Go Back to 'Doing Nothing'
What is this infernal Congress thing up to? It's fine that there is some sort of general budget agreement--something is better than nothing--though there seems to be a lot randomness in what's in and what's out (I'm sure it's not random, but a function of who's paid their subscriptions to key members' ears). It didn't solve any of the heated political issues like the Farm Bill (and associated food stamps for the poor), the extension of unemployment insurance, and the upcoming debt ceiling.
What? How can the Republican leadership line up for a budget and then say they don't agree to the increase in the debt that flows directly from the spending? I think--I hope--if they try to pull this nonsense again that President Obama is going to have a nice political bombshell waiting for them. Something like, "Forget the statutory debt limit--we're spending the authorized amounts. Do something about it, if you think you can." My assessment is: They can't, and President Obama should be fully aware of that by now.
And while I'm ranting about Congress, I have to focus directly on the Senate--and particularly on certain middle-Atlantic Democratic Senators--who have combined with a bunch of Republicans to take it upon themselves to make foreign policy--bad foreign policy--with regard to Iran. They say the bill is designed to make sure Iran follows through on its responsibilities in the interim agreement (it is already doing so) and force its hand in the general negotiations on reduction of forces, but they have an exaggerated and distorted view of both the US' economic and poliical influence on Iranian domestic politics and how to conduct a negotiation. One could say they are being the "bad cops" in order to allow President Obama to "good cop" a deal, but the whole idea around that concept is that it is supposed to be a cooperative effort. This is just political play-acting to show that they are more pro-Zionist than the Israelis. Speaking of Zionists....
Ariel Sharon
Sharon was indeed one of the nationalist Great Men, which, as I discussed with regard to Nelson Mandela recently, does not mean he was a good man (though, to be clear, Mandela was). So Twentieth Century, though. I basically said my piece and made my peace with him eight years ago, when he basically died--this was merely the cessation of bodily functions.
I will limit myself to saying this: they say he wanted to be remembered as a Man of Peace; he was not that at all. He was a warrior, and a leader of warriors, and an effective, calculating, brutal one at that. They say he might have been the guy who could have rammed through a peace deal, but it turned out he was not (whether he was just unlucky to have had his stroke at that time, or whether it was not going to happen, we will never know). Clearly his successors, Ehud Olmert of his party and Benyamin Netanyahu of the Likud, were not the people to complete the deal. Sharon's legacy is the stupid Wall between Israel and the Palestinians; my hope is that it crumbles or is torn down. Then, maybe, it will be time for him to rest in peace; his soul (if there is such) has no business doing so now.
Sports Report
I have no suitable transition, so this admission of ineptness will have to do.
It's hard to believe that the new pro tennis season has started already, with the Australian Open. The weather is outrageously hot (no "climate change" here, is there, deniers?) It will be just a test of fitness and stamina, so the number one question for the men's side is whether Novak Djokovic can hold up. He has had some problems in the past with the heat there, but his conditioning has gotten a lot better, aided by a gluten-free diet. On the women's side, the main question is whether it will be Azarenka or Sharapova who loses to Serena Williams in the final. My recommendation is that the tour change things around a little, give a longer warm-up period (maybe some optional East Asian tourneys?) and move the Aussie grand slam to March or April, when temperatures may be a bit more reasonable down under. Do it soon, like next year, hopefully not after some player collapses or dies from heat stroke.
Next: I think that NBC (and its owner, Comcast) is headed for a massive ratings disaster with the Winter Olympics that will begin soon. The latest is that they will not be doing free podcasts; you will have to pay to see it live, which will tick off the enthusiasts, of which there are precious few for the winter sports in the US.
I see nothing that will be both compelling and new for the rest of us potential mass-market viewers: Shaun White is competing, will be able to go after some new and different gold medals, but is tired of his nickname as the "Flying Tomato" (or "Il Pomodoro Volante", as he was called in Torino last Olympics--I love the sound of it, try saying it out loud). I say, oh yeah? Die your hair white (for camouflage), then. Lindsay Vonn (and her Tiger beau) will not be attending, or at least she will not be competing, due to injury; however, I'm guessing she will be paid incredible sums to do commentary there--I don't blame her at all, though. The US and Canadian hockey teams (men and women) will go to war again--all too familiar. Oh, no! Apollo will not be competing in the most bogus of the ballyhooed events, short-track speed skating. At least the Bob Costases of the massive US (broadcasting) team that will attend can phone in their reports from the relatively balmy lakeside Sochi headquarters instead of heading out into the trackless cold mountains.
Baseball has announced there will be two exhibition-games-that-count in Australia a week before Opening Day, an impressive willingness to bend all rules to create a publicity stunt. More intelligently, they have taken a page from the NFL and will allow managers to challenge two rulings per game (that's one per half) to go to the video tape. That's potentially four more long-form advertisements per game, as if the games weren't too long already; there will probably be some sort of make-up provision to reduce game time, borrowing from tennis, which will allow umpires to call a ball if the pitcher stands there too long on the mound, tugging on his cap and pulling up his jock.
What I saw today on this topic is that baseball's "neighborhood play", in which the second baseman turning a doubleplay makes a phantom move with his foot in the general neighborhood of second base before throwing to first (and often does not touch the base, as the rules would require), will not be reviewable, by request from the players' association. The reason is clear: The "neighborhood play" is the flip side of the baserunner charging in with spikes up, and this allowance will protect infielders from a certain amount of career-damaging injuries. I am sure that the umpires will be guided not to allow the infielders to take it too far--if they don't even move in the general direction, they will be permitted to call the baserunner "safe". I have to say that this was a good decision from a humanitarian point of view, as is the one about cutting down home-plate collisions. Yes, "baseball is getting soft", but it was never supposed to be football.
Finally, with regard to football, the NFL conference championship games (a little better transition): your intrepid previewer had three of the final four teams right (the fourth, the Saints, ended up having to play the Seattle Seahawks in the last round, so the pairings made it impossible). The team I overlooked, last year's Super Bowl runners-up (let's not call them losers) the SF 49'ers, are the Sweet Babboo crush of expert football analysts: they have a very exciting young quarterback, and a good defense, and some impressive playoff performances at their back. Seattle has all the above (except the playoff history), and they have home-field advantage, which the Seahawks, their noise-focusing and weather-funneling stadium design, and their frenzied fans, have made into their critical competitive edge. So, I'm going against the smart money and picking the home team.
Will Seattle get its first championship in any sport in thirty-some years? I would say it's unlikely: the Denver Broncos seem to be the team of destiny this year. Peyton Manning, who has had the greatest regular season in the history of quarterbacks this year, has willed and skilled his team to the top: it would be unjust if the Broncos were to lose, either to the Patriots this weekend or in the Super Bowl.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
The Great Privacy Debate Begins
If there is anything about which I have been insistent in this blog, it is the call to place the debate over what's private into the public arena. Until now, one of the worst aspects of the political performance of President Obama, both as candidate and as President, has been his lack of attention or initiative in this area, and I have criticized him frequently for it. I had reason to look for more from him, as constitutional scholar was one of his career specializations, prior to his electoral one.
I do have to thank Edward Snowden and his outing of the NSA's methods of high-tech espionage for finally launching this debate and bringing it into the public eye. I find it hard to consider Snowden a hero, this hired hand who took it upon himself to decide to break his oaths of secrecy; he doesn't quite qualify as a "whistleblower", in the legal sense which protects such activity, because the activities he revealed have been thoroughly vetted, albeit against extremely lax legal limitations. On the other hand, he's definitely been a whistleblower in the senses of a) blowing the whistle to signal the start of the game; and b) using the fricative (not "fricking") device to call attention to himself. And, again, his "revelations"--none of which were truly new and surprising, to those who've been paying attention--have performed a public service in focusing our attention on the subject.
That being said, making the issue all about the NSA is a bit misplaced, I think. There was clearly an abuse of the quietly-granted prerogatives the organization got from Congress and the Courts, and the simple public disclosure of their methods probably invalidates those recent ones (though they would be able to find new ones). Then there is the reform that is now going to be forthcoming. In that sense, debate is tardy: the fix is already in. President Obama commissioned a group of four experts on the subject, and they produced a report with 46 unanimously-agreed measures. They understood very clearly that there are times when information must be obtained for reasons of security, but that expectations under normal circumstances should be that the government not snoop around in people's business without reason, exactly the principle I have been proposing for years. I expect Obama will be announcing very soon that he will be putting virtually all of the recommendations into place--they are basically within the realm of Executive Branch discretion.
I would say the most important provision will be the naming of a public advocate to argue, at the appropriate times, against warrants for privacy invasions at the FISA court that has been until now a rubber stamp, if not bypassed entirely. This advocate will need to be a strong individual with a proven regard for the protection of the public's privacy interest, comparable to the way Elizabeth Warren or Richard Cordray were for the newly-created role as consumer advocate in financial dealings, and that quality will need to be sustained over time. This last will be the hard part, as the historical tendency is for such roles to be co-opted by the power centers. One other notable recommendation is some attempt to restrict the snooping on data flows outside the US, whether or not they involve Americans; this is WORSP-behavior at its worst.
My hope is that this will be the beginning, not the end, of a vigorous public discussion of what activities, by which people, should be left out of the public eye (and the private eye), and when something that someone does is legitimate grist for the public mill. The media today is a gluttonous shark, which smells sweet new blood, munches furiously, spitting out the bones, then darts off for new prey. With Warhol's prediction coming partly to fruition, of brief celebrity for many (not all, yet), this is leaving a lot of casualties and not providing much cultural nutrition.
I do have to thank Edward Snowden and his outing of the NSA's methods of high-tech espionage for finally launching this debate and bringing it into the public eye. I find it hard to consider Snowden a hero, this hired hand who took it upon himself to decide to break his oaths of secrecy; he doesn't quite qualify as a "whistleblower", in the legal sense which protects such activity, because the activities he revealed have been thoroughly vetted, albeit against extremely lax legal limitations. On the other hand, he's definitely been a whistleblower in the senses of a) blowing the whistle to signal the start of the game; and b) using the fricative (not "fricking") device to call attention to himself. And, again, his "revelations"--none of which were truly new and surprising, to those who've been paying attention--have performed a public service in focusing our attention on the subject.
That being said, making the issue all about the NSA is a bit misplaced, I think. There was clearly an abuse of the quietly-granted prerogatives the organization got from Congress and the Courts, and the simple public disclosure of their methods probably invalidates those recent ones (though they would be able to find new ones). Then there is the reform that is now going to be forthcoming. In that sense, debate is tardy: the fix is already in. President Obama commissioned a group of four experts on the subject, and they produced a report with 46 unanimously-agreed measures. They understood very clearly that there are times when information must be obtained for reasons of security, but that expectations under normal circumstances should be that the government not snoop around in people's business without reason, exactly the principle I have been proposing for years. I expect Obama will be announcing very soon that he will be putting virtually all of the recommendations into place--they are basically within the realm of Executive Branch discretion.
I would say the most important provision will be the naming of a public advocate to argue, at the appropriate times, against warrants for privacy invasions at the FISA court that has been until now a rubber stamp, if not bypassed entirely. This advocate will need to be a strong individual with a proven regard for the protection of the public's privacy interest, comparable to the way Elizabeth Warren or Richard Cordray were for the newly-created role as consumer advocate in financial dealings, and that quality will need to be sustained over time. This last will be the hard part, as the historical tendency is for such roles to be co-opted by the power centers. One other notable recommendation is some attempt to restrict the snooping on data flows outside the US, whether or not they involve Americans; this is WORSP-behavior at its worst.
My hope is that this will be the beginning, not the end, of a vigorous public discussion of what activities, by which people, should be left out of the public eye (and the private eye), and when something that someone does is legitimate grist for the public mill. The media today is a gluttonous shark, which smells sweet new blood, munches furiously, spitting out the bones, then darts off for new prey. With Warhol's prediction coming partly to fruition, of brief celebrity for many (not all, yet), this is leaving a lot of casualties and not providing much cultural nutrition.
Friday, January 10, 2014
2014 General Political Preview: US
Unlike 2013, a phony election year which led to broad, mistaken conclusions about the body politic and enormous efforts to raise money for a very small number of races, 2014 is a real election. One-third of the Senate, all the House, and a whole lot of state governors' races are being contested this year.
CNN had an interesting poll recently in which they asked the voters who had more to fear from the 2014 elections. 33% of respondents said the Republicans; 19% said the Democrats; but the plurality (48%) was that the party that had the most to fear was The Voters. I think they had it almost right, as the Democrats have as much to fear as the Republicans from 2014, but mostly we recognize that we are going to be bombarded with solicitations, ads, a lot of baloney, and not much to show for it.The 2012 election's results led to a lot of people saying, "elections have consequences"; those consequences were not fully apparent last year, and I'm not sure about 2014, either. Similarly, this election will have a lot of hullabaloo--mostly about the "do-nothing Congress" and the contrarian point of view that inertia is a Good Thing--and an endless series of fund-raising efforts, but the fear I share with those who selected The Voters is that the consequences may be vanishingly slight.
Nevertheless, the risks that are present with this year's balloting, and the attention it will draw, suggest that I should go out on the limb--once again--and tell my dear reader what s/he should be listening and looking for in this year's cacophony, and what one can predict about the likely outcomes. Today, we address the issues that are going to be salient; in a post in the near future, we will get down to cases.
Issues: It's not the Stupid Economy
Of course people will always vote their pocketbooks to some extent--whether they perceive their economic interests accurately and vote them effectively, that's another matter. As the vast money raised and blown on the Romney campaign in 2012 showed, even the big-money contributors are having a hard time getting what they want out of their freely-donated "speech".
This year, though, I can't see either party making a trenchant economic argument that will move voters, absent a sudden collapse of some kind--and I don't think even a bursting Wall Street bubble would qualify, unless accompanied by a more general unraveling. A lot of people would be glad to see those wolves and parasites (those people's view; not wholly mine) down on the same level with the rest of "us". The economy isn't doing that badly, after all. Fifth year of sustained growth, unemployment down to new normal levels, inflation very low, interest rates low--sorry, I can't agree with the nay-sayers on either side of the aisle. The new Fed chair-pilot Janet Yellen seems to have worked out the glide path with outgoing chair Bernanke and the plan is for a seamless transition toward autopilot and cruise control. There are issues that will have economic ramifications, but I think those are secondary for them--they are primarily social issues.
My view is that healthcare will not be the hot issue in 2014 that some think, fear, or hope. The Republicans got their mileage from it, but the program is not going to be stopped, and the Democrats--if they have any sense--will stop short of accepting comprehensive ownership of the whole mess and stick to what the Affordable Care Act actually does and does not do.
Neither will the Republicans be able to make any more hay about the budget deficit this year. President Obama has essentially fulfilled his promise to reduce the budget deficit by half and the current deficit is not in itself a problem. There is a problem, but it is a long-term one, and it will not be addressed honestly this year by either party. The failure of the government shutdown effort has dampened Republican enthusiasm for mud-wrestling on the deficit and the debt ceiling, and just in time for their chances this year, I'd say.
Return of the Social to the Media
So, what is there that will get people excited? I think there are a few social issues that have gotten people's attention in recent months and upon which politicians may be forced to take positions.
First, it is evident that the recent flood of states that have moved to legalize same-sex marriage has raised it as a topic that will remain current for 2014. Those states that came out forcefully and made popular-backed changes may have moved on, but there are several states where the outcome is still conflicted, and there are still more in which the issue has only begun to rise. Then there is the federal question, whether the marriages of one state should, or must, be recognized by others--my understanding is that same-sex marriages do not yet have that federal cross-border protection. The momentum for the movement to allow same-sex marriage remains strong, and the reaction is regrouping, so there will be some relatively hot clashes in the near future.
Next, there has been a creeping anti-abortion movement which has obtained success in several states by making access to abortions difficult. Limitations around the term of the pregnancy, reducing the doctors or clinics that can perform them, putting onerous hurdles in the way of those seeking them (your ultrasounds, permission slips, required re-educational programs, etc.) are having an effect, and there is a majority on the Supreme Court--with all of swing Justice Kennedy's temporizing--that can only be watching all this with concern. Whether or not SCOTUS takes some action this year--and I'd bet against--I think the activists on both sides of this issue will be pumping hard for contributions and working the candidates to take stands, particularly in contested state gubernatorial and legislative elections. I think it will be the central issue in the Texas governor's race, for example, and could spark a surprising result if Democratic candidate Wendy Davis, who came to national view in filibustering abortion restrictions in the state legislature, can mobilize national support and Texas women and minorities. Someday it will happen, if not in 2014, and it will make a dramatic change in the political landscape when it does.
Then there is the Herbal Liberation Front--the strengthening movement for decriminalization of marijuana. Despite major victories in a couple of states, the definitive success of the effort is far from secure; with the current status, a new administration could legally decide to crack down on legalized distribution in those states--both for personal and for medicinal use--and we would be back to Square Zero. (and I do mean Square!) As I argued recently, the key initiative--one which will not pass in this Congress--will be a Federal protection for states to take the measures they choose to liberalize possession, or not. Candidates for Congress will, and should be expected to, take positions on this issue, and those positions may have consequences. Further, there will undoubtedly be new state initiatives on ballots in 2014, which will keep attention on the issue regardless of Congressional candidates' reluctance to antagonize either pro-pot libertines and libertarians or anti-pot reactionaries. My priority on this will be to express continuing solidarity with the experiment of Colorado and Washington and protect it from ridicule or Federal intrusion.
Finally, there is the growing inequality of income and wealth in the country, which is really a social issue with economic implications, and what can and should be done about that inequality. The fact that the economy's growth is all going to relatively few would not be so bad, if they were spending it in ways that were perceived, or actually, helping the rest. The Democrats are hoping that they can use empathy for the less fortunate as a wedge issue to either embarrass Republicans or pressure them to pass things they don't like, like unemployment insurance, food stamps, or an increase in the minimum wage. I would predict the results will be: embarrassment--yes; unemployment insurance extension - no (!); food stamps--yes; minimum wage--no.
I do think that 2014 will see a renewal of debate about taxation, which from a long-term point of view is really the way to address this issue. President Obama will look to accomplish something in this area, probably in the next Congress, but the debate this year may begin to frame the possible outcome. It's early to predict how that will come out, but I could envision a compromise solution which involves both more progressive and less progressive taxation: raising the income limits substantially (or eliminating them) for the (regressive) Social Security contribution, lowering the top tax rates on the basic income tax, but removing enough deductions to make general tax revenues neutral (or slightly higher). I could also see a trade-off with the special low tax rate for capital gains ending in exchange for lower corporate tax rates. With this logic, the debate will focus on the types of deductions to be removed, and this will up the ante for those special interests who need to protect theirs. I can see both parties goading the lobbyists to put down PAC money by raising this threat.
Is It Safe Out There?
There are two topics that are generally discounted, but I think could emerge as major issues in the 2014 elections. I will say first, that I hope these two emerge, because they are debates that we need; second, I would bet that they would, but only if I am given generous odds.
The first is a new, post-GWOT (Global War on Terror) debate on security, military spending, and foreign policy. I think President Obama is ready to allow this one to come forward and not try to snuff it out with some sort of demagogic, flag-waving artificial scare tactics, which is usually the case.
I am hoping that the issue will not arise because of some tragic incident, and I'm definitely putting the advice out there to beef up security at all our embassies, consulates, and other outposts on September 11, 2014, especially anywhere in the Middle East. We should take a couple of divisions that are being removed from Afghanistan, send home the veterans, but keep the units in the region, and parcel out the new recruits to these locations. The contrary argument--bring everybody home--will be a popular one, but it is unwise, and I don't think it will be adopted.
Afghanistan itself will present an issue, with this proposed Security Agreement that would potentially keep American troops on the ground there for 10 more years (albeit in reduced numbers). This is unpopular in the extreme at home, and it's likely to be an unsettled issue in Afghanistan itself until after the elections there: will the new President want us there--as a tripwire to help prevent a collapse--or will he want us out in order to remove an obstacle to a possible peace agreement? And how will we feel about that, when the new President makes a deal and lets the Taliban back into controlling Kandahar? About how we feel about letting the Sunni militants take back Fallujah (as they just did), I'd say.
Then there are all the other countries in the Middle East and the security issues--about one or two per country. I don't think Iran and its nuclear program will be the hot button this year, but their involvement in the scraps in Syria and Lebanon could be. Then there is Israel, and the Palestinians, and their respective inclinations to pretend to make a deal, and the Egyptians who are thumbing their nose at us, and the Libyans who are thumbing their nose, and the Saudis who feel unwanted.....it will be surprising if there is not an urgent security crisis of some kind in the Middle East this fall that will draw our attention.
The Meta-Election
You saw the term here first: this is the second issue that I am hoping will surprise and emerge. I think there's a good chance that a huge portion of this year's electoral dialogue could be about the nature of our elections themselves, as we conduct them today, and the Cost of Bad Quality associated with them. One way this could come forward would be through a series of "third-party" independents of left (Democratic dissidents), center (moderate Republicans), and right (Tea Partyists) who make serious bids for office challenging the two major-party candidates. An even more helpful development would be a debate about the ridiculous amounts of money being spent, and what would be required to scale back the fund-raising arms race.
At the end of 2013, I was receiving about fifty emails a day from various party fundraising groups and individual candidates, all trying to convince me that I really needed to give them money so that they could meet some arbitrary year-end fundraising goal. With one exception, Lois Frankel, who is trying to pre-empt a return run by Allen West in her district (anything to keep him out of the limelight), I did not give to any of them--what's the point, really? Do they really think that showing that they can raise a bunch of money quickly from out-of-state contributors is going to inhibit their opponents from running, or raising money? Giving only encourages them, at this point.
I think that people are about fed up with the current electoral system, and a recent poll suggested they are ready to look at wholesale change. So, what is needed to change? A couple of constitutional amendments, the way I see it. One would be to specify that corporations (or special-purpose vehicles, limited liability companies, non-profit organizations) have certain rights and responsibilities, but that they are not the same as those for individuals. A second one would be to eliminate the Electoral College and select the President through the popular vote. I also think it's time to bring forward the idea that we should have the President serve one six-year term: I am convinced there will never be another President who has a successful second term (the last was Eisenhower, I guess).
Another aspect of this meta-election concept is the whole question of access to the voting booths, with the Democrats driving to make it simpler and the Republicans seeking to obstruct the masses. We can expect the volume level on "voter fraud/voter suppression" to rise dramatically as the election approaches, as turnout will be a make-or-break issue for the Democrats. Particularly it concerns access for the minority voters, and this is what the Congressional block on immigration reform is all about: trying to impede the growth of Hispanic voting power for the long run. That is why the piecemeal approach of the House to the issue this year will include more visas for professionals and will look to reduce conflict about deportation, but it will not grant a path to future citizenship for the undocumented.
This bring us to the bottom line: the main issue which will be resolved in the 2014 elections will be the political careers of those who are running. I will address their concerns in a future post.
In the meantime, let me give one more plug to Nate Silver, the proven colossus of sound statistical analysis for use in predicting electoral outcomes Nate has packed up from the New York Times (and they have left 538.com to be bought up by some silly Chinese merch site--don't go there!) and moved to ESPN. He has been recruiting additional editorial talent and will be starting a site there (I think it will be called "FiveThirtyEight", though I hope that reference to the Electoral college will become obsolete soon)--in the meantime,ESPN's blog Grantland has provided him a temporary home when he gets the chance to post, as he did here about the shutown.
CNN had an interesting poll recently in which they asked the voters who had more to fear from the 2014 elections. 33% of respondents said the Republicans; 19% said the Democrats; but the plurality (48%) was that the party that had the most to fear was The Voters. I think they had it almost right, as the Democrats have as much to fear as the Republicans from 2014, but mostly we recognize that we are going to be bombarded with solicitations, ads, a lot of baloney, and not much to show for it.The 2012 election's results led to a lot of people saying, "elections have consequences"; those consequences were not fully apparent last year, and I'm not sure about 2014, either. Similarly, this election will have a lot of hullabaloo--mostly about the "do-nothing Congress" and the contrarian point of view that inertia is a Good Thing--and an endless series of fund-raising efforts, but the fear I share with those who selected The Voters is that the consequences may be vanishingly slight.
Nevertheless, the risks that are present with this year's balloting, and the attention it will draw, suggest that I should go out on the limb--once again--and tell my dear reader what s/he should be listening and looking for in this year's cacophony, and what one can predict about the likely outcomes. Today, we address the issues that are going to be salient; in a post in the near future, we will get down to cases.
Issues: It's not the Stupid Economy
Of course people will always vote their pocketbooks to some extent--whether they perceive their economic interests accurately and vote them effectively, that's another matter. As the vast money raised and blown on the Romney campaign in 2012 showed, even the big-money contributors are having a hard time getting what they want out of their freely-donated "speech".
This year, though, I can't see either party making a trenchant economic argument that will move voters, absent a sudden collapse of some kind--and I don't think even a bursting Wall Street bubble would qualify, unless accompanied by a more general unraveling. A lot of people would be glad to see those wolves and parasites (those people's view; not wholly mine) down on the same level with the rest of "us". The economy isn't doing that badly, after all. Fifth year of sustained growth, unemployment down to new normal levels, inflation very low, interest rates low--sorry, I can't agree with the nay-sayers on either side of the aisle. The new Fed chair-pilot Janet Yellen seems to have worked out the glide path with outgoing chair Bernanke and the plan is for a seamless transition toward autopilot and cruise control. There are issues that will have economic ramifications, but I think those are secondary for them--they are primarily social issues.
My view is that healthcare will not be the hot issue in 2014 that some think, fear, or hope. The Republicans got their mileage from it, but the program is not going to be stopped, and the Democrats--if they have any sense--will stop short of accepting comprehensive ownership of the whole mess and stick to what the Affordable Care Act actually does and does not do.
Neither will the Republicans be able to make any more hay about the budget deficit this year. President Obama has essentially fulfilled his promise to reduce the budget deficit by half and the current deficit is not in itself a problem. There is a problem, but it is a long-term one, and it will not be addressed honestly this year by either party. The failure of the government shutdown effort has dampened Republican enthusiasm for mud-wrestling on the deficit and the debt ceiling, and just in time for their chances this year, I'd say.
Return of the Social to the Media
So, what is there that will get people excited? I think there are a few social issues that have gotten people's attention in recent months and upon which politicians may be forced to take positions.
First, it is evident that the recent flood of states that have moved to legalize same-sex marriage has raised it as a topic that will remain current for 2014. Those states that came out forcefully and made popular-backed changes may have moved on, but there are several states where the outcome is still conflicted, and there are still more in which the issue has only begun to rise. Then there is the federal question, whether the marriages of one state should, or must, be recognized by others--my understanding is that same-sex marriages do not yet have that federal cross-border protection. The momentum for the movement to allow same-sex marriage remains strong, and the reaction is regrouping, so there will be some relatively hot clashes in the near future.
Next, there has been a creeping anti-abortion movement which has obtained success in several states by making access to abortions difficult. Limitations around the term of the pregnancy, reducing the doctors or clinics that can perform them, putting onerous hurdles in the way of those seeking them (your ultrasounds, permission slips, required re-educational programs, etc.) are having an effect, and there is a majority on the Supreme Court--with all of swing Justice Kennedy's temporizing--that can only be watching all this with concern. Whether or not SCOTUS takes some action this year--and I'd bet against--I think the activists on both sides of this issue will be pumping hard for contributions and working the candidates to take stands, particularly in contested state gubernatorial and legislative elections. I think it will be the central issue in the Texas governor's race, for example, and could spark a surprising result if Democratic candidate Wendy Davis, who came to national view in filibustering abortion restrictions in the state legislature, can mobilize national support and Texas women and minorities. Someday it will happen, if not in 2014, and it will make a dramatic change in the political landscape when it does.
Then there is the Herbal Liberation Front--the strengthening movement for decriminalization of marijuana. Despite major victories in a couple of states, the definitive success of the effort is far from secure; with the current status, a new administration could legally decide to crack down on legalized distribution in those states--both for personal and for medicinal use--and we would be back to Square Zero. (and I do mean Square!) As I argued recently, the key initiative--one which will not pass in this Congress--will be a Federal protection for states to take the measures they choose to liberalize possession, or not. Candidates for Congress will, and should be expected to, take positions on this issue, and those positions may have consequences. Further, there will undoubtedly be new state initiatives on ballots in 2014, which will keep attention on the issue regardless of Congressional candidates' reluctance to antagonize either pro-pot libertines and libertarians or anti-pot reactionaries. My priority on this will be to express continuing solidarity with the experiment of Colorado and Washington and protect it from ridicule or Federal intrusion.
Finally, there is the growing inequality of income and wealth in the country, which is really a social issue with economic implications, and what can and should be done about that inequality. The fact that the economy's growth is all going to relatively few would not be so bad, if they were spending it in ways that were perceived, or actually, helping the rest. The Democrats are hoping that they can use empathy for the less fortunate as a wedge issue to either embarrass Republicans or pressure them to pass things they don't like, like unemployment insurance, food stamps, or an increase in the minimum wage. I would predict the results will be: embarrassment--yes; unemployment insurance extension - no (!); food stamps--yes; minimum wage--no.
I do think that 2014 will see a renewal of debate about taxation, which from a long-term point of view is really the way to address this issue. President Obama will look to accomplish something in this area, probably in the next Congress, but the debate this year may begin to frame the possible outcome. It's early to predict how that will come out, but I could envision a compromise solution which involves both more progressive and less progressive taxation: raising the income limits substantially (or eliminating them) for the (regressive) Social Security contribution, lowering the top tax rates on the basic income tax, but removing enough deductions to make general tax revenues neutral (or slightly higher). I could also see a trade-off with the special low tax rate for capital gains ending in exchange for lower corporate tax rates. With this logic, the debate will focus on the types of deductions to be removed, and this will up the ante for those special interests who need to protect theirs. I can see both parties goading the lobbyists to put down PAC money by raising this threat.
Is It Safe Out There?
There are two topics that are generally discounted, but I think could emerge as major issues in the 2014 elections. I will say first, that I hope these two emerge, because they are debates that we need; second, I would bet that they would, but only if I am given generous odds.
The first is a new, post-GWOT (Global War on Terror) debate on security, military spending, and foreign policy. I think President Obama is ready to allow this one to come forward and not try to snuff it out with some sort of demagogic, flag-waving artificial scare tactics, which is usually the case.
I am hoping that the issue will not arise because of some tragic incident, and I'm definitely putting the advice out there to beef up security at all our embassies, consulates, and other outposts on September 11, 2014, especially anywhere in the Middle East. We should take a couple of divisions that are being removed from Afghanistan, send home the veterans, but keep the units in the region, and parcel out the new recruits to these locations. The contrary argument--bring everybody home--will be a popular one, but it is unwise, and I don't think it will be adopted.
Afghanistan itself will present an issue, with this proposed Security Agreement that would potentially keep American troops on the ground there for 10 more years (albeit in reduced numbers). This is unpopular in the extreme at home, and it's likely to be an unsettled issue in Afghanistan itself until after the elections there: will the new President want us there--as a tripwire to help prevent a collapse--or will he want us out in order to remove an obstacle to a possible peace agreement? And how will we feel about that, when the new President makes a deal and lets the Taliban back into controlling Kandahar? About how we feel about letting the Sunni militants take back Fallujah (as they just did), I'd say.
Then there are all the other countries in the Middle East and the security issues--about one or two per country. I don't think Iran and its nuclear program will be the hot button this year, but their involvement in the scraps in Syria and Lebanon could be. Then there is Israel, and the Palestinians, and their respective inclinations to pretend to make a deal, and the Egyptians who are thumbing their nose at us, and the Libyans who are thumbing their nose, and the Saudis who feel unwanted.....it will be surprising if there is not an urgent security crisis of some kind in the Middle East this fall that will draw our attention.
The Meta-Election
You saw the term here first: this is the second issue that I am hoping will surprise and emerge. I think there's a good chance that a huge portion of this year's electoral dialogue could be about the nature of our elections themselves, as we conduct them today, and the Cost of Bad Quality associated with them. One way this could come forward would be through a series of "third-party" independents of left (Democratic dissidents), center (moderate Republicans), and right (Tea Partyists) who make serious bids for office challenging the two major-party candidates. An even more helpful development would be a debate about the ridiculous amounts of money being spent, and what would be required to scale back the fund-raising arms race.
At the end of 2013, I was receiving about fifty emails a day from various party fundraising groups and individual candidates, all trying to convince me that I really needed to give them money so that they could meet some arbitrary year-end fundraising goal. With one exception, Lois Frankel, who is trying to pre-empt a return run by Allen West in her district (anything to keep him out of the limelight), I did not give to any of them--what's the point, really? Do they really think that showing that they can raise a bunch of money quickly from out-of-state contributors is going to inhibit their opponents from running, or raising money? Giving only encourages them, at this point.
I think that people are about fed up with the current electoral system, and a recent poll suggested they are ready to look at wholesale change. So, what is needed to change? A couple of constitutional amendments, the way I see it. One would be to specify that corporations (or special-purpose vehicles, limited liability companies, non-profit organizations) have certain rights and responsibilities, but that they are not the same as those for individuals. A second one would be to eliminate the Electoral College and select the President through the popular vote. I also think it's time to bring forward the idea that we should have the President serve one six-year term: I am convinced there will never be another President who has a successful second term (the last was Eisenhower, I guess).
Another aspect of this meta-election concept is the whole question of access to the voting booths, with the Democrats driving to make it simpler and the Republicans seeking to obstruct the masses. We can expect the volume level on "voter fraud/voter suppression" to rise dramatically as the election approaches, as turnout will be a make-or-break issue for the Democrats. Particularly it concerns access for the minority voters, and this is what the Congressional block on immigration reform is all about: trying to impede the growth of Hispanic voting power for the long run. That is why the piecemeal approach of the House to the issue this year will include more visas for professionals and will look to reduce conflict about deportation, but it will not grant a path to future citizenship for the undocumented.
This bring us to the bottom line: the main issue which will be resolved in the 2014 elections will be the political careers of those who are running. I will address their concerns in a future post.
In the meantime, let me give one more plug to Nate Silver, the proven colossus of sound statistical analysis for use in predicting electoral outcomes Nate has packed up from the New York Times (and they have left 538.com to be bought up by some silly Chinese merch site--don't go there!) and moved to ESPN. He has been recruiting additional editorial talent and will be starting a site there (I think it will be called "FiveThirtyEight", though I hope that reference to the Electoral college will become obsolete soon)--in the meantime,ESPN's blog Grantland has provided him a temporary home when he gets the chance to post, as he did here about the shutown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
