DemocratDad

What Will Happen If...

As we approach the end of October, anxiety levels are rising all over the world.

On the one hand... there's the world, worrying about the consequences of a possible Mitt Romney victory on November 6.

On the other hand, there are some 100 million or so Republican and Tea Party and Libertarian voters scattered across the United States, worrying about the prospect of the re-election of President Barack Obama.

Aside from our mutually rising anxiety levels, though, what are the actual stakes in this election? Both sides agree that it is the Most. Important. Ever. But what specifically are we worried about?

For a good article that spells out the scenarios for post-January 20, 2013, in terms of economic policy, see Jonathan Chait's article in New York Magazine. In brief, Romney could very well pass the Ryan budget through reconciliation (requiring only a majority in the Senate) and rewrite tax laws favoring the wealthy and corporate interests. On the contrary Obama could very likely manage to raise taxes on the wealthy; he may be able to institute a version of Bowles-Simpson. He will have leverage he has never had before to do all this, because of the so-called "fiscal cliff" built into last year's Debt Ceiling resolution (a particulaly ingenious strategic move, according to Chait so long as he is re-elected).

Those are big stakes.

But I want to focus on all of the other aspects of Romney and Obama's contrasting agendas. Other than the economy, what else will be affected?

1. Our Sense of American Identity Will be Splintered under a Romney Presidency.

Over the past four years President Obama has nurtured a sense of America as a pluralistic, tolerant place, in which the prejudices of yesteryear are backgrounded and a sense of our common good is foregrounded. But this worldview may be threatened by a more us-vs.-them mentality under a Romney presidency. Mitt Romney believes, and has said as much, that religious faith and freedom are inseparable. So, we have to assume, nonbelievers will not be highy valued in the public arena (while believers certainly will be -- God references will no doubt abound, even more than ever, in speeches). Meanwhile, gays and lesbians will be relegated to second-class status again, possibly leading to a concerted effort to enact a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Futhermore, the poorest in our country, those most struggling, will be understood to be failures -- those "victims" of the 47% -- rather than our worthy fellow citizens with their backs against the wall. Immigrants, particularly those with brown-skin, will of course be seen to be suspect (see Romney's endorsement of the Arizona state law empowering police to ask for I.D. if under the impression that someone is possibly undocumented).

2. The Denial of Climate Change Will Go On

President Obama did not manage to pass Cap-and-Trade. But at least his administration has funded green technologies more than any other President. Romney mocks such efforts, as he did in his Convention speech. He celebrates traditional energy resources, and urges the nation to expoit them fully (implying falsely, as he well knows, that this will lower prices at the pump, when in fact oil and gas prices are set by world demand -- rising).

3. The End of Truth-Telling

As we know from his decade-long campaign, Romney does not value truth-telling very highly. He values achieving ends (which, to be fair, he no doubt considers good). His religion blurs the distinction between truth and fables intentionally -- Mormons do not dwell often on the specifics of their creed and its truth-claims. It is no surprise that Romney fits so well in the culture of Bain Capital: he is a salesman at heart, willing to say almost anything to close a deal. President Obama, on the other hand, has demonstrated a remarkable ability to speak honestly about the decisions he faces. He often explains the trade-offs and chain of thoughts that led him to a certain policy choice. It doesn't help so much politically (Americans, like all human beings on the planet, respond more to sound-bites and catchy one-liners). But it has set a tone for our political culture all the same. This progress will be wiped out.

4. Health Care

My wife will lose her health care (she has a pre-existing condition) under a President Romney, and we will face cancer without any help again. This will be difficult for our family. But many millions of other Americans will suffer far more than we do. Children will lose their parents. Parents will lose their children. People will lose their houses, their employment, their basic dignity, as they face misery and illness without any help from their fellow-citizens.

5. Education

College loans, Pell Grants, all of that will be cut deeply under the Ryan plan if it is passed.

6. Science

Investments in science and technology will decline -- to make way for that Romney/Ryan tax refrom favoring the wealthy.

...So don't go telling me that both parties are the same and your vote doesn't make a difference.

These are some of the reasons I am worried. How about you?

The Convention Speech Obama Would Give (If He Could Be Honest Without Losing the Election)

Ladies and gentlemen. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Americans of all political persuasions.

Perhaps this speech will help me in my campaign to serve as your President for another four years, or perhaps not.

Either way, I believe it is important for me to tell it to you straight, from one citizen to another.

Tonight I want to speak to you, very frankly, about the central challenge facing our country in the coming years.

I am going to speak about a fear that every politician confronts every day but never gives voice to...

I am going to talk to you tonight about the fear that America, our great country, may be in decline.

*

My dear fellow Americans, it will come as no surprise for you to hear that we face immense obstacles in the way of our economic recovery.

What has come to be called the Great Recession, which began in 2008, took a terrible toll... In the winter of 2009 when I took office, as you will remember, over 750,000 people were losing their jobs each month.

Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the "Stimulus") we managed to stop the free fall, to give it a floor. We did this by a combination of tax cuts and also investments that led to some minimal job growth.

As you know we also passed a significant health care insurance reform bill in 2010, the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), aimed at helping the long-term health but also the financial stability of the citizens of this country as well.

Yet these measures weren't enough.

Joblessness continues at over 8% to this day. Housing prices have refused to bounce back -- and it has been six years from their peak in 2006. Gas prices are stubbornly rising, and, more recently, food prices have begun to climb too. Medical insurance rates still strain our finances, for businesses and individuals alike.

These are tough times...but I don't have to tell you that.

You know it far more viscerally than I do.

*

I believe that things may improve over the next four years. I believe in the policies put in place by my administration.

But despite my hopes for improvements, I am aware of the obstacles that remain. The pressures are too real for me to tell you, breezily, that conditions will improve dramatically. Other difficulties surely await us in the coming years and decades...

The truth is, my fellow Americans, we have to face it: we are looking at a long and, likely, unavoidable contraction of the personal wealth and expectations of citizens of the United States over the next century, any way you look at it.

*

Why is this happening?

Is this a Democratic failure?

A Republican conspiracy?

No.

Let us go back and look at the big picture together. To do that we have to step outside of our familiar, short-term, partisan thinking and look all the way back to the last century.

After World War II, our big, beautiful, brazen country benefited from a massive industrial base, built up in the beginning of the century; an explosion in technology, much of it invented here; and most of all, cheap, available fossil fuels. Our obvious competitors in Europe and Asia, crushed and broken from both world wars, lagged behind us in their capacity to find new markets and develop new technologies. We stepped up, quite naturally, and the United States soon became a colossus, standing astride the world nearly unchallenged.

Only the statism of the Soviet Empire, at great cost to the lives of individuals, could compete with us on a global scale in economic, political and cultural power. And that monolith eventually collapsed -- in a series of events beginning with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and ending with the Putsch in Russia in 1992. It became a victim of its own weight, its repression, the stagnation of its ideas, its inefficient centralized planning.

What happened in the 20 years since the collapse of the U.S.S.R.? Where are the blessings of our victory in the Cold War? 

Why aren't we standing astride the world as before?

Well, in some sense we still are. No other country comes close to having our power and influence. But the world is catching up, as is evident to every one of us.

Workers and governments all around the world are building up middle classes in their own countries, in which their own management practices are meeting their own natural resources, in ways similar to ours.

Meanwhile our dependence on foreign oil left us more vulnerable to events in the Mideast and led us to overextend our military in multiple wars (with various justifications).

And perhaps most significantly, over the past 30-some years, U.S. companies (driven by the requirement, imposed by their shareholders, of ever-increasing annual growth) have exported jobs overseas.

The loyalty of the capitalist elite in this country to their own fellow-citizens has grown ever more... imaginary.

And the security of American workers -- both blue-collar and white-collar -- has become likewise more... imaginary.

All of this is to say that the quality of life we came to expect here in the United States in the late 20th century: solid public schools, solid infrastructure, cheap electricity, inexpensive in-state tuition at state colleges, retirement at 65 with Social Security and Medicare paying our bills while we play golf and visit grandkids and leaf through photo-albums during our "golden" years... it's no longer sustainable.

The dream-life of Americans in the last century, as accustomed as it became to us, was in fact just that, a dream.

*

It lasted a good 70 years or so. It was a wonderful boon for our country. It allowed for new social movements, civil rights, women's rights, massive change for the better in our ideas of ourselves and the world in which we live. But it was, nevertheless, an illusion to think that it would just go on like that forever.

The rest of the world, outside the First World, never knew this kind of comfort and self-satisfaction that we did. Most human beings around the world understand that our basic condition is one of want and insecurity. Each of us, however dignified and beautiful and kind and full of integrity and intelligent we are, adds, if truth be told, only a limited amount of value to others. Enough to be paid a small wage for a service or a product, that's all. (Even you George Clooney, even you Martha Stewart, even you, Larry Ellison, even you Meg Whitman -- though you have leveraged your value added, by way of modern technology, into something disproportionately lucrative.)

Certainly each of us does not contribute enough to maintain manicured lawns even in drought conditions, eat rare foods and drink fine wine, purchase second homes, enjoy unquestioned central heating in the winter and air-conditioning in the summer and endless entertainment... have two or three family cars in our garage... It was an astonishing era, my fellow citizens, for those of us in the middle and upper classes in the Western industrialized countries -- above all, for those of us living in America. It is ending.

For many Americans, it has already ended.

*

I do not say all this to depress you or discourage you. I say it because I want to have a candid conversation with you.

The fact is: we are not going back. We are going to be forced to reduce our expectations and our government expenditures, no matter what.

Defense spending must be cut.

Waste and redundancies must be eliminated.

Discretionary programs, things like PBS, Head Start, I would argue need not be cut -- should not be cut -- they are too small to make a difference anyway.

But there will still be the problem of the entitlement programs: namely, Social Security and Medicare.

Social Security is solvent for some 50 years -- so let's leave that one alone for now. We may have to address it later.

Medicare, though, is teetering on the edge. Everyone agrees: it isn't going to make it in the long term. The costs of care are too high. The elderly are living longer, and, moreover, the medical system has bizarre incentives in place, leading to unnecessary tests and expensive procedures instead of more common-sense preventive care and simple, family-centered, end-of-life care. 

What can we do?

*

Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan have suggested that we could create a system of private vouchers -- instead of a single-payer system like the one we have today. That approach would probably lead to reduced benefits (one estimate is a reduction of about $6000 per recipient).

Some say: well, at least each individual could make his or her own choices about what medical care to pay for out of pocket when the vouchers run out... That's something isn't it?

I would answer: That may be something, but it is not an acceptable something. Making your own decision not to buy a chemotherapy drug, one that you know will help you live a year longer, because you don't want to face foreclosure before that year is out...? Because your child has Downs Syndrome and needs special resources so that your spouse can leave home to work? No, that future is clearly not acceptable.

Or we could spread the risk and insure the whole population. This would mean, in effect, that younger, healthier Americans would fund the health care of sicker Americans, particularly the elderly.

Such a change to Medicare -- altering it from an "earned benefit" to a tax -- would no doubt cause resentment, particularly in difficult economic times such as we face into the foreseeable future. Over time, would such a change delegitimize government in people's eyes? Would it foster even deeper cynicism than we have today?

GIven these difficult choices, I'll be honest with you, I am not sure what we should do. All I know is that hese are the difficult choices we face, together.

But I can tell you: I do know that we should not -- we cannot -- simply privatize Medicare and throw people back on the mercy of their own incomes or net worth.

I believe that equal access to health care should be something we ensure for one another -- as fellow Americans, as neighbors, as human beings.

In my role as President I find that the theme that confronts me on almost an hourly basis is fairness. I believe that we should be as fair as possible in deciding how to ensure that every American, rich or poor, has access to basic health care.

*

Here's the good news. We have entered an era in human history -- some 10,000 years after the advent of agriculture -- where we are finally learning to overlook the trivial ethnic or religious differences which have long driven us apart and made enemies of us. 

Whether black or white or Latino or Asian or Christian or Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist or nontheist (the fastest-growing part of the population, by the way), gay or straight, young or old, Northern or Southern... we are all capable of abiding by the laws of a pluralistic, democratic state.

Let's do that. Let's agree to have our enemies be: disease, hunger, climate change, cruelty, war, cancer, accidents, bullying, betrayals, losses, depression, things like that. Not the old prejudices and fears and stereotypes and hatreds.

Our only chance of getting through this is that we get through this together.

*

Okay. That gives you an accurate picture of where I am coming from. I will work every day for the next four years, if you give me the honor of serving as your President again, to make this country as great as it possibly can be.

Who knows, perhaps with the aid of unforeseen technological break-throughs -- never underestimate the ingenuity of human beings, especially in this new age of cloud computing -- we will reverse the tide of America's decline.

Inexpensive, unlimited energy would be a start.

Certainly, as your President, I will do everything I can possibly do to lead us to a brighter future.

But at the very least we can be together in it, keep things fair, speak openly with one another along the way.

*

That may be all we have. It has to be enough. And I believe it is enough.

I will remind you: The greatness of the United States of America has never been measured by its wealth, but by its people.

We the people. One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Nothing about golf memberships in there. Nothing about luxury cars. We can do this.

*

Thank you and goodnight. I love you all.

[Waves goodbye to stunned crowd.]

Paul Ryan's Vision Thing

So we have a Republican ticket now: Romney Ryan 2012.

What strikes me about the roll-out of Paul Ryan so far is how grand and high-minded his speeches are: he speaks about the "mountain of debt" that awaits our nation if we follow our current path. He promises to tell the American people the unvarnished truth and to lead. Ryan seems not to be focussed so much on our immediate needs (jobs, access to healthcare, better schools, etc.). Instead, his gaze is directed at the distant horizon. He seeks to restore our faith in the Founders' guidng principles of freedom and self-reliance. He speaks of the "consent of the governed." Whatever else you can say about him, Ryan definitely has what George H.W. Bush famously called "the vision thing."

Two points about this:

1. It is attractive and stirring, even while we know it is unreal (and more than that, fraudulent; see Krugman). But how about the nitty-gritty of people's lives? How about a sense of modesty in our predictions for the future? Ryan's relentless focus on, and certainty about, the far-off future reminds me, incongruously, of the Soviet Union's 5-year plans. Bold, aspirational, but not very attune to the immediate needs of actual people.

Ryan's tone makes me wonder if he has been so steeped in Ayn Randian/Hayekian, right-leaning political philosophy that he has fallen a bit in love with ideas instead of staying observant to the facts on the ground. I guess this is exactly what we mean when we label someone "ideological." Ryan certainly fits that description, doesn't he? Further, I think his ideological bent -- his love for his ideas -- matches well with the "ideology" that drives Romney: namely, American exceptionalism (rooted in his Mormon faith). Both Ryan and Romney are insulated from reality -- in different but complimentary ways. Hence, perhaps, their easy rapport, their recognition of each other, despite the many differences in their backgrounds.

2. Ryan's visionary quality -- the crystal-clear narrative that drives his political outlook -- makes more obvious, by way of contrast, the absence of a clear narrative in President Obama's political outlook. We often observe how pragmatic and modest President Obama is in his politics, how willing he is to compromise, his relentless search for solutions, his non-ideological approach, goodbye-to-all-that, etc. And we celebrate this aspect of his politics. (Well, I do anyway.) 

But the flip side of this is that we must acknowledge that for all his policy achievements, President Obama lacks a grand vision for where this country is heading. This isn't really a criticism. I don't fault him for this; I think it is difficult, maybe impossible, to find a clear narrative in the current era of globalization and resource depletion and the resulting economic turmoil. But it is interesting to ask: What does President Obama, privately, see as the optimal future for America?

I would guess that he sees a tumultuous century ahead, in which the way of life to which we are accustomed, astride the world as the country with the highest standard of living, will face unavoidable decline. The Western industrialized world is undergoing a Great Contraction -- that's how I think of it. To the extent that he has a vision, then, it is that Obama wants to ensure a modicum of fairness during this time of loss and falling away. He wants the government to help the poorest and the middle-class maintain at least some opportunities -- adequate schools, access to healthcare, a safe and clean environment, etc. -- slivers of light, through which they may follow their dreams and improve their families' conditions. Not too inspiring -- these slivers of light; yet considering the obstacles, even this is a very ambitious goal. A goal, but not a vision.

In some ways the 2012 election will come down to what people want more: specific help for their immediate future or... a clear, baby blue-eyed narrative, unburdened by pesky things like specifics.

Extra! Extra! Mitt Romney's Core Revealed!

As Romney the candidate looks to lock up the Republican nomination, the task before us is to figure out, once and for all, what lies at the core of Mitt Romney the man.

No, no, ambition and wealth-acquisition don't count. They are mere means to an end.

The question is: What does this man really care about, deep down inside?

It occurred to me on Tuesday night, as I watched his speech following the results in New Hampshire, that Mitt Romney's core is right in front of our eyes -- and has been all along. It is consistent with his record. It is consistent with his rhetoric. It is consistent with his biography. Come to think of it, this may be the one consistent thing about him.

Mitt Romney has at his core a fervent belief in American exceptionalism, rooted in his religion. He is, above all, a good Mormon missionary.

When I say he is a good Mormon missionary I am not saying that he wants to convert all Americans or all of the citizens of the world to his religion (although of course he would not be opposed to such an outcome). What I am saying is that he is a good Mormon missionary in that he truly believes that America is the exceptional nation, the nation of destiny that, as Joseph Smith learned in 1832, will host Jesus when he returns to Jackson County, Missouri. This was taught to him at a very young age through the teachings of his Church.

What I heard on Tuesday night in New Hampshire, is the deep-seated,  deeply felt, American exceptionalism that flows from this core belief. You hear it in Romney's frequent and animated attacks on President Obama's "apology tour" (which of course never happened). You hear it in Romney's fear that America might borrow ideas from socialistic Europe. You hear it in his insistence that as President he will make America "America" again.

We are the special nation. His religion tells him so.

This is more than the typical patriotic bromides you hear on a nightly basis from, say, Sean Hannity. As I say, I suspect that Romney's American exceptionalism is rooted in the faith, inculcated in Mitt since he was a young boy, that America is the chosen nation of God, and the fate of the world rests on America's difference.

As we know, the Evangelical wing of the Republican Party has become increasingly fierce in its allegiance to Israel, partly because of its Biblical understanding that the Jews should live in the holy land. Well, for Mormons like Mitt Romney, America too has its Zion, and must be protected from all interference by outsiders. 

Despite the doubts about the "cult" of Mormonism among Chrisitanists in the South, this is where the America First rhetoric of the right, with its hyper-militarism and xenophobia, dovetails perfectly with Romney's religious-based American exceptionalism.

What does this all mean for President Obama's campaign?

It strikes me that President Obama must counter this one genuine aspect of Romney -- the core of the man -- with a serious effort to define a different kind of patriotism. If Romney is to resonate with the voters, god forbid, it will be based on this shared sentiment that America is a chosen land. President Obama needs to define the ways that he believes America to be exceptional too -- as a land of opportunity, of rights, of fairness, not based on a tale of Gold Plates and Rapture but on real stakes for real people.

 

 

Emotional Release vs. Tangible Results

So I have begun volunteering for the Obama re-election campaign. I am what is called a "Fall Fellow" for Organizing for America. My "turf" is my own neighborhood in North Berkeley.

One of my tasks, as a Fall Fellow, is to defend the administration against its critics.

In most parts of the country this would mean defending President Obama against Republicans, Tea Partiers, Libertarians and reactionaries of all stripes. Not in Berkeley, though. Here it means defending this administration against the criticisms leveled at it by the Left.

I call potential volunteers and supporters on the phone. I nearly lose it. I have to pace the room, take some deep breaths, just to collect myself.

Our politics are very similar. Our perspectives are drastically different.

The common complaint on the left is that President Obama needs to be more forceful. That he compromises, or "caves," to the Republicans too early. I'm sorry, but this complaint pisses me off. Of course I can't say that over the phone, but it does.

Let's just review the facts. In the first year and a half of his term, President Obama passed the stimulus bill over Republican objections, fought for universal health care and achieved it with the Affordable Care Act, signed a new treaty with Russia reducing and securing nuclear stockpiles, signed financial reform, credit card reform, dealt with the BP oil spill, and generally demonstrated nerves of steel at every step of the way. Then the midterm elections, in November of 2010, sent many Democratic representatives in the House and Senate home; the ones who stayed ran for cover. He was forced to temporarily extend the Bush tax cuts in order to extend payroll tax cuts to the middle class and extend unemployment benefits. The winds have been against him ever since, with the Republicans playing with nothing less than the full faith and credit of the United States in order to score political points.

This is a President who is being pummeled by charlatans who want above all to see him defeated. And yet he has persisted, at every opportunity, to fight for the interests of the American people. He has refused to take the easy path and demonize and antagonize further his opponents. Instead he has spoken constantly, unceasingly, in the language of democracy, the language of civility and shared sacrifice and the common good. This takes enormous strength. To call President Obama weak is to fundamentally misread the situation.

What it really comes down to is that many of the people I speak with in Berkeley want him to pound the podium, call the Republicans on their imbecility and mendacity, announce to one and all that he will never waver, never buckle, never crack, never give an inch.

Well, I'm here to tell you, that kind of bluster would accomplish nothing. I would rather have a President who has the country in mind and does everything in his power to help his fellow Americans during this difficult time, including taking a beating and refusing to stoop as low as his opponents.

Faced with economic uncertainty and fear, many people want emotional release. Hell, I want emotional release. President Obama, though? He wants tangible results.

I'm In

This is the new slogan for the Obama for America campaign: I'm in.

And for me it is doubly true. I'm in as a volunteer on the campaign. I'm in, as in back in the game.

As anyone who has read this blog knows, the past four years have been strenuous for me and my family. But we are coming out of it. My wife Renee is doing well, her cancer's in remission (we believe it is gone forever), we are finally insured (through the Affordable Care Act -- thank you Mr. President! Thank you Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid!), and we are beginning to reenter the world again.

The kids are older (7,5 and 4), and they are perfect, beautiful. The demands on me as Dad are lightening every so slighly. So in addition to teaching a class on Shakespeare at their school, and while I'm still working on that memoir based on our road-trip to the childhood homes of Presidents, I have recently volunteered with the Obama campaign, building neighborhood teams.

My two-day training last weekend was truly inspiring. The stakes are so high, massive wealth and the control of nuclear warheads turn on the office in question, and yet the staff of the Oakland Obama for America office is down-to-earth, patient, smart, genuine. All through the training, they let us Fall Fellows ask questions, pursue tangents, to our hearts' content. They talked about respect, listening, including everybody -- in short, the values that the President himself demonstrates every day.

If this is how reentering the outside world feels, after 4 years away from it, let me just say: I'm in.

Let the Games Begin!

So Obama delivered his SOTU last night. "We do big things" was the message. The specifics were few but he touched on clean energy. Better schools. Tax code reform. Oh, and the state of the Union is... wait for it... strong.

Why this speech, filled with generalities? We know this President is capable of far more penetrating insight into the country and the policies needed to fix it. Why did he give us this pabulum instead?

The answer, I think, is that this was not a speech; it was an effort to get positioned well for the 2012 campaign. Forget the policy prescriptions last night. What Obama wanted to do was establish one thing, and one thing only: I AM THE PRESIDENT TO ALL AMERICANS.

For two years he has been demonized and "othered" by Fox and the Tea Partiers. Many of them, particularly in the South, a hard-core 20% in the polls, will detest him and question his legitimacy regardless (because he is in the "Democrat Party," because he is black, because he is "an elitist", etc.). But for the middle 40%, he needs to show that he shares the same concerns they do.

Details would get in the way of this effort. So he focused on the one thing that every living, breathing person cannot deny is in his or her interest: the future. "This is how we will win the future!" he exhorted us.

Win the future? Like a lottery ticket? Or a war? Or a new car? The phrase leaves me uneasy; it dredges up with it the same zero-sum, me-first outlook on life that got us into this mess in the first place.

Still, it gets us looking in the same direction, all Americans. And certainly President Obama will have the advantage over his divisive opponents anytime the country is looking the same direction.

Let the games begin.