Bits and Pieces

Yesterday’s election of Barack Obama was a truly momentous occasion, for the change it signifies in the political preferences of the American people as well as its historical significance. Both Senator McCain and Senator Obama gave excellent speeches, which you should read if you missed them the last night. The commentators have a lot to say about it all, below are some of the most interesting bits and pieces I have read. 

EJ Dionne, of the Washington Post: 

Above all, it is time to celebrate the country’s wholehearted embrace of democracy, reflected in the intense engagement of Americans in this campaign and the outpouring to the polls all over the nation. For years, we have spoken of bringing free elections to the rest of the world even as we cynically mocked our own ways of conducting politics. Yesterday, we chose to practice what we have been preaching.

Micheal Gerson, of the Washington Post:

This presidency in particular should be a source of pride even for those who do not share its priorities. An African American will take the oath of office blocks from where slaves were once housed in pens and sold for profit. He will sleep in a house built in part by slave labor, near the room where Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation with firm hand. He will host dinners where Teddy Roosevelt in 1901 entertained the first African American to be a formal dinner guest in the White House; command a military that was not officially integrated until 1948. Every event, every act, will complete a cycle of history. It will be the most dramatic possible demonstration that the promise of America — so long deferred — is not a lie.

I suspect I will have many substantive criticisms of the new administration, beginning soon enough. Today I have only one message for Barack Obama, who will be our president, my president: Hail to the chief.

NY Times Editorial:

Mr. Obama will now need the support of all Americans. Mr. McCain made an elegant concession speech Tuesday night in which he called on his followers not just to honor the vote, but to stand behind Mr. Obama. After a nasty, dispiriting campaign, he seemed on that stage to be the senator we long respected for his service to this country and his willingness to compromise.

That is a start. The nation’s many challenges are beyond the reach of any one man, or any one political party.

And finally, Thomas Friedman, of the NY Times: 

But a new politics of the common good can’t be only about government and markets. “It must also be about a new patriotism — about what it means to be a citizen,” said Sandel. “This is the deepest chord Obama’s campaign evoked. The biggest applause line in his stump speech was the one that said every American will have a chance to go to college provided he or she performs a period of national service — in the military, in the Peace Corps or in the community. Obama’s campaign tapped a dormant civic idealism, a hunger among Americans to serve a cause greater than themselves, a yearning to be citizens again.”

None of this will be easy. But my gut tells me that of all the changes that will be ushered in by an Obama presidency, breaking with our racial past may turn out to be the least of them. There is just so much work to be done. The Civil War is over. Let reconstruction begin.

THE NUMB3RS

There are now no fewer than seven current national polls that show Obama with a double-digit advantage: Newsweek (+11), ABC/Post (+10), Democracy Corps (+10), Research 2000 (+10), Battleground (+13), Gallup (+10 using their Likely Voter II model) and now this CBS News poll. 

The numbers speak for themselves. Though having a few prominent conservative philosophers speak out against McCain surely doesn’t hurt either. Chris Buckley (son of William Buckley Jr; founder of the conservative publication, the National Review) resigned over the weekend after public outcry regarding his column last week in which he asked McCain why in the world he would have chosen Palin as his VP. He is the second columnist at the NR to question the choice of Palin, following in the footsteps of Kathleen Parker who received 12,000 pieces of hate mail after her original column,urging Palin to step down, was published in the NR.  Buckley quoted Ronald Reagan as he left the NR, saying “I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.”

If Colin Powell endorses Obama after the debate tonight, as expected based on his views on the management of the Iraq war, it will be “the final nail in the coffin of the Republican campaign to hold onto the White House. “

The conservative politicos are in a real quandary with this election, as the republican party faces an identity crisis which is playing out on the national stage. The fringes of the party have become more extreme, openly shouting “terrorist” and “kill him” at their rallies, and Palin has fit right in by stirring up the pot. Meanwhile many of the mainstream republicans have found appeal in the policy proposals of Obama and Biden. The Republican party no longer stands for the small government (just look at the bailout package the Bush administration proposed) or family values (many have been disillusioned with the political scandals that have plagued the evangelical republican base in recent history). It is increasingly apparent that the republicans don’t have time to reorganize themselves in time for this year’s election, but the party will have to do some extensive soul searching after November in order to solidify a conservative philosophy with a platform relevant in the 21st century. Such a platform would have to appeal to some of the moderate and yes, evangelical, voters which have been leaving the party in droves. This must include practical environmental policies (drill here, drill now is in no way practical or sufficient- the oil won’t be available for 30 years!), an embrace of  the civil rights of individuals based on the foundations of the constitution (which the Bush administration has mauled so horribly in the past 8 years), moderate social policies to address poverty in America (an increasingly important issue among the “religious right”), and base it all on a philosophy of governance that does not include the types of Rovian politics seen of late. The road ahead is a steep one indeed. 

Palin/ the Bush Administration and Reproductive Rights of Women

Gov. Palin’s nomination as the GOP VP candidate has been accompanied by discussions of her views on sex education, rights of women, and her stance on abortion. As a staunch conservative her views are pro-life and pro- abstinence-only sex education. Her opinions on the matter are based on her personal and religious convictions to which she is entitled, as you and I are entitled to our opinions. However the efficacy of abstinence only education for American teenagers is a legitimate concern of many. In addition, recent policy changes in the Bush administration on the subject are, regardless of one’s personal convictions, failing women in Africa we have pledged to assist and are on the brink of failing to protect American women’s right to access comprehensive health care information. 

Teenage Hormones

The age at which teens become sexually active is the same (17) across the modern industrialized nations, however the pregnancy, abortion and STD infection rates vary greatly. This is, in part, because of the ways these teens are educated about the consequences of their choices. In today’s Post, Amy Schalet compared the pregnancy and abortion rates of the US to those in the Netherlands. Teens engage in the same behaviors, but the difference? Dutch teen pregnancy rates are six times lower than in the US, and the abortion rate is significantly lower as well.  Similarly, in Canada, the pregnancy rate is half what ours is. 

 Like some other controversies at the heart of the culture wars, this problem — which, after receding nationally since the early 1990s, appears to be worsening again — need not exist. High teen pregnancy rates result in part from our inability to talk honestly and wisely about teen sexuality. And they are exacerbated by policies that prohibit such talk.

Imposition of Policies 
US AID quietly decided this week to prohibit a British aid organization, Marie Stopes Int., from distributing any contraceptives which are paid for by the US. The intent of the policy is to punish China for their population control program  through force abortions, because Marie Stopes Int. is a provider of family planning services in China (they maintain they have not ever been a part of the force-abortion policies). While it is admirable that the Bush administration is attempting to stand up to this policy, the tragic side effects are that women in Africa will not have the access to family planning resources that they once had. The Bush Administration is not simply targeting Stopes‘ abortion services, the administration is taking condoms, birth control and IUD’s away from clinics that desperately need them. Marie Stopes International supports numerous rural clinics throughout Africa, and in many communities are the only source of contraceptives and simple reproductive health care. 

“This nearsighted maneuver will have direct and dire consequences,” a group of prominent public health experts in America declared in an open letter, adding that the action “will translate almost immediately into increased maternal death and disability.”

It seems unconscionable that those deciding upon the appropriate course of action to penalize China for their policies, would adopt a policy that indirectly affects the world’s most vulnerable, African women of no means. In the irony of all ironies, many of these women will resort to abortions (in Africa these are not the sterile, safe procedures the West is familiar with) because they were unable to appropriate methods of birth control. Those that do not abort their unwanted pregnancies will risk greater poverty by feeding an extra child. In some parts of Africa a woman now has a one in ten chance of dying in childbirth. The idea that US policy may increase that toll is infuriating. 

Conscience Objections in the Medical Field

In late August HHS announced a proposed rule with the intent of providing greater protection to medical employees who have moral objections to particular medical procedures, particularly abortions. Laws of this kind were first passed in the 1970’s to allow individuals to object to performing medical procedures on religious grounds. The law protects the critical first amendment rights of individuals in the medical field. However there is concern that the recently proposed regulations are too vague and will allow doctors, nurses and other medical staff to interpret anything (including the provision of emergency contraceptives to rape victims) as objectionable and therefore refuse service. Many would agree that doctors have the right to not perform particular services based on their personal convictions. The disagreement arises when they are allowed to define for themselves what is objectionable, and refuse women access to services that they want or need. Hillary Clinton has been particularly outspoken on this issue, while others are convinced the effects of the regulations, if made final, would be less severe.  HHS opened the regulation up for comment letters and is currently in the process of reviewing them before making final decisions. Whether or not the regs are finalized, HHS should include more specific language to protect patients and ensure that they are always given access to comprehensive information and services, even if a specific doctor is will not accommodate their desires.   

Since When is Intelligence a Bad Thing?

There was a great deal of talk in the recent VP debate about ‘main street’ and ‘outsiders’ coming to Washington, and the argument that this would a good thing as compared to the so called ‘elites’ who are currently ruining our nation from DC. The argument is a hypocritical and faulty at best. Those who run ‘Washington’ (the term has simply become shorthand for the federal government and all its branches and agencies) are both east coast elites with ivy league educations and representatives from every walk of life from every corner of this great nation.  Anne Applebaum argued yesterday that contrary to the political rhetoric of the day, Washington ‘outsiders’ are just as susceptible, if not more, to corruption and mismanagement of their posts. 

The District is not Manhattan. In Washington, the significance of this “elite” pales in comparison with that of the “hockey moms,” “Joe Six-Pack” and “Main Streeters” who have dominated the political conversation in the nation’s capital for as long as I can remember… I am thinking here of Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska (a resident of Girdwood), now on trial on charges of corruption, and Texas Rep. Tom DeLay(born in Laredo), who resigned in disgrace. For the sake of bipartisanship, I’ll mention Louisiana Democratic Rep. William Jefferson (originally of Lake Providence), recently indicted on charges of corruption. But if more small-town Republican names come to mind, that’s because small-town Republicans have figured among the most powerful and most prominent Washington politicians for much of the past decade. 

The bottom line is that the ‘elites’ of DC have, in recent history, been less corrupt in the back rooms of Washington, but they are by no means immune to the temptation.  But where then, have they gotten such a bad reputation? When did this become the standard by which our leaders should be judged? Individuals with ivy league educations have turned out to be some of our best and some of our worst presidents. 

The qualities on which we should be casting votes should be proposed policies, leadership traits, decision making skills- not where the candidates come from or what type of education they may have. Military experience and time at Harvard are both incredibly valuable experiences for anyone, and can impact how one would define themselves as a president. 

The debates were telling in that they were an avenue through which the candidates could articulate their policies, demonstrate how their experiences have uniquely shaped them, and help voters understand the philosophies guiding their thinking and policy making. 

Gov. Palin failed largely on this in last weeks VP debate. Palin defended the government’s $700 billion rescue plan. She defended the surge in Iraq, where her own son is now serving. She defended sending more troops to Afghanistan. And yet, at the same time, she declared that Americans who pay their fair share of taxes to support all those government-led endeavors should not be considered patriotic. Whether you’re from small town Alaska or an ivy league professor, that argument isn’t logical and leads to cherry-picking priorities based on politics not sound philosophy. 

By contrast, in last night’s debate Sen. Obama demonstrated a coherent philosophy on the role of government (health care as a right, not a responsibility) and was able to articulate his priorities should he be elected (While Sen. McCain implied it was un-American to set priorities because we should be doing everything… talk about out of touch). People sometimes criticize Obama for being professorial. But tonight, I thought his calm, coherent explanations of policy were a distinct advantage. There’s nothing wrong with a man who speaks in full sentences. As the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein observed: “If you can’t say it, you can’t whistle it, either.” David Ignatius

The VP Debate: What We Already Knew

Last night’s VP debate demonstrated what many of us already know: Senator Biden is incredibly knowledgeable and articulate, while Governor Palin appeals to some “soccer-moms” but is unfamiliar with both the domestic and foreign policies (other than energy issues I suppose, which she returned to when asked about various other topics) which she and Senator McCain stand for. Neither made any huge gaffe’s, though both had some minor mistakes that are typical in political debates of this nature. 

Did Gov. Palin win, as some commentators like Pat Buchanan have claimed? No. It is abominable that the expectations for a vice presidential candidate in a debate were simply to show up and say a few quasi-logical things. To say Gov. Palin won, because she met those “expectations” is absurd. They was hardly anything to the expectations to begin with. 

The biggest challenge for the VP nominees going forward in the next four weeks will be convincing Americans that they are qualified for the job. According to the 10/1/08 Pew Research Center polls, Biden is ahead on this.  The public is increasingly worried about Palin’s qualifications and is also gaining confidence in Obama’s ability to lead. This is, in large part, because of his performance (and McCain’s flop of a performance) in dealing with the bailout legislation. 

Sen. Biden is one of the most knowledgeable senators serving in the US Congress and that came through in last night’s debate. His 90 second responses demonstrated both the big picture, philosophical understandings of problems and policies, as well as the minutia involved with his policy proposals. Simultaneously he appealed to average Americans as a father who struggled to care for his two sons after the death of his wife and daughter, who understands the “kitchen table discussions” that worry so many voters. 

In contrast, Palin failed to convince viewers that her policy positions are sound and the she will be able to execute them appropriately should she and McCain be elected. Had she been able to do that, a claim to victory would have been valid. For one, Palin botched the strategy and the name of the US commander in Afghanistan. “Now, in most cases, this type of oversight on the part of a politician could be dismissed–maybe even attributed to nerves. But when Afghanistan is exploding and on the verge of failure, details matter. Facts matter. Being familiar with the situation matters–a lot. The troops depend on it.” 

That Palin could not articulate her guiding philosophy behind the position of the vice presidency is terrifying to Americans who have seen the Constitution and our civil rights eroded under current VP Cheney. That Biden understood the constitutional issues at risk, and clearly defined how he would operate within them, provided  confidence and comfort to voters that Palin was unable to give.  “She went into this debate with most Americans believing she is unqualified for the office. She did nothing to dispel the doubts voiced about her– even by Republicans–and frankly reinforced those doubts mightily.” 

Nor could she come up with an answer to the achilles heal question, or the question about campaign promises that won’t be met. That one is unable to admit to the realities of one’s own and one’s party weaknesses demonstrated a world view in line with that of the Bush Administration, a disheartening fact for a population that is fed up with the guiding philosophies and policies that have emerged in the last 8 years. 

Questions for the VPs

Similar to the questions posted for the Presidential debate last week, today’s New York Times poses a number of questions, from various policy makers and analysts, to the VP candidates for their debate tonight.

Senator Biden, do you believe that continued withdrawal of American troops from Iraq will lead to a newly ignited civil war?

Governor Palin, since you were selected as a vice presidential candidate, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has given more press conferences to American reporters than you have. Why do you have less confidence in the American press and people than the president of Iran does? And when will you dare to face the press for real?

— ANDREW SULLIVAN, a blogger for The Atlantic and the author of “The Conservative Soul”

Can the vice president shift between branches at his convenience? If not, what, in your view, is the constitutional status of the vice presidency?

— GENE HEALY, the author of “The Cult of the Presidency: America’s Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power”

Governor Palin, I love my frontier state, but the first thing I learned when I moved to the Lower 48 was how unlike the rest of the country Alaska is. How would you govern America when as mayor and governor, you hardly had to provide basic public services? In Wasilla, less than a tenth of the town is connected to the sewer system.

Alaska’s economy runs on oil proceeds — we don’t even pay income tax. And despite our disdain for Washington, we are given hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government each year. How would you handle our financial crisis when you’ve never had to balance a budget while tax revenue fell?

— RACHEL KLEINFELD, the executive director of the Truman National Security Project.