1st Debate Reflections

I’ve compiled some reflections on a few key points from Friday night’s debate. I missed the first section on the economy so left that out. I will say that I really liked this debate and the nature of it. It is refreshing to have two candidates who, while they have different positions, have positions that one can present credible arguments for. We may still disagree, but at least we have something of substance to disagree about*. Also, it looks like I was wrong in my assessment of the debate. While many gave the result a tie, polls tended to show that most felt Obama won. As always, comments welcome.

The Iraq War
McCain’s position: don’t let our troops die in vain. While this oversimplifies it, it is the clear message of his bracelet story. I wish McCain would have made a stronger argument about the fact that whatever your opinion of the war, whether you think it was a good idea or not, is almost irrelevant when considering what to do today. It is undeniable that we have changed the face of Iraq and I think he’s right in saying we have a responsibility to get the job done. I think it’s a strength that he is willing to commit the necessary resources and troops, despite politics, to finish what we’ve started, to fix the mess we made. McCain argued for victory in Iraq both for the honor of America and those who served along with the idea that a stable Iraq is central to a peaceful Middle East. The argument to not let our troops die in vain has both strengths and weaknesses. While I think we all want victory (who wants to lose?), fighting for the honor of our troops can also be a very slippery slope. If this plan doesn’t succeed will even more troops be needed to not let these die in vain, how about after that, and after that, etc. Honor can become hubris and we will indeed end up in Iraq for 100 years**.

Obama’s position: don’t let anymore of our troops die. His bracelet story represents the other half of McCain’s. Again, his position is more complex than this, but I think Obama is right to hammer the poor judgment of the Iraq war in the first place. This argument also has strengths and weaknesses. Beginning with the latter, the original poor judgment in going to war in Iraq does not solve the current problem of being there and it is not that simple to simply leave. I think Obama could be stronger in making the case that it is time to leave and that leaving is not defeat. He also needs to deal with the question of what leaving would do to the Middle East, something I don’t think anyone can predict. However, I think the real strength of this argument is in regards to future judgments. Whatever successes the war in Iraq may be having now (something we should all be guarded about as they are indeed very fragile – so much so that no one knows if staying would even have a major impact on them) it is clear that the decision to go to war was made on false premises. It is clear that we (America) got this one wrong. I think Obama was far more reassuring that such a mistake (poor judgment if you like) won’t happen again.

Diplomatic talks without preconditions
I think McCain failed to convince people that Obama was parsing words on this one. Ultimately, McCain should have focused more on the arguments to have preconditions rather than not to, especially considering their track record. I think his argument that you legitimize a leader’s position when you talk to them is hog wash. If I talk to the KKK I'm not legitimizing racism or white power - talk about ridiculous. I think there are far stronger arguments for preconditions than that - increased leverage for example.

Obama made a strong case for the need to talks without preconditions, citing support for such talks from Kissinger and even Bush. I think he made the case that no preconditions does not mean no preparation and more importantly, that not talking to someone is not likely to get you anywhere. The strongest evidence is simply what has happened to Iran and North Korea. I think you could make this even stronger by simply thinking of how people tend to react when they are isolate or pushed into a corner – usually not very well.

Russia
I was surprised by both McCain and Obama’s stance towards Russia – very forceful and strong. I wonder why there was little talk about working with Russia and seeking to strengthen our relationship rather than defend our influence in the world. While neither was outright aggressive towards Russia, there were echoes of the Cold War. Did anyone else sense this? I hope I’m proven wrong on this and we hear about more ways to work with Russia in the future. I do think Russia is the sleeping giant. While communism may have led to the collapse of their economy, they still have a huge amount of resources and I think you’ll see a boom in Russia (if we haven’t already) similar to China once they get up and really running.

Israel
Both showed strong support, not much else.

Globalization
While neither candidate mentioned this word, at least not that I can remember, I thought Obama was the only candidate that seemed to grasp what this means in today’s world. I think Obama’s urge to restore America’s standing in the world is paramount. Perhaps 100 years ago, maybe even only 50 years ago, we could afford to say we’ll do whatever we want, we don’t care what you think. However, that is simply not true today. Just think of the financial meltdown. Nearly all of those companies were transnational. The amount of capital that flows between countries is astronomical and more and more companies are no longer located in only one nation. International treaties become the only effective tool to regulate such companies and thus relationships between countries is all the more important. When one considers national security and terrorism issues, the abilities for countries to work well with one another only furthers the need for America to be well respected in the world. This is not just some “feel good” message, it is essential for America’s future. I did not think McCain did a good job in showing that he understood the importance of relationships in today’s global world.

*Palin not included.
**One should also consider the history of Iraq. T.E. Lawrence, yes that’s Lawrence of Arabia, said that the public had been led, “into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor” regarding British control of Iraq. The British maintained their colonial rule of Iraq with intense brutality, in many ways the precursor of the Baath party and Saddam Hussein.

Debate Coverage

My two cents (very quick review here). Who won? I don’t think there was a clear winner. I’d probably have to give McCain the edge. To me, his strength was with Iraq, with dealing with the here and now. While I think Obama is right about the war, McCain comes off stronger by dealing with it the way it is. I think Obama's strength was trying to broaden the vision of what the executive needs to do in terms of global conflicts.

Both were very knowledgeable. Both represented their ideas well. I don’t know how well McCain’s “he doesn’t understand” remarks will go over. I’m not sure if the debate about what to do in Iraq was really settled or at least no clear winner. The same would go for direct diplomacy without preconditions.

I thought it was interesting how both took a very tough stance with Russia.

More in depth comments to come later – thoughts are welcome.

Quick poll of those watching with us:
Ron: I thought Barack held his own very well. I think Barack has a wider vision of how to conduct foreign policy, much more in tune with the 20th century which involves engagement, conversation and seeing the interconnectedness between issues. Whereas John McCain, essentially focused on military. John McCain is a warrior so his international perspective is narrower and much riskier.

Linda: I think that he [Obama] held his own. I appreciated that he would acknowledge when McCain was correct whereas there was a meanness with McCain. So spirit wise, people might be attracted to Obama - people vote with how they feel, not with how they think.

Foreign Policy

With the first debate set to start in a little under an hour, here's a preview of what is on tap for tonight. The topic is foreign policy, although Jim Lehrer has said he'll ask questions about the economy. There are so good overviews on the web so I'll spare a recap of those.

Here is what I am curious about.

• The war on Iraq - how will recent developments (an election law was finally passed) play out? How will this war be defended as part of the larger war on terror, or will it? Will the candidates discuss ideas of spreading our military too thin?
• Iran - How will Obama defend meeting with Iranian leaders without preconditions? How will McCain respond? Note: I think I'm more curious if we'll see any surprises on this topic.
• Israel - How will recent comments about not second guessing Israel's efforts to defend themselves play out, especially considering the potential ripple effects throughout the Middle East with such action.
• North Korea - the wild card? especially now that they've kicked out nuclear inspectors?
• Russia - the sleeping giant is waking back up, what will be the new relationship between the US and the Russian Bear? Will McCain mention that Sarah Palin is the executive of a state that borders Russia?
• Trade agreements - will this come up? If so, how will McCain balance free market ideology with populist rhetoric? I suppose a similar question could be asked for Obama?
• Globalization - will it come up? How will the candidates define it and how will they position America within it?
• Pre-emptive war - How will this be defined (especially in relation to Bush's ideas) and what will their positions be.
  
• Last but not least, the financial crisis (crater). Can McCain recover on this one? Will anyone provide (or at least appear to) a solution on this one?
  

While I've never been a huge fan of the debate formats for Presidential elections, I have to admit I like the format for tonight's debate a lot more. A full nine minutes will be given to each issue. Each candidate will have two minutes to respond followed by five minutes where they are allowed to ask each other questions.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95059878&ft=1&f=1012

The debate is on!

John McCain announced he will be at tonight's debate in Mississippi.

Folkelighed will be blogging live during the debate - check in tonight for reflections and analysis.

Predictions anyone?

Politically, I think this could be a turning point of the election (if this past week hasn't already been one). While the expectation game is being played by both sides, I think it's pretty clear McCain needs to do well tonight. We'll see!

Another 700 billion?

I am all for keeping the economy afloat. I have no problems with loans to these corporations to keep them on their feet, especially because I think this is likely to lead to some serious restructuring and more importantly, it avoids a total financial meltdown. In principle, I like the idea of addressing the root cause of the current debacles in the financial markets, namely the mortgage crisis. However, the current plan for the Fed to take on an additional 700 billion dollars in “bad” mortgages is going beyond a bailout, it’s a keep you on your feet and cookin’ plan.

A bailout loan is still a loan. It is not a free ride or at least not a total free ride (even if the companies deserve worse). Taking over a mortgage is in essence, buying the loan. It is providing a way out for these corporations with minimal losses. Now, at least the Fed is proposing to use an auction style to buy up these loans, likely to push the price down as no corporation wants to be left holding the bag. However, where is the justice in this, especially considering that the brunt of the mortgage crisis is the fault of these corporations themselves! If you take advantage of someone’s poor financial skills or even stupidity, I don’t care what you say- you’re still taking advantage of them.

While asking for justice now might seem hypocritical considering my support for the previous bailout loans, I believe government must always strike a balance between maintaining a healthy business environment and protecting individuals. I think the bailouts, while not perfect, were enacted with that balance in mind. Some may disagree, but I think keeping the companies afloat was with the common good in mind. An additional 700 billion, however, has lost this balance.

I agree with addressing the root cause of this problem, namely all the bad mortgages and concomitant foreclosures. However, I do not agree with the solution as this is now truly a total bailout of the financial market and one that has very few strings, if any attached (at least now that I’m aware of). Now, I might be ok with it provided there were some serious strings attached, but I don’t understand why they don’t find a better solution that actually helps people (beyond just keeping the market afloat) who were taken advantage of in the first place – especially when we’re talking about 700 billion.

Here is what I would suggest. Rather than only deal with the financial corporations, why not go to individuals who are in foreclosure or in danger of foreclosure (you might even provide an option for those who recently lost their homes – it wouldn’t be perfect no matter what the case). The Fed could provide a two month window or something like that and then negotiate with individuals to restructure their loan(s) on a case by case basis. If we are willing to bail out companies for their bad decisions, there is no reason not to bail out individuals for theirs (although I would argue that many were taken advantage of more than their own greed biting them in the rear). If the Fed provides a way for individuals to restructure their mortgage, corporations get rid of their bad loans and people find a way to keep their homes. Such a plan seems only like a win-win!

Will this happen? Who knows – as in all crises bad plans often get pushed through because no one wants to look like they don’t care or are in any way obstructionists. Remember the Patriot Act?

Economic "Crisis"

I for one am relieved that economics and policy issues have returned to center stage in this debate (despite a few jabs from both sides). From Black Monday (or Sunday) to today, much has been said about the status and the fate of our economy. Obama has said we’re in crisis. Biden has criticized McCain for not saying we’re in crisis to emphasize the crisis. McCain has seen the light and said we are in crisis after he said the economy was fundamentally strong, by which he actually meant the workers – it’s easy to get the economy and the American workers confused, I know. And Palin has said, oh wait, she’s not allowed to talk to reporters.

The bailouts of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and now AIG, however ugly they might be, are I think, necessary. The collapse of these financial institutions would have meant the collapse of the lives of many (think bye-bye retirement plan, etc.). Worse yet, the problems of these banks are exposing the problems of the entire system which is beginning to resemble the illegitimate lovechild of the Gordian knot and a house of cards.

All loans are backed by some form of collateral, which in the case of these financial institutions tended to be in some type of securities or equities (i.e. shares of stock). If those stock prices fall, so does the collateral. Consider the stock prices of Lehman brothers which are now around a whopping 20 cents*. As your collateral disappears or is devalued, you now have less capital to leverage your old loans, let alone any future lending. You also risk a shockwave of bad news for others as a default on your own loans, now without collateral, leaves them holding the bag.

Ultimately the Federal Reserve has been bailing everyone out, mainly through a variety of loans. My favorite is a 40-85 billion dollar bridge loan to AIG, which is kind of like helping them out until next month’s paycheck arrives. As an added incentive, the Fed levied a 12% interest rate to push AIG to sell off parts of its company quickly. Now with all these loans, can you guess what the collateral is? That’s right, equities of those very same companies. There is nothing like giving loans to shaky companies with the same shaky companies as collateral – did I mention house of cards?

For Bear Stearns these equities included assets believed to be tied up in the sub-prime mortgage debacles and for AIG, this entails the wonderful world of CDSs, or credit default swaps, basically an insurance policy for a loan**. Luckily for AIG and the Fed there haven’t been many bad loans lately, oh wait . . .

However ugly this may be, I think the alternative would likely have been far worse. With the fate of these corporations being knotted to everything else, it’s far better to untangle the knot before you start cutting out pieces of rope.

Are we in crisis? I think the answer is yes, but I’d rather say we’re on the precipice of true crisis. I think the next few weeks will give us a better indication. More on the economy to come . . .

*The 52 week high was over $67.
**A third party, like AIG, agrees to insure a loan for someone else in return for a quarterly fee. If the loan goes bad, AIG covers the losses of the lender.

Drill baby drill! . . . Divide baby divide!

I'm a big Thomas Friedman fan and I think he hit the nail on the head in his op/ed piece, "Making America Stupid." I also thinks this speaks directly to my previous post and may help understand why many (not just die hard environmentalists) are against drilling. While oil will likely remain a primary source of energy for the next 10-20 years, I have to agree it seems terribly short sighted to make drilling for oil a cornerstone of your energy policy. It's also just passing the problem to the next generation as at some point, we're going to have to develop a new energy source. Not to mention the numbers game makes drilling for oil domestically highly unlikely to remove our dependence on foreign energy.

I'm curious if Friedman is also correct that the McCain/Palin ticket have decided to turn this election into a "culture war." Palin is clearly a divisive figure, people either seem to love her or hate her. While I'm not sure if I would describe it as a "culture war," the election has certainly taken a nasty turn, at least in my opinion.

Of all the election coverage I think PBS is by far the best. On NOW, David Brancaccio talked to psychologist Drew Weston about how people make their decision about candidates. It was interesting to me how he outlined the difference between Democrats and Republicans. In speeches, Democrats tend to begin with an appeal to the mind, then the heart, then close with the mind. Republicans, do just the opposite, they appeal to the heart, then the mind, then close with an appeal to the heart.

There seems to be a bit of truth in this and I think the Republicans definitely seem to be staying away from any policy issues lately. Some of their attacks I think should be called what they are, downright lies (has anyone seen the McCain add accusing Obama of teaching about sex before being able to read - see it here and the factcheck here or here), but their purpose must be to keep the issues emotional, rather than intellectua, to focus on the heart rather than the mind. While I have no doubt this is meant to divide, to create an us against them image, I'm not sure I I'd go as far as culture war.

Will it work? Should it work? I for one, hope not as I think this type of politics reduces American democracy to something between a popularity contest and mob rule.

Energy Independence the key...?

Is anyone else scratching their head? While I've only been able to read the transcripts available online along with a few clips of the Palin interview, I think its an understatement that she could have done better. While a lack of experience is troubling, I don't think it is a make or break issue. As has been said by others, the only thing you can probably say about experience is that it makes a candidate better. A bigger concern for me would be the new ideas one brings and the potential experience was has in that area - after all, new blood can be good.

In terms of national security, Palin chose energy (energy independence) as her hallmark contribution.

"Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States."

While I would agree that energy independence could ease a lot of security worries, it is no silver bullet. Even more dismaying, is the fact while Alaska may produce 20% of the U.S. supply, the key word is domestic supply. As a percentage of our total energy production, Alaska weighs in at a mere 3.5%.

To be fair, Alaska ranks a bit better when you only look at crude oil, making up 12.8%. Even still, 12.8% does not make one a power player in the energy game. In 2007, oil imports totaled 3,661,404 thousand barrels while Alaska made up 263,595 thousand barrels (the numbers from the EIA are in thousand-barrels). In this game, Alaska is 3,397,809 thousand barrels short.

So, if I understand this correctly, Palin, former chairman of the Alaska Oil Conservation Commission (Feb. 2003 - Jan. 2004) which produced only 3.5% of the nations energy is going to solve the energy problem as a key element of a national security plan?

I am the only one scratching my head on this one?

Even if one looks at all crude oil production in the U.S., imports are still nearly double our domestic production. From what I know, there is no amount of domestic drilling that can erase that gap.

The Media: What do they do again?

I hate pundits. Ok, so hate may be a bit strong, I’m simply struggling to understand their role along with that of what is considered to be “the media.” Case in point: the word “lipstick.” While I am astonished that McCain would make a big deal of this, especially considering he used the exact same phrase when discussing Hillary Clinton’s ideas, I am more astonished that the media is taking it at face value rather than scraping away the thick layer of spin.

I think Chris Rovzar’s article ’Lipstick on a pig’ Comment forces McCain, Obama camps to switch roles describes this situation the best.

In the end I can’t help wondering how we should take comments like this. And again, how do our character judgments color our perceptions? Are these mere distractions, political tactics meant to keep the debate about character rather than policy? I for one highly doubt there is any substance here and am left wondering, so what does one do? Is it worth calling McCain out on this? Is Obama wrong here? If so, is "community organizer" a similar thinly veiled substitute for "black?" Are we seriously talking about this?

At the same time, perhaps we expect too much from the media. We want them to be the last bastion of truth, to sort through the muck and find the shining sword of truth. Yet, when they remain neutral, they don’t take things far enough, leaving a thick layer of sludge for us to wipe away.

What is interesting is that most analysts are fully aware of the intent, purpose, and the potential success of such attacks. John Heilemann, in an article entitled The Sixty-Day War, states, “But there is a reason the Republicans keep falling back, again and again, on such hoary tropes. The reason is that, from the age of Nixon to the era of Lee Atwater to our current (yes, apparently, it’s not dead yet) epoch of Rove, they have all too often worked. Us versus them is a potent message—and one tailor-made to a candidate with the name Barack Hussein Obama.”

Whether Republicans or Democrats are guilty of this (while both sides are I do think the Republicans get the bragging rights on this one), why doesn’t the media seek to move beyond this? The cynic in me also has to admit there is far more entertainment value to a good insult or zinger, so why bother moving past them? Whatever the case, perhaps this is the media's greatest failing. When politicians get to control the debate (or sidestep it), which both sides will fervently work to do, the public only gets talking points, the party line, and he said she said – we never actually get to a debate.

While access to candidates certainly would help, if this continues we should just switch to a parliamentary system and get it over with. Then at least we’d just be voting for the party message without the distraction of individual identities.

Emotions and "character"

It is easy for our emotions and gut feelings to take center stage when considering political candidates. For better or worse, both Shana and I have used words like “smug,” “snide,” and “sarcastic” to describe Sarah Palin. In an article today by Karen Mathews, former New York mayor Ed Koch said, “she scares the hell out of me.” While many others have made similar observations, there are others who consider Palin to be “down to earth” and just an everyday mom. So who is right? I don’t doubt that good intelligent people have come to the exact opposite conclusions, but how? (I’m sure the same assessments of McCain, Obama, and Biden have been made.)

Whatever the case may be, it is clear that judgments concerning character will color everything else about a candidate. I think this is something that we all need to be aware of, otherwise it is likely that we’ll never actually get to anything of substance, we’ll never even be able to ask how we’re going to work together.

At the same time, I have to wonder how much of a candidate’s character we can really know. Palin did not write her own speech, she was carefully prepped and she continues to be shielded from any questions. While all politicians strive to stay on message, whether you wrote your speech or not, it does seem a bit odd that Palin isn’t allowed to speak freely, especially considering the GOP’s focus on character. Are they trying to say she’s a puppet, a “member of the herd” to borrow one of her own, I mean Mathew Scully’s lines.

If nothing else, I would hope that the last eight years has shown us the dangers of a Presidency that is carefully scripted, where information is carefully controlled, questions are screened and preselected, and image (i.e. character) is created. While Palin may scare the hell out of some, another four years of this type of information control scares me even more. (On a related note, one of the single biggest reason I would not support Sarah Palin is that she tried to censor certain books at the library during her stint as Mayor - what does that say about character?)

No questions, please; Palin sticks to her script

Koch: Palin "Scares the hell out of me" - or -
Former NY mayor: Palin 'scares the hell out of me'

Folkelighed

Folkelighed is a Danish concept originated by N.F.S. Grundtvig. Grundtvig was a prolific writer who was, among other things, a poet, scholar, philosopher, bishop, composer, and educational thinker. It was Grundtvig who is credited with the folk high school movement in Scandinavia.

The notion of folkelighed was born during the transition in Denmark from an absolute monarchy to democracy. In many ways the idea was Grundtvig's attempt to reconcile the ideas of equality and freedom. After all, how does one maintain an equitable society when freedom allows there to be winners and losers. An important aspect of Grundtvig's thought was the notion that freedom only exists in reciprocity. One cannot truly be free unless one's neighbor is also free. Thus, the notion of freedom was paramount, but always with regard to the common good.

Perhaps Uffe Østergård put it best when he said, folkelighed "refers to enlightened, responsible and tolerant participation in the exercise of power." It is in this spirit that this blog is created and in which I hope thoughtful discussions will ensue.

The impetus for this blog also stems from what I see as a need to transcend the knee-jerk reactions, pundits, slogans, and labeling that passes for thoughtful criticism and reflection. It aims to understand how we perceive truth in politics and the role our emotions play on our beliefs and political positions. Ultimately, this blog will likely pose more questions than answers.

Please feel free to leave thoughts, comments, and questions.