Election 2008

I won't be voting for Barack Obama.

I trend libertarian on political issues. In general, I favor free markets, personal responsibility over government intervention, and issues handled at the proper level of governance. That means there are many things I think the federal government shouldn't touch, but I'm fine with it at the state or local level. I disagree with the Republican Party on abortion, assisted suicide, and gay rights, and have never been pleased at the religious right's involvement in setting positions. I frequently wish that there were more credible options than the Democrats and Republicans, who split my views on economics and foreign policy versus social issues. And I wouldn't have voted for Mike Huckabee, no matter who the Democratic candidate turned out to be. I'd probably have gone third party or write-in, given what I explain below, but I'm never a lock for the Republican Party.

This year, as so frequently in the past, I tend to go by process of elimination. It's a choice trying to find the lesser of two evils, because I've yet to find a candidate for national office that fully reflects my political positions and beliefs. The primary process rewards extremes, but I hunger for a moderate. I'm actually surprised that John McCain is the Republican nominee, because he's the one candidate who had a snowball's chance in hell at overcoming the Democratic advantage in this election.

My calculus in which presidential candidate to vote for is heavily weighted toward foreign and security policy, probably 60 to 70 percent. Add in another 10 to 15 percent for economic principles, and there's not much left over. I could agree with you on all the social issues, and you could agree with me on foreign and economic policy, and we could support different candidates depending on which issues we each think are most important.

There's a lot of noise in every election, issues that I could care less about (immigration) or that aren't really important (fashion). Both sides have acted in ways that make me wince. In multi-criteria decision making, experts recommend narrowing down the criteria to three to five big items that clearly differentiate between options. Thus, I tend to wave off a lot of things that have been big news over the past few months, because I can't be bothered and all they do is confuse the big picture.

There will be links below, if you want expansion of some of the things behind my thoughts. In general, quite a few of them are probably more partisan in tone than I'd wish, but it's been difficult to find objective news coverage this election cycle.

Foreign Policy

I thought about voting for Senator Obama, vaguely, back in the primaries when I was waiting for certainty on the Democratic ticket and all I knew was that he talked a lot about "hope" and "change." Then he said, during the Democratic debates, that he'd meet with Iran and Venezuala and North Korea without preconditions, and I was flabbergasted. Regardless of attempts to soften his position once the wider campaign got underway, that is what Obama said (there is video on YouTube), and he followed it, a bit later, with another position that took me aback (although I can't remember the details now, it could have been something to do with the United Nations, that bastion of inertia and deadlock, or maybe his opposition to keeping troops in Iraq).

Investigating his foreign policy stance more thoroughly, I realized that Obama's worldview is so different from mine that I can't support him. I lived through the Jimmy Carter years (my first memories of the wider world are the Iran hostage crisis), and Obama's positions are eerily similar to that administration. Multilateralism to the detriment of quick action. Diplomatic efforts over any military options. Economic sanctions that only work when they are universally supported or narrowly targeted. I trend hawkish on regions prone to crisis, because over and over and over again history has shown that talking to adversaries only works when they genuinely want to deal. There has to be good faith, and that's not possible when anything but threat is met with contempt. Perhaps Senator Obama's faith in diplomacy would alter once in office and dealing with the realities of the world, but it would be a steep learning curve and I don't want to rely on that when there are so many challenging regions the United States will have to address in the coming years.

Senator Biden's recent comments were mind-boggling only because Obama's running mate articulated my fears in public. Over the next year, likely trouble spots include Iran (nuclear program, support to Hizbollah and Iraqi insurgents), Pakistan (Taliban presence, fragile government, economic crises), North Korea (nuclear program, ballistic missile programs, potential famine), Venezuela (Hugo Chavez' efforts to distract from the failures of socialism with bellicosity), Russia (a bully, resurgent after their Georgian adventures), a rising China, as well as the perpetual lurkers of global pandemics, terrorism, and unforeseen events. During the campaign, Senator Obama has consistently responded to looming crises with comments that fundamentally misunderstood their nature and potential impacts. His preferred foreign policy approaches are not ones I can support.

The Foreign Policy Difference

America second

Biden's record of being wrong of foreign policy

Security Should Be the Deciding Issue

Global View

Charles Krauthammer -- McCain for President

The Economy

The second area where Senator Obama's positions concern me relates to his economic policy. Tax hikes and huge new spending programs? "Spread the wealth," as Obama so memorably answered Joe the Plumber? No. The word socialism has been thrown around a lot lately, and those measures definitely have its stench. Historically, socialism has almost always failed (I believe Scandinavia is the exception to the rule? Homogenous, low population, and oil reserves are the difference, if I’m recalling correctly). The Soviet bloc collapsed utterly, economies in ruins. China's communist party remains in power only because they began a shift to capitalism in the late 1980s. Cuba and North Korea have seen devastation once their Soviet and Chinese patrons withdrew support. And in Western Europe, where socialism never went as far, there was still stifled economic growth, raging unemployment, and economic stagnation.

Today, Venezuela can't keep the lights on, even though they're an exporter of oil, thanks to Chavez's socialist government.

Per the Wall Street Journal:

The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow. The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates.

And:

Calculating how far society's top earners can be pushed before they stop (or cut back on) producing is difficult. But the incentives are easy to see. Voters who benefit from government programs will push for higher tax rates on higher earners -- at least until those who power the economy and create jobs and wealth stop working, stop investing, or move out of the country.

Given the economic chaos of late, and the definite signs of recession, the last thing America needs is higher taxes acting as a drag on recovery. The causes of the recent crisis can be traced directly back to government interventions in free markets: efforts to increase home ownership among minorities (a noble goal!) led to the creation of the "subprime" mortgage market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-sponsored entities, guaranteed the loans and increased moral hazard. The derivatives market bought up packages of third and fourth-degree removed loans and spun them into a fantasy of profit. Home values skyrocketed, encouraging home equity loans and risky mortgage schemes. Rising energy costs over the past year finally burst the bubble, leaving the financial sector paralyzed. Big firms fail. Credit markets freeze. And suddenly, everybody's talking like the Great Depression is around the corner again.

Except that Obama's policies would prolong and worsen the problems. With the collapse of the subprime mortgage market linked to bonus-mongering by the heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who later went on to have roles in the Obama campaign, I'm dubious about Obama's ability to manage anything economic. And I'm someone who doesn't think the President, in normal times, has much to do with economic growth or contraction!

The Declaration of Independence's famous "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is paraphrased from British philosopher John Locke's "life, liberty, and property." He theorized that improvement in property, work invested with returns reaped by the owner, brought about economic growth. Rewarding hard work, instead of redistributing wealth, is the way to go. Capitalism is not perfect, by any means, but it's far better than other options that have been tried and failed.

Wall Street Journal, 22 September 2008: Going back decades, but especially in the past 15 or so years, our politicians have promoted housing and easy credit with a variety of subsidies and policies that helped to create and feed the mania. Let us take the roll of political cause and financial effect.

How Government Stoked the Mania: Housing prices would never have risen so high without multiple Washington mistakes

New York Times, 30 September 1999. Read it and weep: In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

Bloomberg News, 22 September 2008. Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

Obama's record on the financial sector

Searching for Obama's 95 Percent

Mortgage lending took that "reckless and unsustainable turn" because of regulation

The Economist: Capitalism is at bay, but those who believe in it must fight for it. For all its flaws, it is the best economic system man has invented yet.

Detailed history of government actions leading to the mortgage crisis

Shame, Cubed: The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population. Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw.

Forbes.com: How Capitalism Will Save Us

Gallup, July 2008: When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today's consumer, Americans overwhelmingly -- by 84% to 13% -- prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.

Hope and Change?

The third area where Obama disturbs me is what his past association and record say about how he would govern. Aside from the William Ayers issue (a man who skeeves me out something fierce – he wishes he'd done more than bomb the Pentagon? And cavorts with Hugo Chavez about the joys of socialist education?), there is nothing in Obama's accomplishments to date that indicate the slightest chance that he would actually implement his "change" rhetoric. The Economist review of David Freddoso's book on Obama's political career says:

If Mr Obama really were the miracle-working, aisle-jumping, consensus-seeking new breed of politician his spin-doctors make him out to be, you would expect to see the evidence in these eight years. But there isn’t very much. Instead, as Mr Freddoso rather depressingly finds, Mr Obama spent the whole period without any visible sign of rocking the Democratic boat.

His record is devoid of anything that would give me the slightest bit of proof that he could actually fulfill the promises made in his lofty speeches. His campaign has been negative and divisive at times. For all of John McCain's failings, he at least does have a record of bipartisanship and meaningful reform. He gets things done. Senator Obama introduced next to no legislation in the Senate. He began his career with legal shenanigans to disqualify opposing candidates, and navigated the corrupt Chicago political machine with ease. His campaign has been trying to silence critics using tactics that indicate contempt for principles of free speech. Hope and change and the like aren't possible if you can't even talk to the opposing side.

Barack Obama's Lost Years

The Messianic Style

Evil Under the Sun

Fire in the Night by John M. Murtagh, City Journal 30 April 2008

Inside Obama's ACORN, a group under state and federal investigation for voter registration fraud.

A history of ACORN, for those, like me, who'd never heard of them before.

Media Distortions

The final thing I'd like to note is how disturbing I've found media coverage of this election. It's turned into Bizarro World, with newspapers vehemently denying prior coverage if a subsequent event makes it disadvantageous to Barack Obama while at the same time reporting every rumor on Sarah Palin as if it were truth from on high. There are huge segments of Senator Obama's adult life that have not been scrutinized, or where his narrative has been accepted without question, while the New York Times runs hit pieces on John McCain's wife. I'm used to seeing subtle bias in news reporting – negative poll numbers given prominence for Republicans, positives highlighted for Democrats. What I'm not used to is the blatant double standards applied to candidates for all branches of government in this election. It does a grave disservice to the public, and depresses me almost as much as the lack of knowledge or understanding about bases for conservatism other than social issues.

Camille Paglia on Sarah Palin: Over the Labor Day weekend, with most of the big enchiladas of the major media on vacation, the vacuum was filled with a hallucinatory hurricane in the leftist blogosphere, which unleashed a grotesquely lurid series of allegations, fantasies, half-truths and outright lies about Palin. What a tacky low in American politics.

Palin rumors debunked and more.

On Palin's accomplishments as governor.

Imagine the press coverage if Obama's associates were McCain's.

Judge not?

Going after Joe the Plumber for daring to ask a question

[W]orse than all the unfair and distorted reporting and image projecting are the shocking gaps in Obama's life that are not reported at all

Media's Presidential Bias and Decline

Pew Research: Voters overwhelmingly believe that the media wants Barack Obama to win the presidential election. By a margin of 70%-9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on Nov. 4.

Political Calculations

The sensation of this election season has been John McCain's decision to ask Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska to be his running mate on the Republican presidential ticket. In the days following McCain's announcement, the blogosphere and traditional media went on a rampage, delving into Palin's personal life with unprecedented ferocity and vitriol. They were attempting to prove her unfit for national office.

Aside from distaste at their focus, which might have been more fruitfully deployed against Palin's extreme positions on abortion, gay rights, and creationism in schools (save perhaps that she never made those positions part of her efforts while governing), the feeding frenzy barreled past a huge signal of McCain's priorities for his administration: energy policy.

Palin's reputation is that of a maverick and reformer, complimenting McCain's own. In her short time in office, she took on major oil companies, contrary to the assumption that Republicans are always in the pocket of big business. She brokered a deal between multiple stakeholders, including federal, provincial, and tribal governments and businesses, to build a new gas pipeline from Alaska to the continental United States. Her time as chairman of the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission gives her experience in the development and economics of oil fields, and knowledge of petroleum's limitations. Her acceptance speech at the GOP convention presented a sophisticated analysis of the linkages between energy sources and recent foreign policy crisis points.

Apart from pipelines in the Caucuses, the perennial issue of Islamic extremism in the Middle East, and Venezuelan intransigence, high oil prices have driven much of the recent economic slowdown in the United States (the other major factor being, of course, the collapse of credit markets based on risky loans). Pain at the pumps, rising transportation costs, leading to higher food prices – all of it contributes to a perception of recession and a certain level of helplessness.

Ongoing discussions within the military and foreign policy communities have convinced me that dependence on oil – the underpinning of the world economy since Nixon took American currency off the gold standard – dictates American engagement in the Middle East. We are in Iraq, we support Saudi Arabia, because they have petroleum. Our presence there aggravates factionalism and Islamic fundamentalism with tragic results. The events of September 11th, seven years ago tomorrow, showed the consequences.

Petroleum reserves are finite; estimates vary on their duration, but efforts must accelerate a transition to alternate sources of energy, with a side benefit of environmental protection. Wind power, hydroelectric, solar, hydrogen fuel cells, conversion of non-food plants to ethanol – there are many options, but the best one or mix of sources has yet to be determined.

Palin's nomination undoubtedly arose from a calculus of multiple issues. She assuages concerns of the religious right and socially conservative Republicans that McCain is too moderate. She's an outsider to the elites of Washington in a year when public opinion is disgusted with Congress. She has a record of reform against corruption, even against members of her party. She's a woman from a small town who began her political career in the PTA, appealing to middle America and certain other demographics.

But don't discount the fact of her experience with energy issues in McCain's decision. To me, it indicates that he is serious about shifting America away from petroleum. It won't happen next year or the year after that, which explains the enthusiasm for offshore drilling among Republicans. Yet eventually, in the long term, the United States should be in a much better position with regard to energy. And that will increase the flexibility of our foreign policy immensely, allowing us, perhaps, to leave the Middle East to its own devices and move onward to a brighter future.

On Russia and Georgia

"When told that many diplomats in the United States and Europe blame Russia for provoking the conflict and for invading Georgia, Putin said Russia had no choice but to invade Georgia after dozens of its peacekeepers in South Ossetia were killed. He told Chance it was to avert a human calamity." (Putin accuses U.S. of orchestrating Georgia war -- CNN.com)

It's good to know Putin is a liar as well as a thug. The first link is instructive in reviewing the actual situation in Georgia, and the ways that Russia initiated the recent conflict. The latter discusses Russia's current status as an authoritarian regime disguised as a democracy.

Seldom though I agree with the Washington Post's editorial page, this one is right on target: "This is the rhetoric of an isolated, authoritarian government drunk with the euphoria of a perceived victory and nursing the delusion of a restored empire. It is convinced that the West is too weak and divided to respond with more than words. If nothing is done to restrain it, it will never release Georgia -- and it will not stop there."

Nuclear Logics: Contrasting Paths in East Asia and the Middle East

Author: Etel Solingen, University of California's Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation
Panelists: Doyle McManus, Washington Bureau Chief for the Los Angeles Times, Gary Samore, Council on Foreign Relations (National Security Council 1995-2001), and an official with the U.S. intelligence community

When: Thursday 24 January 2008
Where: University of California Washington Center, Rhode Island Avenue, Washington DC

Attempting to answer the question: Why have some states opted for nuclear weapons while others have renounced them?

Solingen's remarks:

Conventional wisdom is less applicable than commonly believed. She mentioned Argentina, South Africa, and Brazil as countries that joined the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) in the 1990s after pursuing (and in South Africa's case, obtaining) nuclear weapons, which are said to enhance power, ensure survival, and add caution to international relations. She believes this view overpredicts proliferation, and went on to list empirical anomalies with neorealist theory with regard to nuclear weapons.

• Insecure states do not always go after nuclear weapons


• An external threat isn't a prerequisite for those who do pursue a nuclear capability


• Alliance pressures don't explain the decision to go after or abstain from developing nuclear weapons


• The domestic context of the state is key in alliance success and foreign policy


• Coercion against nuclear-pursuing states does not work to make them abandon their programs


• Overall, neorealism fails to explain too many cases

Her thesis: domestic orientations to the global political economy have important implications for nuclear paths:

• Democracy and openness to international trade provide incentives for economic integration


• There are lower costs for inward-looking regimes to pursue a nuclear capability, as they are suspicious of the international community and focused on domestic growth


• A cooperative regional environment provides for state-level economic growth and makes sanctions more of a threat


• It is necessary to construct a huge nuclear infrastructure complex -- technology, industry, bureaucracy, military -- with funds that would otherwise spur peaceful economic development

Nuclear states are more likely from inward-looking regimes (North Korea vice Japan, Iran vice Jordan), and the protectionism common to the Middle East explains why so many states have had nuclear programs over the past several decades.

Inward-looking states that evolved to international engagement, such as South Africa, Brazil, and Taiwan, have all divested their nuclear programs. Global trade leads to denuclearization as the stakes of condemnation get higher than the benefits of peaceful cooperation. In the cases mentioned, export-led industrialization was beneficial. In the case of autarkic goals, nuclear weapons are still seen as desirable.

Thus, domestic models are crucial to explain nuclear policy. They are filters through which leaders define security and provide a better foundation for non-proliferation aimed policy.

McManus' Remarks

He wondered whether a longing for prestige was a driver toward nuclearization, and made a distinction between prestige and respect. France, for instance, desires a place at the great power table, and equality with the world's leaders. Their nuclear arsenal grants them a say in global affairs that otherwise would likely be denied them.

• Loud coercive efforts and harsh penalties tend to strengthen the nuclear-pursuing regime by distracting the populace from domestic concerns (as can be seen in Iran today)


• Silent coercion, through banks, trade sanctions, or veiled threats, tends to refocus the domestic agenda and can result in election upsets, even in states with restricted democratic institutions. This can change the environment sufficiently to make nuclear weapons seem undesirable.


• Question of norms: to what extent do countries want or need to comply with international norms? Referenced Kissinger, Shultz, et al arguments for total nuclear disarmament as an attempt to change the international landscape.

Samore's Remarks

• Noted that realism/structuralism is a very efficient approach to analysis, but agreed that the domestic situation of a state seeking nuclear weapons is key.


• Policy issues:


• North Korea: commented on their determination. Isolationist yet needy for recognition. Not likely to disarm under current regime, yet authoritarian enough to have no democratic process at all. How should the international community proceed?


• Regime change is the most effective instrument for non-proliferation according to this information, but aftermath of Iraq invasion shows drawbacks of approach.


• Is it possible to manage East Asia away from proliferation? There are countries who hedge with a peaceful nuclear capacity, like Taiwan and South Korea, that still grants them the fissile material necessary for nuclear weapons. Fuel-cycle technology and uranium enrichment is the major stumbling block. If that's solved, what is to keep these countries from reacting to a changed security dilemma with over nuclearization?


• In the Middle East, Iran is driven by status issues. They have complicated internal dynamics. No united coalition to apply international pressure (cf, Russia and China in the UN Security Council). Again, what can the United States do?

U.S. Intelligence Official's Remarks

He detailed the contributions of the book as two-fold: theoretical and practical.

On the theoretical level:

• Looking beyond monocausal explanations of proliferating behavior.


• How much variable integration was discovered? Look at relationship of security to domestic orientation to technical capabilities.


• Pointed out deficiencies of neo-classical realism.


• Wondered about organizational theory's role in the author's explanations.

On the practical level, he felt that this work provided a critique of current policies, and a point of departure for policy makers. If they have a correct understanding of the forces driving nuclearization, there's at least an improved chance of getting their inducements or punishments to change state behavior. He felt the work debunked commonly accepted wisdom and provides a more accurate picture of real life. In the intelligence community, and much of academia, there's a split between functional and regional expertise. He noted that the case studies and analysis show patterns of domestic behavior across regions, demonstrating that they're not unique.

As to current U.S. policy, trade and globalization efforts make sense in this context. It attacks myths of "great power" status accruing to states pursuing nuclearization, pointing out the pariah status of North Korea as an example. In addition, he said that security incentives or guarantees would hold a weaker position under this theory, making American alliances less effective tools of power.

Questions:

These were the big insights from the question and answer session at the end of the session:

• When asked why she didn't examine India or Pakistan as part of her case study, Solingen replied that she wanted to compare like regions, and both Northeast Asia and the Middle East were multipolar, in comparison to the bi-polar subcontinent (I'd quibble with that a bit, and argue that China plays an enormous role in relations between India and Pakistan, but she's right in that it's not a multipolar environment). But even so, India's "peaceful" nuclear explosion in 1974 was at the height of their protectionist era, while they've reduced trade barriers and liberalized their economy now, well after they reached nuclear weapons status.


• Norms were much less explanatory than expected in the Japanese case. More practical considerations ruled their rejection of nuclear weapons, although it was noted that their technical know-how and large civilian nuclear power industry mean it would be only a matter of months if Japan decided to create nuclear weapons.


• Prestige derived from economies is balanced against prestige from nuclear weapons. Democracy vice autarky.


• There has to be a separation between the pre- and post-NPT eras. The UK and France acquired a nuclear capability, while Sweden rejected it in favor of neutrality (a sort of prestige in its own right).


• There can be unintended effects of policy, and it was suggested that one must differentiate between use of nuclear weapons vice acquisition.


• Small numbers of warheads and short timelines ("sprint" breakout capability) dominate proliferation concerns and have a disproportionate impact on world affairs.


• There was a brief discussion of perception and reaction to US government statements that reminded me of strategic communications issues raised by the long war.