Skip to content

Category: politics

Published on Leave a comment on Let’s All Give Advice to Barack Obama

Senator Barack Obama's announcement that he is considering a run for the White House in 2008 has sparked some interesting discussion and a lot of advice. First, over to Ezra Klein:

There's a real danger here for the left who, so long out of power, are ready to jump on whichever train looks likeliest to pull into the White House on time. That may (or may not) be a good strategy for returning to power. But throwing your lot in with the smoothest talker and hoping for the best once he achieves power is a terrible method for building a movement, or popularizing ideas. The left needs to set up incentives so presidential contenders to pledge fealty to their priorities -- their support should be contingent on ideological agreement, and should never precede it. As other have remarked, when David Brooks and Joe Klein both throw their weight behind a putatively "liberal' cause or candidate, smart leftists will look for the catch.

The statement I've put in bold is right on the money, if the objective is to build a movement that sustains itself over a number of national elections. And it seems like it's a bit too early for any contender to make such pledges.

I'm less impressed with the remarks about David Brooks and Joe Klein--you win elections by building coalitions. Why push them away? The same sentiment is evident in Bob Herbert's column today:

The giddiness surrounding the Obama phenomenon seems to be an old-fashioned mixture of fun, excitement and a great deal of hope. His smile is electric, and when he laughs people tend to laugh with him. He’s the kind of politician who makes people feel good.

But the giddiness is crying out for a reality check. There’s a reason why so many Republicans are saying nice things about Mr. Obama, and urging him to run. They would like nothing more than for the Democrats to nominate a candidate in 2008 who has a very slender résumé, very little experience in national politics, hardly any in foreign policy — and who also happens to be black.

The Republicans may be in deep trouble, but they believe they could pretty easily put together a ticket that would chew up Barack Obama in 2008.

My feeling is that Senator Obama may well be the real deal. If I were advising him, I would tell him not to move too fast. With a few more years in the Senate, possibly with a powerful committee chairmanship if the Democrats take control, he could build a formidable record and develop the kind of toughness and savvy that are essential in the ugly and brutal combat of a presidential campaign.

There's something good here, and something silly. The good point is the part about a limited track record at the national level being susceptible to challenge. That's actually what the political process is supposed to challenge. The silly part is the notion that sticking around in the Senate is the way to fix that. Outsourced to Senator Durbin (via Frank Rich's column):

There’s no reason to rush that decision now, but it’s a no-brainer. Of course he should run, assuming his family is on the same page. He’s 45, not 30, and his slender résumé in public office (which also includes seven years as a state senator) should be no more of an impediment to him than it was to the White House’s current occupant. As his Illinois colleague Dick Durbin told The Chicago Tribune last week, “I said to him, ‘Do you really think sticking around the Senate for four more years and casting a thousand more votes will make you more qualified for president?’ ” Instead, such added experience is more likely to transform an unusually eloquent writer, speaker and public servant into another windbag like Joe Biden.

Exactly. There has been no one since JFK to move from the Senate to the Presidency. Every President since has either been a current or former Vice President or a governor. In this era, there needs to be some record of achievement (of whatever quality) in the executive branch of a government in order to campaign successfully for President. Look at John Kerry's bid for President in 2004--three terms in the Senate and essentially nothing to show for it during the campaign.

So my advice to Obama would be to make a spirited campaign in 2008, talking about big issues and running it squeaky clean. If it works in the primaries, keep it up. If it doesn't, settle for VP nominee in 2008 if that's offered (hard to imagine it wouldn't be). If that doesn't work out, he can get back in the game in 2012 or 2016, but it's not clear he would be in any better shape, just a longer serving Senator. The lesson from history would be to challenge for the governorship of Illinois in 2010 rather than another term in the Senate.

Published on Leave a comment on Voter Fraud

I confess that I really cannot feel much sympathy for those criticizing a new Arizona law that requires proof of citizenship in order to register. Really, if we were designing a voting system from scratch today, would we design it without such a requirement? If only citizens are supposed to vote, then the most effective way to make sure that happens is to let only citizens register and have ballots.

As usual, we get the human interest angle in the first paragraph of the New York Times story:

Eva Charlene Steele, a recent transplant from Missouri, has no driver’s license or other form of state identification. So after voting all her adult life, Mrs. Steele will not be voting in November because of an Arizona law that requires proof of citizenship to register.

“I have mixed emotions,” said Mrs. Steele, 57, who uses a wheelchair and lives in a small room in an assisted-living center. “I could see where you would want to keep people who don’t belong in the country from voting, but there has to be an easier way.”

And, as usual, we find that easier way in the last few paragraphs of the story:

Deborah Lopez, a Democratic political consultant in Phoenix, said that the once simple matter of registering voters at a rally or a fiesta now required labor-intensive door-to-door visits.

It was during a registration drive at her assisted-living center, Desert Palms, that Mrs. Steele learned she could not vote. Disabled, with a son, an Army staff sergeant, on active duty, she left Missouri recently to stay with her brother and subsequently moved into the center.

Lacking a driver’s license, she could get a new state identity card, but she said she had neither the $12 to pay for it nor, because she uses a wheelchair, the transportation to pick it up.

“It makes me a little angry because my son is fighting now in Iraq for others to have the right to vote, and I can’t,” said Mrs. Steele, who submitted an affidavit in the suit against the Arizona law.

So all this is because $12 and a ride to the town hall are somehow too complicated to arrange for Mrs. Steele, even though folks like Ms. Lopez routinely handle such logisitics to get people to the polls on Election Day. And because of that, the state of Arizona is supposed to allow for the possibility of voter fraud on a large scale. Ridiculous.

Published on Leave a comment on The Connecticut Primary Is a Win

Not just for Ned Lamont, who edged out incumbent Senator Joe Lieberman, but for the democratic process.

  • Lamont should represent the Democrats of Connecticut in the general election. The Democratic voters have spoken.
  • Ranking officials in the national Democratic Party should endorse him (as they are eagerly doing) as the winner of the primary. What's the point of the Party if they do otherwise?
  • Lieberman, if he wants to (and he apparently does), should file papers to run as an Independent in that general election. He's got a record to run on. Why not let all of the voters of Connecticut, whom he has served for three terms, have the chance to vote on his bid to continue?

Daniel Gross notes that "Lieberman did quite well in blue-collar, working-class redoubts like Bridgeport, East Hartford, Norwich, and Waterbury." If he can hold them, and add to them the Indpendent and Republican neighbors of the Democrats in the higher-income areas that went for Lamont, then I like his chances. Given the three choices, if I lived in CT and held my same political views, I'd opt for Lieberman over the other two. See this report (H/T Joe) for similar optimism about Lieberman's chances.

It is interesting to think about what it would be like for Lieberman in the Senate if he wins in November as an Independent. I presume that he will still caucus with the Democrats, but would they strip him of his leadership positions for breaking with the Party (for example, as Ranking Member of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee)? Or would the Republicans seek to lure him to their caucus with the promise of some committee chairmanship, if they retain control of the Senate?

It should make for a fascinating campaign season.

Published on Leave a comment on Hank Paulson for Treasury Secretary

The President has nominated Hank Paulson, CEO of Goldman Sachs, to replace John Snow as Secretary of the Treasury. In what seems to be a surprise (via Greg Mankiw) to some, Paulson agreed to be nominated. The Wall Street Journal compiled a number of quotes from Paulson over the past 6 years that indicate congruence with the Bush administration's economic policies on taxes and trade.

There are a number of things that caught my attention in the news stories. Among them:

1) Let's hear it for the home team.

Paulson is a member of Dartmouth's Class of 1960. Newly confirmed OMB Director Rob Portman is Class of 1978. I direct a Public Policy Center here--it's great to have alumni who are willing to devote themselves to public policy for some part of their professional careers and who achieve prominence. Nothing motivates students as much as an example. Consider Paulson's statement about his experience right out of business school:

When I graduated from business school in 1970, I was fortunate to begin my career in Washington -- first in the Pentagon, and later in the White House as a liaison to the Treasury and Commerce Departments. For a young man in his early 20's, it was a wonderful experience being assigned to the team that analyzed the ailing Lockheed Corp. for then Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard, and then meeting with Cabinet officers and reporting to the President on tax policy issues. -- Investment Dealers Digest, May 22, 2000

Working in the public sector is not just good -- it's good for you.

2) Who says you need to major in Economics?

Paulson majored in English Literature. The lack of an economics degree at the undergraduate level did not seem to encumber his admission to Harvard Business School or his subsequent success on Wall Street. (This reminded me of the experience of Tim Geithner, President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank and Dartmouth Class of 1983, who majored in Government and Asian Studies.) The message to students: use your time as an undergraduate to study what interests you. The rest will take care of itself.

3) File this under "You've got to be kidding me ..."

The Washington Post story linked above contains this statement:

Bush then fanned speculation that he would tap his close friend, former commerce secretary Donald L. Evans, by taking Evans with him to Camp David for the Memorial Day weekend.

Let's hope it was a small fan, not waved particularly vigorously.

4) The Job Description

The story continues with:

But with Paulson on board, Bush believes he will have a messenger with great credibility on Wall Street who can help first deliver the message that the economy is fundamentally strong despite public misgivings and second push through a refreshed economic agenda in 2007 if Republicans hold onto both houses of Congress in the fall midterm elections.

So the Treasury Secretary is a "messenger?" More of the same later in the article:

Yet while White House officials respected Snow, they believed he was not always the most effective spokesman for their policies.

Bush aides have been enormously frustrated that the economy is growing strongly -- gross domestic product was up 5.3 percent in the first quarter -- and yet polls show that the public gives the president no credit.

Maybe because they know that it partially compensates for the 1.7 percent growth rate in the fourth quarter of 2005? Messaging to Capitol Hill or the public is a nice talent to have, but the soundness of the economic agenda is the Treasury Secretary's main responsibility. As Brad DeLong put it:

Henry Paulson is not somebody who is going to passively watch economic policy made by political operatives in the White House. This could be very good news[.]

In the absence of strong appointments at Treasury, OMB, and CEA, this is what would happen to economic policy in any administration. Paulson looks like a sound appointment all around. Let's hope it contributes to solid economic policy in the years to come.

Published on Leave a comment on Netroots Growing on Limited Acreage?

Via Powerline, I am directed to "Hillary Clinton: Too Much of a Clinton Democrat?" by Markos Moulitsas of The Daily Kos in Sunday's Washington Post. There were two elements of his non-endorsement that struck me as very relevant to 2008.

The first is that the more left-wing elements of the Democratic base don't seem to be all that concerned about how far to the right they can extend their coalition. I got some personal experience with this when the Nonpartisan Social Security plan was released--the most extreme criticism was directed at Jeff Liebman, the co-author who had served in the Clinton administration, for being too far to the right. Here's an example from the op-ed:

Dean lost, but the point was made. No longer would D.C. insiders impose their candidates on us without our input; those of us in the netroots could demand a say in our political fortunes. Today, however, Hillary Clinton seems unable to recognize this new reality. She seems ill-equipped to tap into the Net-energized wing of her party (or perhaps is simply uninterested in doing so) and incapable of appealing to this newly mobilized swath of voters. She may be the establishment's choice, but real power in the party has shifted.

I don't know if the second sentence is an accurate statement. Kos got to vote for John Kerry in a losing candidacy. What success is he claiming?

But let's suppose that Kos is right in the last statement, that the real power in the party has shifted. That means he gets to dictate the Democrats' agenda, but that doesn't mean the Democrats win in 2008. That only happens if the candidate he backs can capture enough of the national vote, the one that includes the Independents and Republicans. The Clinton strategy is to start in the middle (the muddle?) and move to the extreme only as needed to pick up the win. It worked for Bill. Perhaps Hillary thinks it can work for her, too. Kos offers no strategy for capturing a majority. He seems disdainful of even having to try. That doesn't seem like a recipe for electoral success.

The second element of his op-ed that stands out is his accurate assessment of the danger of nominating candidates who cannot run on their recent accomplishments. He writes:

Yet staying away from big ideas seems to come naturally to Hillary Clinton. Perhaps first lady Clinton was so scarred by her failed health-care reform in the early 1990s that now Sen. Clinton shows no proclivity for real leadership as a lawmaker.

Afraid to offend, she has limited her policy proposals to minor, symbolic issues -- such as co-sponsoring legislation to ban flag burning. She doesn't have a single memorable policy or legislative accomplishment to her name. Meanwhile, she remains behind the curve or downright incoherent on pressing issues such as the war in Iraq.

In 2004, John Kerry could not point to a single, substantive piece of legislation that existed because of his leadership, after a legislative career of nearly two decades. Had there not been such a gaping hole in his resume, I think he would have run a more successful campaign. I don't see how a one-and-a-third term Senator Clinton stands a better chance on this dimension. It is not surprising that sitting members of the House and Senate are very infrequently elected to the Presidency. Governors, with records as heads of state-level executive branches, make for more compelling candidates.

So I think Kos is correct about the need to nominate someone with a record to run on, but I don't think he is doing the Democrats any favors by stipulating that the record has to be one that (merely) appeals to his part of the political spectrum.

Published on Leave a comment on Bolten To Replace Card as Chief of Staff

The President announced today that Josh Bolten would replace Andy Card as White House chief of staff. This strikes me as a very good move. The administration achieved its major policy successes with Bolten in the White House as deputy chief of staff. He was underutilized at OMB, given the insufficiently ambitious deficit reduction goals set by the President. (Yes, that's a euphemism.)

Of all the people I met while working in the Executive Office of the President, there were three who impressed me most with their ability to understand complicated policy issues very quickly. Bolten was one. Another was Keith Hennessey, deputy director of the National Economic Council. The other was David Hobbs, director of legislative affairs, who has since moved on to lobbying. So Bush has a very smart guy running the show.

This leaves the directorship of OMB vacant. I wouldn't be surprised if Joel Kaplan, the current deputy director, were promoted from the inside.

Published on Leave a comment on Representative Artur Davis (D-AL)

Yesterday, the Rockefeller Center closed out its winter term public programs with a lecture by Artur Davis (D-AL). It was the second installment of our New Voices in Washington series, in which we bring emerging leaders from the Capitol to campus to interact with Dartmouth students. He spoke about the lack of progress that's been made on big issues over the last two decades and admonished the students to play an active role in overcoming that stalemate.

Congressman Davis represents the 7th District in Alabama, which includes Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, Selma, and much of the rest of central western Alabama. It will be interesting to see whether he can eventually win a statewide election, whether for governor or senator, from his home state.

Read the coverage in The Dartmouth here.

Published on Leave a comment on Democrats and Alito

On Thursday, the Rockefeller Center was pleased to welcome Nan Aron, President of the Alliance for Justice to speak about "The Politics of Judicial Selection and the Future of the Supreme Court." With the Alito hearings concluded but the vote not yet taken, we timed this one right. (See this article in The Dartmouth for news coverage.) It was a pleasure to meet her and to hear her ideas. As much as I disagree with most of them, I certainly respect the influence she has in the judicial nomination and confirmation process. She's a fine example for our students of entrepreneurship in the public sector.

As I listened to her presentation, I couldn't help but be reminded of the old quote about the 1972 election, in which a McGovern supporter says, "I can't believe Nixon won. I don't know anyone who voted for him." Her assertions that the people of the country would prefer that Alito not be confirmed just don't square with the observations we can make about the process:

  1. Judge Alito fits the profile of the nominee that we expect from President Bush.

  2. John Kerry did not win the 2004 election.

  3. Polling data suggest support for Alito's confirmation that is in keeping with the 2004 election results.

  4. Democratic Senators in states that could go either way in the next elections are voting for Alito's confirmation, like Byrd (WV), Johnson (SD), Nelson (NE).

(h/t to Powerline for the links in the last two points)

Wisely, I think, she did not advise the Democrats to filibuster. We leave that for those Democrats who don't expect to face strong competition for re-election. And it's fine for them, but it will be rough on their fellow Democrats if they go ahead with it. I cannot say it any better (and I certainly say it with less credibility) than Andrew Seal, writing at The Little Green Blog:

Just when will it be ok to say that the liberals from the generation of the 1960s have no idea what they're doing and never did?

When can it be said that Democrats are the minority party because we never tried to be the majority, post-New Deal? We did everything to win short of convince 50.1% of America that our ideals are worth voting for. And now we wonder why they don't.

When can it be said that some of the ways we fought for the liberties we now strive to protect created the very attacks we now attempt to repel?

When can it be said that a NASCAR dad can be trusted as much as a college professor to know what's good for himself?

When can it be said that if we do not have faith in the American people, we cannot expect or demand their faith in us?

When can it be said with conviction that America will overcome the challenges and threats—domestic and foreign—that it faces, as it always has? That Americans as citizens have an unshakeable bedrock of civic commitment and democratic ideals that we, as Democrats, can and must rely on rather than try to circumvent?

The second point is particularly important--in electoral politics, all that matters is winning a majority in a majority of the contests. The Senators contemplating a filibuster would do well to remember that they could elevate their station from "Ranking Minority Member" of their committees if they made it easier for enough of their fellow Democrats to win their Senate elections, too.

Published on Leave a comment on On Czars and Viceroys

There is excellent exposition on troubling diction to be found at the blog of frequent commenter Nathan Kaufman. His conclusion:

The U.S. should look to words and ideas from U.S. history as guides. The U.S. should not borrow ideas from fallen societies or less-than-ideal situations. I don't know about you... but I want to live in a country with governors, mayors, presidents, elected representatives, competition, freedom and opportunity. A country with "czars" and "viceroys" is not appealing to me.

Read the whole thing.

Blogsearch Technorati