Let's Start Project 2012

An office colleague and I have engaged in an ongoing debate about the merits of political bosses from the pre-Watergate era over the current system. We’ll call him Buck. Buck’s a generation older than me, fought in Vietnam and describes himself as a “political agnostic.”

He’s not a liberal and politically incorrect is an understatement to describe Buck. Buck is a foul-mouthed renaissance man and delightfully entertaining. He would make a terrific blogger! Buck is vehemently opposed to the policies of the Bush Administration and nostalgic for the era of smoke filled rooms.

As an unapologetic liberal, I champion an open process that elevates people over elites selecting our leaders. Buck considers me an impractical idealist and argues that during the era of party bosses an unfit person such as George W. Bush could never have become president. I counter that elites from such an era were overly devoted to the status quo. Buck retorts that it took smoke filled room masters such as LBJ to pass civil rights legislation and Nixon to open diplomatic relations with China. I return fire and indict both presidents as warmongers who subverted the Constitution. And we’ll keep going back and forth.

As much as it pains me to admit it, I’m forced to acknowledge the era of smoke filled rooms was superior to the system we have now. At least candidates for president were vetted for their intelligence and capability to some degree in those days. Now it’s all about style, sound bites and raising money to compete in an obscene frontloaded primary schedule. Think of it this way: does anyone believe Harry Truman could’ve raised enough money to compete with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama under the current system? That said, I do not advocate a return to the era of party bosses selecting presidential nominees while smoking cigars.

Instead, I’d like to see a grass roots movement pressuring both parties to adopt the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) proposal promoting four regional primaries in 2012. Frankly, I’m more passionate about that cause then the current crop of presidential candidates in either party and believe it’s necessary for our democracy’s salvation.

The concept proposed by NASS is rather simple. Tradition is respected and both Iowa and New Hampshire are allowed to go one-two as before. The remaining forty-eight states would participate in four regional primaries. Every four years the order these primaries are held will rotate.

NASS’s proposal offers numerous benefits. First and foremost, every state has an opportunity to influence the outcome. As a New Yorker, I’ve long resented how my home state with its large population and diversity has mattered so little in selecting major party nominees for the White House. And if New York moves up their primary date to increase its influence and benefit Guiliani and Clinton, the process will be debased even more. A rotating regional primary schedule eliminates the need for states to move up on the calendar right behind Iowa and New Hampshire.

Another benefit is more time for candidates to be properly vetted and compete on a platform of ideas. The compressed schedule we currently have discourages exchanges about substance and instead facilitates “horserace” coverage. With both parties effectively selecting their nominees in February 2008, substantive debates about important issues won’t take place when voters are paying attention. The candidates will be debating at forums for contests deciding their party’s nomination in early 2008 this year.

Regional primaries will both shorten and lengthen the presidential campaign. Currently, the campaign to become a major party nominee starts a year too early and ends too quickly. NASS’s proposal will allow candidates to begin campaigning in the latter part of 2011. With the primary struggles extended, there will be more time to scrutinize policy distinctions among the candidates and assess their respective temperaments under pressure.

Most importantly, winning won’t be contingent upon which candidate can purchase the most airtime in a bloc of large states. Suppose New York joins New Jersey and California in moving its primary date up to February 5th? That means a candidate would have to get their message out through aid buys in the three biggest media markets in the country on the same day. What chance would a worthy underdog have?

I had hoped Russ Feingold would seek higher office. I’m now relieved he didn’t. This champion of public financing would’ve had no choice but to opt out of the public finance system to have any hope. Internet/netroots fundraising by itself would not have been enough to keep him competitive and I doubt he could've tapped into other donors sufficiently.

Finally, I believe adopting NASS’s proposals would generate more interest among the public and increase voter turnout. As Howard Dean has previously said, he’d rather have 100% turnout and lose because ultimately it means a healthier democracy.

While my preference is for both parties to participate, I don’t believe Republicans could be persuaded to make the first leap. Hence, I’m hoping activists inside the Democratic Party can successfully pressure the donkeys to give in. Why not pressure Democratic candidates for president this year to adopt NASS’s proposals in 2012 should they become their party’s nominee? Hell, lets make it part of the platform.

Democratic Party insiders shiver at the thought of real competition. They’re under the misconception that the strongest party unifies behind a candidate in February. In their timid hearts, Democrats still competing while Republicans rally behind a nominee means automatic defeat.

I say just the opposite is true. Let’s put capitalism in our politics and embrace competition. If Democrats adopt these rules and the GOP doesn’t, the public will pay far more attention to the Democrats and be more inclined to vote for their nominee in November. Furthermore, Democrats will become more identified with electoral reform and perceived as the party that believes in elevating the people's voice over corporate insiders . It would demonstrate a powerful contrast with the Republicans and might further expand the Democratic Party base among independents.

If I’m right, the GOP will be compelled to follow in 2016 out of self-interest to remain competitive. Buck will no doubt accuse me of naïve idealism. And I’ll counter that idealism is required to salvage our democracy. For damn sure our salvation will not come from obsessing over whether Obama or Clinton have the upper hand for Hollywood’s money. Let's start Project 2012.

Irony and Death

Liberal activists such as myself resent the Bush Administration’s cynical exploitation of fear. Bush and his enablers in the Republican Party have utilized fear to justify an immoral and unnecessary war in Iraq. A cabal of reckless warmongers and profiteers undermined our moral authority and geopolitical position. Even worse, while the Bush Administration was busy hyping the strategic importance of Iraq, Al Quaeda reconstituted itself. America is in great danger as a result.

Frank Rich is a liberal columnist not prone to exaggeration or fear mongering. In his most recent New York Times column, Rich noted how the CIA’s former head of the Bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer told MSNB’s Keith Olberman, that Al Quaeda,

“are going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States.”

I believe him. Tactical nuclear weapons are quite obtainable and these fanatics believe mass murder serves a higher purpose. Such warnings resemble the intelligence community's desperate attempt getting both Presidents Clinton and Bush to pay attention to the threat of an Al Quaeda attack prior to 9/11. Clinton was properly engaged but hamstrung politically following the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Bush wasn't even stirred by that infamously straightforward memo of August 2001.

Immediately after 9/11, I debated my fellow liberal friends about the merits of toppling the Taliban government in Afghanistan because of their support for Al Quaeda. I found myself in the unusual position of justifying a military response. The loss of innocent life utterly sickened me but there was no way we couldn’t respond. My problem was I didn’t trust an administration stocked with corporatist ideologues and imperialists.

As we’ve seen, the Bush Administration’s obsession with Iraq has facilitated
Al Quaeda's resurgence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s bitterly ironic how Vice President Cheney’s meeting with Pakistan’s President Musharraf earlier today, featured a suicide bomber targeting him. The sort of terrorists the Bush Administration opted to neglect signaled they’re very much here by attempting to take our Vice President out.

The bomber killed 23 people instead. Much of the civilized world would not have grieved had Cheney been killed. Symbolically, today’s bombing was a propaganda bonanza for Al Quaeda.

It’s said that laughing is better than crying. How comically ironic that after letting Bin Laden escape in Tora Bora in December 2001, redirecting resources from Afghanistan to the Iraq theatre and giving Musharraf’s regime billions in aid, the Bush Administration finally decided to express displeasure at their ally in Islamabad. A useless exercise, because what can Musharraf effectively do without jeopardizing his own regime’s grip on power?

America’s enemies are ascending. Our veracity and moral legitimacy is not trusted by many of our western allies. Five and a half years after 9/11, we still haven’t developed a containment policy with the civilized world that provides a bulwark against radical Islam and empowers moderates. The “global war on terror” is perpetuating a treadmill of death with no end in sight.

January 20th, 2009 can’t get here soon enough. Hopefully, the next occupant of the White House won’t be a moron. Otherwise, the next attack may be far more catastrophic than two airplanes crashing into a building.

Child Poverty In the Developed World

An editorial in the March 12th edition of The Nation, (subscription required) noted that Great Britain and the United States have the worst quality of life in the developed world. They cite statistics in a new Unicef Report entitled, Child Poverty in Perspective: An Overview of Child Well-Being in Rich Countries.

Unicef's 52 page report makes for sobering reading. 21.7 percent of American children live in households that earn income less than half the national medium. American children rate poorly with infant mortality, low birth weight, early childbearing, family instability and child poverty. As The Nation’s Ruth Marcus reports in her fine article, “The Care Crisis,” these pitiful ratings are linked to the status of women..

I found the closing paragraph in The Nation’s editorial on Uncicef’s report especially pertinent:

“ That the two countries deemed to do the least for their own children are those that have led the war in Iraq is obvious. The reasons are less easy to pin down. One can talk about military as opposed to social spending; about pro-business, oil-driven economies; about the distractions of patriotism and the culture of aggression; about valuing the imperatives of power above the duty of care. But however one chooses to name it, the deep, intractable connection between military adventurism abroad and the neglect of needs at home has never been more starkly evident. The pity is that it's so difficult to fight the problem, so hard to focus on a pregnant teenager too scared to ask for help or a child hungry at school when the casualty figures from Baghdad demand our attention. The fog of war may be most blinding for the folks back home.”

I would add that if society is judged on how the very young and old fare, unfettered free market capitalism does not measure up. I’m not advocating across the board socialism in our society. But for profit health care is clearly a failure and the time has come to develop a new model. Hopefully, the 2008 presidential campaign facilitate the change we so urgently need.

Champagne, the Price of Beer and Presidential Politics

Campaign 2008 reminds me of something former New York Yankee and member of the baseball Hall of Fame, Yogi Berra once said: “It gets late early around here.” The jostling, pandering, fundraising and lying are well underway in both parties for the most wide-open presidential campaign in over a half-century. And it’s only February 2007.

Yet as we focus on individual candidates, their platforms, tactics and even how they look in a bathing suit, it’s instructive to contemplate what these campaigns say about our culture.

We yearn for candidates that lead because most tack to the prevailing winds. Candidates who pander too much are diminished and appear inauthentic. Conversely, candidates who are too far ahead of the curve, come across as out of touch, quixotic or simply too weird for the job.

Campaign 2000 illustrated how vapid America’s culture had become. Yes Al Gore was smart and capable but George Bush was more likable because he didn't come across as a "know it all." Gore was supposed to epitomize the self-aggrandizing politician while Bush talked straight. Gore was a man who needed to “reinvent” himself and Bush was a humble man comfortable in his own skin. So we put a plainspoken liar in the White House who opted to project an image of leadership through war.

Campaign 2004 illustrated a darker side of America’s culture as perception triumphed over reality. Bush who avoided serving in Vietnam represented strength, principled conviction, and toughness in a dangerous world. Vietnam War hero John Kerry was a vacillator who could not be trusted to protect Americans from terrorists.

Kerry was compelled to pander to a fear driven culture easily manipulated by a national security state and their enablers within the corporatist media. I cringed when Kerry boasted, “I’ve killed people in war … personally.” He was desperate to break through and did what it took. Hence, Kerry’s stature was easily diminished and once again a lesser man prevailed.

I realize one can quibble about the tactics of both Gore and Kerry in 2000 and 2004. Certainly, both candidates had their failings and made agonizing mistakes in their campaigns. As a volunteer in 2004 for example, I was infuriated at Kerry’s inability to respond to the Swift Boaters for Truth smear campaign. One woman I spoke to while phone banking during this period actually said to me, “It’s on TV so it must be true.”

Ultimately, failures in both campaigns can also be attributed to our culture at those moments in time. The character of those presidential contests was a reflection of our society. Similarly, 2008 will serve as a lens upon our society. One aspect of American culture I’ve often contemplated is our desire for Champagne at the price of beer. Perhaps it stems from our bargain-hunting consumer driven culture. In that regard I’m as guilty as anyone. Money is tight and I won’t overpay for pair of sneakers if I don’t have to.

Politicians reflect that aspect of our culture when they talk to us. We’re promised an empire without cost of blood or treasure and Americans buy in. Instead people die, taxpayers are ripped off and Americans are upset at being lied to. Would they I wonder have a moral problem with our military presence in Iraq if we were winning and the price of gas plummeted?

A country can’t be run on the cheap. Everything from healthcare, education, law enforcement, disaster planning and response, infrastructure development, a genuine energy policy and national security requires investment and a high caliber civil service. A generation of conservative rule has transformed our country into a backwards-19th century patronage mill and moneymaking machine for corporatist elites. We’ve seen the results: two mismanaged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hurricane Katrina, 47 million Americans without health insurance, the decaying rot at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the systematic erosion of the middle class.

I want to believe our culture is poised for a tipping point of truth, justice and accountability. The outcome in the midterm elections gave me some hope because good people such as Virginia Senator James Webb and Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison were elected. On the state level some fine governors such as my home state’s Eliot Spitzer are now in power. But it’s the 2008 presidential campaign that will serve as the real barometer for what our country is truly about now.

Can somebody win telling it like it is? Is the country genuinely prepared to accept that universal healthcare is more important than tax cuts? Can Americans be inspired to conserve and sacrifice as we tackle global warming and seek to become independent of foreign oil? Are Americans finally capable of grasping that true leadership does not stem from a paternalistic figure projecting infallibility at the expense of accountability? Is 2008 the year the American people signal they understand you can’t have Champagne for the price of beer?

I’m not sold on John Edwards for president just yet. I need to see and here from him more. His record on Iraq does still trouble me and I wonder whether his apology for supporting the war was simply about political expediency. Nevertheless, the success of his campaign, at least rhetorically, appears to be the best bellwether for my questions. And the sickening exchange between the Clinton and Obama camps over Hollywood money makes me want to hear from Edwards more.
*********************************************************************************
CORRECTION: In a crossposting on Daily Kos, a Kossack named "Beachmom" who also posted a comment here requested a link to my quoting John Kerry as saying, "I've killed people in war ... personally." I genuinely remember Kerry saying this during the 2004 campaign, repeating it and even reading about it. I recall cringing when he did so. Nonetheless, I can find no link on the Internet of Kerry saying those words. If the quote is not indexed in the major search engines then he obviously didn't say it. Perhaps I recall him saying something similar. Typically, I reference all quotes with links but in this instance relied on my memory only. Lesson learned. I am not above acknowledging my mistakes. I regret the error.

And Round One Goes To ... John Edwards

Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama engaged in political combat for the first time today. Maureen Dowd reported in her New York Times column that David Geffen, a Hollywood mogul and former ally of the Clintons is raising money for Senator Obama.

Geffen teamed with fellow Tinsle Town tycoons Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg yesterday to collect $1.3 million for Obama at a fundraising party. As Geffen noted, Dowd had harsh comments for the presumed Democratic frontrunner:

“Not since the Vietnam War has there been this level of disappointment in the behavior of America throughout the world, and I don’t think that another incredibly polarizing figure, no matter how smart she is and no matter how ambitious she is — and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton? — can bring the country together.”

On her Illinois rival Geffen said,

“Obama is inspirational, and he’s not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family. Americans are dying every day in Iraq. And I’m tired of hearing James Carville on television.”

For good measure he added,

“It’s not a very big thing to say, ‘I made a mistake’ on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can’t. She’s so advised by so many smart advisers who are covering every base. I think that America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms.”

I didn’t think much of Dowd’s column this morning. Geffen’s disenchantment with the Clintons is old news and it’s not suprising some donors are open to alternatives beyond restoring the Clintons to the throne. What really captured my attention was the heavy handed and ungraceful response from the Clinton campaign.

Communications Director Howard Wolfson made the Geffen fundraiser event bigger news with this comment,

“If Senator Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign and return his money.”

The response gives the impression of lacking grace under pressure and suggests the Clintons feel threatened. Successful politicians typically follow the tag line from the old deodorant commercial, “never let them see you sweat.” Bill Clinton was a master at the game. Today, Hillary Clinton's spokesman Howard Wolfson made her appear weak with his overreaction.

Wolfson has forgotten about more political skirmishes than most political operatives have participated in. His clumsy response however gave Obama Communications Director Robert Gibbs an easy rejoinder,

"It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom.”

Gibbs also gleefully pointed out that, Hillary Clinton had not condemned the comments of South Carolina state Sen. Robert Ford. Ford, a Clinton supporter. Ford claimed the Democratic ticket was "doomed" if Obama was the party's presidential candidate. Translation: Democrats better not nominate a black man.

While the Clinton camp came across as heavy handed and hypocritical, Senator Obama’s team kept their composure with a measured response. Tactically, Obama prevailed but the real winner is John Edwards.

It serves Edwards best to fly underneath the radar for a spell while Clinton and Obama trade punches. In 2004, Edwards found traction as Richard Gephardt and Howard Dean destroyed each other in Iowa while he remained sunny. Governor Bill Clinton valuted from third place to the presidency in 1992, when Ross Perot and the first President Bush hurled rhetorical grenades at each other. The future President proceeded to promote his “People First” agenda with specifics while Bush and Perot took each other out.

Similarly, Edwards is served by the Clintons focusing their guns on Obama. If it continues, Edwards can deliver his retooled populist message and keep himself above negative campaigning. Hillary Clinton comes off as shrill and insecure while Edwards appears comfortable about acknowledging error over Iraq and courageous in putting forward a specific plan for universal healthcare. And while Obama’s campaign was tactically efficient, their theme of a fresh politics above invective was knocked off message.

Hence, I give this first round to John Edwards. If there are many more rounds like today, Edwards will win Iowa. Sadly, while all this horse race positioning continues, more blood is being shed in Iraq and America’s geopolitical standing is deteriorating. And no candidate in either party is offering any solutions beyond platitudes.

Ask Your Boss For Free Drugs

Milt Freudenheim reports in the New York Times that some employers are finding it more cost effective to give their employees free drugs. His article, illustrates how much attitudes within the business community are changing regarding the rising cost of healthcare. As Freudenheim reports,

“For years, employers have been pushing their workers to pay more for health care raising premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses in an effort to save money for the company and force workers to seek only the most necessary care.

Now some employers are reversing course, convinced that their pennywise approach does not always reduce long-term costs. In the most radical of various moves, a number of employers are now giving away drugs to help workers manage chronic conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure, asthma and depression.

Major employers like Marriott International, Pitney Bowes, the carpet maker Mohawk Industries and Maine’s state government have introduced free drug programs to avoid paying for more expensive treatments down the road. Companies now recognize that ‘if you get people’s obesity down, cholesterol down asthma down, you save a lot of money,’ said Uwe E. Reinhardt, a health economist at Princeton University.“

Click here to read the article in its entirety. As the article is still fresh, a subscription may not be required.

Ultimately, the rising cost of healthcare can be attributed to corporatist blowback. Corporate interests have schemed with their enablers in Washington to shift as much burden of risk upon employees and individuals as possible. Terms such as the “free market,” “competition” and “medical savings accounts” were devised as pre-texts to sell the public on putting their collective head in a noose.

Well, it turns out that noose is also draped around the necks of both major corporations and small business. Hopefully, enlightened self-interest among the business community as well as politicians desire to remain in power, will finally result in universal healthcare. Remember Harry and Louise from those 1994 commercials against the Clinton healthcare plan? Well, they're getting older and the rising cost of medicine is cutting into their savings.

Kudos To Bill Kavanagh

Readers of this blog may recall I recently interviewed documentary filmmaker Bill Kavanagh, about his film, “Brick By Brick: A Civil Rights Story.” Kavanagh's documentary covered the trauma of desegregating Yonkers, New York from the perspective of the city residents who lived through it. Yesterday, Kavanagh's film was favorably reviewed in the New York Times. Hopefully, PBS will soon be persuaded to broadcast Kavanagh’s documentary nationally. In the meantime, I urge anyone who did not see the original broadcast to purchase a DVD of the film by clicking here.

A Stiff Dose of the Truth From Paul Krugman

With today’s post, I’ll simply defer to the wisdom of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. As usual, Krugman incisively captured the truth in his column today entitled, “Wrong Is Right.”

On the importance of admitting error:

“The experience of Bush-style governance, together with revulsion at the way Karl Rove turned refusal to admit error into a political principle, is the main reason those now-famous three words from Mr. Edwards — “I was wrong” — matter so much to the Democratic base. The base is remarkably forgiving toward Democrats who supported the war. But the base and, I believe, the country want someone in the White House who doesn’t sound like another George Bush. That is, they want someone who doesn’t suffer from an infallibility complex, who can admit mistakes and learn from them.

And there’s another reason the admission by Mr. Edwards that he was wrong is important. If we want to avoid future quagmires, we need a president who is willing to fight the inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom on foreign policy, which still — in spite of all that has happened — equates hawkishness with seriousness about national security, and treats those who got Iraq right as somehow unsound. By admitting his own error, Mr. Edwards makes it more credible that he would listen to a wider range of views.”

I would add that Edwards was shrewd to apologize for his support of the Iraq War in 2005. Senator Clinton however would appear to be insincere and pandering if she apologized at this point. That’s not necessarily fair because I believe Edwards’ initial support of the war and his later apology were both acts of political expediency over principle. Nonetheless, that’s the way it is.

Krugman had this gem about John McCain:

“Senator John McCain, whose reputation for straight talk is quickly getting bent out of shape, appears to share the Bush administration’s habit of rewriting history to preserve an appearance of infallibility.

Last month Senator McCain asserted that he knew full well what we were getting into by invading Iraq: 'When I voted to support this war,' Mr. McCain said on MSNBC, 'I knew it was probably going to be long and hard and tough, and those that voted for it and thought that somehow it was going to be some kind of an easy task, then I’m sorry they were mistaken.'

But back in September 2002, he told Larry King, ‘I believe that the operation will be relatively short,” and “I believe that the success will be fairly easy.””

Although Krugman’s primary focus was Senator Clinton’s current political position, I thought this anecdote about Rudy Guiliani was the best part of his column:

“Here’s an incident from 1997. When New York magazine placed ads on city buses declaring that the publication was ‘possibly the only good thing in New York Rudy hasn’t taken credit for,’ the then-mayor ordered the ads removed — and when a judge ordered the ads placed back on, he appealed the decision all the way up to the United States Supreme Court.

Now imagine how Mr. Giuliani would react on being told, say, that his choice to head Homeland Security is actually a crook. Oh, wait.”

When I contemplate the leadership qualities of Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Rudy Guiliani I want to cry for my country.