Promise, Precaution and Preparedness: Obama and the Democratic Primary

I like Barack Obama - he appeals to my elitist demand for a candidate that can speak eloquently, and convey relatively complex ideas in an inspiring and forceful manner. As a believer in the power of discourse, this is a central quality that we should be looking for in any leader. He also, I believe, is unique in the history of modern U.S. politics in that his campaign rhetoric is rooted in grassroots organization. Yes, his platform consists of variations on a common theme - easy fix solutions provided by a Washington political class. But his speeches clearly foreshadow an era of renewed community organization and activism that America so desperately needs. This is not surprising, given his occupational biography, but the fact that this message seems to resonate so well with voters is. In an era of political apathy, of short-termism, of the paternal state or corporation advocating some kind of mild social responsibility, the long-dormant core of American culture is returning with renewed vigor.

All of his merits, as far as I'm concerned, make Barack Obama deserving of the democratic nomination, and ultimately the presidency of the United States. Experience in the well-oiled machine of Washington politics is non-essential, and the kinds of political tactics that a true outsider - a community activist - could bring to the White House might actually blind Washington lobbyists and career politicians in a stupor that should match their mentalities.

But watching his speech tonight made my detested inclination towards strategy kick in. As older generations seize power based on their age and rely on the hackneyed rhetoric of their parents, the recent trend has been towards cyclical politics, culture and (hopefully) economics. If we can accurately relate current politics to those of the past, where does Obama fit in? Is history likely to repeat itself?

One name stands out in comparison with Barack Obama - Jimmy Carter. In 1976, Jimmy Carter ran on a record quite similar to Barack Obama. He appealed to a dissatisfied electorate reeling from the malaise of Nixon and Ford and promised that, as an outsider to Washington, he would reform the dirty politics of the day. This is nothing new now, but at the time it struck a cord with voters, and they delivered a humble Baptist, naval lieutenant and peanut farmer the Democratic nomination, and ultimately the presidency. Carter's presidency is now well known - rising oil prices, stagflation, and ultimately the Iranian hostage crisis. He left office with a 25% approval rating, paving the way for Reagan (with a similar message and background) to seize the presidency in 1980.

One only needs to watch a few of Obama's speech to note some interesting similarities: the call for honesty, the cleanup of Washington, the "first" status (Carter was the first "deep" South candidate to win his party's nomination in over a hundred years). These comparisons to me are a moot point however. What interests (and worries) me is, given that Obama is in front runner status in my eyes for the presidency, will his story turn out like that of Carter?

The crisis that global warming presents looms large - any leader will have to deal with either the vomitous reactions of industry to regulation, or increasing environmental crises: neither will be popular. The price of oil has risen above $100 USD again, and shows no sign of declining precipitously. This will present a problem for any president tasked with crafting an energy policy for the 21st century. Certain foreign policy issues are likely to erupt, irrespective of the belligerence of American intent: Russia, Cuba, Pakistan, and many others that I am too tired to think about. Any way you cut it, the next five years are in no way 'Golden Years' for any candidate.

So my conclusion is honestly more of a question, echoing that of the last post. If Obama wins the nomination and the presidency, will he fumble like Carter? Personally, I think Barack Obama is a much more formidable candidate and person than Carter ever was. History constantly provides cues as to how we might act, and if any politician is to act on them, it will be Obama. While Carter is passionate and 'rational', I would not call him shrewd. Obama, on the other hand, seems to have much more than meets the eye. This belief may be the result of over-exposure to Obama and not to Carter, but still - there is something of the Spirit of 68' about Obama.

My concern should not be a sign that I am skeptical of Obama as a candidate - I always think it is beneficial to push the discourse as far towards humanity as possible when time allows - but rather it should be a signal indicating the need for preparation for America and the world. We must be prepared to utilize Obama the vessel, in America and elsewhere, if he wins the presidency, to achieve ends that will benefit all.

A Frank (not Ronald) Discussion of the Republican Primary Debates

The best thing anyone can do is pay close attention to something they have a general disdain for, and consider it, not with an 'objective' eye, but with the exclusion of the aspects that are most frustrating for them. For me, the California Republican debate fit that bill quite well, mostly because of the radical disconnect between the consciously crafted rhetoric of the Republican candidates and the utterly destructive consequences of Republican policies on the American working poor, to say nothing of the millions worldwide that have suffered at their hands over the years. So (recalling that I have waived any claims of objectivity) with the debates as my focal point, let me offer an alternative analysis to what will certainly be a massive spectacle in the coming 24 hours.

Putting everything aside, in my opinion, the big winner in this debate was Huckabee - when he had the opportunity to speak, he delivered a clear, concise and even passionate response. Both he and Paul, perhaps from their vantage points as the "future Republican nominee drop outs", gave heated and concerned responses to questions asked of them, or seized their own space to present points from their platforms. McCain was obviously the big loser in these debates, and as I write this, I will concurr with Amy Holmes' pointed comment on CNN's aftershow that he appeared "surly". To take that further, I saw his performance resembling that of a cocky candidate, drunk on the fruits of his endorsements. Nevertheless, CNN, eager to back "power", no matter its stripe, was quick to remedy his less than stellar performance in the aftermath of the debate.

Which brings me to a major point of contention with these debates. Both Huckabee and Paul at some point in the night mentioned that they would like to speak about the issues, rather than - in the words of Huckabee - be an "umpire at a ballgame". Unfortunately, neither of them ever got a chance to really "swing a few" themselves, with no thanks to the questioners. But an even bigger issue was the entire questioning format. With no rules, CNN was at the helm to dictate what kind of debate this would be. Their decision: bring out the talkshow. CNN consistently would ask questions of either McCain or Romney, and after hearing their response, instead of letting the other give their own response to the question, would ask them to respond to their competitors point. This is a practice that blatantly obscures the issues. Instead, it encouraged (even forced) the candidates into the kind of absurd futility of character attacks that the media thrives upon. I can say, from the perspective of someone who fights tooth and nail against the policies that Republican candidates generally advance, that I honestly felt bad for all of them tonight.

But beyond the format questions, the main point that stuck out to me was really the disjuncture about what the Republican party is really all about. Listening to the diverse narratives of all the candidates and the back and forth name-calling of being out of synch with the party, I was left wondering: what does the Republican party really stand for? I heard Huckabee talk about the fundamental equality of all life, no matter what or where it was, alongside Romney criticize any claim of potential legitimacy for non-"Americans" to a right to live a life they choose. I heard McCain talk about a military class that needs to be upheld above all else, alongside Ron Paul talk about an ideal of freedom, rooted in the "everyman", that is the core of the country's pride and success. These different - and often contradictory - political and moral values leave one wondering what the cohesive glue of the party really is now. Why, for one, continue to link the party to Ronald Reagan? Should he really be the main referent for the party?

This, more than anything, signalled to me the demise of Republican leadership in the next election - and I have consistently predicted a McCain victory in both the primary and the presidential contest since 2006. If the Republican party hopes to have any shot at winning a general election, they need to have a consistent strategy that either solidifies their base, or transcends it. As times change and the Reagan personality fades into black, and he is remembered for the policies that he really stood for, the party will need to rethink just who they stand for. My hopes are that they fail to do this, so that Americans will at least get a good decade of marginal economic benefits (living wage anyone?), and an entrenchment of a much more egalitarian political culture.

But I defer to you - how did you view the California debate? What about this Reagan legacy? Is the party as fractured as people claim?

The Real Coherency of Ron Paul?

It appears Ron Paul's "war of all against all" is much less 'libertarian', and much more organized around racial lines than I had originally thought. Back in the early 90s, Paul was engaged in endorsing (at least tacitly) hate literature that targeted blacks, gays, and jews. Of course, Paul now says he knew nothing of the reports that bear his name, and claims he is not racist as any good presidential candidate must do. In fact, Ron Paul went so far to claim that "Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea". Someone should mention to Ron Paul that humans are incapable of being libertarians because they live in societies. Hayek's lunacy still reigns in the minds of the ignorant.

A light was cast on libertarian rhetoric today, one that ultimately illuminated the real Ron Paul that I speculated was bubbling under the surface in the last post. That so many who believe in freedom, human dignity and autonomy are swayed by the populism of this vicious old man is truly sad. I ask those who feel the desire to be standard bearers in Ron Paul's "revolution" to really think about what it is they want. What kind of society do you want, what kind of individual do you want to be? What values drive your worldview? If you connect the dots to form the kind of world that Ron Paul would like to see, at least according to his policy positions, you arrive at a picture that looks much more like George W. Bush than a soaring eagle.

On a lighter note, I wonder: if Ron Paul is so libertarian that he could never trust government to manage his money, how could he entrust his reputation to people he apparently vehemently opposes? Coherency or contradiction? You be the judge.

Yeah MMP - No, You Don't Know Me

Well, as usual, this post is coming much too late. But, better late than never, and at least I can use this moment to make a foolish prediction before the votes are tabulated. MMP will not pass in Ontario tonight, but I, ever the optimist, think it will garner between 51 and 55% of the vote, probably on the lower end of that range. The reasons for this are diffuse: anti-MMP media coverage in the urban local media, and a poorly timed and planned public awareness campaign on one hand, and a sense of real excitement by all marginalized groups (left and ultra-right) in Ontario that this is a chance to make a real change on the other. I still haven't decided whether or not MMP will gain a simple majority in each riding - I have my doubts about some of the rural ridings in Ontario, since, unlike with STV in BC in 2005, outlying ridings aren't likely to benefit with MMP. Probably it will fail on both super majority requirements, though will get closer than most pundits are predicting.

Anyway, I want to use this time to clear up two major issues that have been flying around about MMP, which, as of yet, I haven't heard anyone explain adequately. The first regards the increase or decrease in accountability with the new system, the second is about the 'democratic' nature of open-list PR.

First, MMP does not produce more 'accountability', a loaded word if I ever heard one. The current FPTP system blends two distinct political identities into a singly vote - namely, the individual or 'personal' candidate identity, and the party identity. It is extremely unclear in most cases to any analyst or politician just what we are voting for when we go to the polls. Many people know extremely little about their individual candidate's biography or accomplishments and instead rely on cues from their party affiliation. Some people disdain party politics altogether and vote solely on the candidate's merit. Still more know a little bit of both and in many cases face an internal struggle of what identity to vote for - person or party. Such was the case in the 2004 federal election where many extremely popular candidates were thrown out because of their Liberal party affiliation.

What MMP does produce is the distinction and integrity of the votes cast (a form of accountability I suppose) so that we can single out each aspect of a given candidate's identity and engage in a more nuanced and complex selection process. This is why many proponents rightfully claim it is a more 'democratic' system, since the electoral process pays much closer attention to our personal preferences as political subjects. Actually, I kind of lied. MMP, as a mixed system, does not truly separate our preferences into two distinct camps. Instead, it keeps the muddled camp of personal candidate and party, and then adds a third camp for just the party affiliation. A much better system, though Utopian and impracticable given the historical evolution of the party system in Canada, would be to disallow party affiliations for individual candidates at the local level, and maintain provincial (or federal) parties. In any event, MMP in its proposed form is clearly better at capturing the diversity of people's political preferences than FPTP, and goes some 0f the way (though not far) in resolving Charles Lindblom's classic dilemma (see The Market System).

The second point regards the selection process of the party list system. Proponents of MMP somewhat erroneously claim that the new electoral system will immediately bring more diversity in candidates (i.e.: women, visible minorities). This is false, since the proposal of the Citizen's Assembly, to the best of my knowledge (though I haven't checked officially), does not clearly stipulate how nominations to the list will occur, only that the list must be made public some time before the election. Now, most reasonable analysts note that the process is likely to be the same as the current party nomination process, which isn't very democratic. There is one slight difference however that could make a big impact: the public scrutiny function.

Currently, party nominations occur completely behind closed doors, and when the official procedures are followed, a select minority of the party elite get to be part of the selection process. When a candidate is finally revealed to the public, in most cases, we have no knowledge of the wrangling that happened behind the scenes - the public is presented with a single candidate, take them or leave them. Because this process happens in diffuse ridings, most electors do not pay attention to other non-high profile candidates in other ridings. Since the homogeneity that one so often finds within a party's candidates is primarily decentralized and local, with no direct mechanism for concerned citizens in Toronto to raise eyebrows at the candidate selected in Kenora, it makes fingering a party's racism and sexism extremely difficult.

The list system forces the party to put its cards, so to speak, on the table in terms of what it stands for. Since everyone in the province will eventually vote for the candidate list, there is more 'accountability' to voters to justify why the composition of that list is the way it is. There is also a direct interest for provincial and national media to scrutinize the party lists, since it becomes a provincial issue. Rarely do media institutions beyond the local or urban criticize the nominee process, except in a general way that leads party leaders to blush, say 'oops', and move on with their rejection of diversity. To be clear, there is nothing in the electoral system that guarantees this process becomes more accountable. This is a cultural issue as much as it is geographic one. But I would argue that the format of this electoral system makes it easier to force parties to respond substantively to these issues. The empirics from other countries, for the most part, support this argument as well.

So, a futile post perhaps (though not as intellectual excercize), but at least it will be ready the next time we have to vote for electoral reform. In the meantime, cast your vote in the spectacle we call democracy, and hold on for your life for the next four years. The likely outcome on both the ballot and electoral reform are not likely to bode well for anyone that I would like to be reading this post.