Political Commentary on the Day of the South Carolina Primary

At the moment it seems as though my prediction of Huntsman coming from behind to win the nomination isn’t going to happen (though I am still hoping for a last minute re-entrance into the race to steal the momentum of two self-destructing front-runners after Newt blows the race wide-open in South Carolina tonight).  So as we await the results from South Carolina, here are some thoughts on the political challenges America faces and my take on the rest of the political field.

The number one problem with our political system as it exist right now, I believe, is the equation of money with power.  Dollars matter more than votes because ultimately dollars buy you votes in the current system.  The result of that is that politicians are controlled by special interest lobbies because they are going to need money the next time they run for office, and this then results in policy that is either full of loopholes and thus toothless or clearly biased in the direction of a particular industry or special interest.  I think this kind of corruption is extraordinarily dangerous- I would argue it is the ultimate reason behind the market crash of 2008 and that it has played significant roles in our defense and foreign policy (including possibly the lead-up to the War in Iraq), resulting in massive amounts of government waste and abuse.

The number two problem facing our political system right now is, I believe, the changing landscape of the global political system.  We are still in the mindset of being the “only global superpower” (which, I will grant, is still true in some sense) but we are facing a world that is increasingly hostile to our leadership and one in which long taken for granted constants are rapidly changing.  China is becoming the next economic superpower (whether we like it or not), the politics of the Middle-East has drastically changed, Europe is on the verge of either morphing into a strong economic/political union or completely collapsing (and two world wars have taught us that situations like this can get nasty fast on that continent), Brazil is entering the world stage as a major economic powerhouse, and Cuba, of all places, is opening up to capitalism.  Just to name a few things that are changing.  Our government is going to need to be able to navigate seriously uncharted waters in terms of foreign policy in the near future.

The number three problem facing our nation right now is, I believe, the lack of an economic structure which promotes sustainable growth.  Our economy has become increasingly dependent on the financial sector.  That has proven a little bit unstable with pretty nasty consequences.  An economy built on what is effectively gambling is just not going to have sustainable growth.  Nor can it afford for the corporations doing the gambling to be “too-big-to-fail.”  Economic policy needs to encourage the financial sector to be a bit more reigned in and other sectors of the economy to be much more productive if we expect to maintain economic growth in the long run.

In my opinion, Huntsman was the candidate who had the most sensical views on how to handle all of these issues.  As of me writing this he has unfortunately not responded to my (and others) pleas to restart his campaign, forcing me to examine the other candidates still in the race:  Mitt Romney is, in my opinion, the epitome of the first and most serious problem in our political system.  That alone makes me unwilling to vote for the guy, but based on many of his statements I also think he is dangerously short-sighted in his outlook on foreign policy (our second major challenge), wanting to do things like start a trade war with China or prepare for a full-scale war with Iran right off the bat.  Also, his record as a venture capitalist has only contributed to the third issue, lack of a path for sustainable economic growth.  He has no experience or credentials that make me believe he will in any way better our national situation.  

Rick Santorum’s Iowa story seems to place him on the opposite end of the spectrum from Romney in terms of the relationship of money to politics in our system (having virtually no funds, comes from behind to win the Iowa Caucus), but his consistent pandering to the standards of particular special interest groups (see his many comparisons of his “voting report cards” with those of other candidates, for instance) makes me weary of him on this front as well.  His foreign policy statements seem somewhat reactionary, making me uncertain he could lead the US through a changing geo-political landscape.  He does, however, have some ideas regarding how to promote sustainable economic growth, particularly in the manufacturing sector of the US economy.  So he gets ranked above Romney as a desirable candidate in my book.  

Gingrich has some ideas about how to solve the money in politics problem, wanting to promote modernization in the department of defense (a project which involves cutting the influence of many lobbyists and putting pressure on contractors rather than letting them control the agenda), for instance, and trimming down the federal government in general.  However, his “consulting” work and ethics violation act as strikes against him.  Gingrich has a slightly more nuanced foreign outlook than most of the other candidates, though I think he is still far too driven by a simplistic view of the Middle-East and a desire to forcibly maintain America’s status as the world’s only super-power.  Finally, while I think Gingrich’s economic proposals would promote growth, I’m not certain his plan ends up promoting sustainable growth (in fact, I think it likely leads back to a pre-2008 financial service driven economy).  

Finally, there is Ron Paul.  Ron Paul is the most radical of the candidates in terms of how he intends to change the nature of the game in Washington.  While Paul will most definitely have an impact on the influence of money in Washington (it will have no influence because the federal government will do virtually nothing during a Paul presidency) and will drastically change America’s foreign policy (we will basically step back and let the world do its own thing), I’m fairly certain Paul’s strategy will be economically contractionary, pushing the US back into recession in the short term.  After the initial shock wears off (which could be years given the fragile state of global economy right now), some states will experience an economic recovery that might indeed be sustainable.  I worry, though, that other states (I’m thinking primarily of the predominantly agricultural states of the West) will be deeply damaged by Paul’s fiscal plans and may never experience a full economic recovery.  I am also fairly certain that the effective halt of all activity in Washington that might be expected during a Paul administration would result in a radical reaction against him.  Paul, I am fairly certain, would only be a one-term president and then there would a rush to return the country to “normalcy” meaning no long-term solution would be put in place regarding any of the issues we face.  

Ultimately, I think the four remaining Republican candidates all end up, in some form or another, promoting the status quo in Washington, delaying a true solution to any of the three main problems facing America another four years.  While Santorum may push for incremental moves in solving the third issue and Gingrich may make incremental moves in solving the first, no serious changes will be had under an administration led by any of these candidates.  In fact, I think under a Romney or Paul administration things might actually get worse (with Romney because of direct reinforcement of the problematic status quo and with Paul because of the likely backlash of reaction against him in the next general election).  Without Huntsman in the Republican field, I think any platform the party might take will be incredibly docile and quite frankly boring.

Lacking a Huntsman re-entrance into the race, the candidate I find most palatable on the Republican side is Gingrich, even though his character is less than savory and his personal baggage looms large.  That said, I think the Republican with the best shot of actually winning the White House if chosen as the party’s nominee is actually Ron Paul (I think Gingrich and Romney will both self-destruct and Santorum would simply not be able to sustain the support of independents).  However, assuming Huntsman does no re-enter the race, I am much more inclined to support Obama.  Granted that Obama has done little to nothing to address the first problem (money in politics) outside of his recent announcement concerning plans to shrink and streamline the federal government (generally the sort of thing that monied lobbyists would be terrified of, we’ll see how that turns out, but I think its safe to say its largely a political gesture), I think he has done a good job handling the changing foreign climate and has at least made attempts to promote sustainable economic growth (possibly also as political gestures, but he at least gets to take credit for trying and can accuse the Republicans of blocking him).  If he is reelected and able to pass a legislative agenda, I think Obama could possibly do real good regarding the second (changing foreign landscape) and third (sustainable economic growth) issues.  And if Ron Paul is able to significantly influence the Republican party’s platform (which is ultimately what I think his goal to be), then the next time around the Republicans may go after the first problem in a more sustainable way and with a candidate who is actually electable.  (Huntsman 2016?)

Dream Political Scenario for Republican 2012 Primaries

Disclaimer:  I am a registered independent with moderate political views who has cautiously supported Obama for the last several years.  With that said, I have been largely disappointed  by Obama's inability to accomplish much of anything in Washington (granted, much of the blame for that falls on the House Republicans, but Obama has caved to their demands far too often for the blame to only rest on them) and I recognize that the Democrats are going to have a very tough battle in next year's election.  So I have been watching the Republican race very closely to see what happens, often finding myself terrified by the prospects of any of these people being President.  I don't trust Mitt Romney, I think most of the other candidates are a joke, and the only one I would seriously consider voting for is Jon Huntsman, but he is getting little political traction outside of New Hampshire, where is currently polling fourth.  I suppose I could live with Gingrich with the knowledge that the president can't act unilaterally on very many things (and at least he has some experience getting things done in Washington), but wouldn't be wild about his nomination.

So with that said, here is my dream political scenario:

1.  Ron Paul wins Iowa, throwing the race wide open.  Supporters of Paul and Gingrich cast it as a major blow for Romney, he sees his first major drop in polls.

2.  Huntsman, who has been campaigning vigorously in New Hampshire, pulls off an upset win there and starts getting major national attention.

3.  Gingrich wins South Carolina with Paul in second and Huntsman in third.

4.  Gingrich wins Florida with Huntsman in second.

5.  Huntsman wins Nevada.  He and Gingrich are now battling it out going into Super-Tuesday.  Huntsman wins over both conservatives concerned with Gingrich's record and moderates concerned with Gingrich's sanity, wins big on Super-Tuesday, goes on to claim the nomination.

This scenario isn't actually going to happen.  I am fully aware of that.  So here is my more realistic hope for the next few weeks:

1.  Ron Paul wins Iowa, Gingrich takes second, Romney third.  Paul and Gingrich spin this as a major defeat for Romney, he sees his numbers drop significantly.

2.  Gingrich pulls off a win in New Hampshire (or maybe even a close second that he can cast as a defeat for Romney), Huntsman places a solid third, gets some major attention.

3.  Gingrich lands solid victories in South Carolina and Florida.  Romney is sinking fast at this point.  Bachmann and Santorum drop out at this point, their supporters are split between Gingrich and Huntsman, who has shifted focus to Nevada.

4.  Huntsman appeals to Romney supporters in Nevada who are disenchanted with their failing candidate.  He also plays up his credentials as former governor of neighboring Utah.  Pulls off an outright win in Nevada.

5.  Going into Super-Tuesday, Huntsman able to appeal to conservatives worried about Gingrich's record and moderates concerned about his sanity.  Also able to pull over many of Romney's former supporters.  Takes home big wins on Super-Tuesday, though nomination battle isn't totally finished yet.  Romney officially drops out, giving Huntsman more of a boost.

6.  In later primaries, Huntsman either wins the nomination or forces enough of a split with Gingrich to be on the ticket as VP nominee.

Not sure about the likelihood of this scenario either, but I think its a bit more realistic.  Will be interesting to see what happens in the next few weeks!

Some Political Recommendations:

In relation to the already begun election cycle in this country (I feel like we can actually say campaigning has been going on for four years in preparation for this election), and in light of the disaster that has been the last decade and a half of American politics, I have a few recommendations for radically transforming the shape of our political landscape:

1.  Constitutional amendment limiting terms in office for legislators.  I’m thinking something to the effect of this:  “No person shall serve more than twelve years as a member of Congress.”  That’s 2 terms as a Senator, 6 terms as a Representative, or 1 term in the Senate and 3 in the House.  No more than this for anyone, let’s not have career politicians anymore.

2.  Constitutional ban on political advertising.  You can campaign by making speeches, touting your record, debating, etc.  But no running ads.  Possible exception for yard signs and bumper stickers, they aren’t too annoying.

3.  Restructure the way Congress is paid.  Legislators will be paid a median (not the average) salary for their constituency with a housing allowance to pay for their DC residence.  Their office will be given a staff salary budget that is intentionally small.  No more chiefs of staff making 100K a year, no more 30+ person Senate staffs.  Outside sources of income forbidden (to prevent corruption).

4.  Requirement that members of Congress act as an official emissary of the United States at an overseas engagement at least once per term.  These trips will be paid for, so this isn’t a financial burden.  But it would be nice if people in Congress actually understood what happens in the world before they make decisions about what America’s role in the world will be.  And then they would all have some foreign policy experience.

5.  Ability of the president to veto particular amendments to a bill which add spending (in other words, pork-barrel amendments for pet-projects of legislators at home).

6.  Radically limit the access of lobbyists (particularly those representing any sort of industry or commercial interest) to all branches of government.  Ideally, ban them altogether, but this is probably not feasible.

7.  Encourage legislative advisors/researchers to have a degree in the field they are advising on, not in political science.

Essentially, my thought is we need to make the incentive to serve as an elected official the desire to actually serve, not the desire to have a career in politics or to get rich or to have a book deal when they are done.  Also, I think by making congressional representatives be, at least financially, on the same footing as the rest of us and forcing them to get out and see the way the world works outside their sphere of influence is more likely to encourage them to write good policy with real people in mind.  Limiting the access of lobbyists is another safe-guard for that in my opinion.  Rather than writing legislation based on the interests of corporations or industries or unions, they will be writing it based on their own experience and the knowledge of their advisors about what would make for sound policy.  I think these changes coupled with a ban on political advertising would radically alter the way political discourse happens in this country (and what the priorities of politicians would be) for the better.  Might also help our budget situation...  But I’m also not an expert in politics by any means, I’m more a cynic.  So those with more political knowledge and experience, I very much invite your comments.  Where am I being short-sighted or overly cynical?  What other suggestions might you have?

Some Political Musings

This post comes with some theme music, courtesy of my friend Justin Cross.

Doing some research the other day, came upon this pretty interesting piece on the BBC.  There is always a lot of talk of the US as a modern imperial state, much of it I think misguided.  However, it is certainly true that since the Second World War, and largely as a result of the Cold War mentality, for America to protect its interests abroad has meant exerting its influence in an often very heavy-handed manner.  I think this piece does a good job of explaining how this kind of imperialism defers from the more intentional imperialism of European colonialism of prior centuries.

With that in the background, it has frequently been noted in the last decade or so that US influence is in many ways waning.  Certainly the lack of a UN Consensus backing the invasion of Iraq was troubling for US foreign policy.  I think more significant have been recent shifts in the global economic situation in the wake of the financial crisis: talk of moving major commodities to a currency other than the dollar and the continued growth (especially in domestic consumption) of the Chinese economy both spoke more of the decline in American influence than anything else in recent history, I think, until the uprisings in the Middle-East began.

The Middle-East has been a vital part of US interests since World War II for a couple of reasons.  On a strictly diplomatic front, America has a special commitment to the security of Israel, and keeping the Middle-East stable has been seen as necessary for that end.  On an economic front, the Middle-East supplies a vital resource- oil- and keeping the region stable is essential to the economic interests of the US and many of its allies.  For both of these reasons, promoting democracy has generally taken a back-seat to promoting stability in the region, even if that stability meant keeping in power a dictator who was less than friendly to his own people, Egypt being the ultimate case and point.

So the recent wave of uprisings across the Middle-East has put the US in a bit of a tight spot.  On the one hand, these uprisings are based on the principles that supposedly stand at the center of American civic society: freedom, self-determination, the government serving the interests of the people, protecting human rights.  On the other hand, these democratic uprisings threaten the stability of a region the US has long worked to keep stable.  Equally alarming to American interests is that in many ways these uprisings are anti-US.  The long oppressed citizens of the Middle-East are not unaware of who has been propping up their autocratic governments.  If these uprisings succeed, not only is it likely the region will be less stable, it is almost certain the attitude of the region's governments toward the US will take a turn South.  Ultimately, it seems, these considerations have prevailed and kept the US from taking an active role in addressing the situation in the Middle-East.

Libya seems to be the exception.  Even here, though, we see reluctance to act.  The US let Britain and France take the lead in pushing for international backing on a no-fly zone.  Then the US suddenly stepped in and beefed up the resolution (but only when it was clear Arab states were on board as well).  At first, the US seemed content to let other nations take the lead on military action.  It only became apparent later that the US is taking an active role in the strikes taking place on Libyan targets now. 

The division between the European role in this and the American role in the Middle-East lately has been quite interesting.  Long before Obama put any pressure on Mubarak in Egypt, London and Paris were demanding he leave.  France has already recognized the rebel coalition as the legitimate government of Libya.  Together, they and the UK have been demanding military action to defend the rebels for over a week.  The US only decided it supported this kind of intervention two days ago.  It seems, in other words, that in this current crisis the perception that Europe acts as a kind of extension of American foreign policy is also being unraveled a bit.

Ultimately, what I think this amounts to is that the current Middle-East crisis is marking very visibly a major geo-political shift.  Undoubtedly these revolutions will rewrite the history of the Middle-East for some time to come.  However, I think they represent something even more significant than that.  Many commentators have expressed doubts about democracy really taking root in the Middle-East after these revolutions.  They may be right- I highly doubt these countries will move immediately from autocracy to full-fledged democracy.  Very rarely does such a change happen in any part of the world.  However, if the shift that occurs bolsters the independence of these states, that in itself will be something remarkable.  If we begin to see governments emerge that are more focused on their domestic political situation than on the political situation in Washington, that are willing to pursue their own interests apart from, and even in spite of, American interests then these revolutions will reflect a major shift in the global balance of power.

Both because I am more a student of economics than of foreign policy and because it seems economic problems have played a significant role in the uprisings we have seen thus far, this discussion shifts in my own mind into an economic analysis.  For many of the Gulf-states, the huge economic potential of their region is largely being realized.  Look at the UAE or Qatar or Kuwait, countries that are remarkably successful economically.  This success is not just seen in domestic terms either- the amount of foreign investment coming out of Dubai is staggering.  What if a country like Egypt were to begin developing economically with the same intensity that the UAE has seen?  What if Cairo were to become an economic powerhouse of a city like Dubai?  What about Tripoli?  How likely is this, we might ask?  Well, for whatever governments come to power after these revolutions to stand a chance of lasting their top concern is going to have to be economic development.  Much of the unrest in the Middle-East is a result of countries who are facing high levels of poverty and unemployment while an elite few enjoy the spoils of the nations oil-wealth.  Domestic economic development will have to become a priority for new governments, and I would not be surprised if they look at successful nations like the UAE as models.  If new degrees of privatization and competition drive their markets upward, it could have dramatic geo-political effects.  A Middle-East driven by its own interests, asserting its independence from Western powers, and enjoying the spoils of a surging economy could very well be a region with a lot more ability to influence and direct international affairs, especially given the significance of their top commodity- oil- for the rest of the world.

Greg Boyd and "The Patriot's Bible"

I highly recommend you read this post from Greg Boyd. He decries the dangerous and idolatrous connection of Christianity to American Nationalism found in the recently published "Patriot's Bible." For more thoughts, look at this post.

The "Offense of the Gospel" and Christian Involvement in Politics

A thought that occurred to me earlier:

The early church was heavily persecuted by both Jews and Romans because of strongly political implications to its message. To the Jews, the concept of the messiah had long been a political concept about freedom from their oppressors and an exaltation of their nation as the "people of God." Christianity strongly countered that message by preaching about a spiritual Kingdom of God that included both Jews and Gentiles. Paul's taking the gospel to the Gentiles made this essentially anti-nationalist message (not anti-Jewish, but opposed to the sentiment in Judaism that held their people in a particularly high esteem as the only people of God) much more vocal. Essentially, the Jewish reaction against Christianity was largely motivated by Jewish nationalist sentiments, a very political motive.

Likewise, the Romans had a very political reason for opposing Christianity. The Roman empire was held together by a common bond of loyalty to Caesar as King/God. Early Christians refused to submit to this loyalty because they held Jesus to be the only King/God. This must have been greatly insulting to the Roman political order- not only were they refusing submission and loyalty to Rome, the Christians were claiming that someone who had been crucified by Rome was greater than the Emperor. So Roman political pride was also offended by Christianity, and they too had largely political reasons for opposing the church.

So what can this teach us? It seems to hold a political implication- loyalty to a state can never rise above loyalty to Christ in Christian thinking. Protestants are quick to jump on this in criticism of Catholics. Indeed, the medieval Papacy probably did usurp the loyalty it should have given to God. However, I have heard a good number of Evangelicals in this country preach on behalf of a past President and rally support for the Iraq War. I wonder if this is any less a case of loyalty being passed on to the wrong party?

In a free society such as we enjoy in the West, it is perhaps more difficult to find direct analogies. Certainly we can be loyal citizens of our country without compromising (for the most part) our loyalties to God. However, when I hear conservative leaders making sweeping statements about America being the greatest nation on earth and conservative Christians nodding their heads in agreement I wonder if our national loyalty has become a bit too deeply entrenched.