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.

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.

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

I wonder how far trademark American frugality lasts when vacation choices include one's lawn and walking. How will American households make ends meet?

Just to be clear, the other typical escape route—to save less—is already closed off. In the fourth quarter of 2007, the personal saving rate was zero percent.

This leaves very few other areas where consumers can make sacrifices to accommodate the pressures from higher prices at the pump. Traditionally, more spending on gasoline was also associated with less spending on cars. People are already buying fewer cars and smaller cars as the cost of driving goes up rapidly. And eventually, families will spend less on gasoline simply because there are fewer jobs to drive to.

With all of these added pressures, many more families will find themselves in an untenable financial situation. This will be especially true for lower-income and moderate-income families who spend disproportionate shares of their income on gasoline and fuel. These also tend to be the same families who feel the brunt of an economic slowdown first.

But, how will those patriotically energy-saving stand up long enough to vote for John McCain?

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?

Mathew Yglesias brings up a good link on McCain's 1999 DPRK arguments:

From Senator McCain's 1999 Landon Lecture at Kansas State University:

But procrastination defined the administration's response to North Korea's nuclear ambitions -- the greatest, most immediate danger to the United States and our closest allies in Asia.

The "Agreed Framework" between North Korea and the United States promised North Korea food and energy support, as well as state-of-the-art nuclear reactors, in exchange for the de facto cessation of North Korea's nuclear weapons program. In essence, the agreement constituted a dangerous gamble that time would inevitably work to our advantage.

Rather than take difficult coercive measures such as sanctions to stop an irrationally hostile North Korean regime from possessing nuclear weapons, we chose a prevent defense. We made concessions to the North Koreans, accepted whatever fissionable material they already possessed, and hoped that they would delay their nuclear advances until their collapsing economy forced them to recognize the necessity of peaceful integration into the world community, and a carefully managed reunification with the South.

Five years later, the North Korean economy has not just collapsed, but practically disappeared. Most North Koreans are starving. The exception, of course, are large elements of the North Korean military, which the regime has managed to sustain -- partly with food and energy it has received from the United States and its allies. Far from delaying its nuclear program, North Korea simply moved the program from the reactor site that they ceased operating as part of the agreement to another facility underground.

Worse, while we have waited for North Korea to recognize the reality of its desperate straits, the regime has managed to greatly improve its missile technology. And to underscore just how aggressive and irrational they remain, they fired a three-stage missile at Japan.

A firmer response to North Korea might have triggered a war, a war we would win, but not without paying a terrible price. Moreover, refusing to help ease the deprivations in the North, and hastening the collapse of the regime might have also resulted in war as the North's last desperate measure, or at least a very messy reunification with the South. Instead, we have sustained North Korea long enough for it to develop missiles that might be capable of striking the United States, and allowed it to proceed with its program to develop nuclear warheads. North Korea is still inexorably nearing total collapse, and its leaders remain quite capable of launching in their country's death throes one final, glorious war. But now, they are much, much better armed.

Hmmmm...perhaps a little too much temper, John!

Two eponymous blog opinions about Ralph Nader entering the 2008 presidential race: Greg Laden's "worst fears"

Our worst fears have been realized. We finally have a chance to boot the Republicans out of the White House, and now Ralf Nader has announced his insane plans to do whatever he can to make sure that a Democrat does not take that position.

Nader announced his quixotic and potentially destructive plan, in which he will abuse his name recognition, manipulating legions of mindless, moronic Nader-Simps, and get his jollies telling us all how much the system is broken while he single handedly guarantees eight more years of economic strife and bloody warfare ... in a Sunday interview on Meet the Press.

Democrats: Pick the republican you hate least and start working for that candidate, because you don't get to have a Democrat in the White House. Thanks to Ralf.

Nader, who clearly intends to ruin everything, claims that Americans are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties. Apparently he has not noticed the throngs of Democrats and Independents, as well as numerous Republicans, swarming the Democratic Primaries and Caucasus. Clearly, he has no clue. But he does have a huge, overblown ego and a very loose grip on reality.

…vs. Matthew Yglesias' "Tweddlesomething":

After all, there's not a dime's worth of a difference between a candidate promising tax cuts, pushing more health risk onto individuals, a re-invigoration of George Bush's campaign to dominate the world through military force, and an industry-friendly approach to environmental issues and his rival who's promising substantial socialization of medical risk, a 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions, and end to the war in Iraq (and to the mindset that led to war!), universal preschool, etc. Well, sure, there's judicial appointments -- abortion, gay rights, etc. -- and some small fry stuff about whether or not the NSA will have unrestrained surveillance powers. But basically it's just the same two corporate clones running on virtually identical platforms.

Again, comments make the difference.

Pierce R, Butler:

This is an opportunity for derision, not panic (nor repeating simplistic charges that "Nader cost us the 2000 election" which serve more to obscure Democratic failures than to shed analytical light).

It's unlikely that even the Greens will accept Nader as their nominee this time around - maybe some of them will start to realize just how much harm he did to their party in '00 & '04.

The Nader threat has always been overblown, but this year it's not likely he'll make it onto many state ballots. In the meantime, the threat from the Supreme Court has only worsened, and the prospects for election-rigging (electronic & otherwise) are more worthy of alarm.

Guy in Jersey:

1) "Ralph Nader's ego is the reason we have George W. Bush in the White House. period."

Because without Nader, all those disaffected fringe voters would have voted for Gore/Lieberman. You've convinced me.

2) "Nader is the only thing that cost Gore the election"...."without Ralph Nader, Al Gore would be president."

The fallacy is that if Nader runs --> Bush wins. -Nader runs. -Bush wins. That's a common logical fallacy usually expressed as p --> q. -p, therefore -q.

Thomas:

I think Nader is smarter than you, Matt.

I mean, the Democrats ran on ending the Iraq war in 2006, and they didn't. From what I hear, they plan on running on the same issue in 2010.

Democrats have been promising a government takeover of health care for two generations. But this time it's right around the corner.

And Obama, unlike, say Bill Clinton, who didn't bother to submit Kyoto for ratification, is serious about reducing carbon emissions. That's why, when he won in Wisconsin he told the good folks of Texas that he was going to bring the price of gas down. That's the sort of thing we need to hear! Bringing the cost of energy down is surely the best way of reducing carbon emissions. Nader needs to be patient; this time it's different.

There is a candidate promising tax cuts. It's Obama, who tells seniors--who already receive disproportionate benefits from the federal government--that they'll pay less in tax. But those sort of small points shouldn't bother Nader. No, he should keep his eye on the big picture, like NSA surveillance, where Senate Democrats demonstrated just how different they are from Republicans.

R. Vangala:

Matt, this post is really disappointing. I too am concerned that in swing states, Nader could have a spoiler effect a la Florida in 2000. Still, for someone who is often critical of the Democratic Party's positions on a number of issues, you seem to be suggesting that such difficulties are irrelevant. I disagree. Our democracy can only be strengthened by widening the field of candidates for voters to choose from. The unfortunate truth is that a lot of voters in this country are seriously ignorant of U.S. policies that affect them and others around the world in terrible ways. Nader's presence in the election will help to bring criticisms of those policies into the mainstream, so that the Republican and Democratic candidates will be forced to respond to them. Ideally, Nader will run his campaign, raise issues that matter to progressives, challenge the two front-runners to take a progressive stand on those issues, etc., but then withdraw his name from the ballot in swing states prior to the election in November. This way, voters in locked down states can express support for him, thereby pressuring the two dominant parties to shift to the left, while voters in swing states cannot, thus eliminating the possibility of a spoiler effect. Should polls suggest that he will have a spoiler effect, and should he still insist upon remaining on the ballot in the relevant states, I will lose a lot of respect for him. Otherwise, I think his overall effect on the election will be positive (from the perspective of a progressive).

ly_nyg:

Do you guys realize how hypocritical it is to pressure third party candidates into not running?

Since when was it the position of the Democratic Party to disenfranchise voters? Because that is, in essence, what limiting them to one of two parties does.

The issue isn't whether third parties should be able to run or not - of course they should be able to! I mean, it was a third party that freed the slaves.

What the Democrats SHOULD be focused on is creating a system of voting that lets people express their preference for a third party without sabotaging their ability to affect the election. I think Instant Runoff Voting does this extremely well, but really, any sort of runoff would be nice. Even proportional allocation of electoral collage members would be a start.

I'm not sure people have really thought through the logical conclusion of all this Nader bashing - why not just limit the election to two parties? Or only to parties that either have more than 40% of the vote, or less than 2%? Why not just stay married to the Democrats and the Republicans for the rest of American history?

People focusing on whether Nader should run or not don't GET IT. What Nader's candidacy shows more than anything is the need for a new system of voting that allows people to express their frustration with the major parties, without wasting their vote.

I mean, my vote already doesn't count because I don't live in Ohio or Missouri. I might as well vote for the candidate who most effectively sums up my frustration with both Republicans AND Democrats.

For what it's worth, I'm voting for Obama in the general, unless by some freak chance Hillary pulls it out. In that case, I'm proudly voting for Nader.

Bal(t)imoron's take:

Firstly, the election is a non zero-sum game. The more people vote and the more platforms circulate, the stronger the republic is.

Secondly, the Democratic and Republican parties are not constitutionally mandated. As a matter of fact, they're necessary evils. So, appeals to party loyalty can only go so far before they become anti-republican.

Thirdly:

MR. RUSSERT:  You have five seconds, historian.  Have you ever seen a race like this?

MS. GOODWIN:  I love it.  It's the best.  No, you know, and it's exciting because people are involved with--we've been worrying for years about the fact that nobody's paying attention anymore, that it's a--you know, it's not a participant sport, that the declining polls are going down.  People are going to the voting booths; people are excited.  How can you not love it?