Category: politics

Tweet Your Way to a Win?

 

I wonder how much influence social media will have on the Iowa caucuses. Isn’t there a real possibility that there will be important outcomes during the caucus based on the (perceived?) momentum of candidates?

 

It’s easy for me to anticipate scenarios wherein early caucus victories for one candidate have a cascading effect on other caucuses’ outcomes. Small caucuses or caucus sites with relative unanimity can realistically finish their process quite early.  Even before there are official announcements, folks on the scene can relay their information to large numbers of other Iowans via Twitter. Especially in a contest with such a vast number of uncommitted voters, it’s not hard to imagine many folks deciding to go with the flow and vote for the candidate with early success.

 

Is this where Ron Paul’s ground game will win the day? After all, his network in Iowa is largely built around the kind of young, energetic supporters who will be likely to connect with each other and ardently encourage others to support the Good Doctor.

 

If Paul has a surprisingly good showing tonight, the ability of his supporters to share information broadly and instantly may be a key factor.

 

Will the rise of social media be permanently transformative in Iowa politics? National politics? 


<shudder>

 

 

FDO

 

 

 

Free the Libertarian!

 

It was reported last month that Gary Johnson had decided against creating a 3rd party candidacy as a Libertarian. I was surprised that Johnson would rule out that option because it seemed clear that Johnson’s one chance at a prominent national position is creating a 3rd party campaign. Now, apparently, that’s all changed and Johnson will run after all. It’s going to make the 2012 election more interesting to have Johnson involved.

 

Gary Johnson won’t win the Presidency this year but that’s ok. What he needs is not a win but relevance.  As a 3rd party candidate, Johnson will have a chance to receive increased media attention, substantial fundraising, a debate presence and the potential to launch a 2016 GOP candidacy with a chance of success.

 

I’m convinced many Ron Paul supporters will shift their allegiance to Johnson (and that Paul will encourage them to do so) as a Libertarian and he will gain more than 5% of the national vote next November. If that happens, Johnson will be the primary frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2016 (followed up by Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Marco Rubio/Bobby Jindal), a position impossible for Johnson to achieve without making this run.

 

Now, Johnson’s run will cement Obama’s re-election bid next fall but will also supply the GOP with a ready made excuse for failure.  The GOP will be so desperate to regain the White House in the 2016 election cycle that Johnson will be warmly welcomed back into the fold. At this point, there’s virtually no downside for Johnson and lots of potential gain.

 

I imagine Johnson’s candidacy will also help enhance the 2012 campaign conversations involved in determining the direction of national issues like human rights, education initiatives and drug policies. Considering the present likelihood of personal attacks and partisan views in one on one debates, I’ll be excited to have Johnson’s voice moderating the tone of the political conversations.

 

Well, I can hope at least!

 

FDO

 

 

Average Obama

 

I liked President Obama’s Osawatomie speech and recognize the obvious resonances it has with Teddy Roosevelt’s  New Nationalism  speech. That connection has been made in multiple places and is well worth reading and reading about. I think Obama's speech was the start of something else too. Something with great potential for Obama’s re-election campaign against Mitt Romney in 2012*. I mean the re-branding of the President as “Barack Obama, regular American.”

 

I believe that in this campaign Obama will try to present himself as a typical American with a very American story. Even though he has often been defined as an outsider, I don’t think that Obama has ever believed that to be true. Obama considers himself to be quintessentially American. That belief will be easier to spread to the public at large if Obama is running against Willard Mitt Romney.

(Much in the way that Obama’s middle name became a campaign issue, I’m convinced that Romney’s first name will be tossed about and made the subject of jokes. I assume the story about Mitt being named after George Romney’s best friend Willard Marriott is true. That’s not gonna be helpful.)

 

Obama’s campaign will work hard to present Romney as the embodiment of America’s elite. Romney is, after all, the son of a governor and was born into a highly affluent family. His own professional career has placed him squarely in the 1% as defined by Occupy Wall Street. In 2000, those would have been helpful characteristics but in the midst of our Great Recession, economic privilege is no longer perceived as indicative of inherent merit. Instead, his extraordinary level of privilege is probably a major detriment to Romney’s candidacy.

 

Obama’s own American story is well known and his recent speech cleverly emphasized his rootedness via his family of regular folks from Kansas. His single mom spent time on public assistance rolls and Obama only became an elite himself through educational attainment. He legitimately is a contemporary Horatio Alger. Even as an adult, his South Side of Chicago bona fides are clearly intact. Describing his career as working for the people of his community as opposed to having the people work for him will be a winning presentation.

 

And while folks often describe Obama’s rise to national prominence as meteoric, he will be able to define himself as a political plugger compared to Romney. Obama’s political career began in the Illinois State Senate before moving on to the US Senate and then the White House. He has been an elected official since 1997. Obama can reasonably describe himself as having climbed the political ladder, albeit with tremendous speed. Romney’s sole electoral victory was his one term as Massachusetts governor. In just those four years, Romney made many choices he has since disavowed. While I personally believe Romney’s Olympic experience is very impressive, I doubt that he’ll be able to use that time as a proxy for holding office.

 

There will likely be one other interesting area in which Obama can define himself as average and Romney as exceptional: religion. Obama’s Chicago church experience was a problem for him in 2008 but in 2012 it’ll be a big advantage. Jeremiah Wright is old news and the President has so comfortably and consistently invoked God that his religiosity seems safe, normal and generically American. Romney’s Mormonism makes him suspect in the eyes of many and makes him an outsider in the eyes of many more.  I don’t want to link to some of the vicious portrayals of Mormonism in the world of mainstream punditry but it’s very easy to find scary talk about Romney’s church. The ham handed “I’m a Mormon” campaign might have helped had it begun several years ago but in the short term it will likely make Romney (and Jon Huntsman) seem even more suspicious to non-Mormon conservative Christians.

 

In terms of family, work and faith, Obama can claim common cause with ‘the American people’ in ways that Romney simply can’t. It’s a strange world wherein the half-Black guy with the Arabic name can present himself as more authentically American than the White guy who looks like middle age Superman but I think that’s what we will begin to see in the next few months. Perhaps even more strangely, I think it’s gonna work.

 

 

FDO

 

*- I've been asked if any of this applies to the President if Newt Gingrich were the GOP nominee.

2 responses- 1- If Newt's the guy, Obama won't have much to worry about anyway. 2- Yes! Obama's team will paint a picture of the President, First Lady and their two young daughters compared to Newt's 3 marriages, adulterous affairs, Clinton era sexual hypocrisy, the cancer-ridden wife divorce story and late in life conversion to Catholicism. That's a lotta grist for the campaign mill.

 

Combine that with the difference between making lots of money by writing books about your family and making lots of money by using your government contacts to (almost) lobby for corporations and it's game over. 

 

 

 

Obama’s Magic Number

 

This weekend is the most confident I’ve felt concerning President Obama’s re-election chances. The key element in this feeling is a single number, 8.6%.  That’s our current unemployment rate. It’s a clear, surprising improvement from all our recent numbers. There are lots of important caveats to consider and 8.6% is not ideal… but relatively speaking, Obama can point to this figure as a very clear indicator of positive movement in the economy.

 

In terms of foreign policy, I’d argue that Obama’s term has been much more successful than anyone could have reasonably asked. Unfortunately for him, America’s so tired of looking beyond our shores, the President’s team will have to work to remind people of his litany of accomplishment. We’re focused on home.

 

While the economy continues to sag and broad successes are hard to find, being able to tout a specific number like an 8.6% unemployment rate will give voters the impression that the economic climate is improving.  Considering the weakness of the GOP field, this kind of improvement will probably be enough to secure a second Obama term.

 

 

FDO

 

 

Say It Loud!*

*- I've linked to a great article at the bottom of the page. It helpfully amplifies some of what is already here. 

 

 

Occupy Wall Street is an interesting manifestation of a new recognition of increased people power. Part of what excites me most about it is that I believe OWS is just one indication of how (many) things are changing in American life.


Two examples: Last month, Netflix announced that it was shelving the revolutionary new business model they’d been trumpeting. Not because the business model made too little sense but because the backlash against it was so strong. People didn’t care how much sense it made; they balked. Similarly, Bank of America has ended its proposed debit card usage fee. Bank of America could have weathered the storm of negative feedback better than Netflix but it recognized that the brand damage the fee generated was coming to dominate every story about the bank. Had these same changes been instituted five years ago, I’m convinced that the public response would have been a brief gasp of distress followed by a long, boring sigh.

 

Now that sigh does not seem to be enough for us. I don’t want to make any grandiose statements but I do believe that there’s a quickly increasing sense of agency among regular people. While most would probably trace this change to the Arab Spring movements, I think that it goes back a bit further. I am convinced that the 2008 Presidential election was a critical turning point in developing populism for the 21st century. After all, much of the early work of the Arab Spring seemed to take important cues from Barack Obama’s campaign.

 

Most critically, each of these populist movements created a broad enough range of connection points to transform individual interests into a perceived network of shared values.  Social media was widely credited with the successes of both the Obama campaign and Arab Spring. What I believe to be more true is that both movements used social media as a formation tool. Eventually, the networks grew large enough and loud enough to be perceived as an authentic voice of the people and achieved enough momentum to become virtually self-sustaining.

 

As much as they’d hate to acknowledge it, the TEA Party has used much of the same style to launch itself as a viable national brand. Much like Obama, the TEA Party presents itself as the representative of the regular person fighting against ‘The System’. They’ve made good use of some pre-existing networks but have built their own communities too as they continue to work outside the existing infrastructure. Preserving their independence provides them autonomy and credibility with their base.  

 

All these movements have rooted themselves in the belief that individuals and small groups of people can make the behemoths of the world yield power. At least in America, we’d forgotten about the ultimate source of that power. For too long, we’d neglected our own strength. I’m excited to be living in a time when we’re beginning to reclaim our voices and use them.

 

I’m determined to be one of those voices.

 

 

FDO

 

Here’s an intriguing article that addresses some of the issues I wrote about in this post, namely, some of the ways social media is changing the organizational possibilities of broad based movements. The author also suggests some of the ways groups like Wikileaks make information sharing more dangerous.

http://www.capitaljewishforum.org/jeffrey-bleich-from-obama-rsquo08-to-the-arab-spring-ndash-the-political-impact-of-social-media.html

 

Gay Marriage as a Civil Rights Issue

 

I believe that marriage is a public expression of a private relationship. Folks are allowed to think their own thoughts about the private element of any relationship. However, in the respects that marriage is a public issue, isn’t allowing same gender marriage simply a matter of civil rights? How can our society feel comfortable picking and choosing which people are allowed to participate within our legal frameworks?

 

The array of legal and economic benefits that marriage provides is astonishing. Telling people that the gender of their spouse should disqualify them from receiving those benefits is an obvious injustice. Yet, that’s what most of the states continue to do. It was more than forty years ago that miscegenation laws were finally lifted via Loving v. Virginia. Those laws denied marriage rights to people based on the race of their spouses. What’s the difference between race and gender here?

 

I hope that we move quickly enough toward marriage equality for homosexual couples that we don’t need another Loving case but until then I’d like to share a brief statement my wife and I included in our wedding program.

  

We appreciate and respect the values and benefits of marriage, thus it saddens us that not everyone is allowed this opportunity. Fifty years ago, our marriage would have been illegal in most states. Now, it seems clear that making different laws based on race is discriminatory and wrong. We think that making different laws based on sexual orientation is also discriminatory and wrong.

Please join us in supporting laws, initiatives and politicians who advocate marriage rights for everyone. Let love be the highest law.

 

 

FDO

Slowly but Surely

 

More thoughts on the New York gay marriage victory soon. In the meantime, here's part of a post about gay marriage I wrote last August. It feels appropriate today.

 

 

While judicial decisions are critical stepping stones, it is ultimately the support of the American people that generates the permanent force of change. That change is occurring. Most people I suggest this to think I’m crazy but I believe that gay marriage will be legal in half the states by 2020. That's my hope and my prediction. We're on the way, people. Slowly but surely. We're on the way. 

 

 

FDO

 

GOP Debate in New Hampshire… New Hampshire?!?

 

I’m excited for the GOP Presidential debate tonight. It’s such a peculiar field of candidates that I don’t understand who will or should look best. Some of these folks are just not viable contenders in the long term but can be important players in the process.

 

What an odd mix! There are only two current office holders in this debate, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul, and they’re both in the House. I recognize that the GOP is very anti-government these days but even if you pretend that the government is the biggest problem in America, don’t we all want someone connected to the government to run it? It certainly seemed that that’s what the GOP wanted in 2008 when Senator McCain’s biggest campaign speaking point was his depth of experience. Aye carumba.

 

If nothing else, I’ll be curious to see which of these folks attack each other. While they’ll all attack President Obama (especially Herman Cain*), I wonder if the speculation is true that it will also be a gang attack on Mitt Romney. Although I understand why that would be appealing, there’s also the clear possibility that Romney could use those attacks to present himself as the outsider. And as we all know, America loves an underdog. Even a fabulously wealthy, ultra-successful outsider. So much good political fun ahead!

 

FDO

 

*- A friend forwarded me this interesting piece of speculation on Cain’s likely role in this process. Racists? Why would someone think Tea Partiers have racist leanings?

  

 

The Presidents of Black America

I'm thinking about the notion of Barack Obama as the first Black President. Another interesting thing to me is that there have been lots of Presidents of Black America. So far, here's my list. I wonder what will happen in a post-Obama world when he'll be the icon but no longer the US President. Hmmm.

 

Past Presidents of Black America

Frederick Douglass

Abraham Lincoln

Booker T. Washington

W. E. B. DuBois

Marcus Garvey

Franklin Roosevelt

Martin Luther King

Malcolm X

Martin Luther King (again)

Jesse Jackson

Bill Clinton

Barack Obama

 

And no, I don't think Minister Farrakhan or Reverend Sharpton belong.

 

FDO

 

That Was Then, This is Obama

A friend asked me what I thought about this:  

"… I'm wondering if there's a parallel between the elder Bush in 1992 and Obama in 2012.

In 1992 the Dems pounded Bush for capitulating on the tax issue (in retrospect, perhaps a mistake) in order to win the campaign and traded in a mostly-moderate Republican for a moderate/Right Democrat who still brought us NAFTA and most of the same crap we would have had if Bush had stayed in office. Now the Repubs seem willing to oust a moderate Democrat who a) maintained the Bush wars b) enacted the Bob Dole health insurance without any public plan and c) agreed to sizable spending cuts and tax cut extensions. I.e.

Aside from SCOTUS appointments, is this a big political fight over fairly small shifts in actual WH policy?"

 

How interesting!?!

 

My bottom line answer is that the big political fight makes sense because the combination of small and giant shifts in White House policy has massive implications for the country.

 

Regarding the current parallels with 1992, I think you’re generically on to something. Bill Clinton moved substantially to the center during his campaign and after his election. Some of his pandering was shameful but may have been necessary. (It certainly seemed necessary to him at the time.) Even though he was considered centrist as part of the Democratic Leadership Council, Clinton clearly intended to govern further left than he actually did. Part of his trouble was simply that he never had a mandate. He won something like 43% of the popular vote that year, largely because Perot got something close to 20%. Then there was the healthcare debacle that pushed his polling into the toilet. Clinton seemed to be reeling from Inauguration Day on.

 

I think it was abundantly clear very early that Clinton would have to be consistently moderate in order to have any substantial accomplishments. I do, however, think there were some real differences between the potential second Bush term and Clinton’s actual terms. Humanitarian intervention in the Balkans is a biggie. I think Bush was so invested in realpolitik that he would have been hard pressed to justify military intervention in that situation. We didn’t ‘gain’ anything from winning that war. Also, consider that in the climate of the mid-90s making changes to social programs like welfare seemed inevitable. The difference between Clinton’s more generous construction of welfare reform and a fully Republican one is probably substantial.

 

There’s also the political value of incumbency, especially in the White House. Dan Quayle is now widely perceived as a political joke but after 8 years as a Vice President, he would have been a formidable candidate in 1996. It’s hard for me to imagine, but I think Dan Quayle would have been tough for the Dems to beat. 16 or 20 years of consecutive Republican Presidencies means a generational lock on the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary and who knows what else regarding energy or environmental policies, regulatory agencies and a monopoly on executive branch political expertise.

 

Currently, Obama gets lots of grief for not being more liberal and I understand that. I, personally, would prefer him to move substantially left. However, I still think it’s important to recognize that his administration has already created important change in a multitude of ways. Change that would not have happened were a Republican in the Oval Office. Considering the rancor the ‘Bob Dole’ health care reform package generated, it’s hard to imagine any health care reform at all happening under a Republican President. I also think the vast majority of Republican contenders would have resisted continuing and expanding the TARP program. Obama’s actions on that front will likely prove to be an incredible long term success. Obama’s even pulled us away from having permanent bases in Iraq. Considering John McCain’s suggestion that we might stay in Iraq for decades, this feels like a really big difference. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell seems an obvious example too. No GOP President would have even considered that change.

 

Also, when we consider how insular and politicized the Bush White House was, the Obama Administration has done a very good job of moving toward openness and collegiality. While there are miles to go in these regards, the changes are substantial. It’s almost impossible to imagine Bush having a Secretary of Defense who was a Democrat, especially one tied to another administration. Obama kept Bob Gates and it’s been a clear positive for the country. Obama appointed Jon Huntsman to be Ambassador to China, even though Huntsman’s Presidential ambitions were widely known. The Justice department is now politicized in a way that makes sense to most observers; there’s been a radical shift there. After Osama bin Laden was killed, we got to see pictures of our leaders watching it unfold. That level of openness was astonishing to me. By contrast, I still have never heard where Dick Cheney’s ‘undisclosed locations’ are.  

 

All this is a long form way for me to think about how vastly different the country is as a result of which party controls the Presidency. Many Republicans have expressed that their most important goal is for Obama to be a one term President and to me that emphasis makes perfect sense. The President has enormous power to change America and our political system itself. In the first couple years of the Obama Administration, that change has been less overt than many of us would like but I think the changes have been real.  

 

I certainly don’t want to elect a Republican President next year and find out if I’m right.

 

 

FDO