of the temporary drop in spending caused by people being thrown out of work in a recession. This argues for adding temporarily to the disposable income of people who will spend it. On the tax side this means either rebates in temporary drops in withholding. On the spending side it means one-shot increases in existing income support programs such as social security and veterans benefits.
It also argues for measurers that expire or otherwise self-destruct. Otherwise expenditures will trail on in future years creating a fiscal hangover effect.
Programs that respond automatically to raising unemployment, such as unemployment insurance, food stamps and medicaide face another problem. They are administered by states and localities, which have not always had the staff on hand to process unexpected increases in claims. Dealing with this problem needs to be part of any effective package.
Among the things that do not work are public works and direct investment incentives. Public works take too long to get going. States and localities often claim they have projects on the shelf ready to go, but experience indicates that in reality they simply substitute federal funds for their own money which they then use later on some other purpose such as a subsequent project
Attempts to increase direct private investment through investment tax credits or lower capital gain taxes do not work either. Honest businessmen will tell you that they are glad to get the money, but investment decisions take too long to turn into cash payments to help much in a recession.
Both Obama and Clinton have proposed stimulus plans. The summaries below have both been taken from each candidate’s web sites.
The Clinton Economic Stimulus Plan would:
Establish a $30 Billion Emergency Housing Crisis Fund to assist states and cities.
Set a 90-day moratorium on subprime foreclosures and an automatic rate freeze on subprime mortgages of at least five years
Provide $25 billion in emergency energy assistance for families facing skyrocketing heating bills
Acceleratie $5 billion in energy efficiency and alternative energy investments to jumpstart green collar job growth:
Invest $10 billion in extending and broadening unemployment insurance for those who are struggling to find work.
Barack Obama's Would:
Provide an immediate $250 tax cut for workers and their families.
Provide an immediate, temporary $250 bonus to seniors in their Social Security checks.
Provide an additional $250 tax cut to workers and an additional $250 to seniors if the economy continues to worsen
Provide relief to homeowners hit by the housing crisis.
Provide aid to states hardest-hit by the housing crisis to avoid a slash in services. Extend and expand Unemployment Insurance.
The Clinton plan can only be judged on the merits of each item. It is not a short-term fiscal stimulus package. All the items except energy assistance would take too long to enact and carryout. Energy assistance would come just as the North is warming up and the South has not yet turned on the air-conditioning. I am not sure we want large subsidies for energy consumption even for low income people.
The Obama plan is what a fiscal stimulus program is supposed to look like. Fast and simple, with cash out the door and in people’s pockets.
DGM in Washington January 14, 2008
A lot has happened to since I first became interested in Obama as a presidential candidate. Last April I attended a fundraiser and joined MYBO as a result. I then moved to Maine for six months where I contacted Lyme disease, but I did make it to an August session of Camp Obama in Chicago (for grass roots organiser training) and spent 3 days working at the Portsmouth NH Obama field office.
Camp Obama is located on the the ninth floor of a non-discript office building in the inner Loop of downtown Chicago. You can literally walk in the building and not know that there is an Omaha office. I say that because I did just that and went back outside the check the address.
It is a hefty 30 min. walk from the campaign headquarters -- a walk we made at the end of the first day. The main offices, which take the entire floor of a high-rise next to the lake, have a carefully designed and no-nonsense security system. Most of the space is open, with low partition cubicles clustered by task areas. We were able to see the desk where the campaign's media specialist monitors what is going on. There is not much to see, but it is impressive nevertheless. There is a swivel chair surrounded by TV screens. His job is simply to watch all of the screens all day long to catch immediately any media event that needs attention. Apparently the person who does this has an amazing ability to focus on several TV channels simultaneously for hours at a time.
Unlike the headquarters, the camp Obama office, which also accommodates a local field office, has no secutity. The space is both makeshift and a well used.
In my two-day course we numbered about 85. Probably half were from the greater Chicago area; the rest were, like me, from greater distances. Most, but not all were complete novices to political campaign field activities. Taken as a whole, i.e. the instructors as well as his students, the group was about as diverse as any of its size I have ever spent two days with, encompassing variables of race, ethnic origin, gender, and age. My experience is that Obama supporters tend to be like that. The Hillary folks characterized the Obama participants at the Des Moines, Iowa, debate has mostly students looking as if they all came from "YouTube." However, I learned from "MYBO" (the "MyBarackObama" website) otherwise. This came from posts by Obama supporters who had actually been there.
I learned a lot about how campaigns are structured as the grass-roots level. In particular, I was intrigued by the lengths to which individual voters are now identified and tied to computer systems. I also learned about the role of door-to-door canvassers, which is mostly to identify voters and their probable inclinations rather than to try to talk people into supporting "our candidate." Not that the field workers are discouraged from doing this if a good prospect comes along. Rather, it is the advertising, the mailings and the candidates’ appearances that campaign relies on to sell the message.
One of the directors of the issues staff came over from campaign headquarters to talk to us about what they did. One of the things that he made clear was that camp Obama training was a grass-roots political organizers, and that anyone who had hopes of advising Sen. Obama on policy and contributing to his speeches and issue statements was in the wrong place. He then talked about the satisfactions of community organizing work with examples of how highly trained analysts found unexpected rewards from working at the grass-roots level.
He also talked about how the policy analysis system works. Basically, Obama has an informal network of policy advisers clustered according to issue areas. Much of the actual drafting and formulation of specific issues is done by a relatively small staff in the Chicago headquarters. However, they see their job as working with the advisers to do distill various ideas and viewpoints into a policy prescription that Obama candidate feels comfortable with. Obama is heavily involved in the final development of issue positions, or was at least at that time when he is campaign schedule was a bit lighter. There is no question that he determines policy substance--a function he enjoys.
One of the principal strategists of the Iowa primary spoke to us about how we campaign planned to proceed, since Illinois is next to Iowa and the chances are that the Chicago office will be providing grass-roots resources to the Iowa organization. We even did a mock caucus this, so as to "learn by doing" how that caucus system actually works. Our mentor and worked in Iowa for the Dean campaign and went through a list of things that the Dean people did wrong. We also learned about the theory and practice of community organizing on which much of the Obama campaign is based.
All this is now being played out. These folks are really good
In April I wrote "I have met many public policy analysts over the years and they are usually both tough-minded and cynical-and with good reason. Many of us--concerned about the conduct of the federal government and reasonably informed about politics--know that there is only so much we can do. One vote does not count for much among millions, especially in jurisdictions such as mine, the District of Columbia, which are overwhelmingly red or blue." I argued that the democratic primaries would likely determine who becomes President, since a good democratic candidate would have a good chance in the face of the Bush disaster Presidency. However, without early action on the part of serious Democrats, it seemed likely than Clinton would preempt the Democratic field. In order to avoid this Obama needed to raise serious money in a hurry.
That happened, thanks to an amazing amount of spontaneous interest and savvy organization Bcause he more than matched Hillary in fundraising for the first quarter, the press noticed, and the television political news reporting apparatus declared that there could be a real campaign horse race. But the national opinion polls did not move. The national television news reported on the opinion polls, (which use small, 2-3 person thousand samples) , not the substance of the Obama camaign. Subsequent polls reflected the national television news, and so it went. Everyone is supposed to know that that this cycle makes these polls quite meaningless in terms of predicting the presidential election this far in advance, but even the supposedly serious newscasters spend a lot of time talking about them anyway.
The summer and fall were relatively uneventful. Hillary worked diligently he to reinforce her position as frontrunner and presumed heir to the presidential office. Obama used this time to develop name (and character) recognition. He is fond of saying that when people get to know him they are usually supportive, but not many people knew him yet. During this time he developed detailed policy positions and proposals, which have been the subject of a series of policy addresses. Scant press coverage made them hard to find except on his website. The other democratic candidates tried to break out of their "also-ran" positions without notable success.
Many people view and election implicitly as an equilibrium process, during which various forces influence people over time and ultimately people vote in their preferences, which represent the the balance of interests within society. It seems to me this is a highly simplistic model of our political process. In particular, there often seem to be important to complex subsystems that can be unstable or unpredictable but ultimately influential. We are seeing that now. The NH debate and the Jefferson/Jackson day dinner and the Iowa debate are now being described as turning points the primary election subsystem. Suddenly, Obama, recently written off as too far behind in the polls to win the nomination, is now eating Hillary's lunch.
This is an easy-to-anticipate overreaction. The inevitability of her winning was an illusion in the first place. But the situation has changed—just not as much as the press seems to report. Obama's name recognition must be growing fast, especially in the early primary states. Early state polls are finall beginning to show rapid shifts. Because of the Iowa caucus system (talk about complex....) the outcome there is very uncertain. I predict Obama will do well, a prediction based on by understanding of hid his organizational strength, noy the poll numbers..
The next few weeks are critical.
Many people I spoke with last Spring did not feel positions of the candidates were developed enough for them to support anyone. I submit that this is no longer true. Moreover, now is the time to influence the course of events. If you have been watching from the sidelines or ignoring the first really interesting campaign in over a decade, it is time to jump in. Otherwise in a few weeks others will likely have made the choice for you, unless you are willing to vote republican.
What responsible progressive democrats and independents want, of course, is a candidate with a combination of enlightened, responsible policies and the ability to get elected. The weight of current evidence overwhelmingly favors Obama. In terms of electability, the critical variables are Clinton's need to overcome lingering animosity (by independents especially) toward her husband's administration, her past a political position on the war in Iraq and her vagueness on issues.
Speaking of which, on the issues Obama is far easier to evaluate than is Clinton because he has deliberately forgone a campaign strategy based on vagueness. Hillary has embraced this technique, taking credit for noble goals, but with no commitment as to means. Despite this, many people, of my generation at least, do not seem inclined to get behind Obama. I think this is partly because finding out where candidates stand on the issues seems more difficult than it used to be and partly because they think things will probably turn out ok.
Wrong on both counts.
As to the second point, we have been there before. Far too many of us -- and I certainly include myself – were far too passive during the last two election cycles. A little bit more work and a little bit more money among mature and experienced progressives of this country could have made a huge difference. Many of us, again, myself included, did not fully understand that in 2002 we had to defeat not only George Bush but Ralph Nader. Our failure to marshal sufficient force us to do both resulted in the first disastrous Bush administration. In 2006, I frankly did not believe that a democrat could lose, given the record of the first Bush administration. Wrong again.
It would be completely irresponsible to make these mistakes a third time. No matter how bad the record of the current administration, and no matter who the Republicans nominate, there is going to be a huge amount of financial, special interest group and conservative voter support for the republican candidate in 2008.
From the time people my age until about the Reagan administration we knew the position of the candidates with fair accuracy by reading the the daily newspaper. Candidates were expected to make a series of major policy speeches, which were duely reported in the the press. In many cases the text was available in the New York Times. No more. You are likely to get more information on what the polls say about the reaction to a speech than on the content of the speech itself. However, today, because of the internet, it is actually easier to be informed than it used to be. Anyone who can order a book from Amazon -- and I don't know anyone who cannot -- can find out everything they need or want to know about candidates on the Web, including clips of the actual speeches. All you need is to do is check out a canditate's website, YouTube, C-span or google.
Last April I attended a fundraiser in Washington at which Obama spoke. Not many people had done that yet. At that time I wrote, “Standing alone, he says to the crowd I have nothing here but my beliefs and my commitment.” Eight months later someone in New Hampshire said something similar to a reporter: “I was struck when Barack Obama laid out his position on Social Secutity reform and she (Hillary) refused to give her position. My view [of him] is ‘Like me or not. This is who I am, this is where I stand.’”
There is often to talk about doing the right thing by our children and our grandchildren. Well, if you're my age you actually have grandchildren. Let me state categorically that if I have a choice of putting an additional $1000 into my grandchild's college savings account and $1000 into the coffers of the Obama campaign there is absolutely no doubt that a greater benefit is to be achieved through the political contribution. The trouble is that if I act alone it will not make any difference. That is why individual contributions are not enough. That is why Obama says he needs our help.
From Doug Cogan, a friend in New Hampshie:
Well, she's certainly First Lady material!
Attractive, poised, very articulate. Spoke for 15 minutes without notes. Then mixed with ease with the crowd for another 45 minutes.
Her self-effacing message is that Barack Obama may be a phenomenon, but he's also the guy who lives in her house and doesn't make his bed or put his dirty socks in the laundry -- like a lot of other husbands!
She grew up on the South Side of Chicago. Neither of her parents went to college. Her father was a blue collar worker for the city. He died of multiple sclerosis, but never complained about it. Her father continues to be the inspiration in her life. (Both of Barack's parents have died.)
Michelle's brother got accepted to Princeton. And deciding she was smarter than him, she applied too. So they both went through school there together -- no doubt on scholarship.
She met Barack after she graduated from Harvard Law School, and accepted a prestigious job at the Sidley Austin law firm. She was supposed to "mentor" him for an internship he had taken.
When he became a community activist after graduation, and gave a talk that tied together some of her own feelings, she realized she was falling in love, not only because he was "cute" but because of the values they shared. They now have two girls, ages 5 and 8.
Today was Michelle's first visit to New Hampshire. All of her remarks came across as very genuine, with no nerves whatsoever.
But she was also very careful. She took no questions from the audience while the cameras were rolling. When asked about the Supreme Court decision on CO2 as a pollutant, she said she wasn't aware of the decision and deferred judgment to a staff person in the room. A handler standing by her side did the same with other policy questions that came forward.
I asked her if she had an issue that she would like to push as First Lady. She said she had several running through her mind, but right now she is focused on getting Barack better known among the American public.
This is probably smart politics for a woman who neither wants to come across as Hillary Clinton or an opinionated black woman who might be our next first lady.
In any case, she has the right stuff. She left no question about that.
ISSUE ADVISORS
According to the Washington Post Political Blog (Link Cassandra Q. Butts is Obama’s top domestic issue advisor. She was one of 3 authors of an analysis of the Bush budget, which you can read by going to the following:
Link
The Wall Street Journal reports:
“One top economic adviser is Jeffrey Liebman, a Harvard economist and former adviser to President Clinton who is focused heavily on the earned income tax credit and its role in moving people from welfare to work.
“The candidate is also consulting with University of Chicago economics professor Austan Goolsbee, a taxation expert and centrist Democrat who has advised Mr. Obama since his 2004 Senate campaign.
“David Cutler, a Harvard economist specializing in health policy who served in the Clinton administration, is also among Mr. Obama's advisers.”
Up date on Obama Issues April 24
FOREIGN POLICY
Several people allerted me to the New York Times Friedman column, which included the following:
" I think Mr. Obama has the potential to force a new discussion. For now at least, he has a certain moral authority because of his life story, which makes him harder to dismiss. And while he is a good talker, he strikes me as an even better listener. It's amazing what people will let you say to them, if you just listen to them first." Full text at Link
Obama's foreign policy peech took place Monday. Read it at Link
Watch this space for an analysis.
ISSUE STATEMENTS
USA Today reports that: "Now his [Obama's] campaign is 10 weeks old. Enough with the niceties, the generalities, the story of his life. On Friday, the Illinois senator unveiled a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Monday he gives a speech on foreign policy. Next up, education and health “
"It may seem early, given that it's nearly nine months until the first nominating contest. Yet Obama is playing catch-up with rivals.
"Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., has an energy plan. So does former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, along with proposals aimed at achieving universal health care, ending poverty and reviving depressed rural areas. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., has a plan she says will make government more effective." (Link
Dave Kleinberg, who has joined this group, is highly exprt on income security and health issues and a blackm belt budgeteer. He has agreed to write an analysis of the Edwards plan for this space, and I will take a crack at Hillary’s government reform proposal, which has gotten the little attention it deserves.
Carolyn (’59) and I ('58) went to a fundraiser April 11 at one of the function rooms in the beautifully restored Union Station here in D.C. We may not be an Iowa or N.H., and we may be disenfranchised, but Union Station is right next to the capitol so Obama was able to drop in hands shake a lot of hands and make a few remarks. One of the event organizers was Alan Wurtzel, class of 55 or 56 I can’t remember which. Obama seemed very relaxed and has this amazing ability to connect with everyone in the room. His remarks -- he really does speak without notes of any kind -- were mostly about the campaign and his view of how leaders should approach issues and politics.
When people discover that I went to a fundraiser where Obama was present they often ask "what is he like?" It is a reasonable question. However, as a lifelong policy analyst, my inclination is to describe what he said, or outline his policy positions. By "what is he like?" I think what people mean is "what is he like in person?"
The press, with its incapacity to understand or process what the Obama phenomenon is all about, treats him as a celebrity and describes him as being like a rock star, which then makes him subject to cute and glib characterizations by the likes of Maureen Dowd. In person he is the opposite of a rock star. At the fundraiser I was standing about five feet from him when he delivered his remarks. But it did not make any difference where you were in the room. People felt that he was talking directly to them. He gave the impression that he would say what he was saying you if you are sitting across from him at a dining room table, or if you were in a small private strategy meeting of five people, or if he were at Madison Square Garden.
What he brings to a crowded room is exactly the opposite of the mass hysteria generated at a rock star concert. He brings quiet and he stimulates concentration. He is not interrupted much by applause, and boisterous hoots and hollers are rare. He stands alone, without notes, without a podium, without staff, without bunting, without a row of local dignitaries behind him. He seems, of all things, vulnerable at first. In his second book he used the term "audacity," which he continues to use, although he is careful not to overdo it. Standing alone, he says to the crowd I have nothing here but my beliefs and my commitment. I think that, with your help, those can make me president. This comes across not so much as audacity but more as courage and confidence. When he talks about ordinary people doing extraordinary things he really does seem to be talking about himself and leads people to start asking themselves if they could not, by exercising a little courage themselves, help further the values he and they share.
Since this was a friendly crowd I was a bit surprised by a direct question saying in almost so many words why you rather than Hillary? Of course it is an expected question, and he handles it beautifully, refusing to get into a confrontational or even argumentative mode, simply emphasizing the degree to which they come from different backgrounds.
He was very skillful later on in responding to question about how his childhood origins in Indonesia and Hawaii might affect his view of foreign policy. Most politicians would feel they had to apologize for this background in some way, or compensate for it. Obama treated it as a strength, and said that the insights from this upbringing had much to do with his early decision that invading Iraq was a bad idea. In this way, he indirectly got back to the Hillary question. But he was saying without being contentious. He was simply saying Hillary and I have different backgrounds and I made one decision on the Iraq war and she made another.
Since this was an invitation-only event and with a minimum contribution of $1 K, the demographic profile of the group was heavily weighted towards folks who are old enough to afford this sort of a donation. Nevertheless, there was one groupie-type woman of a certain age who simply wanted him to repeat for the group his "famous" statement about how there is no red America and blue America etc. It was about the only time he stumbled -- he was not sure he could remember it. So he struggled a bit and came out with something like "there are no blue states, there are no red states there is only the United States." He then said if you want the exact quote it is on his website.
In discussing his background in relation to his qualifications for president he talked about teaching constitutional law, which, he pointed out, meant that he had a pretty good understanding of the Constitution. He seemed to be a bit surprised that this line got as much applause as anything he said. But, this was a Washington audience of Democrats.
We need to do some regional Oberlin Alum fundraisers—love is not enough. The stars are aligned in a way that unusually -- perhaps uniquely -- gives moderately inclined, independently-minded, progressive Oberlin Alums the opportunity to have a disproportionately large effect on the outcome of the next election and the future of the country.
Carolyn and I will be at our house in Maine from May through September, but I would be glad to do what I can to organize things for an Oberlin Alum D.C. event in the fall. If anyone is, or knows of, Oberlin alums in the District of Columbia area who would be susceptible to a rational but passionate invitation to join the Obama cause, please feel free to e-mail me directly.
