From the Archives: Assessing the US Election (5 September)

Flashback: This column originally ran on Watching America on our big-sibling site Libertas, just after the Party Conventions. Two months later, I think it stands up well. My only regret is that I didn't place that bet on Obama.

With the conclusion of the Party Conventions, we can finally get to the real campaignin'. Convenient then that the folks at the British-American Business Council asked me for a 500-word reading of who might be walking into the White House next January. In the end, fascination and a bit of obsession led to 1500.

In a nutshell: The first major clues will come next week after the big polling organisations use the Labor Day weekend to get a post-convention snapshot of the electorate. 

But Barack Obama, even at 9-4 on, is looking good value for a bet.

THIS IS THE DEMOCRATS’ ELECTION TO LOSE

Of course, the Republicans do not have the advantage of incumbency, as President Bush could not run again under American law. Equally important, it is a hard task to hand over to a successor --- since 1945, a Party has only retained the White House for a 3^rd term on 1 of 6 occasions. (George H.W. Bush was able to follow Ronald Reagan in 1989.) Given the unpopularity of the Bush Administration, the task is even tougher this time. That is why President Bush and his close advisors have been tucked away in the broom cupboards by the McCain campaign, with the President making a lacklustre eight-minute appearance on video and Vice-President Cheney holding court in Georgia --- not the American Georgia but the one halfway around the world.

The issues are running against the Republicans. Iraq has turned from immediate victory to extended, tiring nightmare to a conflict that most Americans would like to forget; the War on Terror hasn’t captured Osama; and Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East, and now the conflict in the Caucasus are confusing issues with no easy resolutions. Far more importantly, the US economy is faltering into possible recession, accompanied by a series of symbolic “crises”. Voters are worried about their pensions, their mortgages, and rising prices for food and energy.

A colleague captured the moment in May when he spoke for many comfortably middle-class neighbours: “We’re worried that our 411Ks (pension funds) have halved in value.”

In 2004 Bush offset accusations of economic mismanagement by playing the “national security” card. Even so, he barely made it back to the White House, surviving by the margin of a few thousand votes in Ohio. Four years later, waving the red flag of warning against terrorists and tyrants is an even riskier proposition.

SNATCHING DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY?

The Democratic campaign, however, has failed to capitalise on its opportunity; indeed, by mid-August, the Obama campaign was looking more than a bit jittery.

Obama, as an politician, as an orator, and, for some, as a visionary, played a blinder at the start of 2008. He captured the imagination of many current voters with his concept of “change”; more importantly, he brought in the largest number of new voters in recent history.

Then Hillary Clinton, seeing her grasp on the Democratic nomination slip away, counter-attacked. Using a pernicious tactic of guilt by association (and sneakily inserting the question of African-American “reliability”), she labelled Obama an extremist because of his church leader, Jeremiah Wright, and political activists such as the former ‘60s radical William Ayers. When Obama blocked this with an outstanding speech on race, she switched to the theme of her representation of the “working-class” (read whites) with their love of guns, church, and community.

Obama slipped up, notably through an off-the-record talk in San Francisco noting that said love of guns and church could be distractions from economic worries. What was needed was a full presentation of those economic worries and some ideas for dealing with this, but Obama --- short on policy as opposed to vision --- didn’t deliver.

While this didn’t deny the nomination to the Senator of Illinois, it offered a liferaft to the Republicans: “culture wars”.

RELEASE THE CULTURAL HOUNDS

Throughout US history, it has been an electoral tactic and a feature of political life to hold up the threat of the “un-American”. Since the 1960s and especially in the last twenty years, that “un-American” tag has been slapped on certain issues, such as immigration and, after 9-11, “national security”. Those issues, however, may not prove long-term vote-winners. The Republicans, for example, have relegated immigration as a campaign theme in the face of a sizeable backlash against anti-immigrant rhetoric and a very sizeable Hispanic-American vote. And, in contrast, to recent campaigns, they are no longer bashing “gay rights” and even the possibility of same-sex marriage.

So the culture war is one best fought against caricatures: “angry leftists” who would support enemy governments and terrorists, “extremists” like outspoken feminists and African-American activists, and “elitist liberals”. It is this war that underlay both the choice of Sarah Palin as the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee and her acceptance speech, which mobilised the Republican Convention, on 3 September. While unsubtly trying the tactic of a woman will vote for a woman, the Republicans can also position Palin as the small-town Mom who is “one of us”. This in turn means she can cut loose on those who not “part of us”, the working-class, church-loving folk of America.

WILL IT WORK IN PEORIA? PROBABLY NOT

The Democrats yet again failed to slam the door on this Republican strategy. Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention was great on style, which in turn gave a significant “bounce” both in polls and in registration of voters, but short on an approach to economic and social issues. Failing to even note the economic gorilla in the room, the Federal budget deficit, he relied on general platitudes about taxing fat cats (while cutting taxes for the small business and working man) and making American health care and education the best in the world.

But, with the Palin strategy, the Republicans have probably handed back this gift. If the Democrats have failed to put forth key issues, McCain will not be able to avoid them. Palin’s importance, after the press gets over the beauty-queen, Hockey Mom novelty, lies in her political stances. She’s staunchly anti-abortion, for the teaching of creationism, very much for guns, and sceptical of environment and energy-control measures to the point where she denies that global warming is a man-made phenomenon.

This will all come out, Simply put, elections are not won by appealing to the activist edges of American politics, which is often your base Party support, but to the centre. George W. Bush made that play in 2000, even as Vice President Cheney hovered behind him, with the spin of “compassionate conservatism”.

The hope for the Republicans is that McCain could balance Palin by putting forth his own centrist position. Indeed, in style, he did so in his acceptance of the Republican nomination with a low-key speech calling for an end to partisan rancour. However, he did not do so on issues. Absent was any reference to his earlier stance that climate change must be addressed. Absent was his centrist position on an acceptance, rather than a stigmatising, of immigration. Absent was his now-distant call for an end to US torture of enemy suspects.

And absent was any semblance of an economic strategy. Of course, that’s because there is no easy fix to the mess --- national and global --- that has been stirred up since 2001, but McCain has also been brutally honest about his own weakness in grasping and dealing with economic concepts.

Which brings out the curiousity in McCain’s speech. Far from praising the Bush Administration, he came to slay it. His speech was an effective dismissal of President Bush for his failure to bring together the Republican Party and “America”. So, he said, I can be the guy to heal the divisions.

McCain and Palin, the “outsiders”, running against “Washington insiders” who include their current Party leaders? Palin the red-meat-huntin’-chewin’-spittin’ activist alongside McCain the maverick moderator?

In a campaign where the key issues cannot be addressed (by the Republicans) and apparently will not be addressed (by the Democrats), I think it’s a gamble that fails.

DOING THE MATHS

The saving grace in evaluating the curiosities of the campaign is that the maths, if not the US electoral system, are much simpler.

Of the 50 US states, 34 (as well as the District of Columbia) are pretty much “locks” for one candidate or the other. That in turn means Obama has a grip on 183 of the 270 electoral votes needed for victory; McCain has 142.

Obama’s lead seems secure in four states (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon) which the Democrats carried in 2004 and one (Iowa) which they lost. That’s another 55 electoral votes, for a total of 238. The possible slip-ups are in Michigan (17 votes), which has been a tighter race than the Democratic victories in the last two elections (but where Obama’s lead has been increasing), and in New Hampshire (4 votes).

What does this mean? If McCain cannot pull Michigan or New Hampshire into his column, then the Republicans have to avoid any unexpected surprises (keep an eye on Missouri). They not only have to hold the “Big Two” that put Bush into office both in 2000 and 2004 --- Florida (27 votes) and Ohio (20) --- but also almost all of the following: Nevada (5), Colorado (9), New Mexico (5), Virginia (13), and North Carolina (15).

Blue State Iran

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has congratulated Barack Obama on Tuesday's victory. In a letter mercifully much shorter than the 18 page missive he sent to Bush in 2006, Ahmadinejad implores Obama to "leave a good name behind for yourself":

People expect an immediate and clear response to the pressure for fundamental change in the American government's policies, both foreign and domestic. This is the desire of all the world's nations and of the American nation as well, and it should be the objective and basis of all your future government's programs and actions.

...

In the sensitive Middle East region, in particular, the expectation is that the unjust actions of the past 60 years will give way to a policy encouraging full rights for all nations, especially the oppressed nations of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The really interesting part for me is when the Iranian President confesses that, "Iran would welcome major, fair and real changes, in policies and actions, especially in this region." What's to stop Obama taking taking his advice? The world wants to believe that Obama's ready to move away from Bush's hawkish policies, and Obama has more political capital to spend than any recent US president. Suggestion- in January Obama takes Ahmadinejad at face value and promises 'major, fair and real changes, in policies and actions' in the region, in exchange for a halt to Iranian nuclear development. He'll be making those sorts of promises anyway- why not put them to good use in Iran?

Great Election Moments: The Genius who is Bill Kristol

Just in case Bill Kristol --- Weekly Standard mastermind, New York Times columnnist --- continues the "Sarah in 2012" crusade:

"If [Hillary Clinton] gets a race against John Edwards and Barack Obama, she's going to be the nominee. Gore is the only threat to her ... Barack Obama is not going to beat Hillary Clinton in a single democratic primary. I'll predict that right now."

William Kristol, Fox News Sunday, December 17, 2006

Obama's Surprise Number One Fan: Silvio Berlusconi

In the "You Couldn't Make It Up" file:

ITALY'S BERLUSCONI HAILS "SUNTANNED" OBAMA

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi gave an enthusiastic, if unconventional, welcome on Thursday to the election of Barack Obama, citing among his attributes youth, good looks and a "suntan."

Speaking at a joint news conference with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow, the 72-year-old media tycoon also said Obama's election to the White House had been "hailed by world public opinion as the arrival of a messiah."

"I will try to help relations between Russia and the United States where a new generation has come to power, and I don't see problems for Medvedev to establish good relations with Obama who is also handsome, young and suntanned," he said.

Berlusconi, who himself sports a year-round tan, is famed in diplomatic circles for making sometimes inappropriate quips.

On his first meeting with Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen in 2002, Berlusconi complimented him with the words: "Rasmussen is not only a great colleague, he's also the best-looking prime minister in Europe."

He added: "He's so good looking, I'm even thinking of introducing him to my wife."

He sparked a minor diplomatic incident in 2005 by suggesting he had wooed Finnish President Tarja Halonen to ensure her backing for Italy to host the European Food Safety Authority.

"I had to use all my playboy tactics, even if they have not been used for some time," he said, prompting Helsinki to call in the Italian ambassador to explain the comments.

Obama's State of the Union Message: An Advance Copy

'Publius' in London indulges in a bit of serious speculation:

Advisers to Barack Obama are concerned that there will be little time to prepare the vital State of the Union message, so an early draft has been prepared. We are privy to its content. Naturally, the speech may be entirely different:

Madam Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, distinguished citizens and my fellow Americans: Every year, by law and by custom, we meet here to consider the state of the union. This year we gather in this chamber, deeply aware of the challenges we face, both foreign and domestic.

Habitually, the President announces that the state of the union is strong. I hope that when I deliver this message in 2010, I shall be in a position to confirm such strength. In all honesty, I cannot do so this year. Despite the majorities enjoyed by Democrats in these chambers, it has to be said that the Union is deeply divided and has been so for many years. My administration hopes to change these divisions so all our citizens, black or white or Hispanic, rich or poor, young or old, gay or straight, feel part of a United States again.

We live in a global world, something that all Americans need to understand. All over the world, people are now interdependent. We can no longer take an isolationist stance in our domestic and foreign politics. It doesn’t work.

Abroad, we have been challenged in Georgia, Afghanistan and Pakistan, our occupation of Iraq is not welcomed by the international community, and our alliances have been weakened through our arrogant attitudes to leadership for the past eight years.

Domestically, we have many crises facing us. We have placed a band-aid on our financial markets but our economy is as weak as it has been since the 1930s. We have a national debt which is almost beyond redemption and we must bring it within bounds now if future generations of Americans are not to suffer economic blight. We trade in a global market. We have to be ready to challenge our global competitors by using our brains. We have the best technology but our goods are expensive. We must find ways to compete and win.

We have so many other issues to face. We have to prepare for the potential consequences of global warming, caused by our own indiscriminate use of our part of the planet. American healthcare has become a scandal of international proportions. How, in 2009, can it be right that 50 million of our citizens do not have affordable access to medical treatment, a human right offered in all other countries in the West?

Americans have faced dark days before. Using our ingenuity, know-how, willingness to work and sheer strength of character, we have won through. I am determined we shall do so now but we will need a new attitude to politics. No longer can the executive branch seek to dictate, nor will it, despite our majorities in Congress. And no longer can we afford delays when Congress blocks necessary legislation for political purposes.

A new wind is blowing through Washington, one of cooperation, not confrontation and one where blue riband committees comprised of our best minds from the worlds of politics, business, the non-profit sector and academia will look at new initiatives, sacrificing partisan political ideology for the common good. It is time America walked away from the “me society” and returned to the “we society.” This is not socialism. It is simple decency.

Let me put some flesh on these bones. In terms of foreign affairs, we no longer enjoy unipolarity, nor do we have the right to impose American-style democracy on parts of the world that are not ready for it. Soon, Secretary of State Gore will begin talks with the Iraqi government to agree the terms of withdrawal of all western troops from that country. He will also enter into discussions with the Afghan government for better support but with a view to a withdrawal of our troops as soon as practicable. These countries will receive material assistance from us and, hopefully, our allies but ultimately Iraq and Afghanistan must fight for their own right to self-determination. Secretary Gore will also embark on an initiative to shore up our many alliances by indicating that an era of listening has replaced one of dictat.

I am announcing tonight a new policy on our war on terrorism. No longer will we be simply “tough on terrorism and its causes”. Instead, we will become smarter about it. We will use our considerable assets and ingenuity to defeat this enemy. Next week, I will announce the members of a new bi-partisan committee who will consider how the Homeland Security agencies can be best administered. The large bureaucracy which now exists is too cumbersome and, possibly, unable to respond quickly enough to threats to our security.

Domestically, we have so many serious problems to face that my hoped for middle class tax cut may have to be put on hold. My administration continues to look at the position closely and I have no abandoned the idea. However, there are problems in executing this policy. President Bill Clinton, my Democratic predecessor in the White House, famously announced in his first State of the Union message, “you play the cards your dealt”. We have a national debt of $11.3 trillion dollars. That is some $5,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. For every dollar we collect in federal taxation, we spend 80 cents just to pay interest on the national debt. Put simply, only 20 cents in the dollar is used to pay for all federal expenditure on services for our people. Little wonder we are unable to pay down the debt.

My prime economic concern is for us to attack and reduce the national debt. If we do not do so, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will curse us for the inheritance we give them. Next week, I shall announce the membership of a non-partisan task force to put forward solutions to this problem. I will ask them to consider a levy, which will, no doubt, be called a wealth tax by my political opponents, upon those who have benefited from Wall Street’s excesses under the previous administration. I will ask all Americans, whose net worth exceeds $10 million, to pay 2% of that excess to a fund which will be designated and ring-fenced for national debt reduction. Bearing in mind that prudent investors achieve growth well in excess of 2% annually, this should be no hardship. Former Treasury Secretary Paulson, whose personal wealth is estimated at $600 million, would pay a levy of $5.9 million. Such a sum would hardly interfere with his way of life.

Over the past eight years, many large corporations have benefited from DC “pork” in the form of tax breaks. Often the tax breaks have not been used for reinvestment and employment but instead have been drawn in dividends for shareholders, which is an improper use of federal money. So, I will ask the task force to consider imposing a windfall tax on those corporations who have used the tax breaks to line the pockets of their investors. Such windfall tax will be ring-fenced to pay down the national debt.

Other taxation measures will follow. I will do my best to free up as much of working people’s personal income as possible so they can determine their own lives but not at the sacrifice of vital programmes like defence, social security, health and education. At the same time, Americans cannot think these programmes are sacrosanct. Changes may have to be made but I pledge that I will discuss the changes with you and listen to what you say. Be prepared for a new attitude, where my administration will seek to be smarter than previous administrations in coping with problems.

In particular, we will get smarter on global warming. Last September, former Secretary of State Baker was asked how a new president should deal with this most serious of environmental issues. His response: “The president should lead on new in initiatives without interfering with the American way of life.” In other words, do nothing. I cannot and will not sit on my hands. To those who say, “wait, the science is not proved”, I say if and when the science is proved, it will be too late. I hope soon to announce the dates for an international conference whose principal aim will be to develop the Kyoto protocols in a more meaningful way. I know what I am announcing will go hard in Michigan and other heavy industrial states but I will be looking for legislation to reduce carbon emissions within the USA by 30% by the year 2015 and 50% by 2020. And I will find tax breaks to help industries invest in smarter production methods. In the last analysis, if we are to leave a healthy planet for our children and grandchildren, we have no choice. I am determined to persuade my Chinese, Russian and Indian counterparts to adopt similar targets. Yes, this may seem naïve but consider what may be lost if we and our counterparts do not lead on global warming.

I will be asking Congress to consider a new Criminal Justice plan. It cannot be right that more than one per cent of our citizens are in jail, many on three-strikes laws where the crimes committed did not involve violence. I do not seek to tread on the toes of states rights but we need a better, smarter attitude to crime. Just being tough on it doesn’t work.

Healthcare needs my administration’s urgent attention. I do not know yet if we can come up with an acceptable, universal healthcare plan for all our citizens which will not bankrupt us. My predecessor’s economic failures have limited my ability to afford change in this area. Certainly, I do not envisage a system like Great Britain’s where service at the point of delivery is free. A system like that in France is attractive where use of the health system is often accompanied by a contribution from the user. Any new system will require huge initial investment. Before the summer, membership of another non-partisan committee will be announced, with the remit that they report within twelve months on the universal healthcare plan best suited for the United States.

Finally, I must voice my serious concern at the state of our country’s education standards. Most of our teachers are hard-working people. It is the system that hurts. We need a root and branch investigation of what has gone wrong in our high schools. My administration will consider the best way forward for our youngsters. This is not a case for a blue riband committee. Instead our leadership is needed so that we can equip our kids to compete in all areas of a global world. By this time next year, I will report our progress.

There are many other areas of our lives which could use government help. The elderly, infants and the disabled could all use a helping hand from government. I say “helping hand”, not “hand-out”. We will not dole out welfare indiscriminately. But we will not see the poor and needy go without when government helps the wealthy of Wall Street retain their way of life.

In the 1930s, President Hoover praised “rugged individualism”, the ability of the individual to stand on his own two feet in face of extreme hardship. Since the 1970s, the emphasis on individualism has gone too far. It cannot be right that CEOs receive millions and millions of dollars for their work, and often their failures, when middle class Americans are earning less in real terms than thirty years ago. Our society has changed from the “We Society” to the “Me Society” and if I am a force for change, it is this that I will concentrate on.

I know it is custom at the end of this address to invoke the almighty. I believe he is watching us but I am struck with the saying that God helps those who help themselves. We have serious, life-threatening issues to resolve. I reach out to both sides of the aisle of this august body and to those outside the Washington beltway to join with us and get to work to put a broken country back together so that, this time next year, I can announce our union is stronger than now. As my fictional predecessor Josiah Bartlet would have said, "break’s over".