2012 campaign

A prominent theme for the Republican presidential candidates is addressing the role of government. Specifically, most communicate the desire to minimize its role. On the flipside, President Obama is perceived as favoring a protagonist government. But this is not a far left- far right disagreement. It is happening in the center.

Unlike the common perception that either side of the argument is on the fringes of the political spectrum, in reality this is an argument that is taking place within the American ruling class. And yes, you should be worried.

If a sizable portion of the American ruling class prefers to keep its wealth at record levels, and at the expense of investing in the country’s future, then that means that a sinking-ship mentality exists. In other words, some in the establishment believe that the US has had a good run, and now it is time to move on.

This was not the case in the 19^th and early 20^th Century, when liberalism was sweeping the globe at the hands of the British Empire. Today’s free-market mantra was not popular with the American establishment back then because, obviously, it could not compete in the British free market. Instead, the American elite steered the government into implementing a policy of protectionism, giving American business and industry time to mature and expand domestically. Of course, American public opinion was manipulated accordingly.

The general population in the United States eventually benefitted from the actions of the elite, but it is important to realize that the elite were serving themselves. And just like the regular guy on the street in 1910 was isolationist, today’s regular guy is a free-market advocate. This is a troubling development.

The regular American guy cannot successfully compete in the free market as it is today, especially if you take away social protections like a quality free education, unemployment benefits and retirement pensions. That we are even talking about scaling these back while proposing the elimination of capital gains taxes in the same breath means that the ruling class is conflicted about what the future of the United States looks like.

In the 21^st Century the free flow of capital and globally abundant cheap labor means that a portion of the American establishment can continue to succeed without relying on a robust US government or even other Americans. This group will find it increasingly difficult to invest in the US itself- meaning education, infrastructure, health care, social security- if the US cannot give them a return on their investment.

Make no mistake. The powerful have always controlled the United States. The difference now is that the powerful strongly disagree on how to proceed. This disagreement will not be decided in the 2012 presidential election. It will continue throughout the next presidency and beyond, precisely because an increasing portion of the American establishment can succeed without the US.

Yes, as the former House Speaker strategically moved the Republican presidential field toward middle ground on immigration at this past Tuesday’s CNN debate. Gingrich dangled a big carrot — he would support legalizing undocumented immigrants, who have lived in the United States for 25-years, rather than separating families. Of the estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants, two million could reach for the carrot, as they entered the country in 1986 or earlier. Gingrich’s Republican rivals leaped for the sticks. Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann argued against “amnesty”. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney railed against policies that are “magnets” for more illegal immigration.   

Gingrich’s immigration proposal is a good political calculation and realistic policy in a period of divided government, which looks to continue in the next presidential term. He had floated the idea in May when he was interviewed by Univision, the largest Spanish-language television network in the country. The difference between now and then is that he leads the Republican field. A day before the debate, Gingrich was leading his closest rival, Romney, by four percentage points according to the November 21^st CNN/ORC poll. On Tuesday, Gingrich pushed the envelope by promoting the proposal.  

The returns on Gingrich’s political calculation are already coming in. Yesterday, Bachmann, who is desperately gasping for air to remain in the race, stepped up her attacks on Gingrich’s plan. She said he has a “long history of supporting amnesty”. Bachmann’s attacks help forge a more moderate image for Gingrich. Illinois Democratic Representative and head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’s immigration task force, Luis Gutierrez, applauded Gingrich. Gutierrez, a credible advocate for immigration reform, indicated that he didn’t care what the political motivations were of the former House Speaker.       

Gingrich’s proposal is also realistic policy. He didn’t overpromise on immigration, as President Obama had done in the 2008 election, and earlier this year. Gingrich is an experienced hand. The last time there was immigration reform, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, he was the House Speaker, who constantly locked horns with President Clinton. Gingrich could deliver on his proposal given his track record.   

The plan isn’t altogether appealing since it precludes citizenship for the undocumented, whose legal statuses he seeks to correct. Gingrich hasn’t offered a rationale, though, the historian with a PhD in modern European history surely knows that naturalization — the process of immigrants becoming American citizens — results in more Democratic voters ever since President Jefferson’s 1800 election. The plan shouldn’t turn off xenophobes because it limits the political power of ethnic groups by denying immigrants the right to vote from immediate naturalization.

Gingrich doesn’t have to alter his position since his proposal is generating waves of interest, however, the historian, who often cites history during debates like a college professor, should know that bringing as many immigrants into the fold as possible betters his chances. President McKinley, for instance, won his 1896 election by purging nativists from the Republican Party.

Ironically for anyone who remembers the 90′s, Newt Gingrich seems poised to play the role held in 2008 by his nemesis, Hillary Clinton.

After Iowa, the 2008 race was turned on its head, turning the establishment candidate into the scrappy underdog, and the young upstart into the favorite of both the elites and much of the grassroots. Subsequently, Obama’s failure to channel his momentum into a New Hampshire win meant a primary contest that went through three changes of season and seven months as Clinton doggedly stayed in the race, with sporadic but significant victories in Pennsylvania, Texas and Ohio.

Electorally speaking, the Republicans may face a similarly zig-zagging primary process, given the structure of their primary elections calendar. As Gingrich’s star rises, particularly his significant coup with the New Hampshire Union Leader’s endorsement, Romney’s primary results may only be glancing blows instead of the needed knockouts. If Romney does not establish decisive wins within the first few primaries, the longevity of the Republican primary calendar means a grueling and potentially intriguing obstacle course race to the nomination. Delegate-heavy primaries like New York and California don’t take place until April and June, respectively (far later than in 2008). The gap in electorally significant contests between Florida on January 31 and Super Tuesday on March 6 will provide plenty of  As Jon Ward and Mark Blumenthal reported at Huffington Post, “…the altered calendar will create the most spread-out contest since the 1970s…mathematically, it will be hard for Romney to argue after January and February that he is the putative nominee.”

But the spoiler role is about more than just riding out a long contest. True spoilers expose and exploit the intraparty fissures that turn elections into identity crises. Clinton’s prolonged candidacy became a microcosm for Democrats’ internecine conversations about race, gender, and age. Robin Morgan excoriated young Obama supporters for betraying feminism, who responded in kind, while Caroline Kennedy played ref and declared Obama the winner of the 60′s mantle. The long-running conversation exposed both the conflicts and the overlaps between the Democratic voter bases. The possibility for a similarly explicit showdown among Republicans gives this primary season some real zest. (Finally.) Though this contest may lack the visceral punch of the white-female-vs.-black-male, Gingrich and Romney slugging it out would mean a head-to-head matchup of the Reagen coalition’s two factions: social conservatives and economic conservatives.

As of now, Gingrich need only place within the top three in Iowa and New Hampshire to justify remaining in the race for months to come. Between the advantages of the primary election sequence and the fractured Republican base, with its appetite for a Romney alternative, in this case we may see that to the spoiler goes the victory.

On November 28th the United Nations Climate Change Conference will begin their 17th annual negotiations in Durban, South Africa. Representatives from 194 countries will make the trip, however an ever dwindling number of them will be high officials, just one of many signals suggesting low expectations.

Like usual the US, the largest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases, will again fail to show leadership or provide the example to put local and international criticisms at rest.

President Obama’s proposed American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 aimed at installing a comprehensive cap and trade system for carbon emissions. The stated reduction goals aimed at bringing greenhouse gas emissions to 3 percent below 2005 levels by 2012, 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

Whether or not these ambitious aims would have been accomplished we will never know, the House barely passed the measure while the bill fell under the swift guillotine of the Senate.

All the US has to bring to the table in terms of broad climate based legislation is revised fuel efficiency standards for vehicles and some minor efficiency changes. Meanwhile, the EU is making efforts to reduce emissions by 30 percent of 1990 levels, China is imposing a pilot cap and trade scheme by 2013, Japan already has one,  and Australia just imposed a progressive carbon tax.

The bulk of nations are all pursuing similar strategies. In fact, there are simply too many efforts being made internationally to even give cursory mention in so short an article.

It seems that since the international arena, so evidently lacking leadership, has failed to impose universal climate policy standards, most nations have decided to come up with their own policies.

All except the United States.

Enhanced fuel efficiency standards are welcome progress in the otherwise barren world of federal environmental policy. Their broad acceptance goes to show strategic, well-planned policy designed to change the incentive structure of manufacturers and consumers can orient the market towards more efficient means.

If we want to compete in the growing renewables markets we have to reorient our economy. This wont happen with an idling, fume spewing Congress.

The US is holding the whole world back with its conservative bending, regressive outlook. At this rate it looks like one day we will be one of the advanced countries who has made the least number of advances, even compared to many developing countries.

If the republicans manage to pull out majorities in Congress, and put a Republican in the White House, we might as well go back to the stone age and bring out the steam engine. Perry cares so much about the EPA he can’t even remember what its called. And the last few days Romney has jokingly been calling himself a “serial exhaler of carbon dioxide” when bashing the already too limited scope of the EPA.

Its time for the international community to put some heavy pressure on the US to change its ways. Now is the time – and Durban is the place to do it.

On Monday, November 21^st, Mitt Romney released “Believe in America,” a controversial, misleading campaign ad, in New Hampshire.  His first paid commercial delivers a very flawed attack, raises his own character questions, and gives Democrats ample ammunition to respond.

The first 22 seconds serves as a flashback to Barack Obama campaigning for Presidency in October of 2008. Sound bytes wrap the first quarter, combined with oversized texts such as “HE FAILED,” “GREATEST JOB CRISIS SINCE DEPRESSION,” “RECORD HOME FORECLOSURES,” and “RECORD NATIONAL DEBT.”

The footage shows clips of Obama in New Hampshire and clusters of civilians enveloped in an overwhelmingly dark, clouded atmosphere, delivered in lightening speed to Jaws-like music that evokes a sense of impending doom onto the viewer. The darkness then clashes and is defeated by the bright fluffy white clouds and the hopeful, gentle voice of Mitt Romney. Soothing symphonic music accompanies his inspiring words to the viewers, along with nearly an all white male audience throughout his clips.

Walt Disney mastered the art of subliminal advertisement. Go back to your tapes of The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, The Lion King, etc, and you will hear off-color sound bytes and subtlety vulgar animated backdrops that your conscious mind misses but your subconscious grabs onto and conveniently stores them. Big business has been using this technique for decades and Mitt Romney is no different.

I almost missed the few nanoseconds [about 20 seconds in] that Romney inserted during the scenes of Obama that reveals a seated congregation of Black citizens. Moreover, if analyzed closely, the viewer will notice that the nearly blacked out portions of the footage consist primarily of Black civilians. Romney does an excellent job of covertly linking minorities to terms such as “debt,” “crisis,” “foreclosure,” and “lose” – thereby, trying to create an “Us” versus “Them” mentality.

Let’s focus on this “all black segment” when President Obama’s words are heard: “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” Romney intentionally chopped down the sentence from its entirety of: “Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.’” It is a huge oversight for Romney to take the then Presidential Candidate Barack Obama’s 2008 statement and attribute it to 2011 in a desperate effort to convince the public that he has been dodging the economy.

First, President Obama has been addressing concerns about the economy since he took office. If not, then why did he sign into law The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009? Why is he and Michelle Obama tirelessly campaigning for the passage of his American Jobs Act? Second, Romney cleverly juxtaposes the races through the placement of images and lighting, failing to include minorities in his own footage. He presents President Obama as “The Other” and further reinforces this notion by solely reaching out to blue collar factory working middle class white men throughout “Believe in America.”

Perhaps Romney’s team got what they wanted – the media is continuously talking about the campaign ad and he is receiving that much sought after attention, but at the same he is losing credibility, his character is under question, and Newt Gingrich is climbing his way to the top in New Hampshire.  He is treading dangerous water by not only delivering misleading information, but also by combining it with heavy racial undertones.

Instead of Romney trying to sell his ideas like a popcorn and soda commercial at your local Cineplex, he should focus on delivering honest, quality, and inclusive messages.

In her book The Missing Class, Sociologist Katherine Newman documented a startling new discovery – almost 57 million Americans were living in a reality known as the ‘near poor,’ those living 100 to 200 percent above the poverty line, neither officially destitute nor comfortably middle class. In her “The Nation” interview with Eyal Press, Dr. Newman noted that policymakers have been slow in responding to this group, “I haven’t heard anybody else (besides John Edwards) talk about these people, Republicans nor Democrats. I don’t think the political parties reach out to them very much.” This interview, as well as her book, hit the press in mid 2007, but the plight of the near poor failed to make a blip on policy radar screens.

Four years and one catastrophic economic downturn later, Katherine Newman was right in her assessment of the near poor. It took the prestige and popularity of the New York Times to unveil this great discovery (again) in their November 18^th article “Older, Suburban, and Struggling, ‘Near Poor’ startle the Census.” Citing recent statistics from the Census Bureau’s new supplemental poverty measure that better accounts for disposable income spent on things like medical expenses, this article concludes that 51 million Americans fall into the near poor category, with incomes only 50 percent above the poverty line.

Dr. Newman was spot on again when she stated that policymakers – Republican or Democrat – are not paying much attention to this group. GOP candidates like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are championing tax cuts for the middle class (the class this near poor group tends to fall into), while Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry opt for the opposite, believing that the poor and near poor are getting a “free ride” and should be taxed more heavily. Beyond this, just how should policy makers respond?

Looking at families only, (policy responses for all types of people that fall into this category are outside the scope of this post) Republicans and Democrats could take advice from former Presidents like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton and expand on social insurance programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The EITC program, which rewards parents with a tax credit per child based on their yearly earnings (up to $5,751 for a married family with 3 children, filing jointly, and making less than $49,078 in 2011), was expanded by Ronald Reagan in 1986 and again by Bill Clinton in 1993. While the EITC has been one of the most effective anti-poverty policies ever devised by the federal government, increasing the amount would help families facing high disposable income costs like medical expenses, and would put Americans more in line with our European counterparts.

Or, policymakers could finally embrace the policy suggestions of social scientists across the United States and define broader social reforms that could eliminate many of the work-family conflicts that keep the near poor teetering on edge of poverty. For example, state subsidized, quality childcare is one policy option that resounds from the research of political scientists like Dr. Janet Gornick of the LIS Center and CUNY Graduate School and researcher Heather Boushey from the Center for American Progress.

The simple fact is that the issues faced by the near poor will only get worse without a policy response. So whether or not the Republicans decide to embrace the policies of their revered Ronald Reagan or President Obama decides to listen to the policy suggestions from a growing number of social scientists, someone needs to act. Now.

I wrote my last blog post in the immediate wake of the forcible eviction of Occupy Wall Street protesters from Zucotti Park that took place early Tuesday morning. For a lot of people, that afternoon was a filled with uncertainty mixed with vague but tangible optimism, thanks to so many other Occupy movements still holding, November 17^th actions imminent, and an overwhelming wealth of public support. While the past week’s events have justified initial optimism, building developments both in and (most importantly) out of the Plaza are reason for even more confidence.

Down on Wall Street, vigorous organizing is still taking place around Liberty Plaza, with meetings of various working groups and the relatively new ‘spokes-council’ happening frequently both in the square and at 60 Wall Street (an indoor location required a month or so prior to eviction). This is fantastic, a sign of real endurance. It’s heartwarming to see that the square is still teeming with revolutionary activity. What these meetings demonstrate is a commitment to a core of organization, and they maintain a sense of stability and of perseverance. What’s more exciting though, are the events taking place outside of Liberty Plaza, which prove that losing the Zucotti Park encampment may actually have been the best thing to happen to the movement in New York City.

For one, New York occupations are now reaching out more into the boroughs. What these geographically specific occupations have—what Zucotti didn’t could never really seem to get—is the ability to empower and represent more diverse communities. While the occupation on Wall Street was often shunned by even supportive people of color, Occupy Harlem has proven to be a much more effective forum for those who represent the non-white majority—not to mention those most effected by the historical inequality of capitalism. By rallying more diverse support, these movements prove, as one veteran protester rightly argues, that “Occupy Wall Street is not a quote-unquote white thing.”

And it’s not just the occupations that are spreading beyond the park. So too is the organization of the working groups themselves. With less time and energy being spent down on Wall Street, many organizers that I’ve spoken with are feeling more free to organize specifically around other issues, such as student debt. Like geographic diversity, this tactical diversity will also allow support for the movement to grow. With attention shifting from broad and singular to narrow and varied, people generally familiar with the movement may find more meaningful reasons to take part. Of course, Occupy Wall Street remains central as a symbol and as a communication hub. However, with force from cops and the weather both increasing, these independent (and mobile) points of organization are going to be key to keeping the movement alive.

Life continues in the square, and that is truly excellent. But what really makes me certain that these movements have political staying power is that they are moving beyond Wall Street. A week ago we lost the park, and while we may have gotten it back (sort of), what we really gained was the knowledge that we may no longer need it.

Obama just returned from a ten day trip through Asia, with visits to Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. The trip has widely been considered a diplomatic and strategic success. Yet all Perry, Romney, and the rest of the Republican candidates took from it was an out of context sound bite in which Obama allegedly calls all Americans lazy.

Within days of a November 12th meeting, Perry released this classy ad with the well trimmed clip: After a turn towards the camera reminiscent of a supervillan rotating in his chair to address world leaders with outrageous demands, Perry says “Can you believe that? Thats what our president thinks is wrong with this country?”

Actually, the fragment was part of a CEO business summit held by APEC (Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation). The question was about limitations on receiving foreign investment from China, a contentious issue facing both legal prohibitions on foreign ownership of nationally strategic industries and businesses failing to keep up with attracting money from foreign investors in an increasingly competitive international atmosphere.

After lauding American business, innovation, and limitless opportunities, Obama says, “But we’ve been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades. We’ve kind of taken for granted — well, people will want to come here and we aren’t out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new business into America.” Sounds like an excellent observation to me, what do you think Rick?

Romney was just as quick to load his campaign guns with these verbal bullets. Too bad they’re blanks. In a speech in Massachusetts he fired off with “…I just don’t think that President Obama understands America. Now, I say that because this week…he said that Americans are lazy. I don’t think that describes Americans.”  Well done Mitt. Anything else you want to contribute? “I’m convinced that America is not lazy…they’re being held down today by a government that is too big…”

This central tenet of both Perry and Romney, that government is always bad and always too big, is border line scientific truth, unquestionable – especially when doused with counterfactual evidence.  Not even the Obama administration’s program SelectUSA, one he mentions in the same meeting, which helps streamline and assist foreign investors building job generating firms, could threaten the creed. Even when Obama’s goal of doubling US exports in five years through such programs is largely on track.

What is more upsetting is that Republican campaign rhetoric has tarnished probably one of the most important presidential trips in the last decade. One which strengthened economic and political ties with some of the worlds largest developed and emerging economies. One that reasserted American influence in the region after a long hiatus. One which showed the growing economies of Asia they have an ally, friend, and protector.

Whose really lazy? The candidates who can’t come up with anything better than taking words out of context or the globe-trotting president working hard to make accomplishments abroad because Congress won’t let him do anything at home?

17,431 out of 245 million internet users or 0.01% — that’s how many Americas watched yesterday’s online Republican presidential campaign debate. Six candidates sat at a table in an Iowa church hosted by the Family Leader, a Christian conservative group and moderated by reputed Republican pollster Frank Luntz. Admittedly more discussion than debate, the evening centered on social issues such as religious beliefs, morality and family. There were some candid moments like former Senator Rick Santorum’s emotional story of his daughter’s life-threatening illness at birth, which only a seasoned focus group facilitator like Luntz could orchestrate.       

There were other moments. Santorum, for instance, promised to outlaw abortion by not waiting for Roe v. Wade to be overturned by the Supreme Court, a 1973 decision that advanced women’s rights. At another point, former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain professed to be ultimately answerable to God, an admission that he doesn’t accept the basic tenet of separation of church and state, a cornerstone of public sector governing. The candidates’ conservative views placated the assembled crowd at the event, but their values aren’t in sync with the moderation America is undergoing of its political values. A telling sign of the fissure was the absences of former governors Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, who are Mormons. 

In Mississippi, where 56% of the vote was Republican in the 2008 presidential election, the voters recently rejected a state constitutional amendment to redefine life as commencing at conception, and to ban abortion. In Arizona, where 54% of the vote was Republican in the last presidential contest, state senator Russell Pearce, who championed Arizona’s controversial anti-immigrant law, just lost his seat in a recall election. In Ohio, a swing state where five percentage points separated Republicans and Democrats in 2008, the voters also recently thwarted a proposal that would have weakened the collective bargaining rights of public employees. The completion of the state election cycles this month demonstrated that Americans are moving towards political middle ground.   

And who deserves credit for the shift? It’s not President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Reid or the Democratic Party. It’s Occupy Wall Street (OWS) — the motley protestors whose movement has ably questioned the inequality government policies, produced by Republicans and Democrats, have financially benefitted corporations more than people. In the United States, OWS has spread to states like California, Colorado, Florida, Nevada and Oregon. The movement has also struck a chord worldwide. 

At the event, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich scolded OWS by saying, “…go get a job right after you take a bath.” Gingrich made clear how much he, the candidates and the audience are out of touch with the rest of America. 

OWS has expanded because it has made Americans fundamentally rethink government’s role in our everyday lives — an irony since Republican candidates always claim to want less government. The Republican Party has to seriously consider how far to the right it continues to backslide, as America is watching, though not online, and judging.