Parts to Wholes: the Socionomic Systems Nexus

Our last post (Party on Grasshopper: Digging Deeper....into the Policy Agendi) laid out a perspective on a comprehensive strategic policy agendii that covered Foreign, Economic and Domestic/Social Policy and related them to some over-riding principles. The goal was only partly to suggest specifics - it was also to provide a blueprint and checklist for your own thinking and to show how all the moving pieces fit together. We took our own best shot at the "right answers" of course but are more than willing for you to take yours. That said there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip - or as a famous German statesman once pointed out if you can't stand the sight of blood but want to enjoy the results don't go inside the sausage factory. In other words no matter what our best intentions on Policy nothing will change unless we understand how things get translated. The key factors that control the results are Policy, Players, Position and Power. After the break we're going to take a deeper dive, again, and get a little abstract on you, again, but sometimes a picture or headline is worth a thousand graphics and arm-waving so let's shoot for a little motivation. Since the last major post several friends and I have had a running exchange on "CHANGE" and one of them put it very nicely - "Perhaps only an independently wealthy President can achieve his policy goals", talking about why a decent national energy policy has been available and frozen in limbo since '01. Of the major policy issues we outline there are none them not resolvable, IOHO, and most with straight-forward and availble knowledge, resources and capabilities. So why ain't nuttin gettin done, Yogi ? Consider the following headlines:

Call for Change Ignored, Levees Remain Patchy Few of a presidential panel’s recommendations after the Midwest’s devastating flood in 1993 were implemented.

Did Bank of America Write the Housing Bailout Bill?  ." I don't understand why a realistic bill can't be hammered together. It should reflect the following realities:... It is not the taxpayers responsibility to bailout borrowers who are in over their heads, or lenders that made bad loans. How hard can that be?

Economic Scene: High Medicare Costs, Courtesy of Congress  Based on a pilot program, the price of walkers, delivery and setup included, will fall to about $80. Now, would you like to guess how the equipment makers feel about this?

Reading those headlines/excerpts perhaps it's clear why the opening cartoon makes so much sense or why we started with "Institutional Re-engineering" as the sine qu non, the fundamental starting point without which we'll continue to remove both our feet at the shoulder or higher, as the critical initial point of our Domestic Agendii blueprint. After the break we'll dissect the whole problem in some more detail but consider the accompanying chart, which summarizes, some major policy problems that we've cheerfully been ignoring until the current stage of near-terminal feasturation has set in. BtW - this and other charts are part of a dloadable Powerpoint slideshow you can open and save. Please feel free to do so and share it around as widely as you like - better yet, mail it to your political representatives. Politics of Change: Strategic Agenda vs Interests  

Assessing Where We're At

Let's start by taking a look at where we're at, have been and might/should be with regard to the major policy dimensions. Again, of course, IOHO. Feel free to disagree, dispute and fill it in any 'ol way you want. But fill it in - or come up with a reasonable alternative. If we address these issues and move forward on them we'll be in good shape. If we don't...well. The upper right compare each of the three areas with each other while the other elements break each down into the major components we're arguing need to be addressed. Think of this as the dashboard for our policy control center.

From Policy to Action

The next chart takes those high-level rankings and breaks them out so you can see where we're at and the next level we ought to shoot for. But it also introduces the first stage of reality - you can't just wave a magic wand and, like King Canute, substitute wishes for fishes or wave the tide back. Instead for each area you have to decide what specific actions, resources, etc. etc. are required and available. And most likely make some hard choices in trading off all that we'd like with what we can accomplish given the level of capacities available. But that's a key beauty of this approach - we find out what's required, who's ox is gored and that those tradeoffs are. Rather than let decisions be made blindly in backroom vacuum. 

From Policy to Pragmatics: the 4P's

That's only the first level of practicalities. The real ground truth comes from understanding who the key Players are, what their Positions are - that is where their interests, public statements and private concerns lie, and what Power (clout, influence,baksheesh,...) are. And what kind of resources they have available to influence policy and implementation. For each one of Barry and John-boys simple-minded public statements the reality of what'll happen depends on a 4P analysis of each major issue. Conversely if you think something is the right thing to do you can judge the gap between likelihoods and your own preferences by understanding these gaps and requirements.

Nothing Is So Difficult

Change is not easy and history is more the story of people, organizations and cultures that refused to change in the face of necessities to do so. As Jared Diamon pointed out the Vikings on Greenland died out because the lifestyles and technologies they brought from home were wildly inappropriate to the ecology and resources available. Yet in a similar environment the Eskimos did and continue to prosper. One can make the argument that the fall of the last Chinese Imperial Dynasty was thru their refusal to adapt and adopt - something modern China is well on the way to rectifying. The other thing the 4P analysis does for us is to measure the gap between where we're at and where we need to be and couple that with a specification of the folks most likely to defend the old way of doing things. The real problem is that the bigger the gap the faster the resistence mounts. And there's nothing new under the Sun - as the quote from Machiavelli - a widely mis-understood political philosopher points out.

Go back to the last chart in the first section - we repeat there's no major policy issue we're facing that a) is not addressable, b) some pretty good blueprints aren't in place, c) (given proper tradeoffs) the capability isn't available and  d) for which the primary obstacle has been our short-sighted choices. And decide whether the game's worth the candles to fix - or relax and party on Grasshopper ! 

Posted by dblwyo at 01:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This pretty well speaks with itself though you have to study the components...having seen a number of political cartoons lambesting the notion of offshore drilling and other reasonable alternatives to freezing in the dark because the SUV's out-of-gas and we have no money because it is offshore...:)

 And please don't consider this as replacing the immediately prior post - rather consider it a graphic supplement. The Manga Appendix as it were. If nothing else my sister the artist ought to give me brownie points for extending the notion of collage to political commentary, right ?

Posted by dblwyo at 08:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Like we argued in the last post we're anticipating a shift to more emphasis on policy and a tad less on pizazzaroni, depending on what we the voters ask for. At least so we hope and anticipate given the seriousness of the multiple challenges that have come home to roost. In sharing that post with several friends there was general agreement and a couple of constant themes in feedback. One was Barry supporters wouldn't cut the slack for John-boy they gave their own guy and visa versa - sobeit. May the past man win. Another and stronger one was for more depth on policy - a challenge we've actually been building up to with prior deep dives on particular issues, particularly economics. That said our primary goal here is to take another turn of the crank and break down the Principles/Strategies/Categories to the next level of detail. A third was the objection, a reasonable and accurate one, that no voter is going to dissect things this way. Quite true and rational - people spend more time on picking a car than a President because it matters more,more immediately and they control the whole decision rather than being a minuscule part. Yet wrong in another way. People, at least IOHO, judge the status of these issues by the surface symptoms they see and experience combined with the inputs from friends, neighbors and commentators they trust. And at the end of the day they'll look to the candidate they think will do best on these issues as they can best judge it - even if not using analysis worthy of the Kennedy Skul. Yet strangely enough not only do we have to live with this collective wisdom but over the course of time the people do tend to converge on a collective judgment that's relatively sophisticated, accurate and deep. Strange isn't it how socio-biology works itself out ? Anyway just as a reminder the opening graphic was our attempt to capture the key policy issues taken all together. While we laid out what we thought was a balanced strawman proposal in priority order, given how things work in reality and the challenges we face, the template is as important as the specifics. The intent was for you to use the blueprint to build your own house if you chose, with our suggestions as a starter kit. Though we're prepared to defend the specifics of course as being the only sensible strategy available to us :). That said let's capture the fundamental challenge facing us less abstractly.

'nuff said ? We thought so though the excerpts after the break start with some prior posts on why shooting ourselves in both feet around the kneecap continues to be an inherent structural problem. Back to that reality problem-facing thing again Pogo. BtW - just for the record - when you vote for a solution, or the candidate who proposes it, that's based on short-term fixes that serve your own special interests and presume that water runs uphill when legislated you get your own slot at the trough. Oink, oink, oink...

Like we said the central concern will be the Economy followed by Defense and Foreign Policy and then Domestic policy. That's based on our best judgment not of voters wants but their needs. However the way the dependencies work the sine qua non of a stable and safe nation is a secure defense coupled with a competent foreign policy. That then sets the stage for the next fundamental which is a healthy and growing economy - which is the penultimate requirement for any social policy debate to be material. If you can't afford it you can't afford it. A combat medic calls it Triage. Then we can talk about Domestic policy and perform the same sort of trade-off darwinian filtrations. Fortunately or not there are linkages and inter-dependencies.

Foreign Policy 

Despite what you may here the US hasn't just been influential it has been the architect and prime move of the post-WW2 world. The basic system design with the UN, World Bank, IMF, GATT/WTO, even the progenitors of the EU were all creations of US policy. Not to mention the Marshall Plan or the recovery and development of Germany, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. And let's be real - it wasn't entirely disinterested nor should it have been. When a national decision maker is going to spend the national treasure and citizen's lives he has a fundamental obligation to allocate those resources in the best interests of his country. It just so happens that our best interests are served by supporting a stable, peaceful, law-aligning and progressive international regime. Nonetheless the world is changing and we need to change with it and help instigate the necessary adaptive evolution of a modified world system. We've talked before about why that's important in a series on the State-of-the-World and the nature of good governance (Peace, Stability and Prosperity: the Nature of Good Government) so we'll leave it there for your reference.

Economic Policy

Something we probably need to re-visit but have spent considerable time and investigation on on several prior posts - a few of which are referenced below. The fundamental requirement is Innovation - which is the major driver of new jobs, economic growth and national wealth. In the short-term we're facing a major economic downturn triggered by breakdowns and malfeasant behavior in the real estate and financial markets as well as just plain old-fashioned greed, stupidities and illegal behavior. There are no clean hands. So in the next two years we've got to fix the breakage, keep the economy from tanking as much as possible and start laying the groundwork for the future. Among other things the boulder that kills many birds would be a twofer - serious national investment and spending on revamping our infrastructure and on a concerted national energy program. Both of which by their very nature would help stimulate the economy and without which the tanking could get really rough. But both of which create longer-term jobs AND, the most important, change the structural nature of the economy. The infrastructure by making our operations more efficient and creating new capabilities. The energy program by improving national security, lowering the cost of energy and oil and creating new technologies which create new industries, jobs and competitive goods for world trade. Voila'....a win...win...win..win strategy. Which also depends by the way on both Education and Healthcare cost reductions, performance improvements and increased Benefits:Costs performance in the long-run.

Domestic Policy

The "Pigs-at-Trough" problem means that for the rest of these strategies to be successful we can't just keep substituting good intentions for understanding how to run the buzz saw and the lumber plant. Hence the need for "institutional re-engineering", i.e. we're actually pretty close on policy agendii but making them workout is a whole other problem. Now we're faced with a situation where Healthcare, Social Security and Medicaire costs will destroy the long-term economic capacity of the US. Nonetheless the later two are relatively easy fixes with a combination of bi-partisanship (ha, no I'm not kidding) and realism on the part of the voting public. When SocSecur was established retirement was 65 and life expectancy was 65+. You do the math. Ditto for the Medixxx programs. Healthcare needs some major structural changes but we're starting to get a handle on that. In terms of timing, feasibility and so on it problem goes #1 in the que because we can start making progress. But the #1 domestic policy agenda item is Education because without progress in teaching and training people for this brave new world it all falls apart. 

Part of the excerpts below are some pointers to various online programs, mostly from Charlie Rose, which start with an '04 appearance by Tim Russert which was supposed to focus on his book but ended up mostly discussing politics and policy. Notice that by and large if you didn't know the date nothing's changed. Now you can't discuss Russert without leading yourself to Danial Patrick Moynihan - one of the great public servants of recent American history and a brilliant and pragmatically insightful man. So there are two more shows of which he was a part that go back into the '90s. Guess what - the problems they're discussing are largely the ones we've just discussed.

UP to us this time....Oink, Oink, Oink. 

Re-thinking the Mechanism: Facing Realities

• Hidden Issues and Government Reform: the Politics of Special Interests

• Unintended Consequences: Blowing Off Our Own Feet

• WRFest 20Jan08(Economics): Oops...Recession Ahead
  

• Standing Corrected: Education 2nd Avoiding Economic Collapse 1rst

• Readings (Economy): It Really is the Economy, Stupid Frog

Energy & Environment

In Search of a Nat'l Energy Policy: Check the Mirror Pogo

High Gas Prices Will Help Auto Industry Auto makers are slashing jobs, closing factories and revamping of their product strategies to cope with $4 a gallon gas. What's the worst thing that could happen now? Gas could get cheap again, says the man who runs America's biggest car retailer. But Mr. Jackson's point of view about energy policy and the auto industry isn't based on concerns about this month's sales. What has him worried, he says, is that in the future he -- and by extension the whole auto industry -- will be stuck trying to make sense of a fundamentally incoherent national energy strategy, which was mirrored by the seemingly incoherent product strategies that the big U.S. auto makers were pursuing until $130 a barrel oil blew them up. Mr. Jackson confronts a daunting challenge trying to read American culture and make intelligent bets about what consumers will want to drive. If he looks in one direction, he sees a widespread consensus that, for a combination of environmental and national security reasons, Americans should consume less oil. To that end, Americans want the auto industry to speed production of electric vehicles and high-mileage, gasoline-electric hybrids, while substantially improving the mileage of conventional oil-powered cars. But when Mr. Jackson looks in the other direction he sees a widespread consensus that Americans shouldn't have to pay $4 a gallon or more for gasoline, and a Congress that in an election year has put driving down gas prices at the top of its agenda. Further, he confronts the inertia of more than half a century of automotive marketing investment in teaching consumers that size and power are what make a vehicle desirable, and worth more money.

Oil debate: Looking beyond drilling This week's push for increased U.S. oil drilling - both offshore and in Alaska - is part of a longer-standing debate about the best way to solve the energy crisis: tap domestic reserves or put more emphasis on developing alternatives? Presumed Republican presidential candidate John McCain called Tuesday for opening more fields off the East and West coasts to drilling. On Wednesday, President Bush reiterated that call and urged development of fields in protected land in Alaska, something McCain still opposes. But experts say additional drilling would only boost production by about 2 million barrels a day. That's about 20% of domestic oil production, but only about 2% of total worldwide demand, so its impact on prices would likely be marginal. In short, it's not a long-term solution to the nation's energy challenge. Some say a real solution lies in the government embarking on a massive effort to fund renewable energy - something akin to the Apollo program that put a man on the moon in the 1960s. Supporters are calling for the government to boost funding from about $4 billion a year now to $30 billion a year - every year for the next few decades.

• The Truth About Offshore Drilling The truth about offshore drilling, with David Kirsch, of PFC Energy, and Matt Simmons, Simmons & Co. International

Forget the Planet, Retrofit the Earth Looking at images of nearly all Iowa underwater got me thinking about the difference in politics between fixing the here-and-now and fantasizing about the future. One began to suspect our public officials might be drifting toward the clouds when many started referring to Earth as "the planet." Democrats especially of a certain environmental stripe talk only about "the planet." Of late, one might ask: Which planet are they living on? The Earth is about the here-and-now. The Planet is about the out-there. This week John McCain sounded like an Earth guy and Barack Obama like a Planet man. When Sen. McCain said he wanted to open drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, he was talking about the here-and-now of $135 oil and $4 gasoline. When Sen. Obama in his own energy speech spoke of spending $150 billion over 10 years to create five million new "green energy jobs," he was talking about the out-there. When House and Senate Democrats last week said their "climate change" bill would collect $6.7 trillion from polluters over 40 years to save the planet, this too was public policy about the out-there.

Healthcare

Business Offers One Remedy for Health Care: Jane Bryant Quinn Chattering health-care policy wonks think we're at a ``tipping point.'' The employer-based health insurance system, they say, is going down. It costs too much, stops workers from moving to new jobs and leaves too many of us uninsured. That's all talk, says Paul Fronstin, director of health research for the Washington-based Employee Benefit Research Institute, which studies economic-security issues. It's just not happening. Employers see their benefit programs as a way of attracting and keeping better workers. They also are doubtful about the alternative -- a government-run, Medicare-ish program whose costs and benefits they can't control. Although companies want to keep their hand in, they consider the current system unsustainable, Fronstin says. They also know that tinkering won't change the picture. Instead, today's corporate chieftains are backing some surprising, fundamental changes. They've floated their ideas in a proposal called the New Benefit Platform for Life Security, developed by the ERISA Industry Committee, or ERIC. The committee represents the nation's major employers. ERISA is the federal law that regulates employee benefits. ERIC thinks health care should be delivered through large, third-party benefit administrators, all of them competing for the business. A government-authorized entity would design three to five standard health plans, with input from all the stakeholders (medical, consumer, insurer, employer and regulator). Employers would have the option of keeping their current plan or -- as ERIC expects -- contracting for coverage through the new system.

Bernanke: Rising Health Costs Pose Economic Risk Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned on Monday that rising U.S. government spending on health care risks triggering runaway budget deficits that could put economic stability in danger. "There are limits to how big the deficit and the debt can be," he said in response to questions after a speech to a health-care event organized by the Senate Finance Committee. "Soon it will begin to have effects on interest rates, it will have effects on economic growth, and on stability, so ... it's not just balancing the federal budget, it's really a much broader question of the stability and strength of our economy over a longer period of time," Bernanke said. Health-care spending is the largest single component of personal consumption and currently exceeds 15 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, Bernanke said. There is little evidence health-care spending will stop rising as a share of GDP, he added. To buffer the effects of rising health-care costs on household budgets, the government may have to absorb an increasingly large share of the bill for those costs, he said. This will put "even greater pressure on government budgets than official projections suggest," he added. Current government spending on the two major health care programs -- Medicare for retirees and Medicaid for low-income people -- takes up 23 percent of federal spending that is not for interest payments, up from 6 percent in 1975, Bernanke said. Due to higher costs and the aging of the U.S. population, that portion is scheduled to rise to about 35 percent in 2025 if no changes are made, he added.

Study: Health Costs to Rise Nearly 10 Percent Employer health care costs are poised to rise almost 10 percent in 2008 -- more than double the annual inflation rate -- and nearly that much again in 2009, according to an industry report released Tuesday. The study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers predicts that medical costs will increase 9.9 percent in 2008 and an additional 9.6 percent in 2009. The report identified two factors driving the increase: --A hospital building boom, as hospitals replace facilities and add private rooms and centers for outpatient treatment. --An increase in the expenses those with insurance are paying for those without. Cost-shifting from the uninsured, Medicare and Medicaid will account for nearly one in every five dollars spent by private insurers in 2009, according to the study, as the federal government underfunds public insurance programs and the number of people with private insurance continues to decrease. One of the things employers are doing in response is increasing wellness, prevention and disease management programs, which they say not only keeps employees healthy but also raises productivity.

• Fixing Healthcare in America A plan to improve healthcare, with John Hammergren, McKesson chairman/CEO.

Education 

Readings(Education): the Single Most Important Domestic Policy Issue

U.S. Schools: Passing or Failing? Discussing America's educational system, as compared to that of China and India, with Jay Mathews, an education reporter for the Washington Post, and Bob Compton, executive producer of the documentary "Two Million Minutes.

The Swedish model A Swedish firm has worked out how to make money running free schools. BIG-STATE, social-democratic Sweden seems an odd place to look for a free-market revolution. Yet that is what is under way in the country's schools. Reforms that came into force in 1994 allow pretty much anyone who satisfies basic standards to open a new school and take in children at the state's expense. The local municipality must pay the school what it would have spent educating each child itself—a sum of SKr48,000-70,000 ($8,000-12,000) a year, depending on the child's age and the school's location. Children must be admitted on a first-come, first-served basis—there must be no religious requirements or entrance exams. Nothing extra can be charged for, but making a profit is fine.The reforms were controversial, especially within the Social Democratic Party, then in one of its rare spells in opposition. They would have been even more controversial had it been realised just how popular they would prove. In just 14 years the share of Swedish children educated privately has risen from a fraction of a percent to more than 10%.The biggest, Kunskapsskolan (“Knowledge Schools”) opened its first six schools in 2000. Four more opened last autumn, bringing the total to 30. It now has 700 employees and teaches nearly 10,000 pupils, with an operating profit of SKr62m last year on a turnover of SKr655m.Like IKEA, a giant Swedish furniture-maker, Kunskapsskolan gets its customers to do much of the work themselves. The vital tool, though, is not an Allen key but the Kunskapsporten (“Knowledge Portal”), a website containing the entire syllabus. Youngsters spend 15 minutes each week with a tutor, reviewing the past week's progress and agreeing on goals and a timetable for the next one. This will include classes and lectures, but also a great deal of independent or small-group study. The Kunskapsporten allows each student to work at his own level, and spend less or more time on each subject, depending on his strengths and weakness. Each subject is divided into 35 steps. Students who reach step 25 graduate with a pass; those who make it to step 30 or 35 gain, respectively, a merit or distinction.

Defense & Security

• National Security(Readings): Let the Debate Begin

• The Iran Dilemma: They Like Us, Not; We Like Them, Not...usw.
  

LEADERSHIP: The Pentagon Gets Ready For President Obama:  U.S. military planners are working on how to deal with another round of major cutbacks, in terms of budgets and manpower. This is because one of the major candidates for Commander-in-Chief (president of the United States), Barak Obama, has a video in circulation, of a short speech he gave earlier this year, about how he planned on handling the Department of Defense. His major points were; "I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning; and as president, I will end it. "Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. "I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending. "Third, I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal." There were major cuts when the Cold War ended in the early 1990s, and when Bill Clinton won the presidency. The same drill is expected if Obama wins, and military planners are studying ways they better cope with a new round of cuts. Obama's speech can be found on YouTube.

U.S. Marines 7, Smear Artists Of Haditha 0 Yet another U.S. Marine, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, had charges dropped Tuesday in the so-called Haditha massacre — bringing the total number of Marines who've been cleared or won case dismissals in the Iraq War incident to seven. "Undue command influence" on the prosecution led to the outcome in Chessani's case. Bottom line: That's zero for seven for military prosecutors, with one trial left to go. I repeat: Haditha prosecution goes 0-7. But you won't see that headline in the same Armageddon-sized font the New York Times used repeatedly when the story first broke. The Times, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., and the rest of the anti-war drum-pounders who fueled the smear campaign against the troops two years ago should hang their heads in shame. They won't, of course. Perpetuating the "cold-blooded Marines" narrative means never having to say you're sorry. It means never having to look Lt. Col. Chessani (charges dismissed), Lt. Andrew Grayson (acquitted), Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum (charges dismissed), Capt. Lucas McConnell (charges dismissed), Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt (charges dismissed), Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz (charges dismissed), Sgt. Frank Wuterich (awaiting trial) and their families in the eyes and apologize for the pre-emptive character assassination they all faced at the hands of the hyperventilating, noose-hanging press. Murtha and company applied Queen of Hearts ("Off with their heads!") treatment to our own men and women in uniform while giving more benefit of the doubt to foreign terror suspects at Gitmo. It is worth recalling, because the press won't do it for you, what they concluded about the now-crumbling Haditha case in the summer of 2006, before a single formal charge had been filed:

• The Lie Mutually Agreed Upon

Posted by dblwyo at 02:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Different people blog for different reasons. Other than the real motive - "because it's there and I wanted to" - my goal is to introduce a point of view and associated tools that emphasize a deeper look and appreciation for the whole topic of what makes a society work better. And to use the blog as a testbed for some of my ideas, tools, perspectives, etc. The other benefit is that writing is more than a bit of discipline itself and forces one to try and be organized.

You'll have to judge for youselves of course whether those goals are being satsified and what the value to you is. However the number of readers appears to have reached a relative small but reasonable number - on the order of 40-80/day on the whole, nothing in comparison to say BigPicture or CalculatedRisk - of readers. That's satisfying.

The running stat that is gratifying however is the amount of time you apparantly spend in reading these posts; which admittedly tend to run on while trying to both beat a topic or thought thread into submission and often contain some measure of added value with the associated collection of readings. Which may in fact be the primary value.

Anyway the typical blog seems to get about 30 sec. per post while mine seem to run in the 5-7 min. range. Given that there's at best one/day and each usually contains the equivalent of several small posts that's probably reasonable.

But in any case your readership is appreciated. THANKS.

Posted by dblwyo at 02:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We seem to be in a bit of a lull while the candidates catch their breaths, maybe rest a tad, re-structure their organizations and re-positions themselves for the general election. That calm is probably very deceptive and underneath the surface the duck's feet are paddling furiously indeed. However there are two giant changes coming, willy-nilly, whether we want them to or not. And they should represent cusp points in the tone, tenor and direction of the campaign.

The first is a shift from matters of style and maneuver to including more matters of substance and policy. Now that's not to be too "Pollyanish" about it all - as we've said we've already gotten quite a bit of improvement in this election in ways that really matter to us. And at the same time it's still an election where style and sound-bytes will matter, as they always do. The extent to which we shift will depend, in part, on the voters. Are we going to ask the hard questions or be satisfied with the easy and good-sounding answers ? There's some evidence the the number and seriousness of our challenges is indeed forcing some shift. Of course in the long-run there are two key things to bear in mind. These issues are substantive, they're hear to stay and we'll have to face them one way or another. And, no matter who wins, the real world has rhythms, patterns and directions of its' own - no matter what the rhetoric US Foreign Policy is not likely to shift all that much other than in cosmetics. The graphics is our proposed template for these matters of substance from re-newing key general principles to structural re-engineering of the governance mechanisms to key policy clusters. Consider it a proposed architecture for the debates on policy as well as a representation of our best analysis of realities and resolutions.

The second big shift coming is generational. About every 20+ years there is a major shift in political leadership as one generation succeeds another. In 1960 JFK succeeded DDE as the baton was passed to the youngsters of the "Greatest Generation" from their elders. When Slick Willy took over from Bush41 it was another generational shift from the "Greatest" to the Boomers - and a massive attitudinal shift as well. Stop and think about what you think it was - a worthy topic of exploration. I'd suggest it was a shift from struggle, duty, obligation and "no free lunch" to the beneficiaries of that effort who were more concerned about "actualization", self/me and less focused on the hard work needed to get there. And that's not to pick on either posture, at least entirely. The attitudes are as much a product of the environment as the reverse and are more or less appropriate for them. We did, IMHO, loose sight of what brought us to that pleasant state of being able to focus on our navels and have spent the last several years being reminded.

Whoever wins this election it is a generational shift again - like we said...these issues will be with us for decades. It's not given to us to avoid them, only how we deal with them. John-boy stands for the last, and in some ways, the best of the Boomer generation. A genuine war hero, a man of integrity and substance and a demonstrated maverick who has followed his own thinking and the evidence on most matters of substance. Barry, aside from both his eloquence and his ability to put the challenges of the time in new and insightful way, is less well known. But appears to also be a man grounded in his own self. to know what he believes and why and to have both a good idea of where he wants to take us and what it'll take to get there. He's certainly shown a solid predilection behind the scenes for picking good people, seeking out the best advice and advisers, running a well thought out organization and inventing new ways of doing things. All to the good.

This campaign so far has confounded the pundits right and left because the old shibboleths of which issue works for which voter group in which state keep getting over-turned. And now that we have the two most atypical, for their parties, candidates whatever remains of the old thinking will continue to be challenged. Between the return of serious issues from the frivolities of the last two decades and the aftermath and these changes in the polity we are facing an inescapable cusp point. Good - it's about time.

IMHO Barry needs to do three things: 1) translate his future vision into more specific operating principles - note, not specifics, just guidelines so we can better evaluate him on the big issues. Then 2) convince more voters that while he's not one of them he gets them. And 3) absorb, not just listen to advice, a more realistic view of what a tough and ugly world it is. Conversely John-Boy needs to give us something to hang our hats on - that is he needs to explain what the over-arching vision of his candidacy is. In my mind it's not blind change for changes sake to make us feel good. It is to reform and re-structure those things that aren't working well - change for progress and performance, based on the best of the past but dealing with the challenges of the future.

At the end of the day the accompanying graphic is my proposed set of "Fundamental Principles" that represent my suggestions for how to accomplish these ends - marrying matters of communication, leadership, style, substance and specifics into a set of principles and policies best suited for the times as I see them. Agree or not - and please feel free - it's not a bad checklist to use to evaluate the candidates. More specifically here are the five cusp point policies that wrap things together and you should use to judge the candidates.

1. Economy - we're facing the most serious economic challenges we've faced since 1980 and need regulatory reform, stimulus and long-term investments to jump-start growth.

2. Energy - it's time for a concerted national effort in a multi-decade long migration to different energy sources. Which would also help out the Economy.

3. Middle East - Iraq is still a challenge and needs care and attention but a stable ME is the sine qua non of holding the world system and our economy together.

4. Education - the other side of the coin of creating new sources of economic growth is making sure our populace is qualified, which it's not. And the major obstacle for a new education are the existing institutional infrastructures which place private interests ahead of innovation, adaptation and the public interest.

5. Regulatory Reform - we actually understand Foreign/Security Policy and the Economy pretty well and have the mechanisms fairly well developed to accomplish what we want. Our strugglies with Social Policy are really a new thing in human history - only since the the 1960's has any society attempted to re-engineer itself like this. The intent was good but the mechanisms failed us. We need new ones. 

From Politics to Policy ?

Econ. Questions Facing Next President  A wise continental scholar pointed out to me once that English is the only European language in which three distinct words have evolved from the Greek root politika: politics, policy and polity. French, German, Italian, Spanish and Russian all make do with a single word - politique, politik or politica - to describe the personal rivalries that drive the political process, the effects of political action, and the institutional framework within which politics operates. In English, by contrast, we have a vocabulary that encourages people to distinguish between the ideals and action plans represented by competing parties and the skulduggeries and rivalries of individual politicians. In fact, we are lucky enough in English to have even a fourth word for this: politicking. I don't know whether this linguistic abundance has been a cause or a consequence of the relative stability of democratic institutions in the Anglo-Saxon world. But I do know that the focus of America's presidential election, which has so far been entirely on politicking and politics, will now shift towards policy and polity. The ideological differences in this election are quite stark. Just because both parties have managed to select nominees who are intelligent, high-principled and well meaning, it does not follow that a victory for either candidate will be an equally benign outcome for the world and America. There are at least four policy battles in this election where the rest of the world will have an enormous stake. First and foremost there is national security and the Middle East, specifically the attitude to bombing Iran; secondly, the credit crunch and housing crisis; thirdly, the oil shock, energy independence and climate change; and fourthly, America's role in globalisation and free trade.

Brave New World? The lay of the land? Mr. Obama is ahead 47% to 41% in this week's Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, and no one is surprised. Everyone knows he's ahead. Everyone knows this is a Democratic year. But I think there are two particular subtexts this year, or perhaps I should say texts. One, obviously, is youth versus age. This theme is the clearest it's been since 1960, when the old general who'd planned the Normandy invasion found himself replaced by a young man who had commanded a rickety patrol torpedo boat in World War II. You know that on some level, at some moment, Dwight D. Eisenhower looked at John F. Kennedy and thought: Punk.But 2008 will also prove in part to be a decisive political contest between the Old America and the New America. Between the thing we were, and the thing we have been becoming for 40 years or so. (I'm not referring here to age. Some young Americans have Old America heads and souls; some old people are all for the New.) Mr. McCain is the Old America, of course; Mr. Obama the New. In the Old America, love of country was natural. You breathed it in. You either loved it or knew you should. In the New America, love of country is a decision. It's one you make after weighing the pros and cons. What you breathe in is skepticism and a heightened appreciation of the global view. Old America: Tradition is a guide in human affairs. New America: Tradition is a challenge, a barrier, or a lovely antique. Mr. McCain is the old world of concepts like "personal honor," of a manliness that was a style of being, of an attachment to the fact of higher principles. Mr. Obama is the new world, which is marked in part by doubt as to the excellence of the old. It prizes ambivalence as proof of thoughtfulness, as evidence of a textured seriousness.

Call the bluff on campaign fluff Many of us have had the experience of really trying to listen to a politician give a speech and yet walk away feeling they may not actually have said anything. It's too bad, especially in this election cycle, when so much seems to ride on choosing between candidates. How can we make informed decisions when we don't understand positions? The answer: Start thinking a little more like economists – and not just on budget issues. Economics emphasizes thinking at the margin, focusing on the trade-offs – made necessary by scarcity – that individuals are willing to make between relevant alternatives. Unfortunately, political campaigns blur trade-offs and undermine clear thinking with their language. Barack Obama's "yes, we can" theme faces a similar problem. Not only does it fail to specify what is to be done, the word "we" generates confusion. Who can do what? Which part of "we" gets benefits and which part will be forced to bear the costs, is hidden. Similarly, amid the plethora of things politicians say they stand for, marginal trade-offs are clouded. After all, most politicians are largely "for" the same things (peace, our "general welfare"). Using these general terms tells us nothing about what we really want to know – at what price politicians might "sell us out" on a particular issue. Other campaign issues are also framed in ways that fail to confront the right questions. For instance, each candidate has a position on whether we should have government-provided health insurance. But voters need to know precisely what services will be offered, under what conditions, and what it will cost them, and those terms are rarely made clear. Without knowing the precise benefits and costs, which take far more detail to explain than any of them offer, we have little idea of what we are actually considering. Promises of centralized, vague, "solutions" fail us in another way. When planning supersedes market mechanisms, the information markets reveal about people's willingness to trade off between goods is also lost. Any gain such information enables is also wasted.

Shifting Ground of Politics

Redrawing party lines Conventional wisdom has it that Sen. Barack Obama needs to win over white working-class voters and Sen. John McCain must energize the Republican Party's conservative base if either candidate hopes to take the White House come November. But it may not be that simple. While the word "change" is being thrown about frequently by the two presumptive nominees for the presidency, it's bound to be more than just rhetoric when it comes to new electoral realities and winning over 2008 voters. McCain and Obama could well end up overhauling their respective party platforms when it's all over, overlap each other in appealing to various demographics, find new sources of votes and end up turning political logic on its ear when ballots are cast in November. But consider how polls show the two are virtually neck-and-neck and have been for several weeks. With an unpopular Republican president in office, the nation at war and the economy faltering, those poll numbers alone defy conventional wisdom, says Rich Galen, a Republican strategist. "By any measure, [McCain] ought to be behind by 25 points," Galen said. More than just the usual Democratic voters are needed for Obama to claim victory, although making sure they're in his corner wouldn't hurt. He'll need to break out of the same strategies that hurt Al Gore and John Kerry in their failed 2000 and 2004 bids, respectively.

Calling Dr. Doom John McCain and Barack Obama are exhibiting unmerited confidence that they will win in the fall. It is time to inject some anxiety. Neither campaign is planning a major pivot for the fall. Both are confident they have a strategy for victory. So my role today is Dr. Doom — to break through unmerited confidence and raise the anxiety level in both camps. Since effectively wrapping up the nomination, Barack Obama has lost 7 of the last 13 primaries. Obama’s confidants say that this doesn’t matter. In states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, primary election results are no predictor of general election results. That’s dubious. We haven’t had two presidential candidates as far removed from the mainstream suburban lifestyle. The Republican camp, meanwhile, is possessed of the belief that Obama is a charming lightweight. Republican senators have contempt for Obama’s post-partisan image, arguing that he and his staff refused to even participate in backroom bipartisan discussion groups. But Obama is far from a lightweight, as Republicans will learn if he agrees to do joint town meetings with McCain. McCain’s jabs that Obama is naïve will backfire. In this climate, a candidate can’t define the other guy, only himself. When McCain attacks Obama for being naïve, all voters see is McCain being sour and negative. More fundamentally, McCain’s problem is that his party is unfit to govern. As research from the Republican pollster David Winston has shown, any policy becomes less popular when people learn that Republicans are supporting it. If the G.O.P. sponsored the sunrise, voters would prefer gloom. Many Republicans are under the illusion that they are in trouble because they’ve betrayed their core principles. The sad truth is that if they’d been more conservative, they’d be even further behind. I’ve spent the past few years trying to find conservative experts to provide remedies for middle-class economic anxiety. Let me tell you, the state of free-market thinking on this subject is pathetic. There are a few creative thinkers (most of them under 30), but for the most part, McCain is forced to run in an intellectual void. . But McCain’s reform message is only being carried by him and a few bloggers. Obama can draw on a coherent body of economic work and 10,000 unified voices. This election will be asymmetric. Obama has to come up with a personal narrative voters can relate to. McCain needs to come up with a one-sentence description for why he represents a clean break and a compelling future.  Neither campaign has done that. I don’t know what they’re so happy about.

McCain, Obama Agree More Than Not on Environment, Immigration, Guantanamo The next president plans to issue new policies to address global warming, overhaul immigration laws, advocate more government transparency and close the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay. It may sound like a risky prediction five months before the election. Presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama and his Republican rival, John McCain, are diametrically opposed on the biggest issues facing Americans, including extending President George W. Bush's tax cuts, ending the Iraq War, overhauling health care and appointments to the Supreme Court. Yet on the most significant second-tier policy questions, the two are surprisingly often in agreement, probably more so than any major-party candidates since 1976. They disagree, however, over the broader question of fixing the health-care system. Obama supports a major program to provide universal coverage; McCain favors tax credits to make insurance more affordable and some federal aid. Their similarities may have much to do with the basic middle-of-the-road beliefs of many Americans, said Clyde Wilcox, a government professor at Georgetown University in Washington. ``America is a moderate country, and many of our elections have involved candidates moving to the middle,'' Wilcox said. ``But the devil is often in the details.''

Minority Leader in a Storm The GOP is in a panic after a string of special election defeats that suggest voters haven't forgiven Republicans for straying from small-government principles. Rival wings of the party are fighting over where to go next. About the only thing everyone agrees on: If the GOP doesn't redefine itself soon, it's facing a rout this fall. Getting members to abandon the bad habits that have lost them respect among voters is harder. Mr. Boehner stands as a role model, having never requested nor received an earmark, and having fought for reform legislation like the 2006 pension overhaul. Yet his example alone hasn't moved some Republicans to shape up. Consider his unsuccessful attempt to get House GOP members to agree to a unilateral earmark moratorium.

Republicans Are in Denial As congressional Republicans contemplate the prospect of an electoral disaster this November, much is being written about the supposed soul-searching in the Republican Party. A more accurate description of our state is paralysis and denial. Unfortunately, too many in our party are not yet ready to return to the path of limited government. Instead, we are being told our message must be deficient because, after all, we should be winning in certain areas just by being Republicans. Yet being a Republican isn't good enough anymore. Voters are tired of buying a GOP package and finding a big-government liberal agenda inside. What we need is not new advertising, but truth in advertising.Becoming Republicans again will require us to come to grips with what has ailed our party – namely, the triumph of big-government Republicanism and failed experiments like the K Street Project and "compassionate conservatism." If the goal of the K Street Project was to earmark and fund raise our way to a filibuster-proof "governing" majority, the goal of "compassionate conservatism" was to spend our way to a governing majority.The fruit of these efforts is not the hoped-for Republican governing majority, but the real prospect of a filibuster-proof Democrat majority in 2009. While the K Street Project decimated our brand as the party of reform and limited government, compassionate conservatism convinced the American people to elect the party that was truly skilled at activist government: the Democrats.

Posted by dblwyo at 08:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Well they finally settled that...at long last. And now we can get to the real campaign, right ? Not so fast - let's stop and think about several of the things in this little pause before the really big storm begins anew. We should be celebrating this election on many...many fronts. Both for how unusual it it, the candidates who have survived, the issues that have come center-stage and the way the campaign has been conducted so far. And the paths we've followed to get here. This has been a wonderful, change-making Presidential Campaign - and not just for the political theater junkies but for those few of us who are more entertained and focused on matters of substance. Not necessarily in order consider:

1. The Democrats just nominated a black man for President and he beat a white women - and despite a lot of minor mud-slinging - on the whole the focus was more on issues and qualifications. A change that many people thought they'd never see in their lifetimes. I consider it a great miracle that race and gender were not more important.

2. Barry pulled off a "miracle" of sorts thru hard work, skill, intelligence, superb campaign work and innovative as well as discipline. He ran a great campaign. And if he wins and administers the office as well as he built a major startup business, alledgedly not having the skills or experience, he'd do well. And the meme running around is that Hillary was the victim of mis-step after mis-step. And just wouldn't quite - well the street mythology is as captured by the opening cartoon is just that. Both sides fought a hard, skilled campaign and the differences between two skilled adversaries were on the margins. For military history buffs it's like reading about the vast differences in German vs American resources and tactics in WW2 and how huge they were; and then reading the casualty figures and realizing we're talking about minor % gaps.

3. On the other side of the hill John-boy was given up for dead a long-time ago and was the least promising of the Republican candidates in terms of getting the party's base voter support. At the end of the day the most centrist, pragmatic, straight-forward and honest of them triumphed. By being himself.

4. Which is another way of saying this election is indeed about change because at the end of the day it is the non-traditional candidates who are NOT focused on business as usual we're going to choose between. We've put the indulgences of the 90s when we let our apparent prosperities seduce us into playing around with idiot value questions and squandering our windows to fix serious on-coming issues close. There are NO substantive policy issues we're facing that haven't been on the table since the early '90s. It's just now that the Costs of neglect so clearly exceed the Benefits of "head-in-the-sand" politiking that once again we're becoming "serious people for serious times". Hallelujah.

5. And that choice is going to be fought out where it should be - on the key strategic issues and in the centroid of the polity. Stop and think not just how close Billary and Barry were on key issues but actually how close on some Barry is to John-boy. And then stop to think about the pragmatics of office. As we pointed out in the prior post on Iran once the rhetoric goes to bed the realities are going to be much different. And ditto for Iraq - one which McCain has admitted we need to draw down our presence after establishing stability, security and prosperity.And where Barry has admitted we need to establish ....before we withdraw in a timely fashion based on the facts on the ground.

6. And did you ever think you'd see a Rep. candidate with a national health plan ? Or both, in addition to the President, talking about market re-regulation ? Or agreeing with his opponent on Global Warming and Immigration despite his own party. Both issues we might remind you that either had or now have the President's support. Maybe I'm a simple-minded optimist who just is too easily swayed by pretty pictures but it seems to me we're having our arguments about the rights things.

• What are the key policies we want to pursue ?
• And what's the best mechanism for going after them ?

Politics: Billary vs Barry

Clinton's Road to Second Place Sen. Hillary Clinton, once positioned to be Democrats'"inevitable nominee," won't be. On Tuesday, Sen. Barack Obama won enough delegates to claim the party's  presidential nomination. Inside the Clinton campaign and out, the finger-pointing has begun. The bottom line is this: She called the biggest plays, and she got them wrong. Conversations over months with dozens of Clinton staffers, advisers and supporters suggest that over her 17-month campaign, the second-term New York senator and former first lady was smart, substantive and tireless. The surprise was how good a campaigner she grew to be. Still, these people say, Sen. Clinton is responsible for what one confidant called "grievous mistakes." Those help explain why Sen. Clinton -- the best brand name in Democratic politics, and an early favorite to be the first female nominee in U.S. history -- lost to a relative newcomer who would be the first African-American major-party nominee.The mistakes boil down to mismanagement, message, mobilization failures and the marital factor. What Obama Learned (online slideshow)

• Bill Clinton's media meltdown

Traveling With the Clinton Camp WSJ reporter Amy Chozick joined Hillary Clinton's traveling press corps when the campaign possessed an air of inevitability. Now, Clinton staffers are sending out résumés. She details the poignant signposts of the Clinton campaign's falling fortunes. Last November, when I joined Hillary Clinton's traveling press corps, the campaign possessed an air of inevitability. With name recognition and seemingly bottomless fund-raising coffers, Sen. Clinton operated almost like an incumbent. While other candidates took bus tours across Iowa, the former first lady and her top aides flew from town to town on a sleek "Hill-A-Copter" that cost thousands a day to charter. As the noisy black Bell 222 helicopter touched down on frozen tarmacs in Waterloo and Elkader, it exuded the confident mood that defined the campaign last year. Tuxedoed waiters served staffers and reporters hot, catered meals. The campaign organized opulent dinners at the chic restaurant Centro in downtown Des Moines, inviting reporters to mingle with campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle and other top aides. It spent nearly $100,000 on deluxe party platters and groceries ahead of the Iowa caucus, according to campaign finance reports. But after suffering a string of losses in February to Sen. Obama, Sen. Clinton looked badly bruised. The big-name journalists hung around not to witness a comeback but to witness a possible Clinton downfall. By early March the campaign was using a men's restroom as a press work area at an Austin, Texas, event. The image of Tina Brown, biographer of Princess Diana and former editor of The New Yorker, typing away inches from a urinal, suggested the campaign's reduced prospects.

• Clinton, Facing Obama Phenomenon, Failed With Bush's 2000 Election Model, Hillary Clinton Chronology

Clinton says she's open to being Obama's VP Hillary Rodham Clinton told colleagues Tuesday she would consider joining Barack Obama as his running mate, and advisers said she was withholding a formal departure from the race partly to use her remaining leverage to press for a spot on the ticket. On a conference call with other New York lawmakers, Clinton, a New York senator, said she was willing to become Obama's vice presidential nominee if it would help Democrats win the White House, according to several participants in the call. Clinton's remarks came in response to a question from Democratic Rep. Nydia Velazquez, who said she believed the best way for Obama to win key voting blocs, including Hispanics, would be for him to choose Clinton as his running mate.

• What Hillary Wants Most, Hillary Won't Get ``What Does Hillary Want?'' Hillary Clinton asked herself on election night. She didn't say. If Freud were answering his own question, he would say ``to be loved,'' which translates, in Clintonland, into winning.

Politics: Barry vs John-Boy

McCain Targets Voters Favoring Clinton As Hillary Clinton's primary campaign winds down, Barack Obama will be waiting with open arms for the support of her ardent backers. So will John McCain. The likely Republican nominee has set his sights on at least three groups of voters who have favored Sen. Clinton and claim large numbers in key battleground states: working-class Democrats, Jews and Hispanics. Political strategists say Sen. McCain stands a chance at attracting supporters from these traditionally Democratic cohorts. "These are people who had a chance to vote for Obama once already and declined," said Todd Harris, a Republican consultant not affiliated with the McCain campaign. However, the onus for getting voters to cross party lines falls on Sen. McCain. "Things [Clinton supporters] don't like about Obama will put them on the market," Mr. Harris said. "But McCain himself is going to have to close the deal." The McCain campaign hopes to benefit from a combination of Sen. McCain's reputation as a maverick, along with the issues that voters have about Sen. Obama and his candidacy -- including concerns about his race and the perception that he is elitist.

• What John McCain Underestimates

McCain stakes out his territory John McCain has not been wasting his time while the Democrats conduct their improv political theater. The presumptive Republican nominee -- with presumption somewhat more in his favor than the presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama - continues to stake out the political center on some key issues, pushing his unanointed Democratic rival to the left. In fact, the way things are going, it is Obama, not McCain, who is in danger of losing his bearings and getting boxed into positions that won't appeal to white working class voters and many other constituencies he will need to carry if he wants to win the White House. You remember what issues are. With the focus on the Democratic slugfest, where issues haven't been debated for months, it's been easy to forget. But McCain was there to remind voters of some of them a couple of weeks ago in a major speech on economic policy to the National Restaurant Association on Obama's home turf in Chicago. McCain's takes on taxes, trade, agricultural subsidies and other core economic issues are pretty mainstream. While these positions don't mark a break with the current administration in the way that McCain's stand on global warming earlier in May did, Obama won't be able to just dismiss them - not even the tax cuts - as continuing Bush's "failed economic policy."

So much for a new US politics Two weeks ago in this space I expressed the naive hope that a US presidential contest between John McCain and Barack Obama might be a cut above ordinary politics. Neither man, to put it mildly, is the conventional type. Both are men of principle, with strong convictions – but with a pragmatic streak as well, open-minded, committed to bipartisan co-operation and running against business as usual. With luck, I said, they would treat each other with respect and steer clear of ad hominem smearing. For once there might be an election about the issues. So far, then, it is politics as usual. The “four more years” line is one more vapid slogan, a tactical alternative to engaging on the issues. The appeasement line may seem to point to a crucial substantive difference, and has been greeted that way by much of the press, but in reality is just as false. From a tactical point of view, the intimately related issues of healthcare reform and taxes are different. Admittedly, as topics to front a political campaign, they have the drawback that they get very complicated, very quickly. On the other hand, here, more than elsewhere, Mr Obama and Mr McCain have an honest-to-goodness difference of ideology. Mr Obama (to borrow Mr McCain’s characterisation) wants to create a big new healthcare entitlement at taxpayers’ expense, and Mr McCain does not. The disagreement is real, not cosmetic; each candidate is convinced that he is right on the merits; and, most important, each is convinced that his position is politically advantageous.

McCain, Obama Agree More Than Not on Environment, Immigration, Guantanamo The next president plans to issue new policies to address global warming, overhaul immigration laws, advocate more government transparency and close the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay. It may sound like a risky prediction five months before the election. Presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama and his Republican rival, John McCain, are diametrically opposed on the biggest issues facing Americans, including extending President George W. Bush's tax cuts, ending the Iraq War, overhauling health care and appointments to the Supreme Court. Yet on the most significant second-tier policy questions, the two are surprisingly often in agreement, probably more so than any major-party candidates since 1976. They disagree, however, over the broader question of fixing the health-care system. Obama supports a major program to provide universal coverage; McCain favors tax credits to make insurance more affordable and some federal aid. Their similarities may have much to do with the basic middle-of-the-road beliefs of many Americans, said Clyde Wilcox, a government professor at Georgetown University in Washington. ``America is a moderate country, and many of our elections have involved candidates moving to the middle,'' Wilcox said. ``But the devil is often in the details.''

Posted by dblwyo at 08:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Iran may be the fulcrul point of ME stability over the next decade, much as Iraq was in the last. I had a fascinating range of exchange last week prompted by this column by an Iranian ex-pat reporter: "On a recent afternoon, while riding a rickety bus down Teheran's main thoroughfare, I overheard two women discussing the grim state of Iranian politics. One of them had reached a rather desperate conclusion. "Let the Americans come," she said loudly. "Let them sort things out for us." The full article is excerpted more after the break along with a couple of others - including a superb David Brooks editorial that says what I've been trying to say much better, more pointedly and more clearly. Of course it's his job and gets paid a bit for it :). Anyway a friend of mine who's spent time in Iran had this to say in response:

"I had a woman beg me to take her back with me. Those people know their government is screwed up and feel almost like they are being held hostage. But it’s not our place to liberate them even though we have a deep history with Iran going all the way back to 54. It’s their job to save themselves this time no more Olie North or contra crap. But if you went to Iran and saw those people the thought of killing them and ruing their lives would totally escape your brain no matter what the hyped up false threat is. The only way to give them a democracy is to broker a deal between the reformers (mostly youth) and the regime to allow total government restructuring to take place without any American agenda (which will be impossible) because those are the allies we want in that region those are the people you lean on in that region because we can’t trust the Saudis or anyone else in that region. We are setting ourselves up for failure if we ruin that relationship and I hope the republicans understand that. I hope an accomplished scholar says the same thing soon so people can start viewing Iran as the potential great American resource it can be. We didn't have to attack Iraq to have a powerful base in that region all we had to do was help the people of Iran. I kid you not Tehran is like Manhattan."

Not sure I agree entirely with all his arguments but all of them make sense. And he raises an interesting and constructive potential - what could happen in Iran, in the ME and for the world in general if we could get Iran constructively engaged in its' own welfare. Rather than having a minority continue to export terror and develop nuclear weapons to support their own grip on power. Here's what I had to say in reply:

All that you say makes enormous sense and is consistent with my own views and understandings. In fact my first basic principle of US foreign policy is to constructively engage with the world to promote as good a government as possible locally because it is in our own long-term best interests.

 

There is a great divide, as in many times in history, between the people, what's best for the people and good governance and the power structure. In Iran that power structure is fractious, factioned, malfeasant, kleptocratic and pursuing multiple foreign policy initiatives that make it a threat to the peace and stability of the world. In the last week the UN agency responsible has issued a very harsh report on Iran's pursuit of nucs, which is something we cannot allow. And the Iranian extremists in pursuit of their domestic advantages, not I believe, as a concerted national policy, have been exporting terrorism via Hamas, Hezbollah and the Shiite militias in Iraq for years. At the end of the day there is no logical reason or advantage to doing that which means something escapes me. I think their reasons are the use of the rhetoric of the Islamist revolution to keep and maintain power. Whether consciously or not. They're certainly not serving the interests of their country or people.

 

And there you have our great dilemma with regard to Iran in a nutshell. Our best strategic alternative is to contain them while trying to slowly wean the government and the polity into a more progressive stance. Hopefully encouraging them on the path toward a self-sustaining virtuous cycle of improvement. But power-seeking factions inside the government are pursuing policies that are truly disruptive and dangerous and may require more massive intervention to prevent from reaching a dangerous point - or crossing a threshold into nuclear weapons.

It will take a clever, insightful, courageous and practically skilled foreign policy to bridge this deep dilemma. We have people who have proven capable of such, including some in the government today (Zoellick, Hill, et.al.). Whether we can raise it to the level of policy is another question. But as you say if some scholar will start the ball rolling then it might slowly accumulate. And this article was a first of many small steps - being as it came from the editorial pages of the Christian Science Monitor that's not a bad starting pulpit.

  And there you have it, IOHO, in a nutshell. If we could find a way to contain and constrain Iran while constructively engaging with them and supporting the emergence of more progressive elements we'd all be better off. Especially them with their collapsing economy and increasingly frayed society. Yet in our own and others interests we may be reluctantly forced to measures that are acceptable only because they are less terrible than the consequences of a theocratic kleptocracy with nuclear weapons, a collapsing society and a posture of exporting terror in the name of an extremist religious belief that most of them no longer truly believe in. Sound like anybody else you know ? Like Russia post Stalin ?

A final and key observation - if this is really serious then it's time for the kind of narrow, self-serving posturing we discussed in yesterday's post to be put aside in the national interest. If it's not serious by all means carry the posturing into office, whomever wins, and let the games begin. As Brooks points out once you're in the seat Mr. President the campaign rhetoric must deal with realities on the ground. And we will talk to Iran however we can. And we won't be soft or forgiving either because we've, despite the public image, done a lot of talking over the years.

 But make no mistake - this is not an easy, simple nor straight-forward problem. No matter what you're told or would like to believe.

Why Iranians like America again - On a recent afternoon, while riding a rickety bus down Tehran's main thoroughfare, I overheard two women discussing the grim state of Iranian politics. One of them had reached a rather desperate conclusion. "Let the Americans come," she said loudly. "Let them sort things out for us." Although their leaders still call America the "Great Satan," ordinary Iranians' affection for the United States seems to be thriving these days, at least in the bustling capital. This rekindled regard is evident in people's conversations, their insatiable demand for US products and culture, and their fascination with the US presidential campaign. It might startle some Americans to realize that Iran has one of the most pro-American populations in the Middle East. Iranians have adored America for nearly three decades, a sentiment rooted in nostalgia for Iran's golden days, before the worst of the shah's repression and the 1979 Islamic revolution. But today's affection is new, or at least different. Starting in about 2005, Iranians' historic esteem for the US gave way to a deep ambivalence that is only now ending. President Bush's post-9/11 wars of liberation on both of Iran's borders rattled ordinary Iranians, and Washington's opposition to Iran's nuclear program added to their resentment. In early 2006, when I lived in Iran as a journalist, I had only to step outdoors to hear the complaints. The most interesting aspect of the revival of warm feelings today is that the US has done so little to earn them. Instead, Iranians' renewed pro-American sentiments reflect the depth of their alienation from their own rulers. As a family friend put it: "It's a matter of being drawn to the opposite of what you can't stand."

 A critical mess over Iran Both John McCain and Barack Obama say Iran must not be allowed to make an atomic bomb. Whomever wins in November may need to act on this pledge early in his presidency. A new UN report cites "serious" concerns about "possible military dimensions" to Iran's nuclear programs. The latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency is extraordinarily tough. The IAEA isn't known to exaggerate and even openly opposes the Bush administration's tough and sometimes threatening talk against Iran. Up to now, the United Nations agency has largely given Iran the benefit of the doubt about its claim that this petroleum-rich country simply seeks a new energy source.But evidence of Iran's intent is reaching critical mass, compounded by its secrecy in dealing with the IAEA, not to mention direct threats against Israel and pretensions to dominate the Middle East in the name of a flagging Shiite revolution.The IAEA found "substantial parts of the centrifuge components were manufactured in the workshops of the Defense Industries Organization." It also describes evidence of detonators, testing systems, and missile configuration that can only go with a nuclear weapon. So much for last year's estimate by US spy agencies that Iran suspended its weapons program in 2003. If all that isn't enough to persuade Russia and China to help ratchet up UN sanctions on Iran, then there's more. A report last week by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies found that Iran's nuclear threat has already helped create a dangerous ricochet with a surge among Iran's rivals in the region to develop a nuclear-energy capacity.

The Reality Situation We don’t understand the Iranians because the Iranians don’t understand themselves. Until they resolve their internal ambiguity, they won’t be able to make a strategic shift. You are now engaged in a campaign debate over whether to talk with Iran. As I’m sure you both know, this is a political exercise that will have little relevance should you actually take office. In the White House, you will find yourself spending more time on Iran than any other foreign policy issue. You’ll be reminded that the 1979 Iranian revolution is one of the signature events of modern history, akin to the 1917 Russian Revolution, and the U.S. has never figured out how to deal with it. You’ll gather your intelligence experts to help you understand the Iranian threat. They will tell you what they have told the current administration: We don’t know much about how the Iranian regime operates. There are at least four internal factions that seem to regulate each other, but we have little idea how. We don’t understand the Iranians because the Iranians don’t understand themselves. The regime isn’t sure whether it is an ideological movement championing global jihad or whether it is merely regional power seeking Middle East hegemony. Until the Iranians resolve this internal ambiguity, you can talk to them all you want, but they won’t be able to make a strategic shift or follow a more amenable path. As you sit in the Oval Office contemplating how to engage Iran, you won’t be reliving the campaign debate about when to negotiate. You’ll be thinking about how to exert pressure. You will develop newfound sympathy for your predecessors in the Bush administration. There are a hundred things they could have done differently, but the primary fault for the failure to contain Iran does not lie in Washington. It lies first with the feckless international community.

The United Nations has passed resolutions demanding an end to Iranian nuclear enrichment. Iran ignores them. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 forbids the rearmament of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran rearmed them without consequence. Fault also lies with the terrified but nearly immobile Sunni world. It lies, too, with the axis of the avaricious. The U.S. and Europe try to organize economic sanctions against Iran, but the oil-rich Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was welcomed in Indonesia, and Iran signed a pipeline deal with India. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a security group headed by Russia and China, granted Iran observer status, while denying the U.S. the same status in 2005. This is the problem with multipolarity. When everybody is responsible, nobody is responsible. A rich rogue nation can flout the will of a disparate majority.

Related Posts

• Weekly Reader 30Sep07: Middle East, Iraq and Iran
• WRFest 1Mar08(Middle East): Some Different Perspectives
• WRFest 16Mar08(Middle East):Diversity, Complexity & Confusions
• WRFest 30Mar08(Middle East): Progress, Reform, Stability, Devolution
• ME Faultlines(Readings): Values, Culture & Conflict

Posted by dblwyo at 06:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Now that the candidates are settled it's time to get down the the real debates. First up will most likely be economic issues as we've been forecasting for months but the one we're going to que is the neglected one that's slide to the back burner. That's Foreign Policy and National Security. Here the contrast between the candidates is about as broad as it gets, though again both are reasonable men given more to argument than shouting. Which is about time.

The fundamental lesson we'd draw from our series on the State of the World and Good Government is that the US is best served by constructive engagement with the rest of the world. By that we mean it does its' best to encourage and support the emergence of as good a government as feasible in the local circumstances, working with established and legitimate governments while recognizing their rights to their own interests and defending ours. And working to suppress those who are attempting to use violence to overturn these processes. Over the decades that at the end of the day has actually been US foreign policy in a nutshell, though with perhaps more emphasis on protecting our agendii at the expense of respect for others occasionally. At the same time no power has done what the US has done to support the emergence of an open and pluralistic world system. If we are a Hegemon we're the most benign one in human history.

But as usual the wheel of History keeps on rolling and it's time for us to roll with it. A while back Joe Lieberman had a great editorial in the WSJ asking how the party of FDR, Truman and JFK had become the party of McGovern, Gov. Peanut and appeasement. He didn't quite put it that strongly of course. Sen. Biden responded quickly, articulately and disingenuously on the whole with a reply. Both are excerpted below.

What Lieberman argued in the main (2/3 with 1/3 being a bit of partisan politics) was that the Democrats used the troubles of the Iraq war to pursue a partisan political agenda, despite having supported the original authorizing vote. Now we are where we are and those are sunk costs never to be recovered. If everybody, and we do mean everybody, believed in WMD and no smoking test tubes were found Iraq and the ME is still better off w/o Saddam and that ticking, oil-funded timebomb. If the Dims disagreed so vehemently as Americans it was incumbent on them to help change policy - not retreat to Namdrome responses and an attack mentality, which they did. Despite them the last year has seen enormous progress with a long way to go. Meanwhile the War on Terror is actually being won and much of the world's Islamic population has developed an accelerating disenchantment with Islamic terrorists because of their indiscriminate violence.

Joe Biden goes on to attack the Bush administration for the rise of Iran, the lack of communications with same, over-concentration on the WoT and the neglect of China, India, Russia and the rest of the world. None of which addressed the core of Liberman's primary point but was very clever. And not very constructive - rather more of the same partisan politics (he's editorial probably gets a ranking of 1/4 good points and 3/4 disingenuous and non-constructive critiscism). Without going into too much detail in fact what would he propose as alternatives ?

Talking to Iran - this administration and every other has had numerous attempts over two decades. Meanwhile a multi-lateral negotiation has been being pursued under the auspices of of the IAEA involving Britain, France, Russia, et.al. What more is possible ? The Administration has carefully pursued a multi-party approach in NE Asia involving China, Russia, Japan, S.Korea that's kept the lid on and made some slow progress. In particular it has gotten China heavily involved and committed as part of a broader set of evolving strategic relationship developments that exceed those of any prior administration. Similarly our relationships with India are deeper and wider than at any time in history. The US had done more for Africa than at any other time as well.

While there have been a lot of slips twixt cup and lip of which we've been vehement critics Biden's editorial was polemical and partisan, as well as disingenuous. If anything a practical and pragmatic US policy will in fact have to build on the initiatives established and the situation as it is. So as we move into the heart of the campaign you can keep this shopping list in mind and challenge the candidates and their representatives to do one of two things. Speak truth to Power - that is, US ! Or continue to posture to win over whichever audience we most need to get votes.

Boy...when you put it like that the answer's sure obvious isn't it. 

National Security Readings 

Democrats and Our Enemies How did the Democratic Party get here? How did the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core of its identity and its purpose? Beginning in the 1940s, the Democratic Party was forced to confront two of the most dangerous enemies our nation has ever faced: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In response, Democrats under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy forged and conducted a foreign policy that was principled, internationalist, strong and successful. This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.This worldview began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in Vietnam. In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the Democratic Party. Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor – a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and "inordinate fear of communism" represented the real threat to world peace.

• Republicans and Our Enemies Sen. Lieberman is right: 9/11 was a pivotal moment. History will judge Mr. Bush's reaction less for the mistakes he made than for the opportunities he squandered. The president had a historic opportunity to unite Americans and the world in common cause. Instead – by exploiting the politics of fear, instigating an optional war in Iraq before finishing a necessary war in Afghanistan, and instituting policies on torture, detainees and domestic surveillance that fly in the face of our values and interests – Mr. Bush divided Americans from each other and from the world.At the heart of this failure is an obsession with the "war on terrorism" that ignores larger forces shaping the world: the emergence of China, India, Russia and Europe; the spread of lethal weapons and dangerous diseases; uncertain supplies of energy, food and water; the persistence of poverty; ethnic animosities and state failures; a rapidly warming planet; the challenge to nation states from above and below.

The Media Equation: The Wars We Choose to Ignore Even as we celebrate generations of American soldiers past, the women and men who are making that sacrifice today in Iraq and Afghanistan receive less attention every day. There’s plenty of blame to go around: battle fatigue at home, failing media resolve and a government intent on controlling information from the battlefield. According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s News Coverage Index, coverage of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has slipped to 3 percent of all American print and broadcast news as of last week, falling from 25 percent as recently as last September. Television network news coverage in particular has gone off a cliff. Citing numbers provided by a consultant, Andrew Tyndall, the Associated Press reported that in the months after September when Gen. David H. Petraeus testified before Congress about the surge, collective coverage dropped to four minutes a week from 30 minutes a week at the height of coverage, in September 2007. I asked Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, how a war that had cost thousands of lives and over $1 trillion was losing news salience. “There is a cold and sad calculation that readers/viewers aren’t that interested in the war, whether because they are preoccupied with paying $4 for a gallon of gas and avoiding foreclosure, or because they have Iraq fatigue,” he wrote in an e-mail message, adding that The Times stays on the story as part of an implied contract with its readers. Other news editors have made the judgment — perhaps prodded by falling revenue and slashed news budgets — that public attitudes toward the war have become so calcified that few are interested in learning more. Why bother when things don’t change?

The Gates Doctrine  Far from treating Iraq as a distraction, Gates has posed the question: Why not concentrate on winning the wars our soldiers are currently fighting? In a series of groundbreaking speeches, Gates has argued that asymmetrical conflicts in the "long war" against "violent jihadist networks" will remain the likely face of battle for decades to come, that "procurement and training have to focus on that reality," and that shaping civilian attitudes in these conflicts will be just as important as winning battles.There have been at least three practical outcomes of the nicely rhymed Gates Doctrine -- "the war we are in ... is the war we must win" -- in Iraq and beyond.First, Gates has pushed to deploy technologies immediately useful in low intensity conflict, particularly unmanned aerial vehiclesSecond, Gates is institutionalizing the teaching of counterinsurgency strategy. The old theory, says my contact, went: "If we could do the big stuff -- major combat operations -- we could take care of the little stuff, the asymmetrical stuff. But the little stuff turned out to be more prolonged and difficult." So the Army's new manual on "Full Spectrum Operations" trains new officers to conduct simultaneous offensive, defensive and "stability operations" -- things like political reconciliation, providing basic services, promoting local government. "The human terrain," says my source, "is the decisive terrain, and Gates gets it." Third, Gates argues that while American military power can be a prerequisite for stability, winning asymmetrical wars requires other elements of American power. So he calls for "a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security -- diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development." Elements of the defense establishment, he charges, have been "preoccupied with future capabilities and procurement programs, wedded to lumbering peacetime process and procedures, stuck in bureaucratic low-gear." Recently -- seven years after 9/11, five years after the Iraq War began -- Gates noted that portions of the military are still not on a "war footing." With Americans engaged in a war, this scandal dwarfs any Gates has faced. In confronting it, the "realist" has become genuinely transformational.

INFORMATION WARFARE: Al Qaeda Discusses Losing Iraq Al Qaeda web sites are making a lot of noise about "why we lost in Iraq." Western intelligence agencies are fascinated by the statistics being posted in several of these Arab language sites. Not the kind of stuff you read about in the Western media. According to al Qaeda, their collapse in Iraq was steep and catastrophic. According to their stats, in late 2006, al Qaeda was responsible for 60 percent of the terrorist attacks, and nearly all the ones that involved killing a lot of civilians. The rest of the violence was carried out by Iraqi Sunni Arab groups, who were trying in vain to scare the Americans out of the country. Today, al Qaeda has been shattered, with most of its leadership and foot soldiers dead, captured or moved from Iraq. As a result, al Qaeda attacks have declined more than 90 percent. Worse, most of their Iraqi Sunni Arab allies have turned on them,  or simply quit. This "betrayal" is handled carefully on the terrorist web sites, for it is seen as both shameful, and perhaps recoverable.

An Open Offer to U.S. Senators One of the biggest problems with the Iraq War is that politics has frequently triumphed over truth.  For instance, we went into Iraq with shoddy intelligence (at best), no reconstruction plan, and perhaps half as many troops as were required.  We refused to admit that an insurgency was growing, until the country collapsed into anarchy and civil war.  Now the truth is that Iraq is showing real progress on many fronts:  Al Qaeda is being defeated and violence is down and continuing to decrease.  As a result, the militias have lost their reason for existence and are getting beaten back or co-opted.  Shia, Sunni and Kurds are coming together -- although with various stresses -- under the national government.  If progress continues at this rate, it is very possible that before 2008 is out, we can finally say "the war has ended."  Yes, likely there still will be some American casualties, but if the violence continues to drop and the Iraqi government consolidates its gains, we will be able, in good conscience, to begin bringing more of our people home.  I will be paying very close attention to the words of Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, who is replacing General Petraeus as the overall commander in Iraq. Whatever we do in Iraq from here forward, we must strive to make better decisions than those made between 2003 and 2006.  And one way to achieve that is by making certain that our civilian leaders are fully informed.  All three candidates for President are extremely intelligent, but that doesn't mean that all three are tracking the truth on the ground in Iraq.  Anyone who wants to be President of the United States needs to see Iraq without the distorting lenses of the media or partisan politics.  I would be honored to visit Iraq with Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain or any of their Senate colleagues. I hereby offer to accompany any Senator to Iraq, whether they are pro-or anti-war, Democrat or Republican.  

Posted by dblwyo at 04:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Our friends the Brits celebrate Remembrance Day Nov. 11th, the day of the armistice. Otherwise known as poppy day and you'll see VFW,et.al. memebers wearing poppies. Obviously our big remembrance day was Memorial Day which has always meant a lot, and has come to mean more, to me. So putting up a post on the exact weekend seemed like to easy. Better instead to wait, do a little thinking and collect things up. Now we could have started off with a political cartoon on Memorial Day and what it really means but Daryll Cagle's web site has a superb collection. Many of which share the common theme of too much picnicing, sports, beer and general carrying on.Which we sympathize with but only partly.  

Now part of the reason Memorial Day has been important to me is my dad flew C-47s during WW2 and not milk runs moving cargo in safe area. He was part of a Troop Carrier Wing and was involved in moving cargo and people in and near active combat zones. Including some darn serious paratroop drops. Over the years Dad didn't talk much, sharing maybe  1 1/2 to 3 stories. Another reason is that as a student many of my teachers were ex-vets and had served hard time: p-51 fighter pilot, B-17 ball turrent gunner, infrantryman....it wasn't at all unusual - then. One Memorial Day my dad arranged for me, as the CO of the local NRROTC unit and member of the speech team, to give the Gettysburg Address at the American Legion's Ceremony. I wish then I understood what has come so slowly but deeply over the years. So as a reflection of that experience but more importantly my own small reflections on the meaning of the Day let me offer up this "multi-media presentation". Oftertimes movies and other media, even when it's not done by vets, creates a deeper and more compelling grasp of things because of the talents of the communicators.

One other thing - my dad would never watch Combat with me as a kid. It was then and remains now a pretty darn good depiction of platoom level combat in Europe, somewhat sanitized of course. But those who were there didn't need to see it to know it was there and the rest of us, well... But I don't think those vets, my dad or my teachers would have objected to hot dogs, cokes, corn, pie and a game. That after all is what they were fighting for.

 But those are Principles....what about Prices ? Which Buster certainly knew but we may forget - or at least fail to keep at the front of our consciousness.

 Hopefully this little multi-media "essay" is more eloquent than I could have been. Because what we should be celebrating and remembering on Memorial Day is Citizenship. What it is, what it's worth and what it costs. None of which is measured in money but calls for the expenditure of "Our Lives, Our Fortunes and Our Sacred Honor" when the time is right.

Below you'll find some more vidclips and other writings excerpts. The one that I truly recommend for thoughtful reading and contemplation is Teddy Roosevelt's on "Citizenship in a Republic". There is no better discussion in my mind that takes a deep, practical and idealistic look at what is required. Hopefully we'll see more of that in the future...though we've certainly seen plenty in the past ! 

Sacrifice and the Nature of Citizenship

Do graduates understand citizenship? It is true that for many people education is an inoculation against poverty, the guarantee of a good job, and a boost up the ladder of success. But as we look around the world, we are reminded that what that ladder leans against is equally important. America's Founding Fathers knew that an educated citizenry was the only means of preserving a true democracy. We get confused sometimes thinking that the core of our democratic process is about how many groups are represented or assuring majority rule. Democracy is a means, not an end. Democracy is not about "the majority." It's about debate. First adopted by the rational Greeks, democracy is about arguing freely to arrive at the wisest and most sensible conclusion for a community or a country. This year's commencement speeches will include platitudes about how lucky we are to be Americans. And we are. But our freedom is not guaranteed. Living in a democracy is not a right that comes gift-wrapped just for being born at this geographic address. You have to earn it. And the capacity for intelligent and civil debate – along with a commitment to free speech – is the minimum fee to purchase citizenship. Jefferson wrote: "If a nation expects it can be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Citizenship in a RepublicThe conditions accentuate vices and virtues, energy and ruthlessness, all the good qualities and all the defects of an intense individualism, self-reliant, self-centered, far more conscious of its rights than of its duties, and blind to its own shortcomings. To the hard materialism of the frontier days succeeds the hard materialism of an industrialism even more intense and absorbing than that of the older nations; although these themselves have likewise already entered on the age of a complex and predominantly industrial civilization. As the country grows, its people, who have won success in so many lines, turn back to try to recover the possessions of the mind and the spirit, which perforce their fathers threw aside in order better to wage the first rough battles for the continent their children inherit. The leaders of thought and of action grope their way forward to a new life, realizing, sometimes dimly, sometimes clear-sightedly, that the life of material gain, whether for a nation or an individual, is of value only as a foundation, only as there is added to it the uplift that comes from devotion to loftier ideals.

S.C. Guardsman killed in Afghanistan A 38-year-old soldier from South Carolina who volunteered to remain behind in Afghanistan after his unit returned home was killed during hostile fire, officials said Tuesday. Spc. David Lee Leimbach, of Taylors, was killed Sunday while assisting in the recovery of a stolen vehicle. His unit was hit with small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades, according to a statement by the Department of Defense. Leimbach had served four years with the South Carolina Army National Guard. He spent the past year with the 218th Brigade Combat Team in Afghanistan, officials said. About 1,800 members of the South Carolina National Guard deployed to Afghanistan in 2007 to train members of the Afghan military and police force. It was the state’s largest National Guard deployment since World War II. Most members of the unit returned home earlier this month after completing their deployment. However, about 120 soldiers from the unit opted to remain behind. Some remained in Afghanistan, while others were redeployed to units in Iraq, said Guard spokesman Col. Pete Brooks.

Great Americans: David Leimbach Comes Home On Memorial Day, I published an email from Command Sergeant Major Jeffrey Mellinger describing the memorial in Afghanistan for Spc David L. Leimbach. When I published that tribute, I didn't know just how dedicated this Great American was. I've been in communication with a member of David's family who told me that David had done a tour in Afghanistan with the South Carolina National Guard, yet when their tour ended, 120 members of the Guard unit volunteered to stay behind in Afghanistan or go to Iraq. David was one of those soldiers. Please see this article for more: America has lost David in body, but his spirit and the spirit of the other 119 soldiers resonates deeply with me. These are the kind of soldiers I'm thinking of when people ask me how morale is, and I say, I can't explain it, but despite the extreme pressures of multiple deployments, our combat soldiers' morale remains high. David and his comrades had done their duty. They knew the risks. And they still volunteered to return to combat. These are the kind of men and women I most like to be around and write about. I did not know David personally, but reading about him, I feel as if I know him well. The South Carolina National Guard must be some unit to have soldiers like David Leimbach, and 119 others who keep on keeping on.

Posted by dblwyo at 01:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The last post (Hidden Issues and Government Reform: the Politics of Special Interests) talked about how the combination of special interests and representative government tended to lead to policy that more served the benefits of the narrow interests rather than those of the broader republic. We ought to pursure that some more because reforming the MECHANISMS of government are as central a policy problem as we face. Not a bad one, contrary to any impression being created - like over-eating and obesity it's a problem of success. But if there's any single place where the cumulative impact of politico- bureaucratic organosclerosis has resulted in deadly damage to the national interest it's energy. Yet here's the rub - there's nothing going on with regard to energy policy that the primary responsible party isn't us. For decades we've chose low oil and gas prices, avoided off-shore exploration, prevented nuclear power development, made sure that no new US refineries were built in 30 years and then only in the path of hurricanes and curtailed substituting coal, which could be clean with R&D investment, for oil. Driven bigger and bigger cars with more and more H.P. and failed to implement easy energy conservation. Look in the mirror indeed Pogo, the cartoon has it exactly right.

The great irony of the cartoon, well one among several, is that it's only a few weeks old as I've been plotting this post for a while now. And wouldn't we love $3.49 gas ? Given that the week closed out with a surge in oil to almost $140/barrel ! Just to put a little perspective on it consider this rather busy little composite chart - handcrafted just for you :). The bottom is my own estimate of real oil prices and the top shows the growth rates in world oil supply and demand as well as the yoy% change in the difference, the balance.

Now we have a few things to say about a short summary of a national energy policy, triggered by a friend's question but before we get to it we'd like to "pause" for you to watch a great interview on Charlie Rose with John Hofmeister of Shell Oil. Which has been famous for decades for long-term scenario planning. And before you dismiss it because he's a big-oil executive it's, IOHO, a very balanced, reasonable and honest discussion. That tells some hard truths plainly and straight-forwardly. But the bottom-line point is encapsulate in this chart:

A conversation with John Hofmeister,President of Houston based Shell Oil Company.

 That'll take you about an hour to watch some time but if you're concerned about the issue it's the best compression we've found that's also the most honest and balanced. Quite unlike, for example, the recent Congressional war-drumming about windfall profits for Big Oil. Jeff Jacoby wrote an interesting little editorial but didn't go nearly far enough with regard to diagnosing the problem.

The reason Jacoby doesn't begin to go far enough at all is that the counter-argument isn't the nature of business and profit cycles in the oil industry, though again he is technically correct. The primary problems are structural on multiple fronts.

1. World demand exceeds and is growing faster than world supply.

2. In the short-run the base necessary to capture long-run requirements, including a premium for exhaustible resources, is probably in the $80-100/barrel range. On top of which there is most likely a 20% factor for geo-political risk AND speculation. Which would put the fair market price in the $120-140/barrel range. Surprise.

3. There is plenty of oil available for the next fifty years if it were readily and affordably available. Which it is not.

4. Approx. 90% of the world's known total reserves are relatively inaccessible to the major western oil companies because they are controlled by national oil companies and/or the nation-states themselves.

5. The primary l.t. drivers of oil prices are exploration and production costs. With the reserve access problems much of the terrain for both is behind political barriers which means they cannot reliably be developed and exploited. In other words investment is very limited, highly risky and increasingly liable to expropriation.

6. Of the oil in front of the barriers much of it still comes from producing countries where aging oil fields and gross (malfeasant ?!) under-investment is leading to severe declines in production. Mexico's major fields are dying, Indonesia just announced it will become an importer and leave OPEC, Russian output is declining and new major reserves aren't being developed for political reasons. US and European fields are dying (AK. and North Sea). Much of Venezuelan and Iranian oil is "heavy" and not suitable for low-cost refining. The net result is that accessible oil is in rapid decline.

• And oh, btw,  yes there are a lot of reserves in oil sands etc. But it’s very expensive, environmentally damaging to the point of unsustainability, uses water that’s not available and takes a long time. All of which becomes moot if/when we let oil go to $200-300/barrel !

7. We need to develop new oil sources and new alternate energy sources. Politics has prevented that and those politics largely reflect implicit choices made by the voters...thereby shooting off their own feet.

• We need to explore and develop our own offshore potential fields but green concerns have prevented that.
• Conservation would reduce US energy and oil use by upto 30% in the short-run.
• We need to drive smaller, less h.p.'d cars but instead people prefer 200-300 h.p. cars that get 20mpg at best instead of the feasible 50 with current technology.
• We need a concerted national energy plan, which has been developed and blueprinted BtW, to develop clean coal and nuclear.
• Green alternatives aren't sufficiently developed for the technologies to be mature enough to justify the multi-$B investments required.
• In any case the migration path is 2-3 decades long.
• We should have been paying $4-5/gal. in the '90s and re-investing those funds in new R&D and the infrastructure switchover.

Populist Politics

No profits, no oil WITH AMERICANS steaming over $4-a-gallon gasoline and ExxonMobil reporting first-quarter earnings of nearly $10.9 billion, the temptation to grandstand about "obscene" profits and "greedy" oil companies is one too many politicians cannot resist. On Monday, seven Senate Democrats proposed the "Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008," the centerpiece of which is a 25 percent windfall-profits tax on US oil companies. This, the senators declared in a press release, will "address the root causes of high gas prices." Just how it would do that they never quite make clear, perhaps because rattling class-warfare sabers is higher on their priority list. "Oil companies are racking up obscene profits left and right while American families are stretched to the limit by skyrocketing gas prices," growls Senator Charles Schumer of New York. "It's time for Big Oil to pay its fair share so Americans can see a little relief." Also aboard the windfall-profits bandwagon are presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. "We've got to go after the oil companies and look at their price-gouging," proclaims Obama. "We've got to go after windfall profits." Clinton derides oil-company profits as "Dick Cheney's wonderland" and evidence that "there is something seriously wrong with our economy." There is something seriously wrong, all right - the economic shallowness of politicians who believe that when oil companies prosper they should be penalized. Or who imagine that the way to bring gasoline prices down is to jack the oil industry's taxes up. Or who actually think that earnings of 8.1 cents per dollar of sales - Big Oil's profits over the past five years, exactly equivalent to the overall US manufacturing average (excluding autos) - constitute a "windfall."

Real Strategic Outlook

The Big Thirst Oil prices rose above $116 a barrel last week, setting another record for the world’s most indispensable energy commodity. What was striking about this latest milestone was what didn’t happen: there was no shortage of oil, no sudden embargo, no exporter turning off its spigot. The weak dollar, worries about terrorism and speculation on commodity markets certainly played a role. But, of course, so did demand. Producers are struggling to pump as much as they can to quench the thirst not only of the developed world, but fast-growing developing nations like China and India, the two most populous countries. To many experts, the steadily rising price underscored longer-term fears about the future of a system that has supplied cheap oil for more than a century. Today’s tensions are only likely to get worse in coming years. Consider a few numbers: The planet’s population is expected to grow by 50 percent to nine billion by sometime in the middle of the century. The number of cars and trucks is projected to double in 30 years— to more than two billion — as developing nations rapidly modernize. And twice as many passenger jetliners, more than 36,000, will in all likelihood be crisscrossing the skies in 20 years. All of that will require a lot more oil — enough that global oil consumption will jump by some 35 percent by the year 2030, according to the International Energy Agency, a leading global energy forecaster for the United States and other developed nations. For producers it will mean somehow finding and pumping an additional 11 billion barrels of oil every year. And that’s only 22 years away, a heartbeat for the petroleum industry, where the pace of finding and tapping new supplies is measured in decades. The pursuit of oil will be just part of the energy challenge. The world’s total energy demand — including oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear power, as well as renewable energy sources like wind, solar and hydro power — is set to rise by 65 percent over the next two decades, according to the I.E.A. But petroleum, the dominant fuel of the 20th century, will remain the top energy source. It accounts for more than a third of the world’s total energy needs, ahead of coal and natural gas. Refined into gasoline, kerosene or diesel fuel, oil has no viable substitute as a transportation fuel, and that is not likely to change much in the next 30 years.The problem is that no one can say for sure where all this oil is going to come from.

• BW Online | February 24, 2003 | Taming the Oil Beast A sensible, step-by-step energy policy is within our reach. Here's what to do

Preparing for the age of peak oil Russia has much to gain by exploiting western expertise. But if it drives out western compnaies it will be unable to revitalise its decayed supply network. Russia’s vast oil and gas reserves were seen not so long ago as the best hope of meeting growing world energy demand. No more. This week a top Russian oil executive echoed earlier official warnings that oil production could fall for the first time in a decade. An output slump would hit consuming nations hard by sending international oil prices even higher. Russia would lose out too by forgoing tax revenues. But Moscow can prevent this – and create the conditions for a recovery in production. In Russia, the problem is not so much a lack of oil but an investment drought. This has been caused by high taxes and hostile treatment of foreign and some domestic companies by a government reasserting control over its energy sector. Russia will have to act quickly if it is to avoid a long-term decline in oil output. Bringing on stream untapped reserves in the Arctic and eastern Siberia will take years. (WRFest 16Mar08(Middle East):Diversity, Complexity & Confusions)

IEA: $45 Trillion Needed for 'Energy Revolution'- The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday. The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions a "energy revolution" that would greatly reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth. The IEA report mapped out two main scenarios: one in which emissions are reduced to 2005 levels by 2050, and a second that would bring them to half of 2005 levels by mid-century. The scenario for deeper cuts would require massive investment in energy technology development and deployment, a wide-ranging campaign to dramatically increase energy efficiency, and a wholesale shift to renewable sources of energy. Assuming an average 3.3 percent global economic growth over the 2010-2050 period, governments and the private sector would have to make additional investments of $45 trillion in energy, or 1.1 percent of the world's gross domestic product, the report said. That would be an investment more than three times the current size of the entire U.S. economy. The second scenario also calls for an accelerated ramping up of development of so-called "carbon capture and storage" technology allowing coal-powered power plants to catch emissions and inject them underground. The study said that an average of 35 coal-powered plants and 20 gas-powered power plants would have to be fitted with carbon capture and storage equipment each year between 2010 and 2050. In addition, the world would have to construct 32 new nuclear power plants each year, and wind-power turbines would have to be increased by 17,000 units annually. Nations would have to achieve an eight-fold reduction in carbon intensity -- the amount of carbon needed to produce a unit of energy -- in the transport sector. Such action would drastically reduce oil demand to 27 percent of 2005 demand. Failure to act would lead to a doubling of energy demand and a 130 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, IEA officials said. "This development is clearly not sustainable," said Dolf Gielen, an IEA energy analyst and leader for the project. Gielen said most of the $45 trillion forecast investment -- about $27 trillion -- would be borne by developing countries, which will be responsible for two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Most of the money would be in the commercialization of energy technologies developed by governments and the private sector.

Political Factors

State Oil Industry’s Future Sets Off Tussle in Mexico A bitter debate over what to do about Mexico’s ailing state oil monopoly has dominated national politics here in recent weeks, tapping strong emotions on both sides and resurrecting the political fortunes of the leftist leader who narrowly lost the 2006 presidential election. Revamping the oil company, Petróleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, is perhaps the greatest challenge facing the administration of President Felipe Calderón, a conservative economist who won the disputed 2006 election by a hairbreadth. At stake in the debate is not only the future of the Mexican economy but also the supply of oil to the United States. Last year, Mexico was the third largest supplier of crude imports to the American market, after Canada and Saudi Arabia. The government has neglected the public company for 20 years, siphoning off its profits. Now production is dropping, reserves are dwindling, and Pemex lacks the technology to go after undersea oil, the administration says.But his rival, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the former Mexico City mayor and presidential candidate, has called any private investment in Pemex a threat to national security and has accused Mr. Calderón of secretly seeking to sell off the industry to private investors, a charge the president denies.The leftist leader has skillfully used the issue to catapult himself back onto center stage in national politics after a year of remaining on the fringes. At mass rallies, he has threatened blockades of roads, airports and oil wells by his followers if the president even introduces a bill to Congress. With leftists promising unrest, President Calderón warned last week that ignoring the company’s problems would cause a catastrophe.

Futures

Oil Has Two Potential Futures, Shell Strategist Says Morning Edition, April 22, 2008 · As oil prices hit $117 a barrel this month, a forecast from Shell Oil outlines two very different possibilities for the future of the world's energy supply. Looking out to the year 2050, Shell strategist Jeremy Bentham says demand will go up, while oil supplies will be harder to find. But how nations and companies react is harder to predict. "We anticipate that you'll begin to see a plateauing of easily accessible conventional oil and gas around about the 2015, 2020 type of period," Bentham tells Steve Inskeep. Bentham outlines two outcomes — one a "scramble" and the other a "blueprint" scenario — for addressing energy needs. In the scramble scenario, he says, "a focus on supply security drives a lot of decision-making." For example, China is worried about its future supply of oil, so it decides that it needs to be friendly with Iran. Or the U.S., worried about its supply of oil, holds intensive talks with Saudi Arabia. "That can kick off a dynamic where the tensions are perceived to be a fight between nations and hence a scramble for supply. The demand side is postponed, in terms of being managed, in that scramble outlook," Bentham says. So, a fear of shortage of supply builds up, and the steps to manage the whole energy system holistically aren't taken, Bentham says. Instead of considering conservation or alternatives, people just grab for oil and other forms of energy. The "blueprint" scenario, on the other hand, recognizes that forces can combine to affect change. "You see emerging coalitions coming together at the state level but also cross-border" to find solutions, Bentham says.He points to climate-related legislation in California as an example. "A set of interests were recognized among technology entrepreneurs and farmers and shrewd politicians which led, in this country in 2006, to the climate-related legislation in California," he says. That legislation influenced thinking in other states, which in turn influenced thinking at the federal level. "So you get this spreading awareness and spreading regulatory activity; you get a set of actors who influence the national agendas," Bentham says, and a patchwork of standards and regulations begins to emerge. "You don't get global agreements," Bentham says, "but you get a critical mass of sectors and countries having, for instance, some kind of carbon dioxide pricing in the blueprint scenario." And that approach would grow over time as people recognize the benefits, because it promotes energy efficiency and new technology developments, he says. Shell has a preference for blueprint-type outcomes that address demand, supply and environmental issues together, Bentham says, because "it's better for society at large, but also it's better for business and investment."

• Shell Energy Scenarios to 2050: Shell uses scenarios to explore the future. Our scenarios are not mechanical forecasts.  They recognise that people hold beliefs and make choices that can lead down different paths.  They reveal different possible futures that are plausible and challenging. Our latest energy scenarios look at the world in the next half century, linking the  the uncertainties we hold about the future to the decisions we must make today. Video – Scramble and Blueprints

Soros Says Commodity `Bubble' Still in `Growth Phase' Billionaire George Soros said the boom in commodities is still in a ``growth phase'' after prices for oil, wheat and gold rose to records. ``You have a generalized commodity bubble due to commodities having become an asset class that institutions use to an increasing extent,'' Soros said today at an event sponsored by the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels. ``On top of that you have specific factors that create the relative shortage of oil and, now, also food.''  Commodities are in their seventh year of gains, with oil rising to a record $115.54 a barrel today as the dollar plunged to an all-time low against the euro. Rice has more than doubled in a year, while corn has advanced 68 percent and wheat 92 percent. Investments in commodities rose by more than a fifth in the first quarter to $400 billion, Citigroup Inc. said April 7. Commodities have outpaced stocks and bonds this year, spurring pension funds and other investors to increase holdings in wheat, gold, copper and tin, which climbed to a record.

Resources & Readings

Other Postings

• Oil Industry I (Readings): Prices, Fundamentals, and Big Oil Futures

• Oil Industry II(Analysis): LT Supply-Demand, Outlook and Disruptions

  WRFest 9Mar08(Policy): Security, Economy, Energy Oh My
  

Posted by dblwyo at 03:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Well thru the last post we built up an interesting series of posts on the role of good government in the overall well-being and longevity of society. Which leads, eventually, to a set of imperatives for US Foreign Policy. But the lessons and implications come much closer to home. They are in fact the central but very hidden issue in these elections. And somethine we've posted on in terms of describing the symptoms, growing public dissatisfaction and consequences in several prior posts. We'll list those after the break for a refresher. But week before last David Brooks of the NYT had a magnificent column on what we think is the central issue. Here's a brief excerpt with the whole below the break:

Talking Versus Doing Barack Obama’s vote for a recent farm bill may help him win Iowa, but it will lead to higher global food prices and more hunger in Africa. In 1965, Mancur Olson wrote a classic book called “The Logic of Collective Action,” which pointed out that large, amorphous groups are often less powerful politically than small, organized ones. He followed it up with “The Rise and Decline of Nations.” In that book, Olson observed that as the number of small, organized factions in a society grows, the political culture becomes more divisive, the economy becomes more rigid and the nation loses vitality. If you look around America today, you see the Olson logic playing out. Interest groups turn every judicial fight into an ideological war. They lobby for more spending on the elderly, even though the country is trillions of dollars short of being able to live up to its promises. They’ve turned environmental concern into subsidies for corn growers and energy concerns into subsidies for oil companies.

If you'd like to see real change our central challenge is to find new mechanisms of government that recognize the interests of narrow groups but don't allow them to dominate policy making at the expense of society as a whole. There is no single policy domain we've discussed that doesn't need a new institutional framework. In other words the mechanisms of government are as important as the policy goals. If for no other reasons than we now have decades of experience with watching good intentions being suberted by terrible implementation and the triumph of special interests. 

 Consider the inter-linked social policies in the graphic. If we continue business as usual we'll get results as usual. What's the old saying....the one about the triump of optimism over experience ? Yet when and where have you heard this as a major subject of discussion in the election campgain so far ? That's why we were and are so tickled to have a major, respected and insightful columnist like Brooks put it on the table. We've talked before about the economic crisis facing us as well as the performance problems in education and other social policy areas that we face. If we'd like to see them addressed we need new mechanisms.

After the break you'll find a longer excerpt from Brooks as well as a lengthier excerpt from a young think-tanker who wrote an interesting article that triggerred Brooks' interest. That's followed by a set of other excerpts that talk about many of the symptoms in various areas. But, we repeat, if you'd like to see constructive change give some thought to the HOW...as well as the WHAT. 

Policies and Politics

Talking Versus Doing Barack Obama’s vote for a recent farm bill may help him win Iowa, but it will lead to higher global food prices and more hunger in Africa. In 1965, Mancur Olson wrote a classic book called “The Logic of Collective Action,” which pointed out that large, amorphous groups are often less powerful politically than small, organized ones. He followed it up with “The Rise and Decline of Nations.” In that book, Olson observed that as the number of small, organized factions in a society grows, the political culture becomes more divisive, the economy becomes more rigid and the nation loses vitality. If you look around America today, you see the Olson logic playing out. Interest groups turn every judicial fight into an ideological war. They lobby for more spending on the elderly, even though the country is trillions of dollars short of being able to live up to its promises. They’ve turned environmental concern into subsidies for corn growers and energy concerns into subsidies for oil companies. If elected, Obama’s main opposition will not come from Republicans. It will come from Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill. Already, the Democratic machine is reborn. Lobbyists are now giving 60 percent of their dollars to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The pharmaceutical industry, the defense industry and the financial sector all give more money to Democrats than Republicans. If Obama is actually going to bring about change, he’s going to have to ruffle these sorts of alliances. If he can’t do it in an easy case like the farm bill, will he ever? Levin points out that the health care system, the immigration system, the regulatory system and the entitlement system all need reforms. Instead of talking about personal honor or perpetual tax cuts, McCain should focus relentlessly on modernization. In fact, Monday in Detroit, McCain declared: “In all my reforms, the goal is not to denigrate government but to make it better, not to deride government but to restore its good name.” Obama, sad to say, failed the farm bill test. McCain may have found a theme for a nation that has lost faith in its own institutions.

• Perspectives on the economy, with Pete Peterson, The Blackstone Group chairman/co-founder and David Walker former U.S. Comptroller

•  Blocking a Balloon Budget The Senate democratic budget decision might get pushed back, says Sen. Judd Gregg, R-NH

A Theme for McCain's Pudding Here's how to tie together the campaign's assortment of ideas: a reform agenda for the 21st century. What has not emerged is a coherent campaign narrative: a theme that unites McCain's proposals, his persona, his assessment of the state of the nation today, and the essence of what he plans to offer the voter in November. Indeed, this absence of an organizing principle was painfully evident in his "America in 2013" speech, which was the very model of a themeless pudding. It is of course fairly late in the game to be engaged in basic message development, but McCain's peculiar path to victory in the primaries did not force him to do so earlier. McCain himself long ago offered the core of the answer. In announcing his first run for the presidency, in September 1999, McCain declared that if elected he would work to "reform our public institutions to meet the demands of a new day." So far he has not made the vocabulary of reform a key to his second run for the White House. But a comprehensive reform agenda, which framed America's challenge in terms of revitalizing and reimagining its core public institutions, would be a natural fit for McCain, and for the challenges of the day. It would provide him with the overarching theme for the assorted elements of his approach to public policy. A successful McCain campaign would begin with noting what is wrong with the Democrats' main theme: change. In an election year marked by a vague but pervasive sense of anxiety among voters, there is something ironic about the Democratic mantra. Change, after all, is exactly what Americans have been experiencing over the last several decades: Many of our public institutions arose to meet the demands of the 20th century. These institutions have always had critics, but in recent years the old debates have begun to seem outdated as the circumstances from which they emerged have changed dramatically and the institutions begun to show signs of serious decay. Grave institutional failures have been behind some of the prominent problems of the Bush years. The right is well suited to the task of such reform. The overarching lesson of our failing institutions is not that government has failed to reach far enough into American society, but that life in the 21st century is more complex and less predictable than our 20th-century institutions can readily fathom. The answer is not to expand government so it can rescue people from themselves--which is the underlying premise behind just about every plank of Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's platforms--but to make the institutions dynamic and flexible enough to advance the causes of economic growth, cultural vitality, and national security.

Let’s Be Serious There is growing evidence that the election may yet be undermined by the wholesale trivialization of matters that are not just important, but extremely complex. The general election is about to unfold and we’ll soon see how smart or how foolish Americans really are. The U.S. may be the richest country on earth, but the economy is tanking, its working families are in trouble, it is bogged down in a multitrillion-dollar war of its own making and the price of gasoline has nitwits siphoning supplies from the cars and trucks of strangers. Four of every five Americans want the country to move in a different direction, which makes this presidential election, potentially, one of the most pivotal since World War II. And yet there’s growing evidence that despite the plethora of important issues, the election may yet be undermined by the usual madness — fear-mongering, bogus arguments over who really loves America, race-baiting, gay-baiting (Ohmigod! They’re getting married!) and the wholesale trivialization of matters that are not just important, but extremely complex. In his book, “Crunch: Why Do I Feel So Squeezed?,” Jared Bernstein reminds us that the economic expansion from 2000 to 2006 was something less than nirvana for working people. The economy grew by 15 percent during that period, and the official rates of joblessness and inflation were low. But as most of us know, the benefits of that expansion were skewed to the high end of the economic ladder.

The End of Entitlement We middle-class Americans are in a funk. "The overarching economic narrative of the 2008 campaign is the idea that life for the middle class has grown more difficult," writes Paul Taylor of the Pew Research Center, which recently published a massive report on middle-class anxieties. By its survey, more than half of Americans believe they either have not moved ahead in the past five years (25 percent) or have fallen behind (31 percent). Pew pronounces this "the most downbeat short-term assessment of personal progress in nearly half a century." Part of the deceptive sense of falling behind reflects the elastic nature of being middle class. "Progress" keeps draining our pocketbooks. Pew finds that four-fifths of Americans find it hard to maintain middle-class lifestyles; in 1986, two-thirds did. But today's middle-class anxieties transcend the well-advertised "squeeze" on incomes. The deeper source of disquiet, I think, lies elsewhere. Middle-class families value predictability, order and security, and these reassuring qualities have eroded. People worry about rising living expenses; but what really upsets them is the possibility that their incomes or fringe benefits -- pensions, health and disability insurance -- might vanish. We are losing our sense of entitlement. Under the implied social contract, people who "played by the rules" (to use a phrase popularized by Bill Clinton) deserved modest middle-class guarantees: a steady job, rising income and protection against random misfortune (sickness, disability, job loss, accidents). There was a belief that diligence and responsibility were their own rewards.

The Economy: Back to 1979? Still, as the old saying goes, history may not repeat itself but it frequently rhymes. For instance, it was during this speech that Carter announced the creation of the Energy Dept., which quickly evolved into a massive, hidebound bureaucracy. That said, the most intriguing aspect of Carter's 1979 chat may be that it was a transitional speech marking an ideological shift in how to run an economy. With the benefit of hindsight, it appeared to be the last gasp of government-centered domestic economic policy. Aspects of his talk contain hints of the ideology that replaced managed capitalism: A strong belief in free markets and deregulation. Think Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and the economics department at the University of Chicago. According to the free-marketeers, economic problems would disappear if government backed off and let the magic of markets work. And indeed, the unleashing of free-market capitalism in the 1980s and 1990s nurtured entrepreneurial innovation and business productivity. But the wheel of history has a habit of turning whether we like it or not. Now, like Keynesian liberalism before it, the credit crunch has exposed the ideas that have held sway in Washington as also bankrupt. "The current conservative, free-market cycle that commenced with the Reagan presidency, with all its achievements, seems to have long since foundered in the oil seas of gross excess," writes Charles Morris, author of The Trillion Dollar Meltdown: Easy Money, High Rollers, and the Great Credit Crash.

George Packer: Is the Republican era over? Because we can’t anticipate what ideas and language will dominate the next cycle of American politics, the previous era’s key words—“élite,” “mainstream,” “real,” “values,” “patriotic,” “snob,” “liberal”—seem as potent as ever. Indeed, they have shown up in the current campaign: North Carolina and Mississippi Republicans have produced ads linking local Democrats to Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s controversial former pastor. The right-wing group Citizens United has said that it will run ads portraying Obama as yet another “limousine liberal.” But these are the spasms of nerve endings in an organism that’s brain-dead. Among Republicans, there is no energy, no fresh thinking, no ability to capture the concerns and feelings of millions of people. In the past two months, Democratic targets of polarization attacks have won three special congressional elections, in solidly Republican districts in Illinois, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Political tactics have a way of outliving their ability to respond to the felt needs and aspirations of the electorate: Democrats continued to accuse Republicans of being like Herbert Hoover well into the nineteen-seventies; Republicans will no doubt accuse Democrats of being out of touch with real Americans long after George W. Bush retires to Crawford, Texas. But the 2006 and 2008 elections are the hinge on which America is entering a new political era. Yuval Levin, a former Bush White House official, who is now a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, agrees with Gingrich’s diagnosis. “There’s an intellectual fatigue, even if it hasn’t yet been made clear by defeat at the polls,” he said. “The conservative idea factory is not producing as it did. You hear it from everybody, but nobody agrees what to do about it.” Pat Buchanan was less polite, paraphrasing the social critic Eric Hoffer: “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” Only a few years ago, on the night of Bush’s victory in 2004, the conservative movement seemed indomitable. In fact, it was rapidly falling apart. Conservatives knew how to win elections; however, they turned out not to be very interested in governing. Throughout the decades since Nixon, conservatism has retained the essentially negative character of an insurgent movement.

Previous Posts

Finding the RadCenter: Making Politics Work ?

Framing the Radical Center: a Policy Agenda for the 4th Republic

Policy Challenges: From Coasting Along to Coping ? 

Readings(Education): the Single Most Important Domestic Policy Issue

Posted by dblwyo at 04:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)