Palin and The Median Voter Theory

While many are blasting McCain's choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice President (visit today's huffingtonpost for a sample), I believe the choice was actually a smart strategic move. Both McCain and Obama are fighting for the votes of independents and undecideds. By selecting a female vice presidential candidate, McCain moves himself closer to Obama's "change" platform, and also creates a historical ticket of his own. Now, any voters who felt compelled to vote for Obama because of the groundbreaking nature of his candidacy may be tempted to do likewise for the McCain ticket. McCain's choice seems influenced by the median voter theory, which holds that in a two candidate race, the candidates should position themselves as closely as possible to each other on as many issues and factors as possible. This allows the race to be decided on "intangibles" such as "is he one of us" feelings.

Executive Privilege

The Bush administration has claimed executive privilege in response to a subpoena request from the House Judiciary committee. Members of the House committee are seeking testimony about the CIA leak that revealed Valerie's Plame's covert standing. Attorney General Micheal Muskasy advised Bush to claim privilege, stating "I am greatly concerned about the chilling effect that compliance with the committee's subpoena would have on future White House deliberations and White House cooperation with future Justice Department investigations." But the precise point of this subpoena is to create a chilling effect. There is some indication that members of the Bush Administration revealed Plame's identity as retribution for public comments unfavorable to the Bush administration made by Plame's husband, Joe Wilson. If this is the case, the oversight role of Congress should do everything in its power to prevent such a scenario from happening again. In United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court decision that affirmed the notion of executive privilege, the justices noted "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties." Political retaliation does not fall under the label of "performance of their manifold duties."
It is also worth noting that conservatives frequently assail the right to privacy as a made up right, not to be found in the Constitution. But executive privilege falls into the same category. Will there be an outcry from conservatives commentators over the Bush administration's loose interpretation of the Constitution?

Of Rights and Apes

The New York Times reports that the Spanish Parliament is about to take up a bill granting limited human rights to the great apes--chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas, and bonobos. The bill would prevent torture, including medical testing, and imprisonment of apes, as in circuses. Additionally, an ape may only be killed in self-defense. I for one am skeptical of the notion of inherent "human rights." All rights exist only through the real or implied contracts of the societies that we live in, and those contracts are subject to change or become void. But I am for the expansion of decency and compassion throughout our civilization. If the Spanish people have decided that it is a worthy endeavor to treat apes with some of the same dignities afforded to humans, I am all for it.

Telecoms, Rove, and The Rule of Law

Fast on the heels of the Democratically controlled Senate's capitulation on Bush's telecom immunity bill comes former Bush political guru Karl Rove's refusal to answer a subpoena. The House had summoned Rove to testify in a hearing about the dismissal of Justice Department lawyers, allegedly for political reasons. Rove, however, ignored the subpoena and offered instead to make a statement off the record and not under oath. Both actions indicate a surprising disdain for the rule of law and send a particularly disturbing message. The Bush Administration is setting the precedent that those in power are able to decide when and to what degree to follow the law. Such a principle is anathema to the idea of government by laws, not men. Even more disturbing is the Democrats complete lack of principle. Although some members of Congress have stood up for the rule of law--particularly Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin--far too many have done nothing to check the power of a lame duck president with atrocious approval ratings.

Iraq Withdrawal

In an earlier post, I detailed some of the demands the US made to the Iraqi government, including legal immunity and control of Iraqi airspace. However, it appears that the al-Maliki government is pushing back, calling for a withdrawal timetable and indicating that immunity and air control are unpalatable to the Iraqi people. Read the article here.

A True Senator

When the founders put together the American government, they made the senators up for reelection every six years, as opposed to four years for the president and two years for representatives. Why? Because the Senate was intended to be an august body, where wise and experienced men could rationally debate the issues, free from the shifting whims of the body politic. And yet, most senators today are concerned solely with their own reelection--witness the Democrats numerous votes on the Bush administration's war on terror legislation. No senator wants to be branded as "weak on terror," so we have many Democrats marching lockstep with the administration. Fortunately, there is Russ Feingold, Democrat from Wisconsin. Feingold was the lone senator to oppose the Patriot Act. And now, Feingold (along with Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd) has pledged to filibuster the telecom immunity bill working its way through the Senate. Regardless of what you think of Feingold's politics, it is refreshing to see at at least one senator standing on principle and forgoing the politically expedient decision.

Evolution Debate

Full disclosure: I am a hard-core Darwinist. I started studying Darwin's theories seriously in college, and came to conclude, to paraphrase an eminent biologist, "That nothing makes sense except in terms of evolution." So it is with particular antipathy that I see that a McCain vice president possibility, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, is on the record defending "intelligent design" theories as the "very best science." For those of you who haven't followed the debate, intelligent design is a creationist alternative to evolution. Advocates of the movement are determined to get god back into the classroom through the introduction of this spurious theory. Not one paper on intelligent design theory has made it into a peer reviewed biology journal. It is junk science of the highest degree, no better than astrology or phrenology. Intelligent design proponents argue that they are being discriminated against by the establishment, that evolutionists hold as tightly to their theory as creationists do to theirs, but this is flatly untrue. Any biologist who discovered a viable alternative to Darwinian evolution would usher in a true revolution, tantamount to Einstein's overthrow of Newtonian physics. Such a breakthrough would be embraced. Intelligent design is not such a breakthrough.

Obama Disappoints Again

In the wake of his decision to avoid debating John McCain in a series of town debates, Barack Obama now elects to forgo public financing of his campaign. Obama is the first candidate to do so since 1976 (when the system began), so I suppose that technically he is the "change" candidate. Not only did Obama renege on his pledge to accept public financing, but he is setting a poor political example. Yes, it's true that Obama opted out of the system because he has the ability to raise far more money via private donations, but that is not the point. Presidential elections should be entirely publicly financed. No corporate money, no lobbyist money, no two thousand dollar a plate dinners. Either continue the "$3 dollar system" in which a tax payer elects to contribute to the fund or simply appropriate the three dollars from every tax return filed. Furthermore, airtime on the major networks should be free--after all, the public owns the airwaves, not the networks. With such a system, the elected president will truly be a servant of the people because his campaign was financed by the people and the people alone. And not just his supporters or members of his own party, but a wide cross section of Americans. Currently, public financing makes approximately $85 million dollars available to each candidate. That is more than enough to run a presidential campaign.

Another Story That Must Not Be Ignored

The media barely covered the story about the release of the Senate's "Phase II" report on the administration's statements justifying the Iraq war. That report, if you hadn't heard, more or less indicated that Bush, Cheney, and Rice lied (that's right, lied) about the nature of intelligence concerning Iraq. Now comes the release of a report on the abuses at Guantanamo Bay. In it, the Army general who led the investigation states "there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes." I would think that this story would create a serious inquiry into the polices and practices of the Bush administration. But I fear that it will be buried by the 24 news cycle and quickly forgotten. What does that say about our citizens' interest in their democracy?

Change, or More of the Same?

Obama says he's the change candidate. He says he's tired of politics as usual. So why has his campaign rejected McCain's offer for 10 town hall style, unmoderated debates? I have always found the heavily scripted debates in the presidential campaign to be insufferable (why can't the candidates ask each other questions?). But McCain's proposal would allow the voters to really engage the candidates and also allow the candidates to spar with each other. Unfortunately, Obama's campaign, although initially enthusiastic about the prospect, has responded with a counter offer consisting of a paltry two debates. Obama appears to be the frontrunner and his campaign fears that putting McCain next to him on stage in a format that McCain is comfortable with can only help the senator from Arizona. So Obama, instead of giving the voters something new and different and in their best interests, is looking out for his interests. And that is not change, that is politics as usual.

Obama Monkey Doll

A company based in Utah has produced a doll representing Obama as a monkey in a suit. While the company claims the doll is a "fun and lovable" creation designed to help get young people involved in "the political process." I say it an overt sign of the deeply held racist sentiments in this country which Obama will be hard pressed to overcome come election day.

Worst Supreme Court Decision?

John McCain called the recent Supreme Court decision upholding habeas corpus "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." I'm sure many fans of the Supreme Court could point to a few other decisions, such as the Dred Scott case and Plessy v. Ferguson, that far outstrip Boumediene v. Bush. Whereas Plessy v. Ferguson was decided in direct contradiction of the 14th Amendment, Boumediene v. Bush upholds the Constitution, which clearly states that "writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except during a time of invasion or rebellion." Note that this right is enshrined in the Constitution proper, not in the Bill of Rights, which were later additions to the document. Such a prominent placement of the right most likely indicates the reverence the Founders held for the right. Simply put, there is no better path to tyranny than the suspension of habeas corpus.

Military Empire

According to a recent report, The U.S. is seeking to establish 58 military bases in Iraq, as well as rights to Iraqi airspace and the ever popular "immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors." Iraqi and even some American politicians seem reluctant to agree to such a deal and negotiations are described as "ongoing." The U.S. will likely maintain some sort of military presence in Iraq for years to come; currently, we have over 700 bases in some 130 countries worldwide.
I mention this because it dovetails nicely with a book I'm reading, "Lies My Teacher Told Me," by James Loewen. One of Loewen's interesting points is that American history is taught in such a sanitized way that it creates students who are unprepared to critically evaluate the world and America's place in it. For example, almost no mention is ever made of the U.S. military presence in so many countries (I wasn't aware of it until I read some Gore Vidal). My own feeling is that such distorted portrayals of American history have led to the bitter political climate we have today. At a young age, many students are exposed to stories that cast America as the "shining beacon" of the world. Historical events that contradict this image, such as our assassination attempts on Castro or our overthrow of democratically elected governments in order to further business interests, are left out of the textbooks. This romanticized image of America leads to a generation of citizens who believe America has not and never will do anything wrong. It also sets up a number of students for eventual disillusionment and cynicism about America after they learn of some of its darker dealings. This cleavage manifests itself in the vitriol between the left and the right, the "blame America first" crowd versus the jingoists.
A first step to healing this divide may be to present a more accurate version of American history to our next generation of youngsters.

McClellan and Clemens

When news of Roger Clemens "indiscretions" with an underage country music star came to light, some articles pointed out that Clemens' teammates were aware of his actions and that the unspoken rules of the clubhouse stipulated a gag order on the players' extracurricular activities. While I am not condoning such a policy, it is understandable and more important, does not cause harm to public at large. However, when members of our government engage in this sort of protective behavior, it does damage the public. Why is that so many members of the Bush administration, including George Tenet, John Ashcroft and now Scott McClellan, find it appropriate to voice their objections and concerns only after the fact? Is it some sort of fraternity house/gang mentality ("stop snitchin'" I believe is the vernacular)? I wonder what sort of information members of the government---employees of the people, mind you--are privy to, and what they keep from us. Would our voting habits differ? Would Kerry be president now if some of Bush's inner circle has spoken up sooner?
It would be refreshing to have actual people of integrity in office, people who believe their first loyalties are to the citizens of the country they serve, not their cronies and petty chieftains.

A Policy Proposal for Hillary

Hillary Clinton is making the argument that she is winning the popular vote and that the votes of Michigan and Florida must be counted. I for one feel that this is the worst sort of politicking, with Senator Clinton attempting to change the rules of the game only after she is losing. When the DNC made the decision to disqualify Michigan and Florida for violating party rules, Clinton had little to say, presumable because she thought she would seal up the nomination by Super Tuesday.
But if Senator Clinton is indeed sincere about her desire to have every vote counted, she should fight to change the way are presidents are elected. Although the electoral college system is enshrined in the Constitution and would be difficult to change, there is a simple way of fixing the system without tinkering with the Constitution (I believe a political scientist whose name escapes me proposed this idea. I found a reference to plan here with no credit assigned). Pass a law that requires members of the electoral college to cast their vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote. This would make the presidential campaign a truly national event and ensure that the winner of the office is truly the choice of a majority of voters.
Senator Clinton should work for this policy, either as President, Vice-President, or Senator. That is, if she truly believes that every vote counts.

Science, Religion, and the Public Sphere

A new survey finds that 16% of science teachers in the US are creationists, and roughly 12.5% of science teachers teach intelligent design as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species". This survey, mind you, is of public school teachers. I have no problem with a community of consenting adults deciding exactly how to live their lives--if a student wants to attend Oral Roberts University, then I say go for it (as a Darwinian thinker, I believe that strategies for living that are less successful will eventually die out). But what I do have a problem with is infiltration of religion--and in this case, blatant misinformation--into the public sphere.
I happened to watch the documentary "Jesus Camp" last night and it reminded me of philosopher Daniel Dennett's challenge to religion: teach children about all religions and then, after they are able to consider the advantages and disadvantages of each, let them pick which, if any, they want to follow. One wonders how strong a hold on our society religion would have if children were not indoctrinated with it at an early age.

Equal Protection

In a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that a voter approved ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. As the justices rightly stated, "an individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights." Such a ruling strikes at one of the most troubling problems with governance for me. On the one hand, I fully believe that the consent of the governed is the only legitimate basis for political power and further, that no one should have another person dictate to him or her what to do or how to live. On the other hand, democracy, as such, is no guarantee of justice or fairness and majority rule obviously leads to a number of offensive systems. What if the people of California, as is allowed by their state Constitution, hold an initiative to amend the Constitution and make gay marriage illegal? And what if a majority of voters support it? Then we would have a situation in which the process of democracy leads to a result that is sanctioned by a majority of voters but is reprehensible to anyone who believes in protections for the minority. Situations such as these lead many a political thinker down the path to what some call "enlightened dictatorship."

For All You Numbers Geeks

I came across in interesting blog the other day, www.fivethirtyeight.com. It's run by a statistician and avowed Obama supporter, but the analysis is not biased. Instead, the anonymous publisher of the site weights and aggregates other published polls, then runs the numbers 10,000 times to get a probabilistic take on election outcomes. His method was quite successful in predicting the results of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, with numbers more accurate than most of the "big" polls. On the site, there is an interesting model involving youth and minority turnout. You should check it out yourself, but the basic premise is that if Obama can increase significantly the youth and black turnout--supposedly his strength--he can trounce McCain in the general election. If he can't, if the turnout in 2008 mirrors the turnout in 2004, then Obama will likely lose the general election.

Does Power Corrupt?

Here in New York City, we've dealt recently with political scandals on the city, state, and federal level. Christine Quinn, speaker of the city council, claimed ignorance of a "slush fund" created by members to direct taxpayer monies to pet projects. Eliot Spitzer, former governor, famously resigned after being caught using a high priced prostitution ring. And now Representative Vito Fosella has been found to have fathered a child out of wedlock. It makes me wonder if the adage about power corrupting is true. Do politicians have a higher rate of criminal and unethical behavior, or are their transgressions simply more visible? And which direction is the causality? Does achieving a position of power make one more likely to flout the law? Or are the people who are more likely to run for office also those that are more likely to take advantage of their positions? Some studies suggest that among animals, occupying a position at the top of hierarchy leads to elevated hormone levels and increased physical prowess. Birds and apes at the top of the dominance ladder become more aggressive and physically intimidating, while those at the bottom are more passive. Could our very genes doom us to having corrupt leaders?

A Follow Up....

I came across a questionnaire published in the Boston Globe that details the candidates' positions on the limits of executive power. Obama, McCain, and Clinton all indicate that they believe the president must seek authorization (although not a declaration of war) from Congress. On another issue that I find most interesting, signing statements, McCain gives the most unequivocal answer: he "won't have signing" statements. Obama and Clinton both indicate a willingness to use them to "clarify" or "explain" laws, or do speak as to the Constitutionality of the law. Nowhere in the Constitution is the President granted the power to do any of these things.

An Issue I'd Like to See Discussed....

Many important questions regarding government and policy are never broached during presidential campaigns. While we quibble over trivial issues, serious ones are ignored. For example, every time I hear mention of the "war" in Iraq or the "war" in Afghanistan or a potential "war" in Iran, I shudder. The founders expressly placed the power of declaring war in the hands of the members of Congress. Why? Because the members of Congress are accountable to the people every two years (or at least, all of the representatives and one third of the senators are). The founders thought the members of Congress would be less willing to send citizens to war if they had to answer to the electorate in short order. But since World War II, U.S. presidents have usurped this power. Now, we have a situation in which Bush sends the troops to the war, the people indicate dissatisfaction with the policy, and the Congress, the branch most responsive to the people, is impotent. This situation could be avoided if the power of declaring war is placed back in the hands of Congress. Will any presidential candidate address this issue? I've sent an email to the Obama campaign and await his response. Similar emails to the Clinton and McCain campaigns are forthcoming.

Congressional Oversight

I consider myself fairly well read and informed about the issues of the day. But I missed this story last week and only caught it through the satirical website Ironic Times. It appears that John Conyers has threatened to subpoena members of Dick Cheney's office to testify about their deliberations over the torture issue. The lawyer for one of Cheney's aides, David Addington, claims that Congress lacks the authority to question members of the vice president's staff, in an apparent nod to Cheney's earlier argument that the vice president's office is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch. I guess that amidst all the stories about Obama's flag pin, Rev. Wright, Clinton's "testicular fortitude" and the gas tax, such a vital showdown over the very nature of our government isn't very newsworthy (the link to the story about the lawyer's claims is from the Guardian, a British paper).

Cinco de Mayo

Before you start downing Coronas with reckless abandon, check out this brief historical account of the meaning behind Cinco de Mayo. You may be surprised to see the links among this date, the new state of California, and the Civil War. Enjoy!

A Grim Prognosis

Two recent occurrences have me in a pessimistic mood. The first is the Sean Bell case. The second is the continuing furor surrounding the statements and attitudes of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. For those who don't know the deal, Sean Bell was killed by three undercover New York City police officers on his wedding day. Bell was at a strip club for his bachelor party, allegedly got involved in an altercation, and was gunned down by the officers who thought he was armed. Wright, meanwhile, has made a number of controversial statements, suggesting that god should damn America for its crimes and that the policies of the government were responsible for 9/11. What links these two events? For me, it is the wholly unbridgeable gulf between the people on either side of these issues. To some, the Bell slaying is the height of injustice, yet another case of unwarranted police aggression towards blacks. To others, what happened that night was tragic, yet justified. The officers did the best they could under the circumstances. And besides, Bell and his friends were 'thugs' with criminal records. Similarly, some see Wright's statements as indicative of a man who hates America and represents all that is wrong with the stereotypical angry black man. Others, though, understand where he is coming from and the anger he feels at the actions of the government.
Unfortunately, there is no Platonic justice or truth to be had. There is no way that those on opposite sides of this divide can be convinced through reflection or rational argument of the validity of their opponents' position. The sad fact is that while we are quick to become indignant at injustices we perceive to have perpetrated upon us, we have little empathy for those who accuse us of injustice towards them. Our self-centered and self-interested notions of truth and justice, it seems to me, doom us to a perpetual combativeness, a society that will always be divided into two camps. And so politics in its most base form will endure.

Some Numbers to Think About

A recent poll shows that 8% of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black man. Consider:

-it's been 143 years, 4 months, and a few days since ratification of the thirteenth amendment, which prohibited slavery. Mississippi, by the way, ratified the amendment in 1995
-it's been just under 54 years since the Supreme Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, which created the doctrine of "separate but equal." As late as 1963, the governor of Alabama (George Wallace) was blocking blacks from entering a state university
-whites make up 74% of the US population
-in 2004, Bush captured 62 million votes to Kerry's 59 million, winning by 2.4 percentage points
-recent polls have McCain at 45% and Obama at 46% in a hypothetical matchup

Given that it's been roughly seven generations since the end of slavery and two or three since the end of legal segregation, and given the razor thin margins likely to occur in the 2008 election, it may very well be that Obama is "unelectable" if Obama is likely to lose roughly 10% of white voters right off the bat (and that's a conservative estimate: people may be reluctant to tell a pollster their true feelings). It's sad to say, but institutionalized racism and bigotry is still too fresh in this country to have too much hope for a black presidency. Of course, I hope I'm wrong.

Military Media Complex

President Dwight D. Eisenhouser famously warned of the influence of the "military industrial complex" on the fortunes of America. And while his caveat has largely gone unnoticed and unheeded (witness the skyrocketing profits of military contractors), perhaps we citizens will take note of another pernicious partnering in modern government. Turns out the Pentagon mobilized an extensive team of pundits and analysts to sell the war and mislead the public. The media seemed to be an willing, if perhaps ignorant, accomplice. It should be no surprise that Fox news employed the largest number of propagandists. Read the article here.

Follow Up: What Do Voters Want

Check out this article, directly related to my previous post. Turns out the voter who asked about Obama's flag pin is concerned that Obama "takes everything too nonchalantly." According to this voter, Clinton has had too "struggle" for her gains, while Obama has had it easy. I'm not sure there is a tremendous difference in the backgrounds of Clinton and Obama. Both have had a ton of experiences that could reasonably qualify them as "elitists." But why should this matter? When have we, in history, elected a non-privileged individual to the presidency? We should dispense of this myth of the everyman president so we should focus on the issues. And, as I indicated in my earlier post, the media is culpable. Instead of running stories about how Obama or Kerry is an elite, why not feature some stories showing the elite history of politics in this country?

What Do Voters Care About?

I'm sure you saw the voter, who during last night's debate on ABC, asked why Obama did not wear a flag pin on his lapel. Why do voters care about such nonsense? I think it must be one of the following: (1) the voters are using 'cognitive shortcuts' to get a read on the candidates. Cognitive shortcuts allow voters to make inferences about candidates based on particular associations. Flag pin equals patriot. (2) the voters are truly interested in such information. I hope this isn't the case. But if so, such would be one of the flaws of democracy. (3) the voters, by and large, do not care about such issues, but the media accentuate and exacerbate these minor issues, thus making them into larger issues. I'm going with choice (3). Obviously, ABC had the ability to filter and select the questions presented. The media likes easy storylines and quick payoffs, to the detriment of our democracy.