More of that Republican magic

It is now the middle of September. John McCain’s candidacy, which up until this summer seemed doomed to certain failure, is now likely to lead to the next President of the United States. Barack Obama, for whom the office of the Presidency had been his to lose, is losing it. In all of the most recent polls, what was once a relatively comfortable lead for the Demcratic nominee is now either a dead heat or a prediction of victory for the Republicans. If the election were to happen this very moment, the most likely outcome would be a Senate and House controlled by the Democratic party while the White House belongs to a Republican. Those with a sense of humor might note that we, as citizens, will be receiving the worst of both ends.

How is this even possible? Why do Republicans have such an advantage when it comes to running campaigns? The most likely reason is twofold: first, Republicans were ahead of the curve when mass media came out in terms of utilizing new technologies and have held that advantage up until now. Secondly, Republicans tend to treat elections more like games in which the only thing that matters is more votes.

The tactics they utilize, from smear campaigns to outright lying, are usually good enough to succeed. However, such tactics ultimately fail when an overriding issue, namely the economy, comes into play. There is nothing to be done when the economy becomes the central issue, because that inherently gives a huge advantage to the Democrats. As such, it seems likely that for once, despite Republican tactics, a Democrat will ultimately prevail in the White House.

Sarah Palin Fails ABC Interview

Sarah Palin's interview does not go quite as well as expected.

While she did present some positions consistent with Republican ideology, she lacked the general understanding of some other key points. Specifically, she had no understanding of what the "Bush Doctrine" in foreign policy, instead refusing to answer the question twice before going to a stock response. Additionally, Palin linked September 11th to Iraq instead of Al-Qaeda, a position that has thus far not been validated through facts or even accepted by the current Administration. She also purposefully skirted a question about whether she believed that the Iraq War was a "mission from God", turning to an Abraham Lincoln quote to deflect away from her own comments.

It is clear from this interview that Palin is not yet ready to be Vice President. While she herself might be proud of being a Washington outsider, her lack of experience or even knowledge of national politics and issues makes it impossible to say that she is ready to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Ultimately she showed that she was more like Dan Quayle as a VP nominee, and the fact that she accepted the nomination unquestioningly shows either hubris or a lack of ability to clearly evaluate herself.

The best educational system?

It is not hard to say that the American high school educational system is bad. While there are some advantages over its European counterparts, for the most part the students who graduate from American high schools know less and do worse on international tests, getting beaten by almost all other developed nations’ students. While this might be partially attributed to the fact that American high schools give the same education to everyone (even those that are not college bound) and thus has the problem of slowing down its most gifted students.

The solution to this problem is relatively simple: reform the public high school system to mirror the public university system. Though the latter has many problems of its own, its functionality is much better than that of the former. In essence, give individual households yearly cash vouchers good at any high school, private or public, and then simply make the cost of public high schools cheaper. The effect should be to make effective public high schools.

Granted, this plan might seem odd, but it has a high chance of success. At the very least, it allows the United States to maintain its systems benefits (flexibility) while reaping some benefits of better educational systems.

Felon disenfranchisement

America has many unique phenomenon, some of which seem strange to outsiders. After all, the American love of baseball, basketball, and its own form of football and ice hockey over association football can be seen as a curiosity for strangers from other parts of the world. Most of these differences seem harmless to people not used to American eccentricities. However, at least one of these phenomenons, felony disenfranchisement carries serious implications for American democracy, not only because of its implicit restrictions on universal suffrage, but also because of the lack of justification for it.

The only supposed reason to prevent former criminals from voting is the fact that they were criminals at one point. However, in a democratic society, this is not a justifiable reason. Though it could be argued that their violation of the state’s laws justifies punishment, that punishment was given out in the form of the restriction of their freedoms, either through mandatory service or jail time. As a result, to further restrict their freedoms in a manner unrelated to their crimes is unnecessary and an infringement of rights. Unless the criminal committed electoral fraud, restricting his right to vote is arbitrary because the punishment in that format doesn’t fit the crime that the criminal has committed.

Indeed, these days the only reason to restrict the right to vote is a sense of disgust at criminal behavior: such a feeling cannot be the sole basis for restricting suffrage. Furthermore, it just doesn’t feel right: restricting a person’s right to vote based on a crime they committed 10, 20, or even 50 years ago seems to fall under the definition of cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. As a result, the answer is clear: remove ban on voting due to a felony record for crimes other than electoral fraud and related violations. It’s the democratic thing to do.

Nationhood as a concept

The need for nation states must be legitimately questioned in today’s day and age. Though in past centuries it was well established that nationhood was not only a legitimate institution, but a right of all peoples, today the necessity of the nation-state has come under attack from new institutions, including international organizations such as the United Nations, the European Union, and other groups, such as NGO’s and corporations. Thus, for the first time in history, it is possible to ask the question: is the nation-state still necessary?

It would be difficult to answer yes. After all, it would appear that many of the vital functions of the state could be provided by institutions outside of the current national apparatus, with a variety of differing options. State defense and peacekeeping forces could be provided by what are currently now supranational organizations, or they could be provided by private corporations and groups. Almost every service feasible on this planet could be provided by some combination of private industry.

However, private industry is not always preferable. Most corporate services are much higher priced than those of governments, because corporations must maintain a profit margin. Additionally, corporations tend to offer less in their services in their attempts to avoid servicing relatively unprofitable markets and their push for growth. Hence, although a private mailing service is possible, it would be prohibitively expensive to places such as rural counties or more unsettled locations.

Thus, the trend of the world must continue. Though the nation-state might be obsolete, the world must move towards larger organizations. Institutions like the EU represent the most likely future of what are currently the nations of the world, and their super reach might discourage racism, xenophobia, and war. If that should happen, it will truly be a day to celebrate.

The New G8

The strength of countries wax and wane. Once powerful nations lose their standing, and countries that were originally vassals to stronger powers begin to assert themselves. Economically, luck and the ingenuity of the citizenry make the changes in GDP standings obvious. Today the modern G8 does not necessarily represent the strongest economies in the world. To do that, a new G8 should be formed with the following countries:

Countries

1. United States - Obvious. This country has the world’s strongest economy.

2. Japan - This country has the world’s 2nd strongest economy by nominal GDP and has been this way for a while. It is also 3rd by purchasing power parity.

3. China - This country is not only already 4th by nominal GDP, it is 2nd by purchasing power parity and is likely to continue high (that is, double digit) economic growth well into the future.

4. Germany - This country is 3rd in nominal GDP and 5th in purchasing power parity, and has also historically been an economic power in Europe.

5. United Kingdom - A financial capital of the world, this country is also 5th in nominal GDP and 6th in purchasing power parity.

6. France - Despite recent stagnation, France is still 6th and 8th in nominal and purchasing power parity GDP measures, respectively. It, along with Germany and the UK have been the traditional European economic powerhouses.

7. Brazil - Though plagued by problems and only 10th in nominal GDP (and 9th in purchasing power parity), Brazil is the only South and Central American country in both of the top 10 rankings.

8. India - An abysmal 12th in nominal GDP is offset by a ranking of 4th in purchasing power parity and a strong growth rate of 9% that is likely to be maintained.

In essence, this version of the G8 would include India, China and Brazil as official members and would exclude Italy, Russia and Canada, countries that while still strong economically are unlikely to grow quite as quickly as the former 3. Of course, all of these countries are already included in G8 talks, but changes in the group would still be welcome.

Much ado about Iran

Iran has not been known as a country that has been satisfied with the status quo in the 20th and 21st centuries. In the last 100 year period, the country has going through phases where it has overthrown its shah, established a radical Islamic republic, and taken on one of the world’s superpowers in a hostage crisis. In this century, Iran began to exploit its oil wealth, despite an embargo by the United States and others, and started a nuclear program. It has uranium enrichment facilities, and despite a report by the CIA that indicates the Iranians stopped trying to produce nuclear weapons in 2003 released earlier this year, the prospect for future developments in the nuclear department are enough to send oil prices soaring and regional tensions flaring. Iran’s recent test firings of 9 missiles in response to Israeli and American war games shows that the Iranians aren’t yet ready to settle into a peaceful state.

The goals of both sides are obvious and similar: intimidation. Israel hopes to make it clear that it could strike at an Iranian nuclear reactor with ease. America seeks to demonstrate that no country can cut off its oil supply. Iran wants to show that neither Israel nor America will be able to do what it wants in the region without a fight. This obviously raises the potential for war, but not seriously.

Yes, it seems like war is possible now, but there are several limiting factors. America is unlikely to engage in any more full scale wars for a long while after the Iraqi one ends. Israel’s military is not designed to be able to take on long term operations. Iran, meanwhile, is not strong enough to take on either of two of the world’s most advanced militaries. All sides realize that they are incapable of serious sustained military action.

So the most likely result of these shows of strength would be a setback in negotiations. Diplomacy might be sidetracked a bit, and oil prices might rise, but otherwise no serious long term harm is likely to result from this episode. It is, after all, one that has been repeated many times over.

Obama and FISA

Voters are a contradictory bunch. They want their leaders to be principled, but at the same time they also want them to be able to solve the majority of the problems plaguing the world. However, as people know, these two wants are almost always fundamentally irreconcilable. After all, many solutions require compromise in order to get anything done, but a principled politician will rarely compromise on issues, which would otherwise make him appear to be unprincipled. And yet when forced with the most difficult decision of his Senate career, Barack Obama made the pragmatically sound decision, but the politically wrong one.

When it came time to vote on a bill to renew the passage of FISA, an important government document regulating wiretaps by the federal government, Obama voted for the bill. This was really a lose-lose situation for him. There was no way that he could have gotten out of the measure without losing standing in the political community. The bill itself did offer new regulations on the wiretapping of American citizens, but it also greatly expanded the powers of the federal government in its monitoring capabilities. Most controversially, it gave retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that had complied with illegal wiretaps for the government. Obviously such a measure was unacceptable to Obama, and he did vote for an amendment that would have stripped out immunity. However, the bill passed anyway, and Obama was one of the 62 votes in favor.

Looking at it from a political perspective, Obama should have voted against the bill. The difference between his voting for it and not voting for it in terms of the number of votes the bill had was negligible: had he voted “No”, the bill still would have been veto proof. But Obama feared being viewed as weak on national security. The problem is that no matter what he does, he will always be viewed as the weaker candidate on that issue: it is nearly impossible to beat a Republican war hero on national defense credentials.

Instead, Obama angered his base for no reason. His attempts to become a centrist are undermining the very support that won him the nomination in the first place. His only distinguishing factor between him and older politicians is the way that he has garnered support. The policies he are advocating as part of his move towards the center will lose him that difference, and lose him the election. Hopefully Obama will realize that before it’s too late.

What about the League of Democracies?

The UN was an organization founded over 60 years ago by the biggest victors of the last major World War. While throughout the Cold War it was able to serve as a relatively functional method of assuring world peace (mainly through the group’s split along Communist and Western lines), the end of the Soviet Union has exposed weaknesses in the current system. Though China and the United States remain globally relevant (and the inclusion of the People’s Republic of China only came about during the 1970’s), Russia, Great Britain, and France no longer hold the power they used to. It is likely time to either expand the services of the UN or go an entirely different route by supporting the League of Democracies championed by John McCain. Would either idea be worth it?

Expanding the UN’s Permanent Security council seems like the more obvious idea. After all, the UN is still a very much functional organization, but it lacks some important voices. Most notably, no major country from South or Central America (Brazil, Argentina, or Mexico), Africa, and several other countries such as Germany, Japan and India are excluded. Some of these current exclusions are bizarre given global realities. Germany is one of the world’s strongest economies and a critical member of Europe. Japan is 2nd in the world in terms of GDP. South and Central America having no representatives excludes somewhere on the scale of 400 million people in the world. Africa, despite being one of the continents in which the UN must complete many of its most pressing functions, has no voice. Expansion would be the obvious solution were it not for regional complaints about potential members (notably Brazil, Germany, India, Japan and an African country) and the reservations of the current permanent members. One possible compromise would be to make permanent members without veto powers, an idea that would likely garner hostility by potential permanent Security Council members. The most likely and viable solution would be to make new permanent members have half of a veto, thereby ensuring that if two countries united their interests, then a veto would be assured. This would also allow countries to be later upgraded to a full veto pending evaluation.

The League of Democracies seems like the sounder idea. After all, democratic countries would tend to be more likely to see eye to eye on issues and be more willing to tackle problems of global human rights and relief efforts. Yet simply being democracies doesn’t make countries more likely to work together: many democracies opposed the Iraq War. Further, what constitutes a democracy would be hard to define: technically, almost every country in the world runs in a democratic format.

Ultimately, the best solution would be to simply reform the UN. A new League of Democracies would be difficult, if not impossible, to formulate, and would only be seen as a group of like minded individuals setting up another talking-shop. After all, if an organization wants to address problems (for example, democratic regimes wanting to end the Sudanese genocide), not including groups critical to the solution (like the government of Sudan) would lead to almost certain failure.