"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American. Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson?"
Boooooo!
It's sad that soemone who has as illustrious a past as Nader has become so clacified, myopic, and narcissistic that he's not only unable to get behind a candidate with as much promise as Obama, but also feels the need to undermine him in this way. Thankfully, Nader is more irrelevant in this election that he has ever been, so his actions will have little to no effect. A good reminder, though, of what happens when your personal ideology cocoons you to the point where you have no contact with reality.
(h/t: Andrew Sullivan)
People who make the claim that Obama is all style, no substance fail to think about the issue in terms of the famous Marshall McLuhan quote, "the medium is the message." Wikipedia provides us with a good interpretation of the quote saying that, "the form of a medium imbeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived, creating subtle change over time."
The notion of style vs. substance creates something a false dichotomy when talking about politics in general, and presidential elections in particular. How a politician approaches and engages with the electorate says as much about their prowess and fitness for office, as does what is said. Certainly no one is going to argue that style is more important than substance, but part of governance is one's ability to bring people to some kind of working consensus on moving forward and in this regard style plays a not insubstantial role.
Case in point: Barack Obama. Part of what is so engaging and is propelling Obama's journey to the White House is the impact he has on people. One is hard pressed to ignore the fact that Obama has managed to capture the hearts and minds of large proportion of the electorate that have traditionally been very resistant to engagement, and those that have been resistant to engagement by a Democrat. A large part of how he has done so has to do with the style of his campaign, everything from his cool (meant in the positive sense of the term) demenour, to the contemporary references thatare littered throughout his campaign, to the campaign's strong online presence as typified by mybarackobama.com's Facebook structure. Those engaged voters are bouyed by the sense that they are interacting with a different kind of campaig, precisely because they are interacting with a different kind of campaign. This investment in style is paying off dividends that Exxon's shareholders would wax envious over.
But, apart from the different stylistic elements of Obama's campaign apparatus, the style that Obama utilizes in presenting himself also plays a large role in his success to date. Underneath the cynicism and skepticism, much of which is entirely healthy, people do really want to believe in something. Belief is, in many ways, the bedrock of both our everyday lives and the meta-trajectory we envision for our lives. Most people do what they do, day in and day out, because they believe doing so is meaningful and that, further out, their actions can have an impact on their lives and the world around them. Whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent, we are driven by the notion that the decisions we make matter and that we ought to think about them in terms of how we wish to live our lives and impact the lives of those around us. The very nature of Barack Obama's campaign reifnorces this foundation and then challenges us to push the boundaries we impose for ourselves about the parameters and limits of our decisions. Obama does most of this stylistically in the body of his rhetoric, his delivery, the images of his campaign, and the way that campaign makes its supporters feel.
Extraordinary things are only possible when people are provided the possibility to believe that they are, when they feel the possibilities in their gut, are moved to get involved because they can't sit still for the excitement that is coursing through their bodies and souls. This is the process of winning hearts and minds, and it is, contra the style vs. substance argument, inherently a part of our politics. It is not just the politics of hope, it is the politics of possibilities, and without it we don't go much of anywhere.
So the next time someone tells you that Barack Obama is all style, no substance, you should feel free to tell them, "style is to politics, as oil is to an engine... and baby, I like Barack's style."
D'oh! Pronouncements are dangerous things, especially when printed and bound (pun most definitely intended).
http://politicsofscrabble.org/?p=111
(this now, obviously, on pertains to Obama an McCain - ed.)
Many of the arguments I’ve heard against Barack Obama’s candidacy have to do with the idea that people just don’t know who he is. This argument is presented as inserting enough uncertainty about Obama to suggest that voting for him is ill-advised. I just don’t know that I buy this argument. It is true that of the three potential candidates for President Obama’s is the freshest face, but it seems inaccurate to suggest that people can’t know him well enough, or get to know him well enough, to feel confident in voting for him.
Were I looking for information on the various candidates, one obvious stop I would make is their respective websites. However, this presents the difficulty that the candidates’ campaigns have complete control over what content is presented on those websites, and have an blatant bias towards presenting their candidate in the best possible light. Another stop I might make is at Wikipedia, where the content is published and edited by a community of contributors.
Here is the entry for Hillary Clinton. Certainly an impressive array of information.
Next is the entry for John McCain. Also quite informative.
Finally we have the entry for Barack Obama. Certainly not quite as long as either Clinton or McCain’s entries, but containing of a great deal of useful information that gives one a decent idea of who Barack Obama is.
Additionally, Barack Obama has written two books, both of which go into his personal history and elucidate his political views and opinions. McCain has co-authored a number of books and articles mostly on foreign policy and published an extensive memoir. Clinton has written a treatise on the future of children in America, an account of her time in the White House as First Lady, and a renowned autobiography. While I acknowledge that Obama has published fewer articles and books then either McCain or Clinton, I think one would be hard pressed to describe this as a difference in kind that warrants the allegation that you can’t know Obama because of his lack of publishing.
Finally, one might simply say that Obama hasn’t been on the political scene long enough to know who he is as a politician. It’s true that both McCain and Clinton have been in the public spot light for longer, but only McCain can truly boast to have served in public life longer, and it’s not like Obama suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Certainly Obama has been around long enough to earn the moniker as the most “liberal” candidate running in this election. Further, it’s not as though each candidate’s voting record isn’t perfectly avaiable to anyone who wants to see it. Click here for Clinton’s, McCain’s, and Obama’s.
In the end, one cannot avoid the fact that Barack Obama is the newest of the three candidates, but this notion that you don’t know Obama well enough to feel comfortable voting for him conveniently avoids the reality that you are not blocked from getting to know him through the kind of research that any responsible voter should engage in when making a decision about who should be the leader of their country. The opportunities and avenues for getting to know Obama are clearly present. The question to those who offer the “we don’t know him” criticism is: yes, but will you bother to try to get to know him? If the answer is a tacit “no,” then I’m afriad the argument doesn’t hold much weight in my mind.
http://politicsofscrabble.org/?p=120
About a month ago I heard a story from friend about a friend of hers who had gone to an Obama rally that left quite the impression on her. Intrigued at the possibility at hearing someone’s first hand Obama story, I emailed Melissa and asked her if she would consider writing her experience down for me and letting me post it. This is what she had to say
“On the Thursday before the Easter Long Weekend, I got a call from some of my colleagues who were going down to hear Obama speak in Eugene, Oregon, and to do some volunteering. I thought it would be a good experience so I went along for the ride, despite leaning more towards Hillary. We waited in line at the University of Oregon for two hours, and we didn’t think we would get in. But we did. The security guard told us to go to the third rafter in the stadium, but my friend Monica suggested that we just take a peek at the floor. As we were looking at the massive crowd, an aide walked by and said “We need five people on stage with Barack.” So Monica grabbed me and Jeff and on to the stage we went. It was without a doubt, one of the most exciting experiences of my life.Barack has a certain electricity and ability to inspire hope. Even as a very cynical person, and someone who has seen speech after speech, he was able to inspire me. I have never seen so many people turn out to hear a politician speak. It actually blew my mind, because most political rallies I go to are the same old people and usually no more than fifty. As a political activist I was not only inspired by what I heard, but more so by how many young people spent their first day of spring break to wait in line to see a politician. Pundits go on and on about how voter turnout is so low and that the youth don’t turn out. Barack is obviously speaking to a new generation of voters that clearly needed a reason to show up at the polls. And now they seem to have one, that alone made me like him.I can’t really remember his speech, because I was so awestruck. But the energy in the stadium was crazy. Before I saw him speak I thought, well, he is just a great speaker, and he can talk all he wants about hope and change, but really, Hillary can get ‘er done. But after hearing him speak, I believe it is possible. Every generation needs a great leader who inspires the masses. After hearing Barack Obama speak, I do believe he could be that person.”
“On the Thursday before the Easter Long Weekend, I got a call from some of my colleagues who were going down to hear Obama speak in Eugene, Oregon, and to do some volunteering. I thought it would be a good experience so I went along for the ride, despite leaning more towards Hillary. We waited in line at the University of Oregon for two hours, and we didn’t think we would get in. But we did. The security guard told us to go to the third rafter in the stadium, but my friend Monica suggested that we just take a peek at the floor. As we were looking at the massive crowd, an aide walked by and said “We need five people on stage with Barack.” So Monica grabbed me and Jeff and on to the stage we went. It was without a doubt, one of the most exciting experiences of my life.
Barack has a certain electricity and ability to inspire hope. Even as a very cynical person, and someone who has seen speech after speech, he was able to inspire me. I have never seen so many people turn out to hear a politician speak. It actually blew my mind, because most political rallies I go to are the same old people and usually no more than fifty. As a political activist I was not only inspired by what I heard, but more so by how many young people spent their first day of spring break to wait in line to see a politician. Pundits go on and on about how voter turnout is so low and that the youth don’t turn out. Barack is obviously speaking to a new generation of voters that clearly needed a reason to show up at the polls. And now they seem to have one, that alone made me like him.
I can’t really remember his speech, because I was so awestruck. But the energy in the stadium was crazy. Before I saw him speak I thought, well, he is just a great speaker, and he can talk all he wants about hope and change, but really, Hillary can get ‘er done. But after hearing him speak, I believe it is possible. Every generation needs a great leader who inspires the masses. After hearing Barack Obama speak, I do believe he could be that person.”
Granted, my honeymoon with Barack Obama is coming to a close and I’m forcing myself to ask some tough questions about his candidacy, but it is that impact that elicited such a response from me in the first place. Despite the hard questions, I stand by my earlier comment that the chance on Obama is worth it, even if just to see a little movement forward.
http://politicsofscrabble.org/?p=108
One of bag chips, multigrain or whole wheat
300 grams of aged chedder cheese, organic
One red pepper
6 sun dried tomatoes in oil
One green onion.
4 tablespoons balsamic vinegar
Preheat oven to 400 degrees celsius. Spread chips across cooking sheet. Shred cheese and spread evenly across chips. Coarsely dice red pepper and sun dried tomatoes and spread across cheese and chips. Finely chop green onions and spread evenly across everything else. Splash balsamic vinegar evenly over nachos and place in oven. Cook for 10 minutes and serve with desired condiments.
Don’t mention arugula!
http://politicsofscrabble.org/?p=44
Hearing self-professed conservatives like Andrew Bacevich andDouglas Kmiec talk about the potential the Obama brings to the table helps to counter balance an all too pervasive perception about Conservatism and the state of American politics that is promoted and reinforced by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Anne Coulter. The unconventional tone of Obama’s campaign finally allows some of the more level headed and intelligent proponents of the political right a chance to step around the outrageous and bitterly partisan discourse that has plagued American politics for so long and present a useful and, indeed, vital discussion about possible ways forward. There isn’t another campaign out there that has contributed to this measured dialectic of views and values, which is greatly to the merit, whether he in fact becomes the nominee or not, of Barack Obama, and to the benefit of Americans as a whole.
That this dialogue is starting to occur at all lends weight to what Obama may be capable of achieving in the White House, and serves to undercut many of the “empty change” allegations leveled at his campaign.
http://politicsofscrabble.org/?p=144
It warms my heart a little to see Obama cap off the most soaring and uplifting of his speeches in recent memory with Bruce Springsteen’s The Rising, one of the most inspiring songs I know.
Obama’s speech was… typical. I keep waiting for Obama to take people to some kind of new rhetorical plateau, and perhaps that is unfair of me. Obama is presenting a certain vision for America and that vision is essentially the same one he laid out back in January, so tonight’s speech is reminiscent of those in New Hampshire and South Carolina. I think it’s a good vision, an inspiring vision, and it is a vision that is causing many Americans to hold heir heads a little higher, which is hard to argue against.
One of the things that I think Obama’s vision may be able to achieve is a small reclamation of the word politics. It sickens me how often you hear politicians say something like, “Oh, he’s/she’s just playing politics…,” or, “That is pure, unadulterated politics!” as if the word contained only four letters. Perhaps explicable by Thomas Barnett’s contention that the “weakest links” of the boomer generation wound up in politics, this strikes me as a deeply sad state of affairs, especially given that politics can, and has been a force for good in the world.
However, we need to reconcile ourselves to the fact that politics is difficult and requires integrity, intelligence, and determination, which is all so out of vogue in our sarcastic and cynical world. It is a great deal safer for people to assume that politics always has, and always will be, just about the maintenance of power structures, but this needn’t be the case. Politicians ought to be willing to do their work proudly and diligently, and I think that, secretly, most politicians do believe that they are in it for the right reasons, but lack the courage to articulate the real challenges around governance and course charting.
For all his failings, Barack Obama has had the courage to come out and propose that Americans have reasons to be optimistic and believe in their leaders. It is evident that Obama believes in his message, as imperfect as it may be, and that belief has been contagious, giving people the feeling that they are part of something real. I agree with critics that Obama, if elected, will likely fall short of people’s expectations, but at least he will do so with a degree of sincerity. That, in itself, is perhaps change we can believe in.
http://politicsofscrabble.org/?p=152
For everyone who assumes that Rupert Murdoch is a right wing demon.
http://politicsofscrabble.org/?p=162
It is, obviously, hard not to be at least a little giddy about Barack Obama becoming the first African-American and non-baby boomer nominee for President. There is a lot of fanfare going on across the web and on the television, and in some senses it is wholly warranted. Not only is this a relatively monumental moment in American politics, but the hero’s journey that Obama has had to walk in order to get here has been pretty arduous. So it makes a lot of sense that he and his supporters are going to be fairly jubilant. And true to form, Obama’s speech allowed the entirety of America in on this moment of rejoice, which, as has been widely acknowledged, is perhaps why he has more of a movement than a campaign on his hands.
That said, the real work is about to begin, and Obama’s supporters need to stop for a very serious gut check after they’ve had a moment for revelry. I have spoken previously about Obama’s potential to reimport a sense of sincerity into American politics, but I would now go one further than that. The whole feeling of dismay around politics has also to do with the sense that politicians lack a certain maturity in the way they conduct themselves, which is, in part, manifest in their perceived lack of sincerity.
America, and developed nations generally, are in deep need of an evolution in their practice of politics that leaves some of the child-like fascinations with drama and distraction behind. The world is facing some very significant challenges, perhaps not more contextually difficult than humanity ever faces at different times, but all the more complex because of their chronological emergence. America can be one of the great solutioners in addressing these challenges, but to do so it will need a new generation of leaders that are up to the task and committed to tackling it head on. Obama could be the first of these types of leaders; he certainly has an understated, but searing intensity and nuanced intelligence that lend themselves to carefully and thoughtfully engaging with some of the more complex issues of our time.
But all of that talk is meaningless if Obama supporters particularly, and Democrats generally, aren’t willing to drop so much of the superficiality that causes people’s eyes to glaze over. I’ve left behind the notion of a grand synthesis between liberal and conservative ideas and tactics in the near future, and I still see a lot more potential for a significant ideological rebirth in a contemporized conservatism, but I think with Obama now the nominee for the Democrats that a small, but significant, evolution towards a more mature politics could be within the Democrats’ reach. It strikes me that Obama may be up to the challenge of this new crucible, but he can’t do it alone.
http://politicsofscrabble.org/?p=165
There is a lot of talk right now about to feel about the Clintons’ actions throughout this primary race. In this video, Andrew Sullivan, who has not been shy about expressing his distaste for Bill and Hill, engages in some venting with Marc Ambinder:
On the other side of the street is Ross Douthat with a helpful reminder:
It would probably been better for the party if Hillary had conceded defeat somewhat earlier (though there would have been the potential embarrassment of having the presumptive-nominee lose primaries to a rival who’d dropped out), or at the very least campaigned less fiercely against Obama once his victory became a near-certainty, and certainly her non-concession speech on Tuesday night was bizarre and faintly pathological. But I think that once a few months have gone by, at least some of outrage that Hillary Clinton has generated among liberal pundits by campaigning to the bitter end in a race that she ended up losing by just over a hundred pledged delegates and roughly half a percent of the popular vote will seem, in hindsight, faintly hysterical.
My take: I agree that Hillary and Bill have not lived up to their reputations (or have out done their reputations, depending on whom you’re asking) and have both done things in this race that are regrettable. But, that said, it seems like a lot of people’s outrage is a projection on to the Clinton’s about their general frustration about the ineffecitiveness of Democrats over the past eight years. Hillary, and by extension Bill, represents, in many people’s eyes, the failures of the past, of which many Democrats still feel impotent and and insecure, despite the fact that they are poised to clinch certain victory. Barack, obviously, represents a fresh break in many ways.
It seems like a lot of liberals are, at least in part, incensed that anyone would have the gaul to stand between them and new start for the Party/Country. Now, granted, Bill Clinton had something to do with getting Liberals into that past slump, but I’m just not convinced that the Clinton’s are the narcissistic demons that a lot of people have made them out to be and both have done a lot of good in their time.
I tend to agree with Ross, I think given some time and distance people will calm down a fair deal, Bill and Hillary included. I’m also reasonably convinced, after some reflection, that Hillary Clinton, despite the hard feeling, will come out and campaign hard for Obama, which will help to heal wounds all around (pundits included).
http://politicsofscrabble.org/?p=168
Good friend Juma Wood and I have been having a bit of a discussion about what we might reasonably expect out of a Barack Obama presidency, particularly as pertains to America’s standing globally and it’s role in furthering a greater degree of economic integration. I think it’s fair to say that both Juma and I identify as liberals, in the contemporary American sense of the term, who are tired of over-simplified notions about the role that economics and globalization play in creating a better world, particularly insofar as “creating a better world” is myopically applied to only the world directly surrounding one’s self.
To this end, we would both like to see a either a real compassionate conservative or a Democrat who has some economic and international savvy to match their big heart controlling the not insignificant resources of the United States of America. Given that it seems likely that 2008 will involve the latter of our two choices, our back and forth has centered around whether Barack Obama might, as we both hope, approach the savvy Democrat we seek.
Clearing potential space for hope are a couple of endorsements by Francis Fukuyama and David Friedman, son of (in)famous economist Milton Friendman.
Fukuyama’s endorsment focuses on Obama’s potential for use of soft-power, which will be vital achieving any kind of re-integration given the state of alienation that all but America’s staunchest allies currently feel. Money quote:
“[I]f you elected someone like Obama, it is really going to be really quite something I think to witness and I think that is why a lot of people would like to see him as president because it symbolises the ability of the United States really in some way to renew itself in a very unexpected way.”
Friedman articulates even more explicitly what many hope that Obama represents: a political interloper who takes a little bit of everything he likes and mixes it into something new. Money quote from Friedman:
Perhaps I am too optimistic about Obama, but I do not think he is going to turn out to be an orthodox liberal. There is a group of intellectuals connected with the University of Chicago who have accepted a good deal of the Chicago school analysis but still want to think of themselves as leftists. They are, as I see it, trying to construct a new version of what “left” means.
I really want to believe that both Fukuyama and, even more so, Friedman are right. I want to believe that Obama has been severely constrained about what he has been able to articulate because of his pitched battle with Clinton. These endorsements further bolster my hope. If Obama can find a way of taking the ideas that both Fukuyama and Friedman cherish and championing them in a liberal context, it could wind up meaning more than either his post-baby boomer or first African American President markers.
http://politicsofscrabble.org/?p=189
Conservative commentator Bruce Bartlett’s article about the Obamacon movement in The New Republic is a good and insightful read. But it was hearing him flesh the issue and the article out a little bit more on PRI’s To The Point that really nailed it for me.
In the article Bartlett acknowledges that part of the conservative support has to do with a distaste for Bush and McCain, but then goes on to note that it is Obama’s “rhetorical acumen” that has left many coservative thinkers deeply impressed. In the To the Point interview, though, Batlett draws this distinction out even more sharply saying,
[Larissa McFarqhuar] was talking about Obama’s temperament, which is something that a lot of conservatives find very likeable about Obama. He seems to be a thoughtful fellow, somebody who does not, you know, make decisions quickly, does not believe in radical change, ah, believes that we should move slowly… and it shows that he is willing to take one step at a time and not try to do everything all at once. And that is very much of a small “c,” Burkean, Russell Kirk version of conservatism.
That description brilliantly captures what I also find so appealing about Obama. Obama’s vision for America is obviously very liberal in kind, but his beliefs about how to go about realizing that vision are much more measured, careful, and thoughtful than many firebrand Democrats. Obama seems, ironically, to exude the political maturity that is required to hold that steady, stoic gaze and move with that deep calm that I mentioned in conjunction with Will George.
It will be interesting to see what happens over the coming months with the “Obamacon” movement. But Bartlett’s comments have only further solidified my support for Obama and my agreement with Juma at the Daily Cloud that Obama is the right person at the right time, though for more reasons than its just the Democrats’ kick at the can.
http://politicsofscrabble.org/?p=185
Matthew Yglesias has explained that he doesn’t like the idea of Obama keeping Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense because of the message it sends about Democrats’ ability to handle national security. In his post, Matt bemoans,
If you put a Republican in charge of the Pentagon it says “Obama likes diplomacy, but even he knows that when the going gets tough you need to call in the GOP.”
I have lauded Matt’s staunchness in calling out Democratic sacred cows that don’t make sense, but in this instance I think that he has fallen prey to exactly what Obama’s rhetoric is about challenging. Matt’s argument is based on what is good for Democrats, but when it comes to choosing a Secretary of Defense the correct question to ask is, “What’s good for the country?” And that is, in part, the basis upon which Obama’s campaign has been run. If Obama is to prove his rhetoric substantive, then he can’t make decisions as important as this based on what is most helpful to Democrats.
Joe Klein pretty much nails it on why keeping Gates makes sense. So regardless of Gates’ political stripes, I think Obama would do well to stay true to his words and seize the talent. That is, unless he can come up with an alternative option that makes more sense.
(http://politicsofscrabble.org/?p=179)
There has been much ado in some circles about Obama’s appointment of Jason Furman as his campaign’s top economic adviser, mostly from labour unions and the activist class. The concern seems to emanate from the fact that Furman isn’t involved in a wholesale rejection of market-based principles and globalization. What often gets mentioned in passing some ways down in most articles is what Furman has been involved in at the Brookings Institute, where he is a senior fellow. What Furman has been involved with at Brookings is something called The Hamilton Project, named after the first treasury secretary of the United States.
In its own words…
The Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution is dedicated to creating an economic strategy and associated policy options that will help America keep her generational promise of opportunity, broad prosperity and growth in an era of accelerating globalization and profound economic change. The Project embraces the ideal that education and hard work should give every American a chance to advance economically and give every generation the opportunity to do better than the one before. But securing that ideal requires a break with current policies which underfund research and investment in both physical and human capital; which reduce national savings and make us more dependent on foreign lenders; and which concentrate the fruits of a growing economy in too small a segment of our society. With an Advisory Council of academic thinkers and business leaders—including Robert E. Rubin, Roger C. Altman, and Jason Furman —the Hamilton Project offers an economic strategy rooted in evidence and experience, not doctrine and ideology, and provides a platform for leading economic thinkers of every background to offer practical, innovative ideas. The Hamilton Project’s economic strategy is built on three guiding principles: 1. Economic growth is stronger and more sustainable when it is broad-based. • When public policy favors relative few, growth suffers because America misses out on much of our citizens’ potential for innovation and productivity. • Excluding significant parts of the population from the fruits of economic growth risks creating a backlash against trade, fiscal, and other policies that are key to continued economic health. 2. Economic growth and economic security can be mutually reinforcing. Many policy makers and analysts believe that making families more secure impedes economic performance. This view ignores three key points, however: • Providing a basic level of security frees people to take the risks—such as starting a business or investing in their education—that can lead to growth. • If hardships do occur, assistance can help families get back on their feet and become productive again. • A basic level of security lessens the demands for policies like protectionism that impair economic growth. 3. Effective government can enhance economic growth. • Markets are the cornerstone of economic growth, but market forces do not ensure that all critical investment needs are met. The government can spur growth by investing in education and research, and by setting the rules within which private markets operate.
The Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution is dedicated to creating an economic strategy and associated policy options that will help America keep her generational promise of opportunity, broad prosperity and growth in an era of accelerating globalization and profound economic change. The Project embraces the ideal that education and hard work should give every American a chance to advance economically and give every generation the opportunity to do better than the one before. But securing that ideal requires a break with current policies which underfund research and investment in both physical and human capital; which reduce national savings and make us more dependent on foreign lenders; and which concentrate the fruits of a growing economy in too small a segment of our society.
With an Advisory Council of academic thinkers and business leaders—including Robert E. Rubin, Roger C. Altman, and Jason Furman —the Hamilton Project offers an economic strategy rooted in evidence and experience, not doctrine and ideology, and provides a platform for leading economic thinkers of every background to offer practical, innovative ideas.
The Hamilton Project’s economic strategy is built on three guiding principles:
1. Economic growth is stronger and more sustainable when it is broad-based.
• When public policy favors relative few, growth suffers because America misses out on much of our citizens’ potential for innovation and productivity.
• Excluding significant parts of the population from the fruits of economic growth risks creating a backlash against trade, fiscal, and other policies that are key to continued economic health.
2. Economic growth and economic security can be mutually reinforcing.
Many policy makers and analysts believe that making families more secure impedes economic performance. This view ignores three key points, however:
• Providing a basic level of security frees people to take the risks—such as starting a business or investing in their education—that can lead to growth.
• If hardships do occur, assistance can help families get back on their feet and become productive again.
• A basic level of security lessens the demands for policies like protectionism that impair economic growth.
3. Effective government can enhance economic growth.
• Markets are the cornerstone of economic growth, but market forces do not ensure that all critical investment needs are met. The government can spur growth by investing in education and research, and by setting the rules within which private markets operate.
Unless you’re of the “retreat from the world and live in thatched huts” persuasion, seems like this endeavour, of which Furman used to be the Director, is doing some good and realistic work by utilizing the very powerful tools at our disposal in trying to improve people’s lives generally (and Americans’ specifically). And this direct quote from Furman falls right in line with Obama’s rhetoric,
My key mandate, which came directly from the senator, is to bring him a diverse set of voices and ideas, because that’s the kind of debate he likes to hear to make up his mind about his economic agenda[.]
Certainly, Furman’s appointment doesn’t prove anything, but it is encouraging. Perhaps David Friedman was right when he speculated that, “I do not think [Obama] is going to turn out to be an orthodox liberal,” which is good, because the last thing the world needs is another orthodox liberal.
(http://politicsofscrabble.org/?p=181)
Unlike Joe Gandelman, I don't think the biggest problem with Gore's endorsement of Obama is its timing. While it is entirely predictable that Gore was eventually going to endorse Obama, the timing could have been incredibly fortuitous. Given the status that Gore has achieved outside of Democratic circles and his standing as an elder-statesman of the Party, Gore is in a unique position to help Obama pull the Party together and imbue it with the vision to move forward and win in November. And, frankly, the timing couldn't be better for that speech given the perceived fracasness of the primaries. The biggest problem with Gore's endorsement; however, is that he didn't give that speech.
Don't get me wrong, Gore's "elections matter" bit wasn't bad. But what Al primarily did was take some long coming shots at George W. Bush and how he "stole" the election, do some half decent Obama cheerleading, and predictably prattle on about the environment too much. The speech did nothing to even indirectly address the current rift in the Party or remind people of why it is that they as Democrats work together for a vision of the country that's worth fighting for.
Gore's speech wasn't a flop, but neither was it it the "show stopper" that Sullivan's emailers claimed, and it certainly wasn't a speech that took full advantage of the opportunity that had presented itself.
