Left Flank

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!

Ezra Klein and Ross Douthat illustrate why talking heads arguing about the party primaries are bad for politics. In the process, they do make some decent points about the 2008 primary season without end.

I've actively begun to wonder what country media pundits live in, and for what country. Perhaps, there's a state loosely associated with my alma mater, or my workplace, and I just continue foolishly to think I'm American. That I live in ROK, and still hold an American passport, let's put aside. That there's a «narrative» is very collegiate, but the end of the campaign for me is still universal health care. June, August, November are big marks on the calendar, but I'm not getting younger. The characters in my books don't age, but my patience does. So, the election is bad for me, not because I'm losing sleep, but because I'm getting nearer to death, and I doubt my books, my alma mater, or even my workplace will give me health insurance. And, I'd like to live with healthy people, too.

Now, to the understated points both did make. Klein glanced over demography. Demography has taken a backseat to character assassination. If Obama loses, it's because he's a bad politician. But, it could be that Obama offers people nothing, and Hillary does, and vice versa. The people are still sovereign, and more politician roadkill is no big bummer. There's nothing sacred about any three of these candidates' right to run for office. And, if these three were all eliminated (by cardiac or coronary attacks due to over-campaigning), I don't think the US would suffer. I'd like to think America has a good bench.

Douthat brings up a useful corollary for the Dems to consider about McCain's ability to map a demographic strategy watching Clinton and Obama bloody each other. But, again that's just too cynical.

I really do think, contra-Klein, the best outcome is the best America (resulting from a really solid election) where talking heads sleep all day (Douthat's Panglossian optimism around 41:00), because there's no narrative misery to craft. Are these 'heads really bloggers? Or, are they media? But then, I'm a crazy idealist.

The only sin worse than generalizing is not having another generalization handy. Or, not obliterating the chance of conducting a scientific poll with enough respondents, to predict the 2008 presidential election—which is just a poorly constructed poll with bizarre, cultural questions and an ever decreasing number of respondents.

Reihan Salam didn't get the memo. We're no longer supposed to climb into each others' shoes:

What Obama is trying to do is knit together a national conversation by having several discrete national conversations -- with black Americans, with working class whites, with coastal liberals, and even with conservatives. He uses slightly different language in every case, the better to project his empathy and understanding. This is why all of those young Reaganites who worked with Obama on the Harvard Law Review admire him so -- he listened then, and he listens now. The trouble is, knitting together these conversations is a tough trick to pull off. When he reaches out to Republicans, partisan Democrats raise an eyebrow. When he reaches out to economic populists, conservatives do the same. And when he reaches out to liberal San Franciscans, well ... all hëll breaks loose.

Fortunately, he climbs out of the ooze, and becomes a hard pundit one paragraph later.

And there remains an open question about what Obama really thinks. At the end of the day, which ground does he stand on - black or white, leftist or centrist, elitist or populist? This ambiguity is at the heart of Obama's appeal. Ambiguity is the way we reconcile many conflicts. We agree to disagree and at some point we decide it's rude to ask too many questions. But this isn't how the news cycle works in a campaign year. We want clarity, not vague generalities or even empathy. Polarization is the inevitable result.

(Whistling noise) I can still whistle! I was worried for a moment. A world without talking points is an unbearable nightmare extended far too long for mental health. Just when I despair of a less scripted world, there's The Weekly Standard to reassure me. And, thank the Most Abused Name, for bloggingheads picking zeitgeistial (should I add this to spellchecker as a real word?) straws in the wind!

Obama's foes--in the Clinton camp and the John McCain camp--have accused him of saying people "cling" to guns and faith only because they are bitter. That's not exactly what Obama said. He noted that people in hard-pressed areas become bitter because they see the system failing them and they cling to their belief in gun rights and/or God (as well as other beliefs, such as opposition to immigrants or gay rights). Obama obviously knows that these beliefs--the good and the bad--were already deeply held before the mill jobs disappeared. Such beliefs, though, are presumably further embraced in difficult times. And given that some of these beliefs (gun rights, opposition to abortion and gay rights) tend to cut against candidates perceived as liberals, it can make things tougher for certain Democrats. This ain't in much dispute.

No doubt, Obama was trying to express what passes for a sophisticated point in our culture of debate-by-soundbites, yet he did so in a clunky manner that offered his opponents the chance to assert that he believes that faith and a love of guns come only out of frustration. There may be an argument for such a proposition. But I doubt Obama would accept it. As a former community organizer and longtime churchgoer (we all know that he goes to church), he hardly fits the bill as a secularist elitist. Yet the Clinton campaign pounced on these words to claim that the man whom they have already decried as not able to protect America as commander in chief is out of touch with real Americans. What a "mild" attack.

Obsidian Wings' publius has two sterling posts: about why Senator Clinton can pick up where Obama is faltering; and, Senator McCain is so much smoother an elitist.

Which is the real elitist party, the elephants or the donkeys?

But wait, ari reveals the Andrew Jackson strategy Clinton really has.

(Oh, and the post that got it all started!). Can you now decide for yourself?