Judicial Philosophy

There's been a lot of hearsay and speculation, I think, about Barack Obama's judicial philosophy. So I decided: why not see what the man himself said? Instead of looking at campaign speeches, I think it would be better to go to the legislative record.

The best speech I found was available at Obama's official Senate website. In the following speech, Obama laid out his case for voting against the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts (who was, you'll remember, filling the seat of Chief Justice William Rehnquist).

http://obama.senate.gov/press/050922-remarks_of_sena/

First off, praise:

[John Roberts] couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95 percent of the cases that come before the Federal court -- adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system.

The Supreme Court could stand to have a couple more liberal appointments on it. Although I am conservative, an ideologically-balanced Supreme Court, with a diverse array of perspectives and opinions, leads to a better discourse and better decisions.

With that said, I do think that certain principles--namely, reverence for the laws and Constitution as they are written--trump others. Indeed, one can share those principles and come at problems from any number of ideological bents.

The problem I face -- a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts -- is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

See, this, I do not accept. "Empathy" is for legislatures and executives. Judiciaries should be for impartality above all, not empathy. Empathy smacks of favoritism. The law shows no favorites.

In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled -- in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.

Essentially, I read this as Barack Obama suggesting the following: some of the more contentious issues facing the Court should be decided based on the personal ideologies of the justices--and that ideology should be of a liberal bent. Notice the issues he selected: affirmative action, abortion decisions, a heavy-handed interpretation of the commerce clause. These are all positions advocated by a scholar or thinker of the left. They are also reasonably hot button issues. Obama is arguing that the Court should decide these hot button issues more personally than legally. He espounds on this next:

I talked to Judge Roberts about this. Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and his deeper feelings. That is not how he is trained. He did say he doesn't like bullies and has always viewed the law as a way of evening out the playing field between the strong and the weak.

I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way. The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.

I want to take Judge Roberts at his word that he doesn't like bullies and he sees the law and the Court as a means of evening the playing field between the strong and the weak. But given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the Court, I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting.

These issues that Obama raises are best addressed by laws. Not by interpreters of the law. Obama's perspective on the role of the Court is a far more wide-ranging one than that of his Democratic predecessor, John Kerry. Here's what Kerry had to say at the second presidential debate in '04:

I subscribe to the Justice Potter Stewart standard. He was a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. And he said the mark of a good judge, good justice, is that when you're reading their decision, their opinion, you can't tell if it's written by a man or woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian. You just know you're reading a good judicial decision.

That's definitely not how Obama would paint his decisions about nominees. And hell, it's not how he's painted them in this campaign. Here's what he said at a 2007 Planned Parenthood rally:

We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.

With Obama, it's not about how the law is written. It's about how the law should be.

This is a valid perspective, I think; Obama believes in judicial activism, and he wouldn't hide it under the label of "strict constructionism" (which many conservatives do, believing that "strict constructionism" in theory is "conservative judicial activism" in practice).

With an Obama presidency, the bigger issue isn't with the Supreme Court (where he will be replacing two liberal justices before anything else). It's with the lower courts, federal courts, appellate courts, etc. This is a different type of judge you would see at all levels of the federal government.

On a related note, Rasmussen ran an interesting poll a couple of weeks back. The labels are a bit misleading at points, but I think that the results are interesting anyway.

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

Let's break that down into a table:

                McCain Obama
"Constitution"      82%   29%
"Fairness"          11%   49%

These differences are pretty stark. A lot of this is based on the "talking points" of the various sides, but part of it is based in what I would deem actual, philosophical differences between the two candidates and their supporters.

This is another iteration of the process/outcome debate that shapes the American political discourse, and that has forever. Check out Allen Guelzo's Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates that Defined America for another iteration of that debate.

And, to get my own views out there, I think there are times where outcomes matter more (see: slavery), but I think that process and law must be revered in a democratic republic.

Second Thoughts

Here's another mini-hypothesis I'll lay out. I have no proof of this; it's just speculative:

McCain will do better than the polls indicate.

I think there will be an effect that pollsters will miss: I'll call it the "second thoughts" effect.

I think that there will be a small minority of people who are claiming to vote for Obama who will wake up on Election Day and have second thoughts about that decision. They'll think about the dangerous world and the dangerous, tumultuous economy, and they'll think that McCain is the known quantity. They'll walk into the voting booth, and they'll check off their ballot (or their touch screen) for McCain.

If McCain had run a more disciplined campaign, projecting a more "calm man in a storm" type demeanor, I think he would do far better with this group of people. But I still think that there will be people who decide on Election Day that Barack Obama is too inexperienced, too... different to be their choice for president. I think that some of this will be racism, but I think that most of it will be a bit of fear about what "change" actually means. I think that the McCain's ads about Obama being different will have some resonance on Election Day, even if they haven't so far.

I also think that there is some resentment towards BOTH parties, not just a stunning rejection of the Republican brand. So the idea of one-party government may also play into these thought processes.

Part of me doesn't want to see Obama lose if he's up by 6 or 7 in the polls. It just won't reflect well on the country. And I'd much rather see McCain win it straight, not win it based on the last-minute fears and reservations of a group of voters.

My guess is that the small minority doesn't flip the election to McCain. But I think it will be closer than the standard projections seem.

My advice: hold onto your hats. I don't think this one is over yet.

Also: Is this an October surprise?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D942EFR80&show_article=1

Speculative Hypothesis

If I were a political scientist or had access to a database of journal articles, I would research the following:

The share of the vote that a third party candidate gets is inversely proportional to enthusiasm for a main party candidate.

There may not be enough data for this one, but I would like to see a plot of "enthusiasm for candidate" against the share of the vote that base-attracting third party candidates got.

Why do I think this is important? I'll assert that Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader, between the two, do not get more than .4% of the popular vote. That would be even less than left-wing third party candidates got in 2004, four years after Nader voters were berated for costing Gore the presidency in 2000 (that year, Nader pulled 2.7%).

On the other side, I think that Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin may pull a larger total, perhaps 1-2% or higher, even. McCain isn't that popular with the Republican base, and there might be some anti-bailout protest votes, or some reemerging neo-isolationist sentiment (I'll spitball at 2%). It's yet another hill to climb for McCain.

Palin: Analysis

After spending a solid week doing All-Palin-All-The-Time, I moved onto politics in this sphere. But 7 weeks after the announcement, I feel that it's a good time to take stock of the Palin pick. I'll use the framework I laid out back in August, and I'll add on some thoughts.

First off, some chest-thumping.

Palin seems to me an awful lot like a process of elimination pick. The housing gaffe eliminated wealth, Hillary not being chosen made a woman a better pick than a man, Obama's big speech means that boredom won't cut it, etc.

It appears that I was right on this, if the New Yorker is to be believed.

... A week or so before McCain named her, however, sources close to the campaign say, McCain was intent on naming his fellow-senator Joe Lieberman, an independent, who left the Democratic Party in 2006. David Keene, the chairman of the American Conservative Union, who is close to a number of McCain’s top aides, told me that “McCain and Lindsey Graham”—the South Carolina senator, who has been McCain’s closest campaign companion—“really wanted Joe.” But Keene believed that “McCain was scared off” in the final days, after warnings from his advisers that choosing Lieberman would ignite a contentious floor fight at the Convention, as social conservatives revolted against Lieberman for being, among other things, pro-choice.

“They took it away from him,” a longtime friend of McCain—who asked not to be identified, since the campaign has declined to discuss its selection process—said of the advisers. “He was furious. He was pissed. It wasn’t what he wanted.” Another friend disputed this, characterizing McCain’s mood as one of “understanding resignation.”

With just days to go before the Convention, the choices were slim. Karl Rove favored McCain’s former rival Mitt Romney, but enough animus lingered from the primaries that McCain rejected the pairing. “I told Romney not to wait by the phone, because ‘he doesn’t like you,’ ” Keene, who favored the choice, said. “With John McCain, all politics is personal.” Other possible choices—such as former Representative Rob Portman, of Ohio, or Governor Tim Pawlenty, of Minnesota—seemed too conventional. They did not transmit McCain’s core message that he was a “maverick.” Finally, McCain’s top aides, including Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis, converged on Palin. ...

Earlier today, Nate Silver wrote something similar:

She was the compromise choice after those names were vetoed during the deliberation process -- not necessarily the best candidate, but the least unacceptable. Rarely does quality emerge from such a process of elimination -- ask yourself why wedding music is so bad, or airline food is so bland -- and this was no exception.

So, it's pretty clear from the evidence that Palin was not McCain's first choice, but she fit enough criteria to be the pick. There are a few questions that are worth exploring:

1. Has Palin been an embarrassment?

I think that this is an emphatic "no," but someone with different political beliefs might argue differently. Palin's partially ad-libbed convention address remains the strongest critique of Obama in the cycle (with Joe the Plumber giving her a run for her money), and her debate performance demonstrated her poise, if not much intellectual curiosity (or respect for the word "debate").

If Palin has a clear weakness right now as a politician, it's her ineptitude in the one-on-one interview. The modern presidential campaign requires a million one-on-one interviews, particularly in the early stages. Palin needs serious coaching on this front. I'd grade her a C+ in the Charlie Gibson interview, but a D/D- with Katie Couric. Palin needs to get into the Bs to be more relevant.

Many on the Left have developed an utter hatred for Palin for numerous reasons, but the venom spewed in her direction is a special kind of disgusting, certainly comparable to some of the worst smears said about Obama, and by respectable commentators, too! The more resonating images are of Tina Fey's dead-on portrayal of Palin as a lightweight. Palin has plenty of time to work against this image going into 2012, but she'll have to do things like, brush up on one-on-one interviews, and work on a more complex spoken vocabulary.

2. What's with the animus from the right's intelligentsia?

This is a more interesting thing. Let me run down some of the quotes about Sarah Palin from the conservative elite:

The Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It’s no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And yes, it is a mark against John McCain. - Peggy Noonan

I will readily confess that I was one of many who swooned the day after the announcement. But it’s kind of like dating a supermodel. There comes a moment, unfortunately, where they start talking. - Christopher Buckley

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League. - Kathleen Parker

[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party. - David Brooks

If it were your decision, and you were putting your country first, would you put an untested small-town mayor a heartbeat away from the presidency? - David Frum

Also, I don't have a good exact quote for this one, but George Will described Sarah Palin as "McCain's female Sancho Panza."

Brooks, Frum, Parker, Noonan, Buckley, and Will represent the media's best conservative commentators. All six have not had kind things to say about Palin. What gives?

I think that this anger and disapproval comes from two points. The first is that intellectual conservatives are more strongly elitist about government than just about anyone else. One running joke in American politics is of liberals as "country club elitists," which is an interesting shift from the old starched-shirt caricatures of Republicans. Will and Brooks are as starched-shirt as you'll get, when it comes to commentators. While both have a healthy respect for "ordinary people" and their preferences (which I find lacking in elite Democratic circles), both are heavily "elitist."

Palin, whose image has been as anti-intellectual as can be, grates on these people.

But really, I think that if you were to ask Brooks, Frum, Parker, Noonan, Buckley and Will about their feelings for the current sitting president, none would offer kind words. I think that this is at the very core of the Palin hostility from the right. Palin reminds them of Bush. This class of conservative intellectuals would like to move back to its view of "traditional" conservatism, but Palin's personality and approach are a bit too Bush-like for this mind.

3. So, was Palin a net positive, or a net negative?

I'll cop out and argue "neutral." For one, she ignited the Republican base and brought in some much needed funds. I don't buy the "counter-fundraising" argument either. Let's sketch this out theoretically:

Obama $$ w/o Palin: $400 million
McCain $$ w/o Palin: $150 million

Obama $$ w/ Palin: $550 million
McCain $$ w/ Palin: $300 million

Even if the counter-fundraising b/c of Palin were equal (which I doubt heavily), the $150 million is more useful to McCain than it is to Obama; we're looking at a bit of diminishing returns at Obama's level of fundraising, anyway.

More critically, the Palin pick was a necessary gamble. The political environment was hostile to Republicans. The best ways out of that:

- Nominate a popular moderate Republican
- Nominate a fresh, unattached face
- Nominate a Democrat

The best popular moderate option would be Colin Powell, but that wouldn't have been an option, and there weren't many others. If you go too far to the Left (with, say, Lieberman), you risk alienating your base entirely (and there's simply no way McCain brings the Christian Right in with Lieberman on the ticket). Palin still remains an excellent tactical choice. She's as far away from the cancer of the national GOP as you could be.

But I think the McCain campaign missed an opportunity... and it comes down to the tactical nature of the McCain campaign.

I think it's hard to justify the way that the McCain campaign over-handled Palin in the early going. If I have read this correctly, the McCain campaign decided to keep Palin in hiding for a few weeks, only spoon-feeding her the McCain message and telling her to repeat it. It's a valid approach, but I'm convinced that it's a major reason why Palin struggled so much in the one-on-one interviews: she was overhandled and was not able to speak freely.

The only way to justify Palin not being let loose is that Steve Schmidt and the McCain campaign apparatus did not trust her enough on her own. And if that's the case, there's no way to justify the pick, try as I might.

I don't think that's the case. The rest of this is pure speculation on my part.

Let me take a brief step back and sketch out my interpretation of Obama's strategy:

1. Attach McCain to Bush.
2. Present Barack Obama as an American, but a uniquely-qualified American to handle the times in which we live.
3. Present Barack Obama as a defender of the middle class.
4. Using your massive money advantage, work an aggressive ground campaign and mobilize as many new voters who are swayed by his message as possible.

The Obama strategy was deliberate and consistent. The message: McCain is Bush. Obama is not. Obama is an American, actually, and one who cares about your needs. The other side is the heavy ground game, which far outpaces the McCain campaign. Obama's campaign is highly strategic. It has a set approach and has stuck with it through thick and thin.

I think that the McCain campaign strategy came down to the following:

1. Use free media to your advantage--control as many news cycles as you can.
2. Work to make the electorate distrust Barack Obama.
3. Distance yourself from Bush, but not severely enough to alienate the base.
4. See what works, and keep doing it.

The fourth point, I think, is the important one.

The McCain campaign approach was the equivalent of a guerrilla war. McCain had a small advantage in his couple-of-month head start--he could begin to frame the debate. That campaign failed quite badly--McCain didn't resonate with the general electorate all that much in the early months of '08. The Schmidt team came in with a tougher approach... one that started to pay dividends in July and August. Obama had something of a peak right around early July (for his Europe trip). The McCain campaign chipped away at his lead throughout those long summer months, bringing the race to the margin of error by August. It was working. McCain's campaign was running fairly humorous ads about Obama being a celebrity and out of touch, and the message was resonating, at least a bit. Much of the summer speculation about McCain's VP was more about how McCain could make the VP pick into something that vaulted him back into the race.

But guess what? By the time he made the pick, McCain was already BACK in the race, as per the polls. I think that the McCain campaign looked at the map, looked at the numbers, and said, "we might just win this damn thing straight up." And they decided that an unmanaged Palin was more of a risk. Why rock the boat? The flexible McCain campaign decided to hedge its Palin bet.

The gamble was picking Palin. The hedge was overhandling Palin. In the end, though, this kind of hedge just eliminated much of the prospects for large-scale success. McCain couldn't have known that the economy would turn so dramatically against Republicans, but it would have been sounder strategy to run a fast-and-loose campaign in this. McCain could have laughed off the first inconsistency and said, "Sarah's being Sarah. We're not going to agree on everything. We're mavericks!" It's possible that Palin would have self-destructed, but that's the nature of taking risks in a hostile year.

Recent reports have convinced me that McCain has given Palin more freedom to maneuver. But the damage, I think, is done.

Of course, the banking crisis happened, and that may well be the end of the story--we simply can't know if a more liberated Palin would have vaulted the ticket up by a few points, or would have driven it down by a few points, or wouldn't have done anything.

My criticism of the campaign, then, is this: while a brilliant operative who almost pulled off a massive upset, Steve Schmidt was seduced by friendly polls, making him adopt a more cautious approach rather than a bolder approach. Make no mistake: events dominate this narrative. But I think that Schmidt should have argued for a riskier approach.

Endorsement: John McCain for President

I'll be quite honest: I've soured on the idea of writing endorsements in general. I'm quite clearly not a moderate--I skew to the right. So any endorsement I write will inevitably be colored by that fact. But I'll do it anyway.

--------------------------------

Five years ago, if you had told me that a liberal State Senator with the middle name "Hussein" was going to be on the cusp of the presidency, I would have said that you were insane. Barack Obama's five-year rise from obscurity to the verge of the highest office in the land is a wonderfully American story, and it is one that should be repeated. It is among the most implausible--indeed, Abraham Lincoln's response to Stephen Douglas at Peoria had brought him some publicity as early as 1854, and Lincoln got in at the ground floor of a brand new party. Obama ascended to the top of an entrenched party with unbelievable speed.

Barack Obama, of course, represents an historic opportunity for America. Obama's election would be irrefutible proof that the US is far less racist than its reputation. As Andrew Sullivan has written, there is an inevitable surge in American "soft power" by electing a dark-skinned man named "Barack Obama" in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, where America is viewed as evil. His election could empower millions of disillusioned African-Americans who see that they too could be successful in a country where the odds often appeared dramatically stacked against them. If Barack Obama can be elected president, America is really a land of hopes and dreams.

All of these things would be negated by a McCain victory. Commentators would write with feigned apoplexy about American racism preventing Obama from his ascension to the highest office. Abroad, Americans would be perceived as irreparably racist in refusing to elect a black man who represents a significant change during what are clearly tough times. Disillusioned African-Americans, perhaps having invested a lot of stock in an Obama election, will wake up even more disillusioned about the promise of America.

Together, this is what I would call the "symbolic significance" of an Obama election. On its own, it represents a compelling reason to vote for Mr Obama--in this respect, the world is a better place on November 5 if Obama wins, and a far worse place if he loses.

Any vote I could cast for Barack Obama would be based on this narrative. It's as if circumstances are pointing a gun at my head: even though you disagree with the man, you should vote for him anyway, because the end result is better for the country.

I can't in good conscience cast a vote for that reason, though I won't fault anyone if they do. At the end of the day, no matter how hard the media tries to paint him as a centrist, Barack Obama is a hard-left liberal. He is hostile to trade and wealth, and he believes that government is the solution to just about any problem you can concoct. I disagree with those positions.

Barack Obama is torn, of course, between what he must know to be true--that international trade is critical to economic growth--and the xenophobic pro-labor elements in his party that fear international trade and find scapegoats for job loss.

Obama is not an anti-trader like John Edwards (the worst kind of scum in the Democratic Party). He is, however, an opponent of free trade. A unilateral renegotiation of NAFTA at this time seems pretty silly to me.

Why does trade matter? Well, for me, as someone who finds the Republican social conservative agenda to be a bit abhorrent at times, it's refreshing to find a Democrat who ardently defends trade. Bill Richardson impressed me for this reason (but sadly for few other reasons). As a conservative free-trader, if the Democrat doesn't support free trade, it's awfully hard for me to pull the lever for him/her. And Barack Obama is simply more opposed to free trade than I would have hoped.

Obama is also hostile to wealth in general. McCain was not the most qualified candidate to bring this to light--because he is equally hostile to wealth (compare their post-financial meltdown speeches and McCain's likening of Wall Street to a "casino"). It took the musings of the great philosopher-craftsman Joe the Plumber to bring in a philosophical defense of lower taxes:

You know, me or -- you know, Bill Gates, I don't care who you are. If you worked for it, if it was your idea, and you implemented it, it's not right for someone to decide you made too much -- that you've done too good and now we're going to take some of it back.

This is the first moral defense of a flat tax I have seen on the national political stage since Steve Forbes. Joe the Plumber, of course, is a conservative. He probably wouldn't vote for Obama anyway. But by bringing this into the discourse, Mr. Wurzelbacher has done a service to the campaign.

These economic issues may seem petty, particularly in comparison to the sheer volume of "symbolic power" that an Obama election would represent. But there's much more at stake this time. Odds are strongly in favor of the Democrats picking up seats in House races, perhaps driving the majority to a 90-100 seat difference. There is a mathematical chance that the Democrats also get 60 votes in the Senate--essentially, a filibuster-proof majority. As much as Obama claims to want to work across the aisle, can he really stop the rush of programs that would inevitably come from an anti-market, anti-wealth, pro-labor party? Would Obama veto any excessive spending in that environment? A reinstitution of the "Fairness Doctrine?" The oxymoronically-named "Employee Free Choice Act?" Hostile new restrictions to trade? It's inconceivable.

But most frightening is the sheer amount of power that the Bush Administration has assumed in this financial crisis. The best president to have at this time would be Calvin Coolidge--one who believed that the powers of the presidency were limited. Neither McCain nor Obama is anything like Coolidge. McCain's beau ideal of a statesman is TR, who presided over a massive expansion of the powers of the presidency. Obama's appears to be FDR. But Obama would be working with a liberal Congress. McCain would at least be working against it.

McCain's hostility to wealth aside, there's plenty to recommend him. He has a legitimate record of working across party lines, making him neatly qualified to manage divided government. He is not an aggressive social conservative, and he seems to be a federalist on most social issues. He has pushed for lower taxes in this campaign, and he prefers to reform government rather than to expand it--I like his "hatchet" approach of a necessary spending freeze. He also strongly opposes torture, as a victim of it, a welcome change from recent Republican talking points.

McCain's health care policy also makes intrinsic sense--people should not be forced (economically) into an employer-provided health care system. The details would be hashed out in the Congress, I'm sure, but the basic principle of liberating health insurance from a World War II-era regime of employer-based coverage is a sound one. It will certainly help to lower costs, which is the fundamental problem with the current system.

On foreign policy, Obama would bring a welcome realism to the fold, while McCain is still an idealistic Wilsonian. But on Iraq, McCain was right--the surge worked. And while silent evidence problems abound in just about all analysis of the war, McCain was advocating more ground troops long before the Bush Administration came around to that view. If McCain supports war more than most political figures do, at least we know that McCain will run a war better than the Bush Administration. Obama, on the other hand, showed a strong reluctance to adjust his anti-Iraq War dogma to reflect new realities. This is worrisome. Sure, it's a political campaign, but facts and events should drive narratives.

In another year, I might be swayed by the "symbolic" power, enough even to vote for him (it would have required a sizable Republican Congressional majority). But with so much at stake, and with a liberal Congress chomping at the bit to pass its agenda, we need divided government now. With that, this conservative is meekly endorsing John McCain for president. If you, however, believe in the "symbolic significance" of an Obama election strongly enough, at least vote Republican in your Senate race of choice. (For me, that's Dick Zimmer over Frank Lautenberg. Zimmer is a pro-choice, moderate Republican, and Lautenberg is 135 years old and one of the more liberal Dems in the Senate.) To preserve any semblance of America's rugged individualism, we need to preserve that filibuster.

More Comment: a Powell Endorsement?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/colin-powell-is-ready-to_b_134777.html

Thesis: Colin Powell's imminent endorsement of Obama would "hammer the final nail in the coffin of the Republican campaign to hold onto the White House."

Quick Analysis: False.

Deeper Analysis: This is really two separate arguments in one.

1. Colin Powell is about to endorse Barack Obama.
2. Colin Powell's endorsement would be the final nail in the coffin for McCain.

I can't speak to the first argument at all, honestly; I know nothing about what goes on in the mind of Colin Powell. The second argument, I find strained.

I think that endorsements in October don't have very much impact, in this day and age. It's not that people have all decided; not everyone has.

So, why won't Powell's endorsement matter that much?

- It's late in the campaign. A Colin Powell endorsement of Barack Obama a year ago would have made much more of an impact. Less daily political news of significance would keep the political news class talking about the endorsement through several news cycles. More critically, that kind of endorsement would lend gravitas and significance to an untested candidate like Obama. I'm sure that many voters in Iowa simply discounted Obama for lack of experience. A Powell endorsement might have given those people pause. But at this stage, I think that Obama has largely convinced the convince-able that he is "ready to lead."

- Endorsements at this level don't matter that much. I have no evidence for this statement, but I think that down-ticket endorsements are more likely to have an impact on a race than up-ticket endorsements. Meaning, if Barack Obama endorses a House candidate, that has a far larger impact than if that House candidate endorses Barack Obama. It's akin to the coattails effect. Remember, the president has the power of the pulpit, in addition to all the other powers that come with the office. No political figure in America has the same power, so it's hard to put too much stock into endorsements at this level.

- Colin Powell is no longer a celebrity. There was a time when Colin Powell was highly respected. Hell, there was a time (1996) where Powell would have been the first black president, if he had chosen to run. But he's perceived as largely ineffectual as Bush's SecState, and he's undoubtedly tied to the Iraq War. Powell has left the limelight, for better or worse. I don't think he has the muscle he once did.

As a final point, I think that a lot of the perception of any Powell endorsement of Obama would be one more focused on skin color than party or ideology or anything else. I don't think that benefits Obama at all.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Voting_for_Obama_anyway.html?showall

There's no real thesis to this. Just... sadness. This has been my great fear over the past few years: that people will turn away from individualism because it's easier if someone else makes decisions for you. I believe that individualism was a pillar of this country's development. I can't bear the sight of people running away from it.

Small sample size, of course, but I have feared this, and it appears to be coming to pass.

"I want the government to take over all of Wall Street and bankers and the car companies..."
"I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work."

It just makes me sick. More of a philosophical look at this in another post.

Three Articles Worth Comment

A long ramble on three articles:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367984585224675.html

Thesis: "In the history of empire -- or superpower or hyperpower -- no country has ever wielded its dominance as gently and judiciously as the United States has. Even those abroad and afar who feel they suffered as a result of American foreign policy ought to know that this planet as a whole will fare far worse under China or whatever country comes next, and would have suffered greatly had the Soviets won the Cold War."

Quick Analysis: True.

Deeper Analysis: While I strongly believe in the "gently and judiciously" angle, I'm not convinced that the "American century" is over.

Predicting the future is a difficult task, and while the American economy isn't looking too hot right now, the Chinese economy is suffering a tad, too. The US still has a large population, liberal immigration policies, and the world's strongest democratic traditions. All of these things are great for growth and for influence.

Things could grow much worse. Indeed, it's possible that a fully-Democratic government shifts strongly in favor of regulations, pumping up labor unions whose functions are at least a bit outdated, overregulating an economy (which needs smarter regulations, not a lot more regulations), destroying economic growth and then bringing to life the doomsday predictions of the deficit fear-peddlers. I can accept the premise of the article, but I'm not sure that we're quite ready for the Rome comparisons yet.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama

Thesis: "Necessity is the mother of bipartisanship. And so, for the first time in my life, I’ll be pulling the Democratic lever in November."

Quick Analysis: I don't think I'll be joining Mr. Buckley, but we'll see.

Deeper Analysis: Christopher Buckley is William F. Buckley's son. He wrote the excellent Thank You For Smoking and is an avowed libertarian-conservative. He's come out strongly in favor of voting for Barack Obama. His case:

- John McCain, a once-authentic, honorable politician, has changed into an "irascible, snarly" inauthentic politician by virtue of this tough campaign.
- The Sarah Palin pick was an embarrassment.
- Barack Obama is a very smart guy.
- As a very smart guy, he will "surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves," and is clear on "what the historical moment is calling for."

My take on this? I find that McCain's campaign has disappointed me, though not immeasurably. Many of the lines of attack he has pursued are legitimate: Obama has attempted to portray himself as a centrist unifier when he has absolutely no record of being a centrist unifier (I was enraged when the AP described him as "centrist" in an article from 2007). On the contrary, Obama has a significantly unique past that has seen him associating with the worst parts of the Chicago political machine, in addition to some hard-core leftists. This is all one story, I think:

- Barack Obama says he's a centrist who can bring people together.
- Barack Obama has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate and no record of bipartisan compromise (certainly less than McCain, who has an extensive record of bipartisan compromise).
- Barack Obama has worked with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and the worst parts of the Chicago political establishment.

This is a legitimate line of inquiry! The media's failing to investigate it more (preferring instead to deal with Sarah Palin's questionable firing of an incompetent police officer) is, to me, the leading indicator of some sort of press "bias" at work.

But back on point: some of the attacks of Obama as an "Other" and of Obama as "The One" smacked of immaturity and hostility. I'm certainly realistic about American politics, and really, very little is out of bounds. But I hoped for more from McCain.

The Palin pick has, for the most part, disappointed me, with the benefit of hindsight. I think she's been overhandled by the McCain campaign. Mostly, though, it appears to be true that it was too hard to bring a neophyte up to speed. Obama's campaign experience, if nothing else, gave him time to take positions on "The Issues." Palin, thrust into McCain's campaign, never had that luxury.

I want to see Sarah Palin run her own national campaign, not McCain's campaign. I want her to take a stand on federal power and the main issues of our time. I think that she has passed a minimum threshold test for national relevance; her convention speech was great, and she has demonstrated poise on a very large stage at a very early age for a politician. But we need to see more. And I'm pretty confident that we haven't seen the last of Sarah Palin.

Continuing on, I believe strongly that Barack Obama is a smart guy. I haven't read his books, but I have read his speeches, and he is the most logical thinker I have seen on the political stage... well, ever. Every point he makes is logical: A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D. It's professorial, but it's excellent.

I do not, however, believe that Obama will be immune to a Democratic Congress, particularly a filibuster-proof one (which is, to say the least, a statistical possibility). Any Democratic Congress will push a left-agenda hard over its two years. I think what we saw in 1992-1994 will be repeated (a president beholden to the Congressional base), but with far worse ramifications.

It is this critical point that I feel Buckley misses. A good conservative understands the benefits of limiting executive power, and whatever Obama wants to do, it is highly unlikely that he will push back against the liberal excesses of his Congress.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/obama_vs_free_speech.html

Thesis: "In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead."

Quick Analysis: Michael Barone's getting testy!

Deeper Analysis: When I first read this piece, I was shocked that it was Michael Barone. Barone is one of my... three favorite political analysts. I think Barone went a bit too far, but... I find it to ring true.

The Obama campaign and its surrogates have aggressively attacked legitimate lines of inquiry (as I postulated before). I can't say that I thought of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" when I first started recognizing this fact, but it's a valid comparison. The "Alien and Sedition Acts" were the products of surrogates of the (First) Adams administration, as Federalists tried desperately to protect the presidency from the evil Jeffersonians. The transfer of power, after the fact, was smooth and peaceful, establishing the precedent for the next two centuries. The laws were quietly repealed in 1801.

The larger picture is that Barone, a conservative, is coming to the realization that the next two years may well see a filibuster-proof Democratic majority. I think it has colored his recent analysis, sadly.

Thoughts 25 Days Out...

Some thoughts in the days leading up to the election:

I think it's pretty clear that the financial crisis has hurt McCain. I tend to subscribe to Jay Cost's view of it, that McCain was most affected by the crisis b/c he's a member of the Republican Party, the party that is historically associated with banking interests, not because of media talking points or because of his own impulsive desire to get himself in the thick of policy-making.

I hate to say that "it's over," because I think that a LOT can change in 3 weeks. But I think that the collapsing Dow is a reasonably proxy for McCain's electoral prospects. If the Dow is at 6500 on November 1, can anyone envision McCain winning the election? With all the fear that's floating around about retirement incomes, 401Ks, etc? I can't see it.

The truth is, I have no idea where the bottom is on this crisis. The fever may be breaking right now, or it may be getting far more severe. A market rebound (to, say, 10,000 in the next few weeks) would do a lot for McCain's campaign, but I'm not seeing that at all. McCain needs something to turn undecided voters his way; polls show Obama ahead by at least a small margin among decided voters. As far as I can tell, those things are:

- major national security issue
- economic stability/reduction of economic fear

The other thing is the electoral map. I think the worst case for McCain is something like a 364-174 loss. The most optimistic map I can possibly construct for McCain is a 321-217 win, and that includes Pennsylvania and Michigan going red (not happening). Obama has a massive committed-state cushion:

- Massachusetts
- Connecticut
- Maine
- Vermont
- Rhode Island
- New York
- New Jersey
- Maryland
- Washington DC
- Delaware
- Pennsylvania
- Michigan
- Illinois
- Wisconsin
- Iowa
- Minnesota
- California
- Washington
- Oregon
- Hawaii

That's 255 electoral votes.

So really, a McCain best case scenario is 283-255. The map favored Obama this year before the crisis. After the crisis? It's difficult to see him winning it.

It's hard to predict these things, but my intuition is that McCain will pick up some ground from where the polls are between now and the election, simply because I think it's easier for undecideds to see him in the Oval Office than it is Obama. But I don't think it would have been enough.

The Problem with Political Coverage (I)

OK, it's hard to say that there's one problem with political coverage. There are many, many problems with political coverage. We'll start with this one:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93KD6Q00&show_article=1

The thesis of this bit of analysis from the AP is that Sarah Palin's recent attacks on Barack Obama's associations are "racially-tinged." I reject this line of analysis altogether, for what it's worth, but that's not the point I'm trying to hit.

1. With her criticism, Palin is taking on the running mate's traditional role of attacker, said Rich Galen, a Republican strategist. "There appears to be a newfound sense of confidence in Sarah Palin as a candidate, given her performance the other night," Galen said. "I think that they are comfortable enough with her now that she's got the standing with the electorate to take off after Obama."

2. "It's a giant changing of the subject," said Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist. "The problem is the messenger. If you want to start throwing fire bombs, you don't send out the fluffy bunny to do it. I think people don't take Sarah Palin seriously."

Rich Galen and Jenny Backus CANNOT deliver analysis of the situation at all. They are delivering talking points, not analysis.

Galen's analysis is based on the following premises:

- Palin is confident.
- Palin did a great job in the debate.
- Palin has gravitas with the electorate.

Backus, on the other hand, bases her analysis on the following premises:

- Palin is a "fluffy bunny."
- No one takes Palin seriously.

Both bits of analysis are based on entirely different premises, but those premises reflect the stated political positions of the analysts! So why do we even use their opinions for copy? They are just part of the two campaigns' distinct attempts to shape the narrative and build support for their candidate of choice.

I think that both analysts, for what it's worth, are quite wrong.

- Palin did not do a "great job" at the debate, and she is still something of an unknown in the electorate.
- Palin's convention speech was the most effective attack on Barack Obama in the entire election cycle; she's not a "fluffy bunny."

These two conclusions, to me, are more fair than the politically-tinged ones of Backus and Galen. Why are "_______ strategists" even allowed to deliver analysis in non-partisan settings? It's not analysis at all. It's just another field for the campaigns to do battle. And whenever possible, the news media should be detached from the campaigns, not entangled with them.

AND: there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with the line of inquiry vis-a-vis William Ayers. Associations matter. Obama is (rightfully) trying to downplay this, but he hasn't given people access to the critical documents needed to "exonerate" himself. William Ayers' priorities, beliefs, and goals are different from those of mainstream Americans. If Obama just worked with him to advance his OWN goals, that's fine--but if Obama sympathized with those goals at any time, he has to defend himself. The media cannot act as a gatekeeper in this spot; the media has to try to break down the gate.

Great Analogy...

From Brad Smith over at RedState.com:

It is true that relatively few voters (though by no means none) go into the booth thinking, "I like Obama over McCain, but I am voting for McCain because I like Palin more." But for virtually all voters the VP nominee is part of the large backdrop that fills the canvas, and makes the top of the ticket seem better or worse. To say the VP won't change votes is like saying a movie score won't change people's appreciation of the movie - we know that that is simply not true, the movie score is vitally important... even if few viewers walk out going, "Man, if it weren't for the score, I wouldn't have liked that movie."

Debate

9:10 PM - "Deregulation" is the Democrats' central theme so far.

9:25 PM - "$4 billion tax break" - another Democratic talking point. For what it's worth, I think Palin's doing a good job here. Biden isn't stumbling much, too; he's well-prepared.

9:32 PM - Biden's point about "knowing the causes" is sound.

9:41 PM - Palin has done well but simply has avoided answering questions with much nuance. It's actually a very effective way to work in these terribly-formatted debates. Palin would have no chance in an actual, straight-up debate.