Left Flank

As a registered centrist Democrat, the notion of Barack Obama running with Senator Jim Webb resonates. But, returning to earth, I have to accept Justin K.'s argument, too:

I like Webb, but I've been lukewarm to the Webb-for-VP idea. If we want to pass as much progressive legislation as possible we need as big a margin in the Senate as possible, and his seat would be tough to keep if he stepped down.

That said, really putting VA in play and winning over Scotch-Irish voters in Ohio and PA (most of those other states won't really be in play) is tempting.

Still, on balance, I think Webb needs to stay in the Senate. Obama has other swing state and white working class options for VP (Ted Strickland, Ed Rendell, John Edwards, Tim Kaine maybe? etc); he's probably gonna win no matter what, given the climate this year; and Webb's a little too big and loud for the Number 2 spot.

It still has to be a female, centrist governor.

It's not just that the Democrats will nominate the first African-American person to be president, or that Senator Obama put down Senator Clinton's race-baiting campaign (both links via bjkeefe's "Racial Politics") in Midwest states. Both of these remarkable feats are just the aftershocks of a larger dynamic:

MR. RUSSERT: But, Gerry and John, we're going to have big difference on the big issues. John McCain will say, "We're going to stay in Iraq"; Barack Obama say, "Get out." Barack Obama will say, "Roll back the Bush tax cuts on the top income earners"; John McCain will say, "Keep it going." John McCain will say, "No national healthcare as such"; Barack Obama will say, "national healthcare." Every issue, people are going to have to make a big choice, a big decision. John McCain will say, "No conversations with Iran, period"; Obama will say, "We'll talk to our adversaries." Big differences.

MR. SEIB: Oh, absolutely. You know, I spent some time at Obama headquarters on Friday and that was a lot of the discussion there. You know, people don't realize yet, there's going to be real policy debate in this campaign. This is about to become a real divide between two candidates of different views. Healthcare, I think, is the best example. And in the Hamas episode, which we were just discussing, there is yet another element that was in there, embedded in there, that you didn't mention. We've seen in our Wall Street Journal/NBC News polling all year, the one area where Republicans can still claim an advantage is national security and military affairs. The McCain people are going to go at that time and time again, and that's why John McCain jumped on the Hamas statement so quickly.

Come September, Americans might actually have to consider very divergent platforms on prominent issues, like health care reform and the Iraq War. The next administration's initiatives on economic issues, like fiscal policy, pensions, and trade, will affect whether Americans divide into coalitions, on one hand, based around haves and have-not's, color and white, pluralistic and mainstream, or conceivably two post-realignment parties haggling over minor tactical policies.

The only question is whether the Democratic and Republican nominees will spend September flooding the airwaves with negative ads, or debates.

The post-mortems on Hillary Clinton are starting to appear in print (ironically, the MSM resuscitates her, and then tramples all over her). The Nation's Ari Berman wants to gloat that Senator Clinton's demise in 2008 resulted from her vote authorizing the Iraq War and the Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran. That's the angle that will help put Senator McCain in the White House. More plausibly and soberly, Time's Karen Tumulty doesn't rely on one explanation, but five. I would add: Clinton couldn't adapt nimbly enough.

Clinton's stodginess appears mostly in her inability to recover from the January 29 debacle in Florida and Michigan. After not advocating a strategy to correct for the two states' Democratic parties' embarrassing bids to join the early primary season's scrum, she got what she deserves: a delegate count just lower than the number she should have received and the loss of momentum had both states been in play. She didn't show leadership then, and now she does not deserve to be the nominee now. Senator Obama did no better, even if he's trying to tempt Florida back into his statistical column. But, then, he didn't run as the "experience" candidate!

But, really, as Euler offered, it is time for a third party:

True, Mrs Clinton seems more popular among white working- and middle-class Americans. That puts Mr Obama at something of a disadvantage against John McCain, the Republican nominee. But arguments about Mr Obama's allure to white voters boil down rather too often to a coded argument about race: would America elect a black man? The United States still has big problems with race (read The Big Remaining Question), but its effect in the general election may be exaggerated.

Mr Obama's main problem with white voters may have more to do with class than race. To the white working man and woman, he has been seen too often as an aloof elitist, who can't drink whisky, displays a suspicious familiarity with the price of an arugula salad and memorably bowled a deplorable 37 in Altoona, Pennsylvania. Toffishness doomed John Kerry; but with Mr Obama, a child of a single mother who sometimes used food stamps, that picture is surely reversible.

Meanwhile, Mr Obama attracts other voters in a way Mrs Clinton never has. For every white bigot who switches sides because of Mr Obama's skin colour, there is likely to be a white independent—especially a young one—running to support him. The data show that young people, both black and white, prefer Mr Obama. Against Mrs Clinton, Mr McCain might have swept up all the independents; with Mr Obama he will have to split them. Mr Obama has raised money from close to 1.5m individuals, far more than anybody else ever has. That will stand him and his party in good stead come November. Each of those donors will be working hard to make sure that their investment is not wasted: an army of footsoldiers to fight the Republicans.

The other point of the primary system is to see what somebody is like under pressure, and to measure their presidential character. Mrs Clinton, for instance, has stood out, thus far at least, by her refusal to quit; Mr McCain by his refusal to compromise on either Iraq or free trade. Mr Obama is a less feisty sort, but he has exhibited enormous grace under pressure. In the past few weeks he has had to cope not just with a fresh set of outpourings from his turbulent former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, now mercifully disowned, but also with Mrs Clinton throwing the kitchen sink—and a lot of sharp cutlery—at him. Mr Obama's refusal to follow her (and Mr McCain) in supporting an idiotic summer suspension of the petrol tax, crude economic populism at its worst, was especially notable.

Race and class are deep-set issues America has not addressed for at least a generation-my parents' generation. In affluence, the boomers undid many cultural and gender-based problems, but the revolution stopped at the Jordan. To assimilate the next generations' of African-Americans, Hispanics, and—that convenient term for perhaps a more startling future cultural phenomenon—"Asian"-Americans. The Republicans stand to gain from the flood of new, older, white conservatives. Even if Obama is the next Democratic president, the party in its current milquetoast form is finished.

Image via Wikipedia

Again, the Indiana and North Carolina primary numbers point to the worst possible scenario: splits and near-ties. Senators Clinton and Obama split the two primaries, but Clinton just barely won Indiana where she should have trounced Obama. I won't link to all the liberal bloggers who predicted wider margins in Indiana. The demographic divide still matters, and that means, the gas tax issue might not go away, even after the summer. And, for good reason.

Both Greg Mankiw and Brad DeLong take Paul Krugman's rant on the gas tax as a starter. Ultimately, I think Mankiw has a more useful line, because DeLong is wrong about the wonky aspect of the question—the gas tax has a progressive bite. And, Mankiw lays a marker down and is more savvy about electioneering.

Now, I've pumped my own gas (in two countries, no less), and I wanted to think Clinton and Senator McCain were pandering to me, because I want to be a «salt of the earth» kind of guy. The truth is, though, that, although I worked at a 7-11 in college where gas was sold (and where I had to handle inventories), I also went to college hoping I would not have to stick metal prods down gas tanks and sniff gas fumes in the teeth-clattering pre-dawn hours to measure fluid levels all my life. So, Jerome Armstrong's sort of argument works for me. And, this is Armstrong's proof.

Salon pulls out a .pdf file for firepower:

But Obama is wrong. He did not learn this lesson. In fact, the only scientific study done on the pass-through of the tax holiday savings to Illinois consumers (and those in Indiana, as well, whose citizens enjoyed a similar holiday) found that it actually worked to a large extent.

The study is titled «$2.00 Gas! Studying the Effects of a Gas Tax Moratorium,» by Joseph J. Doyle Jr. and Krislert Samphantharak. Download the PDF here. The authors concluded that «the suspension of the 5% sales tax led to decreases in retail prices of 3% compared to neighboring states. And when the tax was reinstated, retail prices rose by roughly 4%.»

This suggests that the tax holiday delivered at least 60 percent of the tax savings to motorists.

The economic basis for attacks on the Clinton tax holiday is a fundamental economic theory called «tax incidence.» It says that the cost of a tax on any consumer product will be borne by those with lesser «elasticity» in the tug of war between suppliers and consumers. «Tax incidence» falls mostly upon the group that responds least to price -- the group that has the more inelastic price-quantity curve. In this instance, assuming that the supply of gas is pretty much fixed, it means consumers will end up paying those missing tax dollars directly to the gas companies in the form of higher prices. The increased demand triggered by the price cut will supposedly lead drivers to bid up the price of gas, swallowing the tax cut.

But this is not what happened in Illinois and Indiana back in 2000. And there are factors at work today that might provide equal or more «elasticity» to the producers, and prevent consumers from paying the price for the tax cut.

So, there is a real difference of opinion among experts, with very real policy outcomes, after all (contra-Yglesias, who thinks he has the policy cart selected before the proverbial horse). I return to Mankiw's quip:

Many economic issues (e.g., health care, corporate taxation, the trade deficit) are vastly complicated, with experts holding a variety of opinions. When candidates disagree, it simply means that each is siding with a different set of experts, and it is hard for laymen to figure out which set of experts is right. By contrast, the gas tax holiday is not nearly as complicated, and the experts speak with one voice.

Why, then, are candidates proposing the holiday? I can think of three hypotheses:

Ignorance: They don't know that the consensus of experts is opposed.

Hubris: They know the experts are opposed, but they think they know better.

Mendacity with a dash of condescension: They know the experts are opposed, and they secretly agree, but they think they can win some votes by pulling the wool over the eyes of an ill-informed electorate.

So which of these three hypotheses is right? I don't know, but whichever it is, it says a lot about the character of the candidates.

Now, as a «salt of the earth» kind of guy, I can handle arguments about character.

Image via Wikipedia

If Chris Bowers with numbers can't convince readers that Operation Anti-Chaos is quixotic, perhaps Big Tent Democrat is enough.

But then, Charles Blow destroys his own argument:

While a favorable opinion doesn't necessarily translate into a vote, this should still give the Clintons (and the superdelegates) pause. Electability cuts both ways.

Is this statistics, or threats?

Still, Chris Bowers makes the better use of his stats.

All of this reminds me of «post-partisanship.» Clearly, many Democrats like to believe that they are engaged in a disinterested contemplation of the issues without regard to party, or character. As such, it is easy to see why claims of post-partisanship are appealing to Democrats. However, voting patterns in the Democratic primary reveal deeply seated identity based voting patterns that are not only partisan, but are partisan in a particularly base and unpleasant fashion. In other words, post-partisanship is ultimately a claim that we can move beyond identity, except that it is being made in a Democratic primary season with particularly gaping identity gaps.

The Economist blurs the line between race and character:

Indiana seems a good fit for her. It is whiter, less educated and poorer than the country at large—characteristics of her keenest supporters in previous contests. According to stereotype, Indianans are wary of change—Barack Obama's signature word—particularly when it comes from Washington; for decades they resisted moving onto daylight saving time. Mrs Clinton's familiar face and recycled populism appeals to the state's conservative Democrats, including Senator Evan Bayh, one of her most ardent backers.

Only war, or disgustingly heady prosperity, can keep Americans from demographic «partisanship». All electoral victories will have to come at the margins. But, I appreciate the value of identity «mudslinging» politics. Reverend Wright's egomaniacal tirades highlight what little divides African-Americans from the white fringe, and hopefully soon, Hispanic-Americans and the unclassifiable melange mislabeled «Asian»-Americans could mouth off like brats, too. And then, all the identity ghettoes could revile each other spitefully from the insecurity of their mutual, internationally broadcast petulance.

No one said democracy and equality had to be noble!

Image via Wikipedia

Admittedly, when a international, moderately conservative magazine sets up Reverend Jeremiah Wright with more insight than an American moderate liberal institution, one has to wonder if Americans have lost the ability to look squarely in a mirror.

E.J. Dionne, Jr. lowers himself to the Fox standard of commentary.

In March, Obama tried to explain the anger in the black community and insisted that «to condemn it without understanding its roots only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.»

In light of this racial gap, it's worth pondering why white, right-wing preachers who make ridiculous and sometimes shameful statements usually emerge with their influence intact.

I'm glad Dionne has caught on to the blogosphere, and its trademark tit-for-tat baiting. But, Dionne is as decrepit as Reverend Wright. Post-MLK, post-Malcolm X, America is no longer the single nation taking a short detour to handle its «race» problem. It's a cacophony of angry, divided voices wondering if it needs a nation, and how to get it.

What inspired this calamitous performance? Egomania was clearly part of it. Mr Wright responded to the applause of the amen corner in his audience with ever more outrageous assertions. There was probably a touch of jealousy too. Mr Wright has seen his former protégé rise to heights he himself could never have dreamed of, and he has been caught up in the tailwinds.

But there is also something deeper here: a generational struggle for control of black politics. Mr Wright belongs to a generation of activists—Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are other prominent members—who thrived in part by playing to the resentments of their black supporters. Mr Obama belongs to a much more pragmatic generation, people who want to get beyond racial polarisation and enter the political mainstream. Mr Wright's generation is not about to leave the stage quietly. So much the worse for America.

History has passed by Reverend Wright, and Reverend Jesse Jackson, like a bus careening wildly. I'd be angry, too, though, because Americans don't even know, nor care enough, about the whirlwind we have lived through. Sorry, Reverend, but your audience left the building! Oh, do you have people who can take care of you?

I've watched coverage of Senator Obama's relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright pinching my nose. Perhaps, as Ross Douthat argued in another diavlog, the MSM's coverage and performances, showcasing a midrange between platform wonkery and character, are as good as Americans can expect.

Yet, I'm still dismayed. I expected more honesty about all the communities in America, and I expected Obama to lead the discussion. His dismissal of Reverend Wright smacked of opportunism, from a candidate, who, although speaking of transcending race, has the rhetorical ability, intelligence, and pulpit now to distance himself from his opponents. He could speak his mind to the people, as the people speak truth to power. If Douthat is right, Obama has a much steeper hill to climb for me to trust him now. Instead, he's balking.

I worry about the compromises I will have to make between the two Democratic candidates, between two politicians whose platforms I do not fully support. Both support universal health care, so I can hold my nose and vote Democratic. But, I'll be holding my breath for four years, on foreign and fiscal reforms.

Here's an excellent discussion about Reverend Wright, probably the best I've read or heard in the past few days.

So, that's the new way to change the world? Laziness? Self-indulgence? Check out Jared Diamond!