Restart: A New Presidency

Open The Debates!

Matt Gonzalez, vice-presidential candidate, speaking about the need for open debates where all major candidates running for president are allowed to present their case to the American public.

The Difficulty of Learning About Our Presidential Candidates

I hate to write another media bashing blurb, but it just must be done. You see, recently I decided that I needed to watch a bit of the mainstream news programs via their swanky new websites just to see what political coverage the majority of Americans are getting. I already know what I feel the important issues are this election, and which candidate is more inline with my political positions, but I also recognize that political races are not usually won on issues. They are more often won on personality and on small, memorable, political moments, consisting either of a gaffe (bad) or a well put policy point (good). Reading substantive articles or watching substantive news programs can not edify you on these essentials of American politics.
The first news program I watched was ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," the Stephanopoulos, who, most recently, was widely castigated for his petty questioning during a primary debate between Obama and Hillary. Mr. Stephanopolous conducted the interview decently, pushing Obama a bit on issues such as tax cuts - where he misrepresented Obama's tax plan as "raising taxes" when it is more a cut than anything else - and Vice Presidential nominee Palin's experience. Overal though, I was struck by how boring the show was. As is most often the case with the mainstream media, Mr. Stephanopoulos exhibited what can only be described as follow-up question phobia, and when he did ask a follow-up question, they were always on very mundane political points consisting of making Obama respond to charges coming from the McCain camp. Most of the time however, the interview consisted of giving Obama a platform on which to talk about what he wanted to talk about. Hardly any context was offered by Stephanopoulos. This guy gets paid to do this?
After watching Obama's tedious interview I switched over to CBS's venerable "Face the Nation" with Bob Shiefer to see how McCain did, or, more accurately, how well Mr. Shiefer asked questions. Once again I was board out of my mind by Shiefer's line of questioning. Shiefer had so many opportunities to get substantive information from McCain. I'm not asking him to hold the Senators feet to the fire - by now we know the American media establishment is unwilling and incapable of doing this. I just want to know a little more about the guy running for president. If I wanted to hear McCain's dry policy positions I would rather go to his website than have to sit through a half-hour of him awkwardly regurgitate them, with the misrepresentations and lies left unchallenged.
There is much talk about why the media is so inept in their political coverage. Some say it is a conspiracy; others say it is the institutional framework that leaves news programs beholden to corporate ad revenue. I don't believe there is a deliberate conspiracy. Such a theory of overt malfeasance would require much more evidence to back it up than what is present. I do think the corporate structure does not work well to create the sort of independent media most people agree we need. But even corporate control can't account for how much worse American newsmen are compared to their just as corporate compatriots in other media markets around the world.
I think that our news outlets are as bad as they are due to a combination of slowly eroding journalistic standards (American journalists obsession with access to politicians is an example of this that I have written about before) and slowly growing media consolidation, which creates a stiff media establishment lacking the motivation to fix itself.
What we are left with is a monopolized media market producing a product of poor quality, and until there is some real competition, there is very little reason to believe the monopoly will be shaken. Luckily there are alternative media options that are refreshingly independent. Just remember that you might want to check back on the ugly news networks, lest you forget how most voters choose their president.

The Surge

These days there appears to finally be consensus on the Iraq War. The mainstream media, politicians, and "sensible" voters all agree that the Iraq surge, much derided in the past as a Bush administration ploy to convince the public that with a little elbow grease and perseverance the horrible situation that we created in Iraq could be fixed, is working. Unfortunately, like most instances of American political consensus, the widespread belief that the surge achieved success is false and the American public is most probably in for a major disappointment - which is painless in comparison with what continued failure means for Iraq.
The surge has been successful politically in the U.S. due to it being so intuitive. The natural instinct in problem solving is to throw resources at the problem until it goes away, or in the case of Iraq, send more troops. Unfortunately, the war in Iraq is not a simple problem with a simple solution. The messy political situation, where different ethnic, tribal, religious, and class contingencies compete for power and security, is not the open war on the battlefield where superior troop numbers have an advantage, nor is it similar to the beginning of the occupation of Iraq, when American troops toppled one government only to be left short-staffed to deal with providing a new one.
Fortunately for all those supporting the surge, the factions - especially Sunni - within Iraq who were doing the majority of the fighting, began to contemplate a new strategy towards winning security in a destabilized country. Beginning before the surge but finally coming to fruition as American troop levels in Baghdad and other restive areas grew, Iraqi insurgents switched their allegiance against Al-Qaeda, and in reward were given money and weapons by the U.S.
But it wasn't only switching allegiances that have made Iraq less violent since the surge. The decline of multi-ethnic neighborhoods, due to ethnic cleansing, evidenced by millions of refuge and internally displaced Iraqis, is another sad hint at why the killing has abated for now.
But this lull in fighting is probably temporary. The current arrangement where the conflicting interests are bribed into passivity is built on an increasingly shaky political foundation. The Sunni tribes cooperating with the U.S. will only cooperate for as long as they are paid. They also expect to have political power in the Iraqi government, and security guarantees, something that the Shiite leadership clearly is hesitant to afford them. Only recently it was reported in The New York Times (here) that the Iraqi government is preparing a major offensive against Sunni groups, including the Sons of Iraq, the very group that Gen. Patreaus credited with helping to bring down violence in Iraq and which is supported monetarily by the U.S. These are signs that the days of cooperation might be coming to a close.
The truth that is not expressed in pithy statements like "the surge worked" is that the political powers in Iraq have yet to shift into place. The current period of calm has been a godsend, especially for Republicans and McCain, but tension is mounting. McCain's unwillingness to point out the flaws in his myth of the surge's success is dangerous to him politically, especially if the situation spoils before November. Obama also is far too reluctant to tell the truth about the surge - which it appears he knows due to his continued, though often timid, opposition to it. He is not helped by the simplistic "the surge has worked/is working" line constantly repeated in the media. Even newsmagazines that think highly of their product, like The Economist, repeat the false assessment - most recently when they derided Obama for "denying funds to the 'surge' that has worked so well" - though The Economist has failed time and again in their analysis of events.
The point of this piece is to clarify the actual situation in Iraq. It is never helpful to have delusions about real, ongoing issues, especially in an election such as this where Americans must asses the good judgment of candidates, with one supporting the fictionalized surge, and the other choosing not to pander by proclaiming false victory.

Land of the Free: Amy Goodman Arrested at the RNC

We knew that law enforcement has gone to unacceptable steps to protect the campaign convention pageants put on by the Democrats and Republicans, but this is absolutely ridiculous.

Kucinich Wakes Up A Mundane DNC

A New Campaign Approach

I don't think Barack Obama is running a very good campaign. The slogans and policy positions have not moved me. Ralph Nader's campaign, on the other hand, is full of policy and principle that I identify with, but I also do not think he is running the campaign he could be running. Ralph Nader, many times, seems to me to be preaching to the choir.
The problem is that both campaigns are not politicking as they should. They aren't finding something they really believe in and then selling that forcefully to the American public. They aren't putting the other side on the defensive, and when they are, they are not doing it in a constructive way that will chip away the opposition’s support.
Ralph Nader, to be sure, supports mostly majoritarian issues that Americans care about and support. The problem seems to be that he has adopted all of the left to center's dream list of policy, and is running on each piece equally. The one issue that he has pushed to the fore, in an attempt to justify his third-party run, is that of electoral reform. He wants to fix the way we run our democracy, an admirable and extremely important issue that needs far greater attention. The problem though is that in our current economic and geopolitical situation, there are other issues that, while in the long run less important than democracy promotion at home, for now are pressing to the majority of Americans.
Mr. Nader's continued focus on electoral reform is evidence of his focus on his core group of supporters, who, I would guess, care more about principles than political practicality. True, Nader's support in the general public is at a considerably high 6%, as shown by a CNN poll. But to get over 10% he will have to employ a technique other than what I would call Ron Paul politicking.
Ron Paul politicking is where a candidate, such as Ron Paul, has immense support with a core group of enthusiastic supporters galvanized by their candidates "perfect" policy platform. To many others, however, this messiah like candidates perfect ideology seems to be too good to be true, which in all likelihood is the case. Even if many of Ron Paul's positions could work wonders, his over the top cosmology and lack of focus makes everything seem a pipe dream and unattainable.
So what should Nader focus on if he wants to really push Democrats to act in the interest of this country? The good news is that he won't have to reach far to grasp the topic that could put both Democrats and Republicans on the defensive. One quite contrarian position that would throw those trying to pigeonhole Nader as a liberal extremist for a loop would be that of corporate reform. But Nader's corporate reform policy shouldn't be just the usual corporate bashing (which is deserved but off-putting to many voters due to the Ron Paul effect). No, Nader need only turn the issue on the Demo-Republicans by calling for greater support of owners, those who have stock in corporations and thus, in a capitalist economy, ought to be at the top of the command line.
The respected founder of The Vanguard Group, John Bogle, has written extensively about the creeping disenfranchisement of owners in our country. The management of companies - CEO's, CFO's, the board of directors - have waged war on the rights of owners to have a say in the companies they own, and owners have largely acquiesced when promised greater returns on their investments. The signs of management bamboozling those who they owe their jobs to are abundant - Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, the whole financial industry. Things like bad accounting are hostile actions against the owners of companies. The problem, as Bogle and also Nader has pointed out time and time again, is that absentee ownership has led not only to problems for owners but also severe problems in our economy. A system where no one is accountable until things really go bad and crimes are committed is very unstable. We have seen the effects of this in the latest financial industry bust.
As I have said before, Ralph Nader has talked often about corporate reform, specifically giving more responsibility and power to the owners of companies. But Ralph Nader could weaponize the issue, potentially driving a wedge in the business community, shocking the public out of their slumber by making them aware of how un-capitalist our country truly is, and proving that he is not an ideologue, just someone who knows what ails our country.
Now if Ralph Nader focused on this sort of corporate reform, and then coupled it with a promise to overhaul healthcare, while reminding the public that while he may be focusing on two issues, he has identified a lot of other problems that need fixing, I think we would see a whole new dynamic arise in the presidential race. Barack Obama could quickly adopt Ralph's positions once it is shown that the public is receptive, while McCain's policy would look almost as old as he looks. Instead of the usual situation of Democrats on the defensive (who started the debate on off-shore oil drilling? Republicans once again) they would be on the offensive, pushing the Republicans into the same corner they have been wallowing in for the last 28 years. The country would be immediately re-aligned to the left since in reality a capitalist economy cannot work without a healthy, strong, democratic government. Call me a dreamer, but I think that by focusing on two post-partisan but clearly leftwing issues we could see a dramatic shift in this election.