A man who is willing to show how clean he is by initiating an ethics probe into his own fundraising activities surely wouldn’t mind explaining his motivation for terminating a study on Chinese trade practices that he himself commissioned to great fanfare. Until he does give this explanation, we can only speculate.
On May 23, 2007, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) asked the U.S. International Trade Commission to undertake a comprehensive study of interventionist Chinese government policies and the role those policies play in exacerbating the U.S.-China trade imbalance. A three-part study was requested, whereby the first part would describe the role and policies of the Chinese government concerning all aspect of the economy. Seven months were afforded to the ITC to complete the first phase, and a 272-page study was published in December 2007.
The second phase was to focus on sectors and policies “which are the primary drivers of the U.S.-China trade deficit” to determine how much of that deficit can be attributed to interventionist Chinese policies like subsidization, currency manipulation, and export promotion. Phase two was to be published by today (no later than 14 months after the May 23, 2007 letter). But it wasn’t.
In a letter to then-ITC chairman Dan Pearson dated April 1, 2008, Rangel expressed his disappointment with the ITC’s report so far, but took care to place the blame for the report’s faulty conclusions on the absence of transparency on the part of the Chinese government:
The inability to access within the time agreed upon key information, and to analyze this information thoroughly and rigorously, has led to numerous inadvertent mischaracterization in the draft. These mischaracterizations are understandable given several characteristics of the Chinese economy and Chinese society, including the lack of transparency in Chinese policymaking, the absence of a clear demarcation between central and provincial government responsibilities, the pace at which laws and regulations are being written and re-written, and the incomplete development of the rule of law in China. Similarly, the breadth of the Committee’s request may have been too great, given the limitations on the Commission’s time, resources and lack of experience to date in investigating, identifying, obtaining and analyzing the kinds of information critical to the analysis sought in the Committee’s request.
Rangel went on to express confidence that the ITC would “develop the capacity to address the central and critical issues identified in the study,” but that he was suspending the work of the ITC on this matter, while his staff “work[ed] with the Commission staff to ensure that the Commission has the resources, time, and guidance it needs.”
I guess the ITC didn’t take the hint, so on June 25, 2008, Rangel terminated the study altogether.
Why did Rangel pull the plug? At a minimum, the move to terminate the study raises suspicions that the ITC’s conclusions were not in line with the hopes or expectations of Rangel, the Committee, or the Democratic majority in Congress. The Dems have been hard-peddling the line that unfair trade explains the trade deficit, the “decline” in U.S. manufacturing, and the growing aversion of Americans to trade and globalization.
The ITC’s conclusions were probably more in line with the views of those of us who acknowledge that the Chinese government continues to play an oversized role in the Chinese economy, but who also believe those interventions have only a marginal impact on the trade balance.
Allowing those conclusions to come out in the midst of an election campaign that features clear distinctions on trade policy between the political parties, and which would clearly undermine the Democratic Party line, could be uncomfortable for Chairman Rangel and his fellow Democrats.
At this point, the ITC economists and researchers who spent a minimum of six months on this study are probably more than a bit frustrated. And taxpayers have been forced to subsidize yet another wasteful government effort.
At the very least, then, the ITC should publish its results, since it has already come this far. It would be interesting to see exactly what scared Chairman Rangel. And I suspect the results would be vindicating for those of us who know that the trade deficit has nothing to do with trade policy and everything to do with providing a fig leaf for the protectionist agenda of some of Chairman Rangel’s party’s biggest benefactors.
Housing Bill Hammers Taxpayers
Combine a housing meltdown with election-year politics and the results were not going to be pretty. Add a crisis in confidence in Washington's favorite quasipublic companies and what we're getting is a rout for taxpayers, especially those who kept their heads during the housing mania.
The House yesterday passed a housing bailout by 272-152. The White House has thrown its reservations overboard and is begging to sign this boondoggle, despite the less-than-veto-proof majority. A few brave souls in the Senate are threatening a filibuster, which is where the last hope lies for stripping the most egregious and expensive provisions from this monster.
Even conservative estimates by the Congressional Budget Office say the cost for this bailout will run to $41.7 billion, with $16.8 billion offset by higher taxes. No one has any idea of the real cost. The most expensive provision gives the Treasury temporary authority to pour money into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The CBO says this could cost $100 billion, or it could cost "nothing." So it threw a dart at the wall and assigned a $25 billion price tag to the Fan and Fred bailout.
Likewise, the bill's $300 billion to refinance and insure distressed loans through the Federal Housing Administration will supposedly cost just a few billion dollars. That assumes few homeowners and lenders will sign up for the program because lenders will have to take a 10% haircut to be eligible. If no one needs this program, why is it there? If lenders do take advantage, they're bound to dump their worst loans on the feds. So as with the Fan and Fred bailout, the FHA guarantee will be either superfluous or much more expensive than we're led to believe.
Alongside these big-ticket items, we suppose the $4 billion tax credit for first-time home buyers, or the $4 billion in "community development" pork grants, or the $180 million for housing counseling are merely routine outrages.
On the other hand, the kid-glove treatment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is very much worth worrying about. On the floor of the House yesterday, Democrats argued that this bill was the least Congress could do "for the people," given the way the government had "helped" Bear Stearns. The cost borne by Bear Stearns was having its shareholders all but wiped out and half its employees pink-slipped. Countrywide was likewise sold at a fire sale price. Not so these two government-chartered giants.
Fannie and Freddie may well be too big to fail, as Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson keeps reminding us. That is true in large part because they were allowed -- no, encouraged -- to grow like Topsy while Congress shielded them from oversight. At a minimum, the cost of a lifeline ought to include some accountability and assurance they cannot get into such a fix again. Instead what we have is a promise that Fannie and Freddie will pay us Tuesday for an explicit taxpayer guarantee today. The Treasury will get unlimited authority to recapitalize the mortgage giants, effective immediately, while a new regulator will have to run a gauntlet of confirmation and Congressional hazing over the companies' portfolios of mortgage securities the way a Supreme Court nominee has to handle Roe v. Wade.
This delay will give Fan and Fred time to consolidate their political position and fend off attempts to shrink them to a less risky size. At the same time, the $600 million "affordable housing" fund that the bill would skin off the hide of the two firms gives Washington a permanent stake in preserving their dominant market position. If Fannie and Freddie can't be brought to heel politically now, when weeks ago their very survival was in doubt, not even a newly empowered regulator will have any hope of reducing their claims on the public fisc once the dust settles.
Mr. Paulson might have kept an eye on the taxpayer's interest here by insisting that any money put into the companies come with some upside, as the Chrysler bailout in 1979 did. Instead we are left to trust that Mr. Paulson or his successor will have the political nerve to resist the companies and their friends on Capitol Hill. Any money given to Fannie and Freddie should have been conditioned on receivership, including clearing out the management and boards that made this mess.
Mr. Paulson argues that the new regulator will have the Federal Reserve's clout behind it, adding firepower to its ability to rein in the not-so-dynamic duo. But the Fed is also subject to Congressional sway, and no Fed Chairman is going to risk losing his running room on monetary policy to corral Fan and Fred.
For proof of how powerful they remain, even in their straitened circumstances, look no further than Majority Leader Harry Reid's refusal even to allow a vote on an amendment proposed by South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint to bar the two from lobbying in the future. Senator DeMint has threatened to filibuster if his amendment isn't aired. By itself, the antilobbying provision won't save the taxpayer from Fan and Fred, but it's a start.
Democrats are rushing this bill through because of the favors for Fan and Fred and new spending for left-wing activists like Acorn. But the reluctance of many Republicans to look out for taxpayers is harder to comprehend. They'll get little credit this year for letting the majority Democrats say they did something for "housing," and GOP voters will blame them for rescuing the irresponsible.
Meantime, the White House and Treasury are betting that this bill will put a floor under the housing market and buoy bank stocks, and thus avoid a deeper financial downturn. The rescue will only delay a housing market bottom, and it may or may not help bank stocks. The one certainty is that taxpayers are assuming a huge new risk.
Voters Want Less Pork, Even in Their Own District
If you want to know how out of touch Congress is on the issue of wasteful spending, listen to Florida Rep. John Mica defend his pork projects: "There's no way in hell I would support banning earmarks. That's our job, getting elected and making decisions." Mr. Mica is the most powerful Republican on the Transportation Committee.
The idea that bringing home federal dollars is integral to a politician's job and essential to getting re-elected is a favorite of Republicans and Democrats alike. Three months ago, Hillary Clinton told the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, "I'm very proud of my earmarks. It's one of the reasons I won 67% of the vote, because I took care of my people." Alaska Republican Rep. Don Young, a professional earmarker, sees a direct correlation between earmarks and political longevity. "I listen and I provide. That's what I'm elected for. You show me a congressman who says, I'm not going to have any earmarks, and I'm not going to listen, and I'm not going to provide, and I'll show you a short-timer."
There is just one problem with this theory. It is dead wrong.
The Club for Growth recently conducted a nationwide poll on government spending, and the results were exactly the opposite of what most politicians have been saying for years. Voters are fed up with Washington's out-of-control spending. Politicians aren't representing the will of the people when they bring home the bacon. They are really representing the will of their special-interest cronies. And it's not just conservative voters who feel that way. Voters across the board have finally found something they can agree on even if their elected officials can't: It's time to cut the fat, even if that means fewer projects for their own districts.
Conducted in late June, the poll surveyed 800 voters and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.46%. Likely voters were asked the following question: "All things being equal, for whom would you be more likely to vote for the U.S. Congress: 1) A candidate who wants to cut overall federal spending, even if that includes cutting some money that would come to your district or 2) A candidate who wants to increase overall spending on federal programs, as long as more federal spending and projects come to your district?"
The results were unambiguous. Fifty-four percent of general election voters chose the frugal candidate, compared with only 29% who chose the profligate candidate. Republicans overwhelming favor less federal spending, 72% to 17%, with independents close behind at 61%. Only Democrats prefer more federal spending, but only by a plurality. Thirty-six percent of Democrats chose the more fiscally conservative candidate, with 42% choosing the alternative.
Unfortunately, too many politicians are refusing to listen. The vast majority of congressmen are just as wedded to bloated budgets as ever. Part of the problem is that wasteful spending is embedded in the congressional culture. Congressional freshmen are instructed by leadership to seek out earmarks and flaunt their success back home. They are indoctrinated to believe that seeking and securing earmarks -- no matter how silly or wasteful -- is a congressman's official duty and a surefire path to re-election. It is for this reason that vulnerable incumbents are showered with additional pork projects as the election cycle heats up. I know this is true because Republican leaders explained this all to me when I entered Congress in 1999.
But this argument is falling apart. Voters across America don't see their elected officials "listening" and "providing." Instead they see spending that is wasteful, prone to corruption, arbitrary and inefficient. They see Republican congressmen like Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney hauled off to jail for earmark-related corruption. They see Congress lavishing their hard-earned tax dollars on such projects as the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska, the Mule and Packers Museum in California, and the Lobster Institute in Maine. Even worthy-sounding earmarks like a local science lab are viewed with suspicion. After all, these projects are not subject to competitive review and bidding, and they are designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many.
The club's poll confirms what a number of politicians have been proving for years. Reps. Jeff Flake and John Boehner and Sens. Tom Coburn and John McCain have long eschewed "bringing home the bacon" without cost to their re-elections. And a number of new candidates across the country are staking their campaigns on a strong antiearmark platform.
There is a new antispending movement and it is rising from the grass roots up. If Republicans want to win elections again and regain the majority one day, they will have to listen to the voters instead of the John Micas and Don Youngs of the GOP.
The Democrats’ Dilemma
As they enter the fall campaign season, Democrats have numerous reasons to be optimistic, if not giddy. Their Republican opponents have become widely unpopular due to a prolonged war and a weak economy. Meanwhile the rising demographic groups in America, the millennial generation and Latinos, are shifting heavily to Democrats.
But this Democratic ascendancy is by no means guaranteed for the long run. The changing nature of the party casts its future in doubt, particularly after 2008. Much of this has to do with how the party’s base has shifted, and where that base may lead it over the coming decades. In other words, to borrow roughly from Franklin Roosevelt, the only thing the Democrats have to fear is themselves.
The Rise of the New Class
The swing to the Democrats in recent years reflects in part the natural rhythm of American politics. The Democrats declined in the 1970s in part because the country recoiled from the failures of the Great Society. The bright Democratic prospects of 2008 are similarly a reaction to the Bush years.
Yet today’s Democratic revival represents something far more profound. Rather than a shift to the “middle,” the current Democratic tide reflects a long-term secular shift in the composition of our economy and our class structure.
The only thing the Democrats have to fear is themselves.
Americans may dislike the term class, but it has been an essential part of our political history. And for most of our history, Democrats represented the middle and working classes, dating at least back to the days of Andrew Jackson. Under William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic Party cast itself as largely the voice of the small farmer and the working and middle classes. Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and even Bill Clinton maintained this tradition.
Yet over the past two decades, and particularly the last few years, the party’s base has shifted decisively in both demographic and geographic terms. Increasingly, the core Democratic constituency—and, even more so, the base of Senator Barack Obama’s campaign—consists not of working- and middle-class whites but of African-Americans and a rising new class of affluent, well-educated professionals.
This second group, largely white but certainly spread across racial groups, has begun to supplant the old working- and middle-class base of the party. For the most part it differs from the old middle class of shopkeepers, skilled industrial workers, and small farmers, constituencies that have struggled as the economy has globalized and been transformed by the information revolution.
In contrast, the new class has thrived and expanded. Democratic activist Ruy Teixeira has made this case convincingly, pointing out that almost one-third of adults now have college degrees, up from 5 percent during the heart of the New Deal. This group has thrived during the century’s economic transformation, as their wages have risen 22 percent since 1979—28 percent for those with graduate degrees—even as wages have fallen for those with only high school degrees.
They have become the linchpin of a mass affluent class whose influence and geographic spread have been growing as that of the less educated has waned. A half century ago the highly educated component of the population represented a small constituency concentrated in a few places like New York, Cambridge, and Berkeley. Today their influence can be felt not only in major cities, but in wealthy suburbs, college towns, and even in some rural havens.
Even though many of these voters have benefited from Republican economic policies, they have become ever more Democratic. Academia and the news media constitute the nerve center of the new class. Indeed, academic professionals were one of the largest sources of contributions to John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign.
Our greatest liberal cities are becoming bastions of the stratified neo-Victorian class structure that economic liberals purportedly despise.
But this leftward shift extends well beyond academia. In the mid-1990s high-income voters preferred Republicans by 20 percentage points; in 2008 they appear to be decisively favoring the Democrats. Already, the most affluent districts in the country—from Silicon Valley and Manhattan to Madison and the Washington suburbs to west Los Angeles—are also among the most solidly Democrat.
The shift among the affluent has also had an impact on the financing of campaigns. Tied to burgeoning information age sectors, notably finance, entertainment, and technology, the post-industrial new class has shown itself to have deeper pockets than the old Republican establishment. Democratic candidates by this spring had raised 70 percent more than their GOP rivals.
Much of this has come in relatively small contributions, but it also reflects a significant shift to the Democrats among such traditionally Republican constituencies as Wall Street. As late as 2004, the financial industry contributed more to Republicans than Democrats; this year Democrats are ahead by a roughly two to one margin. Together Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Obama have raised five times the amount garnered by Senator John McCain.
Inequality and the Post-Industrial Hierophants
At the highest level of this new class stand the reigning elites of the Democratic Party—top university administrators and academics, venture capitalists, media and Internet barons, the “stars” of Hollywood, and the cutting-edge firms on Wall Street. These figures represent precisely what Daniel Bell called the “hierophants” who define the post-industrial age, its mysteries, and its values.
These hierophants—such as David Geffen or top executives at Google—differ both culturally and stylistically from the super-rich who supported conservatives in the past. They are as likely to dress in blue jeans as expensive blue suits, belong to the Sierra Club instead of the country club, or believe in holistic medicine more than the Holy Gospels.
Their recent experience as entrepreneurs differentiates them from traditional power elites. Unlike the corporate bosses of yesteryear, their expertise does not depend on their ability to produce mass goods and control or cajole large numbers of lesser skilled white-collar and blue-collar workers. Instead, their wealth derives from the successful manipulation of images, ideas, and trends; most of the workforce they manage consists of people with widely similar educations and cultural persuasions. Their main experience with the less educated lies with immigrant employees who watch over their properties, pets, and, in some cases, offspring.
Many green-minded Dems believe suburban living is a major contributor to global warming. Their war against suburbia may threaten middle-class Americans.
As liberals, of course, the new class and its elite occasionally complain about the growing gap between the rich and everyone else. Yet contemporary liberalism’s strongest bastions lie in cities and metropolitan regions such as New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco where, according to a recent Brookings Institution survey, inequality is the most pronounced. All these places have been losing middle-class families who no longer can afford to live there.
In this way our greatest liberal cities are becoming centers of the stratified neo-Victorian class structure that economic liberals purportedly despise. One statistic that speaks volumes: the San Francisco, Washington, New York, and Boston regions all boast the highest percentage among major U.S. metros of people who earn money in classic plutocratic fashion: from stocks, bonds, and rents.
These factors may make it difficult for Democrats to govern as the party of what used to be called “economic justice,” even given the presence of a widening gap between the rich and the middle class. It’s revealing that, rather than express outrage at the huge payouts to the Wall Street elite, Democrats generally prefer to demonize oil company executives, whose pay, if more than generous, pales in comparison to that earned by the traders and speculators.
Even for politicians, it must seem somewhat of a stretch to troll for dollars in the luxury condos of Manhattan and Chicago one day, and play class warfare the next. Once in power, it’s unlikely Democrats will do much more than talk about curbing the excesses of the rich. Already, one of their leading lights, New York Senator Charles Schumer, has emerged as chief defender of the hedge-fund industry, an emerging bulwark of Democratic support.
If he becomes president, you can’t expect much negativism about rapacious hedge-fund managers from Senator Obama, who emerged as the early favorite of highly compensated, younger Wall Street executives. “Mr. Obama might be struggling with the blue collar vote in Pennsylvania,” noted New York Times Wall Street maven Andrew Ross Sorkin, “but he has nailed the hedge-fund vote.”
The Obamaization of the Democratic Party
The origins of the new Democratic Party can be traced to at least the 1960s, starting with the nesting of intellectuals such as Arthur Schlesinger in the Kennedy administration. Yet even then, the party’s base remained very much with the white working class, urban ethnics, and a smattering of rural populists. The Republicans remained very much the predominant party of big money and corporate power.
The Democrats who succeeded in the largely conservative epoch after 1968 were those who figured out how to win over middle- and working-class Americans. This group included not only urban voters but people in small towns and the vast, largely nondescript suburbs that grew around the major cities. Jimmy Carter got enough of their support to defeat Gerald Ford in 1976; Bill Clinton did it twice, in 1992 and 1996.
Although the Clintons also garnered support from the new elites, they never forgot to compete in the suburbs and small towns. Senator Clinton’s best moments as a candidate in the Democratic primaries came as she won over these voters in places like central Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. The problem for the former First Lady lay in the fact that the balance of power in the party had shifted decisively—both economically and electorally—away from these voters and toward the new class. Being the favorite of the small-town coffee shops and steel plants had been enough for Bill Clinton to defeat the likes of Paul Tsongas. Today it no longer guarantees the nomination.
Once Senator Obama gained almost total allegiance from African-Americans, the Clintonian alliance was spent and a new, reformulated Democratic Party was born. This new party has four critical constituencies: the post-industrial new class, African-Americans, young “net-roots” activists, and, finally, the elites of the information age.
The ‘Green’ Politics of the New Class
The Democrats will be running against a far weaker Republican Party than they did in the 1990s. For Senator Obama, the biggest danger comes not from the right but from his own base, whose predilections may over time limit his appeal and stunt the party’s gains.
Like all classes, the new post-industrial constituency and its leaders have their own agenda. They may not be above pandering to the traditional working and middle class, but they do not have their same priorities. Fundamentally, the Obamaized Democratic Party is less about bread-and-butter issues—trade, energy prices, and competitiveness—than that of the Clintons.
Throughout the primaries, Senator Obama did best with voters, outside of African-Americans, who were themselves doing relatively well. Generally speaking, the wealthier the constituency, the better he did. Also, since the new class for the most part has little connection to the military, they are less likely to be overly concerned with national security issues (something Senator Clinton, in particular, worked hard to develop credibility on).
In contrast, Obama Democrats tend to be energized either by an antiwar message or by cultural issues—abortion, affirmative action, gay rights. Perhaps more critical for many of these voters, and interests, may be the environmental issue. Although this has not been a major topic in the primaries, the key Obama constituency among educated young voters tends to be the most fervent on issues such as global warming.
How to deal with the environment may be a critical area of conflict between the interests of the traditional middle class and the postindustrial new class. By its very nature, people working in the key institutions of the information economy—software firms, entertainment, Wall Street—are not unduly harmed by attempts to regulate reduction of carbon emissions.
Even for politicians, it must seem incongruous to troll for dollars in the luxury condos of Manhattan and Chicago one day, and play class warfare the next.
In contrast, workers in transportation, wholesaling, and manufacturing sit on the carbon front lines. Radical steps to curb carbon emissions, particularly if not imposed on major competitors like India, China, and Brazil, will hurt miners in Montana, oil workers in Texas, factory workers in Michigan, and dockworkers in California far more than university professors, San Francisco graphic artists, and New York investment bankers.
What’s more, most middle- and working-class voters cannot afford to buy indulgences in the form of “offsets,” such as purchasing parcels of rain forests. Indeed, in some ways, the current approach on carbon emissions parallels how liberals in the 1960s shifted the burden of achieving long-overdue racial integration by imposing busing or affirmative action plans on primarily working- and middle-class Americans.
Perhaps even more threatening to middle-class Americans may be attempts by green-minded Democrats to wage war on suburbia, home to the majority of Americans. Many greens are convinced that suburban living has been a major contributor to global warming and needs to be curbed.
Academics, the coastal media, and big urban developers have long recoiled from suburbia’s cultural and aesthetic failings; the new political paradigm might well be their opportunity finally to do something about it. Legislation and legal actions coming out of places like California—led by Attorney General Jerry Brown—seek to cajole Americans out of family-friendly suburbs. “We have to get the people from the suburbs to start coming back,” Brown insists.
None of this should upset the core constituencies of the new Democratic Party, who tend to live in dense, urban zones like Manhattan, Boston, and San Francisco. They will continue to enjoy the best of urban life while also indulging their somewhat less carbon-friendly vacation homes and coastal condos.
Rovian Democrats?
The new class’s disdain for suburbia and middle-class lifestyles could produce a new version of the cultural warfare exercised by the Republicans in recent years. Under the political strategy developed by Karl Rove, millions of Americans—gays, singles, ex-hippies, non-Christians, urbanites, single parents—often saw themselves as ostracized by a party that embraced, at least publicly, what felt to them like a vaguely menacing set of “family values.” In the end, this exclusionary approach drove millions of Americans to the Democrats; cultural shifts, such as greater tolerance for gay rights among the young, increasingly have worked against the Rovian strategy.
Now the Democrats could soon be in danger of duplicating the Republican mistakes. The Clintons won by “triangulation” and appealing to the broad range of middle-class voters. But Obama’s Democrats could become the mirror image of Rove’s Republicans, extolling the superiority of their base and its values over those of other, less “enlightened” populations.
The post-industrial new class has shown itself to have deeper pockets than the old Republican establishment.
This becomes a real possibility in an administration staffed with people shaped by sophisticates from Chicago, Manhattan, Austin, San Francisco, and Boston. These are likely individuals who do agree with Senator Obama’s unfortunate comments about “bitter” small-town residents, guns, and God. They could well see it as their duty to stamp out suburban sprawl and force other Americans to live, as they do, like good urbanites, even if they ignore the fact that most, particularly those with children, lack the wherewithal to do so comfortably.
This conflict could come to the fore very quickly, as Democrats generally believe in using government to achieve goals more fully than their political rivals do. Republicans are often far too willing to repress individual rights for security reasons but generally have proved less eager in reality to tell people how to live on a day-to-day basis. There may be no place in America, for example, where people are more cajoled in their daily behaviors than San Francisco.
There are many things government should do short of telling people where to live, what kind of house to buy, which store to patronize, and who should be preferred for a job. For example, after years of neglect, there is a critical need for new investment in the nation’s economic infrastructure, transportation network, and broken system of trade education, as well as massive incentives for new energy development and scientific research.
This approach would address the longterm needs of the working and middle class. This return to a basics-oriented liberal politics would help Democrats among the very disaffected blue-collar and older voters now flirting with the idea of supporting the lone-wolf candidacy of John McCain.
Ultimately this is Senator Obama’s choice: follow a broad winning strategy based on traditional middle class-oriented policies, or adopt the ideological and economic predilections of his core base. If he does the latter, many Americans may find themselves alarmed by the Democrats’ resurgence.
Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow at Chapman University and author of “The City: A Global History.” He is finishing a book on the American future.Keeping Promises Among Partners
By Condoleezza RiceIn any partnership, the coin of the realm is trust and responsibility - in other words, saying what you mean and doing what you say. In the dramatic rescue on July 2 of 15 hostages, including three Americans, held captive for many years by guerrillas and terrorists, deep in the Colombian jungles, we saw a powerful reminder that the United States has no better partner in South America than the government and people of Colombia.
Colombia's leaders, especially President Uribe, had promised us that our three abducted citizens would be treated no differently than the many Colombian men and women who shared their fate. Colombia never wavered in this promise, and never cut any side deals with the guerrillas that could have freed their citizens at the expense of ours. This was not an easy act of solidarity, but Colombia remained true to its word.
In the breathtaking rescue mission, carried out with the utmost skill and professionalism (and without a shot being fired) by the Colombian Armed Forces, our partners did great honor to themselves - and a great service to us. We will never forget that. Nor will we forget the many Colombians who still have not found rescue from their guerrilla captors.
That our Colombian partners made good on their promise in this instance is important enough, but this is not the exception; it is the norm.
More than a decade ago, with its country wracked by the worst insurgency in the hemisphere, with its economy contracting, and with its democratic state on the brink of failure, Colombia resolved to turn the tide. Its government and people set out an ambitious plan to secure and expand their country's democratic development, and they asked for our support - political, economic, diplomatic, and military. Starting under President Clinton, expanding under President Bush, and with bipartisan support in Congress all along the way, the United States has fully backed Colombia in meeting its bold promises of success. And the results speak for themselves.
Our Colombian partners said that they would win their fight against domestic terrorism and reclaim their country. Today they are.
They said they would combat social exclusion in Colombia by building the capacity and expanding the reach of their democracy. Today they are.
They said they would open their markets, trade freely and fairly, fuel economic growth, and create opportunities for social justice for all of their citizens. Today they are.
And our Colombian partners said they would protect the lives of all of their citizens, including trade unionists, and bring murderers and criminals to justice. Today violent crime has plummeted, law and order is expanding, and President Uribe's government has taken the courageous step of extraditing 15 major drug traffickers and paramilitary leaders to the United States to stand trial in our courts for their crimes against our citizens.
Colombia has done all of this - and more. And the United States has supported them every step of the way. With the momentum of more than a decade's worth of shared progress at our backs, with Colombia on the cusp of self-sustained and lasting stability, and with Democrats and Republicans having shown that they can implement a long-term bipartisan strategy to achieve a critical national interest - the success of a democratic Colombia - now is the last time that we should begin going back on our word to Colombia. And yet that is exactly what we risk doing if Congress fails to pass the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
In addition to being a slap in the face to our Colombian partners, sacrificing this trade agreement at the altar of domestic politics would be no favor to U.S. workers. More than 90 percent of Colombian goods now enter the United States duty-free, while our exports to Colombia face tariffs of up to 35 percent. This agreement would level the playing field for our workers, so they could send the products of their labor to Colombia on the same terms that Colombians now send theirs to us.
Passing this trade agreement will be a culmination and realization of our partnership with Colombia. It will help the Colombian government and people to lock in their democratic and economic reforms. It will signal that Colombia, like a growing number of our fellow democracies in the Americas today, is a reliable place to invest and poised to compete effectively in the global economy. It will affirm that the future of our hemisphere belongs to democratic citizens, of the left and the right, who want their elected leaders to govern justly and lawfully, to expand economic freedom and trade, and to invest in their people. And it will send a message across the world that the United States will honor the promises we make to our friends and allies.
Colombia has stood by us. We have stood by them. And we have succeeded together. Now is not the time to jeopardize the fruits of our partnership, but to consolidate them. Now is the time to keep our word to Colombia, just as they have kept their word to us. Anything less is no way for a great nation to conduct itself - and no way to repay a faithful partner.
A Tale of Two Flip-Floppers
John McCain and Barack Obama have both changed positions in this campaign. That's OK. Voters understand that politicians can and, sometimes, should change their views. After all, voters do. Witness the wide swings in their answers to opinion polls.
But before accepting the changes, voters typically ask themselves three questions: Does the candidate admit he's shifting? What's the new information that altered his thinking? Does the change seem reasonable and not calculating?
Sen. McCain has changed his position on drilling for oil on the outer continental shelf. But because he explained this change by saying that $4-a-gallon gasoline caused him to re-evaluate his position, voters are likely to accept it. Of course, Mr. McCain doesn't explain why prices at the pump haven't also forced him to re-evaluate his opposition to drilling on 2000 acres in the 19.2-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But, then, what politician is always consistent?
Mr. McCain flip-flopped on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. He'd voted against them at the time, saying in 2001 that he'd "like to see more of this tax cut shared by working Americans." Now he supports their continuation because, he says, letting them expire would increase taxes and he opposes tax hikes. Besides, he recognizes that the tax cuts have helped the economy.
At least Mr. McCain fesses up to and explains his changes. Sen. Obama has shifted recently on public financing, free trade, Nafta, welfare reform, the D.C. gun ban, whether the Iranian Quds Force is a terrorist group, immunity for telecom companies participating in the Terrorist Surveillance Program, the status of Jerusalem, flag lapel pins, and disavowing Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And not only does he refuse to explain these flip-flops, he acts as if they never occurred.
Then there is Iraq. Throughout 2006 and early 2007, Mr. Obama pledged to remove all U.S. troops, even voting to immediately cut off funds for the troops while they were in combat. Then, in July 2007, he started talking about leaving a residual U.S. force, in Kuwait and elsewhere in the region, able to go back into Iraq if needed.
By October, he shifted again, pledging to station the residual U.S. troops inside Iraq with two "limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."
Last week, writing in the New York Times, Mr. Obama changed again. He increased the missions his residual force would perform to three: "going after any remnants of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces." That's not all that different from what U.S. troops are doing now.
And just how many U.S. troops would Mr. Obama leave in Iraq? Colin Kahl, an Obama adviser on Iraq, has said the senator wants to have "perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces" in Iraq by December 2010. So much for withdrawing all combat troops.
It's dizzying. Yet, Mr. Obama acts as if he is a paradigm of consistency. He told a Georgia rally this month that "the people who say [I've been changing] apparently haven't been listening to me." In a PBS interview last week he said, "this notion that somehow we've had wild shifts in my positions is simply inaccurate."
Compounding all this is Mr. Obama's stubborn refusal to admit the surge was right and that he was wrong to oppose it. On MSNBC in January 2007, he said more U.S. troops would not "solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." Later that month he said at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that the new strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." In fact, the surge has done far more than its advocates hoped in a much shorter period.
Yet Mr. Obama told ABC's Terry Moran this week that even in retrospect, he would oppose the surge. He also told CBS's Katie Couric that he had "no idea what would have happened" without the new strategy. And he still declares, in the New York Times last week, "The same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true." Given all that has happened, it's hard to understand how Mr. Obama can say, as he did Tuesday in a story on NBC Nightly News, that "I don't have doubts about my ability to apply sound judgment to the major national security problems that we face."
Americans have seen both candidates flip-flop. Mr. McCain at least has a record of being a gutsy leader willing to take unpopular stands who admits his shifts and explains the new information that caused them.
Mr. Obama has detached himself from past positions at record speed. And in doing so he runs the risk of being seen as a cynical politician, not an inspiring leader. If this happens, voters in large numbers may ask -- despite his rhetorical acrobatics -- if he is the change they've been waiting for.
No comments:
Post a Comment