grand new party on the horizon

Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam's new book, "Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream," has built itself some politico buzz thanks to opportune timing and a novel perspective on how to revive an ailing Republican party. A few people forwarded me David Brook's review of the book, which is certainly worth a read.

Brooks' review is about more than this specific book, but about the greater movement of "young and unpredictable rightward-leaning writers.
...
"These writers came of age as official conservatism slipped into decrepitude. Most of them were dismayed by what the Republican Party had become under Tom DeLay and seemed put off by the shock-jock rhetorical style of Ann Coulter. As a result, most have the conviction — which was rare in earlier generations — that something is fundamentally wrong with the right, and it needs to be fixed."

Brooks points specifically to Megan McArdle and Will Wilkinson - two of my favorite bloggers - as examples of the "new" Republican archetype.

Brooks believes that these writers will fill the conservative "intellectual vacuum" that currently hampers the Republicans:

"Liberals have a way to address these inequalities — the creation of a Denmark-style welfare state. Conservatives have offered almost nothing. The G.O.P. has lost contact with its own working-class base. This is the intellectual vacuum that “Grand New Party” seeks to fill."

What will the basis of the the Grand New Party? Douthat and Salam write, "It's hard-work conservatism, which uses government to increase the odds that self-discipline and effort will pay off."

Sounds excellent to me, and I think this would be a good thing for Democrats as well (though elections would be harder to win...) Will it happen? I doubt we'll say a Republican revolution, but perhaps we'll see a change of face and leadership more in tune with this Grand New Party. Read more!

obama v mccain: round one

Good ol' election season/year/century/millenia. It's been awhile since I've had any election-related material, because there really hasn't been much to say. We are now starting to see a bit more on the policy end from McCain and Obama (and Barr?)

Most recently, both candidates managed to whip up some economic blog buzz -- response has been mixed. Barry Obama has demonstrated he has no problem spending money, promising $15 billion a year for 10 years on energy technology, $60 billion for high-speed railways and improved energy grids, increased spending on basic research, subsidized high-speed internet infrastructure, and $4,000 a year in tuition for students who later enter public services.

A lot of that makes sense in the abstract (except the last part; why, praytell, am I subsidizing a future DMV employee over someone who will be working harder in a more productive job that is almost definitely more useful to society?)

Then again, so did the Big Dig. The question is never simply about the proposed end (better transit, SURE!), but also about the means. To Barry's benefit, he does seem to understand that these programs need to work with Joe Market rather than slit his throat and steal his life.

He compares his energy investment program to venture capital, designed to support the "middle stage" between innovation and commercialization. "You have this point in time when things haven't quite taken off yet and still entail huge risks."

Megan McArdle isn't quite as impressed with Obama's "infrastructure plan which will undoubtedly do approximately nothing to increase the rate of economic growth (though it probably won't much harm it, either)." She does add that his economic plan includes "a cause near and dear to my heart: simplifying and lowering the corporate income tax."

So Dani Rodrik is in heaven, and McArdle thinks Obama "has the right sort of left-wing ideas; he wants to model America on Denmark, not Germany or Italy."

McArdle's probably not far off; Sweden's Prime Minister himself said that Obama's economic and tax policies were in step with his homeland.

Meanwhile, the Economist's heart is a patter after Obama said: "There are some who believe that we must try to turn back the clock on this new world; that the only chance to maintain our living standards is to build a fortress around America; to stop trading with other countries, shut down immigration, and rely on old industries. I disagree. Not only is it impossible to turn back the tide of globalization, but efforts to do so can make us worse off."

Why so much Obama and so little McCain in this economic discussion? Well, the Economist recalls McCain doing his best Hillary impression: "I trust the people and not the so-called economists to give the American people a little relief."

Yikes.

All that said, let us not deify Barry yet. Obama's decision to forgo public campaign funding makes sense given his war chest, but it also unequivocally violates the commitment he made to go the public funding path last year with McCain. Ain't no real way to sell this as anything more than political opportunism. Obamaniacs will surely shrug this off ("Everyone does it"), but, of course, Barry has built his fervent following by making an obscene amount of people believe that he will never sell out his values like the "Washington establishment."

In this case, Obama fought the Washington Establishment by making a pledge a year in advance to show to voters that he would defend the only hope for elections to stave off corruption and improper influence... and then got a glimpse of the promise land and grabbed the cash and ran.

Perhaps it's an exception -- certainly, not reason enough to not vote for him -- but reason enough to put an end to these ridiculous conceptions of Barry. Seeing very smart people giggling and swooning like 12-year old girls at an NSYNC concert is a bit troubling. Read more!

the man in mccain's corner

US News had a sitdown with McCain advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who appears to have the Senator's ear when it comes to the economy. Holtz-Eakin appears to be very sensible, and put's a plus back in that corner. One of the things that I've heard Holtz-Eakin mention is that McCain would be looking to cut spending not only in domestic programs, but also in the military. I'm not sure if he would do it, but McCain is one of the only politicians with the weight and the rebel streak to actually cut very politically-connected military spending waste. Read more!

Two more points for Obama

Well, I came across a pair of stories today that made Obama a little less of a wild card to me. I insist on remaining a bit circumspect about all things Obama, as his campaign (and indeed his entire national political career) has been designed to make each prospective voter feel as if he is really in their camp.

From The Smart Set, Obama may just be a wig; that would work for me. The piece argues that Obama is like Lincoln, in that "he wants to be an outflanker, not a synthesizer or a moderate in the typical senses of those terms." The article includes some Obama passages in support of its argument that certainly make me smile.

"Republicans are fighting the last war, the war they waged and won in the eighties, while Democrats are forced to fight a rearguard action, defending the New Deal programs of the thirties. Neither strategy will work anymore."

Structurally, it's another Lincoln moment in Obama's eyes. One in which the necessary but nevertheless bold move is to outflank the existing political options. And it's a Lincoln moment in terms of content as well. Because the currently available option, as Obama sees it, is the old mix of Hamiltonian and Whiggish early Republicanism that got brushed aside in the tumultuous 20th century. "We can be guided," Obama says, "by Lincoln's simple maxim: that we will do collectively, through our government, only those things that we cannot do as well or at all individually and privately."

Jackpot. I certainly love anyone who wants to take a page from Hamilton's book, and the Lincoln maxim is an excellent guide from which to govern.

In other news, Colin Powell likes him, and what Powell seems to like everyone, he offered a nugget that resonated with me:

"With Sen. Obama, he didn't have a lot of experience running a presidential campaign, did he? But he seems to know how to organize a task and he seems to know how to apply resources to a problem at hand. So that gives me some indication that (with) his inexperience in foreign affairs or domestic affairs, he may be someone who can learn quickly."

This isn't a new idea; Obama has made this argument before, but coming out of Powell's mouth, I'm giving it a bit more consideration. Surely, the biggest organization that any of these candidates has headed is their campaign for President, itself. Campaign demands winning broad-based support for what the candidate is selling -- himself. In a year, he or she will be selling policy, but it's really not that different.

So prospective voters who might be worried how an inexperienced Prez might handle health care or education reform should be heartened by Obama's remarkable job with his campaign. Still, I do think there is a difference between foreign policy and domestic politics.

At first, I had a hard time pinpointing what separates the spheres, but I think I've got it. As Tyler Cowen pointed out in the past, the President has a lot more influence on foreign policy than domestic; I would add that because of this, the President tends to enter the executive office with his own formed perceptions of how the world works and how the US should respond, and counsels with advisors who reflect his positions.

If his foreign policy notions don't fly, then American foreign policy crashes (Bush, Carter, Clinton, Reagan; all those terrific blunders in recent history). With regards to foreign policy, the President is the executor of American policy. He's the one that pushes the country to go to/leave Somalia, Lebanon, Iraq, etc. This is different than running a campaign or guiding policy discussion.

Foreign policy is a unique beast; you can have excellent judgment, but in your smallest failure to recognize how the "game" works, you can jeopardize the worthiest of objectives. Experience, both failing and succeeding, I do think is a big help.

What do you look for in a candidate?

I've been looking at: Advisors, political/professional track record (including the campaign itself), endorsements, campaign "promises" (more as a guide to what issues they will try to tackle)

What am I missing? Where should I place more weight? Read more!

What does the future hold for the US?

Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey recently gave his thoughts on how the world will change in the near future.What would be animating the actions of an Obama presidency? Here's a peak at what might become the Obama Doctrine.

What's typically neglected in these [exporting-democracy] arguments is the simple insight that democracy does not fill stomachs, alleviate malaria, or protect neighborhoods from marauding bands of militiamen. Democracy, in other words, is valuable to people insofar as it allows them first to meet their basic needs. It is much harder to provide that sense of dignity than to hold an election in Baghdad or Gaza and declare oneself shocked when illiberal forces triumph. "Look at why the baddies win these elections," Power says. "It's because [populations are] living in climates of fear." U.S. policy, she continues, should be "about meeting people where they're at. Their fears of going hungry, or of the thug on the street. That's the swamp that needs draining. If we're to compete with extremism, we have to be able to provide these things that we're not [providing]."

This is why, Obama's advisers argue, national security depends in large part on dignity promotion. Without it, the U.S. will never be able to destroy al-Qaeda. Extremists will forever be able to demagogue conditions of misery, making continued U.S. involvement in asymmetric warfare an increasingly counterproductive exercise -- because killing one terrorist creates five more in his place. "It's about attacking pools of potential terrorism around the globe," Gration says. "Look at Africa, with 900 million people, half of whom are under 18. I'm concerned that unless you start creating jobs and livelihoods we will have real big problems on our hands in ten to fifteen years."

Read more!

Who is John McCain?

I've written a bit about what excites/scares me about Obama, and recently came across an article that gives a similar treatment for McCain.

The prevalent view of McCain is that he is a generally conservative figure with a few maverick stances and an unwavering authenticity. ... Actually, this assessment gets McCain almost totally backward. He has diverged wildly and repeatedly from conservative orthodoxy, but he has also reinvented himself so completely that it has become nearly impossible to figure out what he really believes.
...
It is no exaggeration to say that, during this crucial period [of the Bush administration], McCain was the most effective advocate of the Democratic agenda in Washington. In health care, McCain co-sponsored, with John Edwards and Ted Kennedy, a patients' bill of rights. He joined Chuck Schumer to sponsor one bill allowing the re-importation of prescription drugs and another permitting wider sale of generic alternatives.

All these measures were fiercely contested by the health care industry and, consequently, by Bush and the GOP leadership. On the environment, he sponsored with John Kerry a bill raising automobile fuel-efficiency standards and another bill with Joe Lieberman imposing a cap-and-trade regime on carbon emissions. He was also one of six Republicans to vote against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

McCain teamed with Carl Levin on bills closing down tax shelters, forbidding accounting firms from selling products to the firms they audited, and requiring businesses that gave out stock options as compensation to reveal the cost to their stockholders. These measures were bitterly opposed by big business and faced opposition not only from virtually the whole of the GOP but even from many Democrats as well.

McCain voted against the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. He co-sponsored bills to close the gun-show loophole, expand AmeriCorps, and federalize airport security. All these things set him against nearly the entire Republican Party
....

[And like Obama...]

Determining how McCain would act as president has thus become a highly sophisticated exercise in figuring out whom he's misleading and why. Nearly everyone can find something to like in McCain. Read more!

Election: Republicans in an Obama cabinet?

According to "Barnstorming Obama plans to pick Republicans for cabinet..."
Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war, and Richard Lugar, leader of the Republicans on the Senate foreign relations committee.

This is a great general election tactic in Obama's attempt to peal away moderate support of McCain, especially since someone like Hagel could be a VP choice for McCain.

Optimistically, it's a trial balloon. It would go along with Obama's play to be a modern-day Lincoln, reaching across the aisle to build a broad alliance.

We shall see.
Read more!

Election: Bloomberg breaks down the bull

I greatly enjoy Mike Bloomberg.

I’m Not Running for President, but ...
Op-Ed by Mayor Bloomberg
WATCHING the 2008 presidential campaign, you sometimes get the feeling that the candidates — smart, all of them — must know better. They must know we can’t fix our economy and create jobs by isolating America from global trade. They must know that we can’t fix our immigration problems with border security alone. They must know that we can’t fix our schools without holding teachers, principals and parents accountable for results. They must know that fighting global warming is not a costless challenge. And they must know that we can’t keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals unless we crack down on the black market for them.

Unfortunately, "it is unlikely that anyone in the fly-over states would've voted for the short, Jewish, north-east socially-lenient divorcé who thinks he's too good for public housing (and by public housing I mean Gracie Mansion)" ("Bloomberg News," Economist's Democracy in America.)

Also, I'd like to point out that Bloomberg is one of those who many would characterize as uber-rich elitists, out-of-touch with America, who bought his office because there's too much money being thrown around in elections. I'll take the billionaire who clearly isn't in it for the money, and has been so successful in all of his endeavors that he amassed a massive economic empire. Don't we want on him our team? One thing to keep in mind with election reform, if you take out the money, we'll likely get politicians who are instead depending on party support -- trading ambitious entrepreneurs for middle managers.

More Bloombergs. Fewer party warriors. Read more!

More Election Stuff: A little perspective

One of the reasons I love reading Tyler Cowen's Marginal Revolution is Tyler's rare ability to get beyond politics and provide a greater context to a multitude of issues. In a recent New York Times article entitled "It's an Election, Not a Revolution," Tyler examines the 2008 election in light of American democracy.

To put it simply, the public this year will probably not vote itself into a much better or even much different economic policy. To be sure, the next president — whoever he or she may be — may well extend health care coverage to more Americans. But most of the country’s economic problems won’t be solved at the voting booth. It is already too late to stop an economic downturn. Health care costs will keep rising, no matter who becomes president or which party controls Congress. China is now a bigger carbon polluter than the United States, so don’t expect a tax or cap-and-trade rules to solve global warming, even if American measures are very stringent — and they probably won’t be, because higher home heating bills are not a vote winner. A Democratic president may propose more spending on social services, but most of the federal budget is on automatic pilot. Furthermore, even if a Republican president wanted to cut back on such mandates, the bulk of them are here to stay.
...
Rather than being cynics, we should be realists. Democracy is reasonably good at some things: pushing scoundrels out of office, checking their worst excesses by requiring openness, and simply giving large numbers of people the feeling of having a voice. Democracy is not nearly as good at others: holding politicians accountable for their economic promises or translating the preferences of intellectuals into public policy.

THAT might sound pessimistic, but it’s not. Many Americans will be living longer, finding new sources of learning and recreation, creating more rewarding jobs, striking up new loves and friendships, and, yes, earning more money. Just don’t expect most of these gains to come out of the voting booth or, for that matter, Washington. And if you’re still worrying about how to vote, I have two pieces of advice. First, spend your time studying foreign policy, where the president has more direct power, and the choice of a candidate makes a much bigger difference.

On a related note, I'd recommend looking into the writings of Bryan Caplan. First, a solid piece on how democracy can go wrong. Second, an Economist article ("Vote for me, dimwit") on his book, Myth of the Rational Voter:

Many political scientists think this does not matter because of a phenomenon called the "miracle of aggregation" or, more poetically, the "wisdom of crowds". If ignorant voters vote randomly, the candidate who wins a majority of well-informed voters will win. The principle yields good results in other fields. On "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?", another quiz show, the answer most popular with the studio audience is correct 91% of the time. Financial markets, too, show how a huge number of guesses, aggregated, can value a stock or bond more accurately than any individual expert could.

But Mr Caplan says that politics is different because ignorant voters do not vote randomly. Instead, he identifies four biases that prompt voters systematically to demand policies that make them worse off. First, people do not understand how the pursuit of private profits often yields public benefits: they have an anti-market bias. Second, they underestimate the benefits of interactions with foreigners: they have an anti-foreign bias. Third, they equate prosperity with employment rather than production: Mr Caplan calls this the "make-work bias". Finally, they tend to think economic conditions are worse than they are, a bias towards pessimism.

And now, back to the circus.
Read more!

What would Obama's military look like?

Along with economics, one of my major considerations in the upcoming election will be each candidate's foreign policy approach, which, by extension, includes the military.

Military fears 'unknown quantity'
Members of Washington's military and defense establishment are expressing trepidation about Sen. Barack Obama, as the Illinois senator comes closer to winning the Democratic presidential nomination and leads in national polls to become commander in chief. But his backers, including a former Air Force chief of staff, say the rookie senator believes in a strong military, and with it, a larger Army and Marine Corps.
...
Lawrence Korb, a military analyst at the Center for American Progress and one of a dozen or so national security advisers to the Obama campaign, rebutted the lack-of-experience complaint, saying neither President Bush nor John F. Kennedy could claim an extensive national security background before entering the White House.
...
But Loren Thompson, who runs the Lexington Institute and stays in touch with defense industry executives, said Mr. Obama is difficult to categorize.

"His views are all over the map depending on whether its nuclear proliferation, energy independence or the global war on terror," he said. "How many liberals say they are going to bomb al Qaeda in Pakistan no matter whether the Pakistanis like it or not? He's much harder to pin down."

The Kennedy comparison doesn't quite inspire confidence in me, given his early blunders (though it's better than a Carter comparison, which haunts me). But I think the final selection reveals the real mystery of what Obama would do. He is indeed hard to pin down. Read more!

Men Behind the Man: Obamanauts

The Audacity of Data explores the wonks Obama has brought on board. With election pandering in full effect, I'm reminded to focus on what truly defined the Presidency of George W. -- the men behind the man. (Hat tip to MarginalRevolution.com)

Excerpts:

"Like Bill Clinton in 1992, Obama's campaign boasts a cadre of credentialed achievers. Intellectually, however, the Obamanauts couldn't be more different. Clinton delighted in surrounding himself with big-think public intellectuals--like economics commentator Robert Reich and political philosopher Bill Galston. You'd be hard-pressed to find a political philosopher in Obama's inner wonk-dom. His is dominated by a group of first-rate economists, beginning with Goolsbee, one of the profession's most respected tax experts. A Harvard economist named Jeff Liebman has been influential in helping Obama think through budget and retirement issues; another, David Cutler, helped shape his views on health care. Goolsbee, in particular, is an almost unprecedented figure in Democratic politics: an academic economist with a top campaign position and the candidate's ear."

...

Bill Clinton favored what you might call a "deductive" approach--an all- encompassing, almost revolutionary idea, out of which fell lots of smaller proposals. In a series of speeches in 1991, he unveiled the product of all his late-night bull-sessions with people like Reich and Galston, which he called "The New Covenant." The old model held that government had certain unconditional obligations to its citizens. Under Clinton's reimagining, many of these obligations would disappear. The government would help only those who fulfilled their responsibilities as parents, workers, and taxpayers. For instance, the government would no longer provide unlimited welfare benefits. It would instead require recipients to work after two years of assistance.

For their part, the Obama wonks tend to be inductive--working piecemeal from a series of real-world observations. One typical Goolsbee brainchild is something called an automatic tax return. The idea is that, if you had no tax deductions or freelance income the previous year, the IRS would send you a tax return that was already filled out. As long as you accepted the government's accounting, you could just sign it and mail it back. Goolsbee estimates this small innovation could save hundreds of millions of man-hours spent filling out tax forms, and billions of dollars in tax-preparation fees."

Here's a separate piece on Goolsbee, which has some interesting insights, though I am not completely convinced it was written by an impartial, undecided journalist.

Finally, I am already tired of hearing Ralph Nader talk. Regardless of his politics, I am convinced that every step he takes into the political ring is powered by his megalomania. I only wish Pat Buchanan was campaigning so we could have crazy people on both sides to balance each other out. Bloomberg made a good decision to stand on the sideline, given the quality of the presumptive candidates; Nader -- not so much. Read more!