On the Contrary

The President has a “difficult” decision to make on Afghanistan.  In my mind the difficulty is in doing the right thing as opposed to the easy thing.  It amazes me that anyone listens to John McCain who is demanding we honor General McChrystal’s request, who never saw the war on the ground in Vietnam, still thinks it was winnable, and had the Iraq war totally wrong.  He and others pushing for the easy way are the same folks who told us Iraq would be a cakewalk.  After all they lament, the general in the field has spoken so why don’t you honor his request?  The answer to that is fairly straightforward:  The general was given the mission to win the war and asked what do you need?  What do you think he wants?  But one has to step back and say, how many more troops for how long, how much will that cost, and do we have both a military and a public that can support that?  Oh and of course, is it worth that cost?

Tom Friedman, in his column, Don’t Build Up, answered these questions better than I could.  Probably the most insightful part of this editorial was his assertion that all the great strides forward between warring parties has been made by them, not some outside force.  That includes the “Awakening” in Iraq when the Sunni’s were already throwing out the Al Qaeda thugs and we just leveraged them.  Makes you pause when you recognize that our partner in Afghanistan is a totally dysfunctional government.  But what I found even more interesting was politburo minutes unearth in Russia of Sergei Akhromeyev, the commander of the Soviet armed forces, speaking to the Soviet Union’s Politburo on Nov. 13, 1986 about their war in Afghanistan.

“Our soldiers are not to blame. They’ve fought incredibly bravely in adverse conditions. But to occupy towns and villages temporarily has little value in such a vast land where the insurgents can just disappear into the hills.” He went on to request extra troops and equipment. “Without them, without a lot more men, this war will continue for a very, very long time.” (Transcript of Defeat).

Sound familiar?  Why then is it the easy decision to just send more troops?  Because politically, like the Russians, it is almost impossible to recognize our limits, if necessary admit defeat, and move on.  The trouble with making the easy decision is in the details.  How is the country going to afford this while nation building at home is our top priority?  How can a volunteer military and very few continue to bear this burden?  But what about all those generals and their advice?  They want to win; it is in their blood.  They were wrong in Vietnam and they are wrong now.  They are wrong because winning on their terms simply isn’t worth what it will cost us.  This is a political decision, not a military decision and is why we do not blindly follow general’s advice as the Republicans are urging.

Will President Obama summon the courage to do the right thing, instead of some political compromise to nowhere?  Well if what you hear coming out of the White House is that there will be some compromise additional troops, then no he will not summon the courage to ignore the politics.  He will once again try to accommodate everyone, and in the end promulgate another failed policy.  Whatever he decides, he certainly will have to support what he is doing by a detailed plan on the end game.  If he actually followed Tom Friedman’s advice he would face extreme criticism from the right on being weak.  But it was false bravado and weakness from these same actors that has us bogged down in this quagmire.  Real strength would be a President who knows our limitations, decides how to best move this country forward, and ignore politics of a failed policy that will kill more young Americans.

Finally let us remember what Afghanistan is.  It is a 5^th century country run by a mobster.  The government by all accounts is part of the problem.  The Taliban are estimated at 20,000 strong and they are not some foreign invader.  Yes they are aided and abetted by Al-Qaeda, but as long as we are there, we are the issue.  So the reality is this is a 20 to 40 year problem.  We need to decrease our footprint, spend our precious treasury more effectively on keeping the Taliban out of total control, while we help in humanitarian efforts to educate the people so they can solve the problem themselves.  That is not more troops.  More troops is just kicking the can down the road over the bodies of more and more young Americans who will have died in vain.

Oh, and one more thing we continue to ignore.  The Taliban are a creature of our own creation.  We thought it was a good idea to provide religious fanatics with guns and rocket launchers so they could depose the Russians.  Maybe it wasn’t such a good idea.

For once Chris Mathews actually said something insightful.  After listening to both Democrats and Republicans on what we should do in Afghanistan he said, “Well I guess they have held those opinions for about 40 years.”  In other words nothing new since Vietnam and neither side is being really informed about the nature of Afghanistan.  We think in patterns that repeat.

My favorite was the argument that we need to support the commander on the ground.  The commander on the ground always wants more troops.  Generals want to win.  They didn’t get to be generals by being realistic about possibilities.  They got to be generals because they always had a “can do” attitude.  They can climb any mountain.  The guy who stood around asking, “but should we do it and is it worth the cost” is a retired Lt. Col.   John McCain has said we need to get on with giving General McChrystal want he wants.  But this is from the guy who thinks we could have won in Vietnam.  He still doesn’t get what that war was about and will fight it over and over again in present day wars.

I guess what is most frightening to me is to listen to the debate that is full of trite phrases:  “Americans will not abandon Afghans; we will not abandon the fight against Al Qaeda (they are turning the front on Al Qaeda into Afghanistan); we just need to protect the people.  Sadly what we are seeing is that our political leaders are one, not very bright, and two, have no clue about the realities of Afghanistan or its real strategic importance.  General Jones has estimated that there are about 100 Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan.  Now I see why we need 40,000 more troops:  That would be 400 Americans for every Al Qaeda operative.  And we still don’t have Bin Laden.

The real war there is with the Taliban.  The Taliban are not Al Qaeda, one being a international group of terrorists without a country that wants to destroy us and the other being an indigenous Afghan movement, albeit a distasteful one, that just wants us out of their country.  Do we really want to be in a civil war?  The reality was best described by Rory Stewart (Bill Moyers Journal):

“…..but if you’re an Afghan villager, you sit in your village, maybe in Southern Afghanistan, and one day the Taliban turn up. And you probably don’t like them very much, because they’re young, fanatical men, banging on about religion. But you might give them a cup of tea, they go away. Next day, maybe some Canadian soldiers turn up. Maybe they search your house. That makes you a little bit uncomfortable, but you give them a cup of tea, they go away. The next day, the Afghan police turn up. They may not be wearing uniforms, they’re waving guns around, they may be rude to your daughter. You give them a cup of tea, they go away. Basically, you want these people, by and large, to go away. Most Afghan villagers are finding themselves trapped in a very, very unpleasant battle between forces that they barely understand.”

So the debate that Washington is having is in general nonsensical.  What are our real strategic interests in Afghanistan?  What threat does it pose and how can we control it with a failing government and corrupt police force?  What can we really accomplish with a broken budget and waning public support?  My answer is not much unless we are willing to be there for 50 years and are you willing to send your child?  Looking at the recent death of eight American soldiers whose outpost was almost overrun by the Taliban, one has to wonder what the hell we are doing there.  This sounds so much like Vietnam it is ridiculous.  The Taliban occupy the neighboring towns and villages and to root them out we destroy the buildings and alienate the people.  This is just going swimmingly isn’t it?

Did it ever occur to anyone that the Taliban’s worst enemy is the Taliban?  These guys are great fighters but when they gain control of the country, they couldn’t do any better than the corrupt government that was in power that they displaced and they alienated most of the population.  If the Taliban wins, it is because the Afghans didn’t fight them and quite frankly, it is their war.  So let them have them and see how long they last.  We can always control the Al Qaeda problem as we did before and think about this:  If we are successful here Al-Qaeda will just move from Pakistan to say Somalia.  During this debate try to keep this in mind:  The Taliban are not Al Qaeda just like the Sunnis were not Al Qaeda.  Meanwhile the debate in Washington goes on as a rerun of Vietnam and the Iraq debates with no connection with the reality of Afghanistan.

This Sunday with the visit of Pakistan’s President, Asif Ali Zardari, and Afghanistan’s President, Hamid Karzai, to the White House, it was predictable that they would appear on Meet the Press.   What was also predictable with these two leaders is that we are in a world of hurt.  First and foremost these two guys are ultimate politicians and that is exactly what a nation does not need when it is facing critical choices.  As in our own country the choices are big and scary.  If you are trying to stay in power by mollifying the greatest number of your constitutes, the choices you make are going to be less than the change needed.  When facing real crisis, leadership needs to be bold and these guys are quietly treading water in a flood of trouble.  Take the Swat valley compromise that has totally collapsed as the reality of the Taliban rule is finally dawning on the Pakistanis.  But considering that this hoped for peaceful compromise threw the rights of the Swat valley occupants at the mercy of the Taliban, we can see how desperate and morally bankrupt the Pakistani leadership is.   In Afghanistan, President Karzai cannot seem to admit any error in his leadership while the real problem is government incompetence and corruption leading to a Taliban resurrection.  We are in deep doo-doo.

George Stephanolopous on ABC’s This Week was interviewing John McCain and once again I thank my lucky stars he is not the president.  John faults Obama with not coming out with a full plan to close Guantanamo before announcing the closure.  With thoughts like these we would have had nothing happen under a McCain Presidency.  Had President Obama laid out the reality of closing Guantanamo (charging those that can be charged, releasing the rest, and some in the U.S.) it would have been too big a pill for most Americans to swallow.  Set a date, work out the details through comprise and debate.  McCain pointed out that 10% of releasees have returned to the battlefield, but George, as usual, failed to challenge this number and have McCain name names.  The reality is one or two have.  Considering the recidivism of our own prisons, either way this is a great number.

John still thinks the Republican Party is a big tent organization that can attract new members if it just hews to its basic principles.  John still cannot face that his basic principles are exactly what are being rejected by most Americans as they see their country in disarray.  The round table discussion was sad, because these are all journalists of yesterday.  There was not one iota of an original thought, except maybe from Robert Reich when he question how our economy was going to recover since we can’t go back to wild lending.  They couldn’t stop interrupting each other as they pressed old solutions to old problems or in the case of George Will, trying to make some non sequitur conservative point.   Please, I am begging you.  Find some young blood that sees the world as it is, not as it was.

Fox News Sunday had Newt Gingrich on and his ability to dissemble always amazes me.  What he cleverly does is lay out a premise (all detainees at Guantanamo are criminal terrorists) and then lays out a solution that is imminently rational if you buy the premise.  The premise however is fatally flawed.  He wants to investigate Clinton lawyers and was shocked, shocked, shocked that attorneys that had represented terrorists (his pejorative term) in private firms were asked to work in the government under Obama.  Gee, I guess Newt will decide for us which people are entitled to due process and anyone who does not agree with him is unpatriotic and should be barred from government service.  There were so many over simplifications and outright misrepresentation of events in this interview that went unchallenged that it is hard to call this a real interview.  Enough of Newt Gingrich.  Anybody who thinks he brings anything new to the table does not understand a political egomaniac.

On CNN’s GPS (Fareed Zacharia) the Dali Lama was interviewed, but I got nothing earth shaking other than soon people will figure out that violence is not the way.  Well we humans have been around for about 40,000 years now and maybe it will just be a little longer.  Probably more revealing was the debate between an American, a Pakistani, and an Indian which allowed you to start to understand the complex web of distrust between India and Pakistan that paralyzes action on both their parts to solve the Taliban problem.  They are continually posturing themselves for the best position when America does withdraw and they see every move as how to gain an advantage over one another instead of mutually supporting each others stability as the best way for peace.  Maybe the Dali Lama was right.

The  final interview was on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer with Darth Vader.  But i will write a whole blog about that one because it was just too rich.  Another Sunday I should have spent wine tasting.  Oh well. 

What is on everybody’s mind, the Economy, was the focal point of discussion this Sunday morning, but the discussion was more political than policy based.  On Meet the Press we had Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer laying out familiar political positions.  Yawn.  The round table discussion was a little more interesting in that they included Liaquat Ahamed, the author of Lords of Finance, who raised the issued that back in the 1920’s the failure of a major European bank was really the beginning of the Great Depression.  He raised the issue of the collapse of the Eastern Europe Economies and the fact that while we are looking inward, this is a global crisis and focusing on saving us may not save us even if we do all the right things.

On GPS we had an eclectic group led by Niall Ferguson (Assent of Money) who was arguing that our expanding of the deficit to solve the slow down in our own country will actually exacerbate the problem as it robs capital from the rest of the world.  What they didn’t tell us was that if that is the case, what is the way forward.  David Frum was trying to make the point that this wasn’t the Republican’s fault.  I do think they made a very valid point that the real problem is global, but decisions on how to solve it, whether in China or America, is political and thus locally focused.  Meanwhile John McCain is railing against the earmarks in the budget (less than 3%) as though this is our problem.

Reliable Sources took on the real issue of whether the press and CNBC were trying to use instantaneous market fluctuations as unfair evaluations of the President’s policies.  The answers were sadly predictable based upon the pundit’s political persuasion.  The automaton from the Washington Times (conservative Washingtown voice) thought it was just fine, while the rest of the pundits thought we may need to step back and wait and see.  She (the Washington Times blogger) even tried to play down the Jon Stewart satire of CNBC’s financial predictions that went bust (See Two Pieces of Wisdom from Jon Stewart).  Sad that politics blinds us to our own failures in logic, myself excluded of course.

So what have learned?  Not much.  Apparently most Americans are looking for a quick fix in America for a global problem that will probably get much worse before it bottoms out.  What we really need is to understand just how serious the problem is, that the problem and the solution are global, and a general agreement on the way forward.  The political arguments we are having are the cart before the horse when we should first listen to dueling economists and historians so we understand the problem. What we are getting now is moderate steps in one direction, amid political arguments that we are all tired of.  When the Sunday shows start bringing in historians and economists, maybe then the political babble will end and we can have a rational discussion about the way forward.

For what it is worth here is my two bits:  Ignore the Republicans.  Doing what Herbert Hoover did in 1929 is not a way forward.  They are locked in their political ideology and their ideas, or lack thereof, are a result of mental constipation.  It is a global problem, but I am not sure that the U.S., even if we knew the correct solution, could bring the EU and China along.  The one example we have of getting out of this is the Keynesian solution, which is deficit spending.   When we did massive borrowing to run World War II, we did it all internally by borrowing from our own citizens.  The conventional wisdom is that we will be borrowing from the Chinese this time and they may redirect their money to their own problem, forcing us to raise interest rates to get the required cash.  Unless you haven’t noticed things are getting very bad in China and unrest is quite possible.

Having said that, we could always print money which causes inflation, which if things get bad enough, may not be such a bad idea since inflation forces people to buy things since they need to spend their money before it is devalued.  At any rate I think we need to proceed with the Obama solution which has three legs; stimulus, banks, and housing, only much more aggressively.  As Tom Friedman wrote in one of his columns when he described the scene in Jaws where one of the major characters (Richard Dryfus) sees the shark for the first time and tells the boat captain, “we need a bigger boat”.  Well, we need a bigger stimulus package.

The next stimulus package will be about the size of the last one, but forget the tax cuts and focus on investments that will create jobs that will be about the economy of the future.  That would be infrastructure, education, energy, and climate.  We need to get that in place right now and the only infrastructure spending would be either repairing what has to be repaired or new green transportation systems.  Continuing to build transportation systems that are petroleum centric is counterproductive.

For the banking system, ditherating is not an answer.  The fear of a domino effect must be overcome (or ameliorated) and we have to identify and remove the bad debts out of the system (along with the present management structure).  Investors, bondholders, and taxpayers must all share in this burden (read pain).  Whether this is some form of the bad bank/good bank scenario or nationalization, it must be done quickly.  One aside here:  One guest on GPS raised the issue of class anger in the United States.  We let the rich get richer because we believe the lie that we would all profit and they squandered everything.  It will be imperative that those who profited from our downfall are seen to pay dearly in fixing the system or there will be rioting in the streets.

Finally the same medicine is going to have to happen in the mortgage industry.  Decide on a reasonable interest rate for all loans, say 4%-5% and establish it.  Then re-evaluate the market worth today of the property and reset the principle balances.  Use a liberal value assuming some middle ground between the present principle balance and a realistic actual worth.  Those that can qualify for these new loans, then fine.  Those that can’t get foreclosed on.  Waiting for the marketplace to do this under foreclosures just extends our problems.  Note that this is almost a double-edged sword because once this is done, much of the banking problem settles at what those toxic assets are really worth and what the federal government should insure them for.  This not only settles the worth of the Collateral Debt Obligations (CDOs) but the Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) and allows us to estimate the real worth of these investments.

Okay, maybe these ideas are a little naïve considering the complexity of the problems, the interconnectiveness of our economies, and the impact of global problems, but why aren’t we having this discussion instead of endless discussion about what is politically possible instead of what needs to be done and making it politically possible?

As much as I see this as a global crisis, and although we need to stay engaged and try to work with the EU and China to solve the problems, the real place where our actions can make a difference is at home.  The critical issue is that this must be our focus and we need to get on with it, aggressively.  Any other delay or Republican obstructionism, and we are doomed. Note there is a bright side.  If we have a global depression, Iran won’t be able to afford nukes, North Korea will starve, and Al-Qaeda will be broke.  This says to me it is really time to start solving our own problems instead of saving Iraq and Afghanistan from themselves by emptying out our treasury.

I have been watching the Republicans complain about the stimulus bill and it became clear that they are loosing their grip on reality, if they ever had it.  My favorite is John Boehner giving a speech in the House claiming this was not a stimulus bill to create jobs, but a spending bill. “A bill that was supposed to be about jobs, jobs, jobs has turned into a bill about spending, spending, spending.”   Uh, Mr. Boehner?  Just what do you think a stimulus bill is?  It is spending to put money into the system to stimulate jobs.  What would your jobs bill look like and why didn’t you propose it?  Would that be your tax cut bill?  Is not tax cuts spending since you are reducing your revenues to put money in people’s pockets?  Oh but it gets better.

One the floor during the debate the Republicans were making some pretty wild claims.  Apparently they are getting their stuff from the right wing blogosphere and not doing any fact checking.  That is the most disturbing part of this episode because it is now apparent that many in Congress believe their own propaganda and cannot separate out wild accusations from real facts.  Maybe all we have left in Congress of the Republican party are the right wing fruitcakes and conspiracy theory wing nuts.  Here are a few examples:

• They made the claim that there were millions in the bill for a mouse protection program in the bay area (a Pelosi earmark).  There was money for wetland restoration, but not in her district.  By the way, wetland restoration is spending that employs people and improves our environment, but that would be wasteful spending in a Republican’s mind.
• There was a provision they claimed in the medical stimulus that would let the government dictate what medical procedures could be used.  Actually it simply was money to provide doctors with data on how effective different treatments were so they could make a rational choice, but with these guys, the black helicopters are just behind the next ridge.
• Food stamps and unemployment payments are not stimulus.  Oh really?  Both are money that is immediately spent in the economy.  It keeps people from living on the street and provides the income so necessary to other businesses to stay in business.  John McCain’s own economic advisor for his campaign estimated that for every dollar spent you get $1.6 dollars of impact on the economy.  You guys want it to be more stimulative then double the amount.
• The bill is full of pork.  I think that means anything that isn’t a tax cut.  Was spending on a high-speed rail pork?  Of course they think so.  But doesn’t it improve our transportation infrastructure while providing good jobs?  I think their point is that once again unless the money benefits corporations directly through tax cuts, it is pork. Note that once again most economist say that for every $1 tax cut, the effect on the economy is a paltry $0.80.  Wow, that is stimulus.  From their point of view, giving people good health insurance is pork if the government is involved.
• Government spending is not stimulus.  I love this one.  It is like the whole 1930’s didn’t exist.  Does anybody ask these guys who is going to spend if the private sector is shrinking and government shrinks also?  Did anybody ask them why most businesses, most of their own Republican governors, and the Chamber of Commerce supported this bill?  They have truly lost their marbles and are becoming ideological flacks.  Welcome to the California legislature.

What should really worry you is that recent studies of the debate showed that the guests on most cable and network media news shows were 2 to 1 Republican as they hammered their talking points (Media Matters).  Even more troubling when looking at all the guests the media invited to talk about the plan, only 5% were economists.  Talk about failing to do your job of informing the people (Huffington Post).

But the part I liked best was the claims by John McCain and John Boehner.  McCain, still not remembering he lost the election because most Americans figured out he did not have a clue about what to do about the economy other than cut taxes, claimed that this bill is stealing from our children.  Oh really?  You Republicans did not blink an eye to approve the same money for Iraq and then you proposed a tax cut that if enacted would increase the deficit by more than $3 trillion.  I guess if it is big enough it is not stealing from our kids any more.

Then John Boehner claimed that this was so partisan that they weren’t even given time to read the final bill, all 1100 pages.  Let’s see, you have been debating it for several weeks so does that mean you did not read it then?  The final bill was a markup with your Republican colleagues approval from the Senate, so couldn’t you have reviewed the markup?  Oh, and I forgot, none of you guys voted for it last time so we want to give you extra time to make up more fantasies about this one?

The amazing thing is that even with all this misinformation and misdirection the stimulus package is still popular out here where real people live and are losing their dreams.  Maybe the echo chamber of the Washington news media and Republican false talking points are finally losing out to reality.  I can only hope.

This Sunday morning talk shows brought us some interesting interviews and once again an insight into our political choices and our press and their failings.  Here are some of the more poignant moments as I interpreted them:

• In Tom Brokaw’s interview with Colin Powell on Meet the Press, Powell indicated basically everything that is wrong with the Republican Party: that he is concerned about more conservative judge picks; That the Republican party had moved too far to the right; the poor judgment shown in the Sarah Palin pick;  the corrosive and divisive campaign that John McCain is running; and the need for real change as his reason for endorsing Barack Obama.  Most importantly he identified what most of us consider the root problem, that John McCain will continue the failed policies of the Republicans without any real change.  Did Brokaw follow up on any of this?  No he asked about William Ayers again, which Powell dismissed and wondered when the press is going to focus on the real issues and not the head fake called William Ayers.  By the way for another well thought out endorsement of Obama, read Fareed Zakaria’s endorsement in the Newsweek or read the transcript of his endorsement on GPS.
• In the same Meet the Press program when we had a forum of pundits, they all pined for the old John McCain and wondered which would show up for the last two weeks.  Instead of focusing on the real problems that Colin Powell had identified in the Republican Party, they longed for the good old guy they think they use to know.  What I can’t ever figure out is why pundits cannot distinguish between charm and substance.  John McCain is not what he says, but what he does.  And what he is doing tells you all you need to know about his character and who he is.  At least Collin Powell could see this reality.
• David Brooks has written an editorial recently that opined that John McCain just needs to establish a vision for the country and a plan to get there, that his policies were scatter shot and did not represent a cohesive whole in support of this vision.  It is the failure of pundits and intellectuals like David Brooks to understand that there is not a Republican vision other than low taxes, cuts in spending, and let the market place make us great.  Any other vision would mean that government “that is the problem” must be the solution.  This is not Republican ideology.  To do this would bring the whole Reagan legacy into question.
• On CNN’s Reliable Sources Lara Logan was interviewed about her trip to Afghanistan and her reporting on the war there that will be featured on 60 Minutes Sunday evening.  The discussion focused around how these stories of the war have lost airtime even though the war there is intensifying.  It occurred to me that there is a symbiosis between those reporting on the war and the war itself.  If you are reporting stories about how brave our forces are and the tough fight they are fighting there, do you buy into the story line that this makes a difference and your reporting is also critical?  Maybe the way forward in Afghanistan is not an escalating and continued military campaign.  In other words do reporters who are reporting on these wars have too much invested in them and thus we don’t get a realistic picture of a way forward?
• Also on Reliable Sources was an interview with fired National Review editorial writer and son of William Buckley, Christopher Buckley, after he endorsed Barack Obama.  What Mr. Buckley raised in this interview and that has been quite obvious to those of us on the outside, is that conservatives do not allow dissent.  Instead of a lively debate among conservatives on where the Republican Party has gone wrong, what we get is enforcement of ideology.  It is a glaring example of the “religious” tenor of conservatives today in that they are no longer willing to engage in rational examinations of their philosophy, only strict enforcement for failure to adhere to the party line.  One of the real complaints about fundamental Islam is that it does not brook any discussion of the “revealed word” and as such is frozen in time.  The same could be said for these conservatives.
• Her Majesty the Queen Rania of Jordan was on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS and she spoke eloquently to promote the voices of moderation in the Muslim world.  She stated that she did not believe that Islam in and of itself subjugates women, but certain people choose to interpret Islam in a way that does hold women back.  Although admirable, the trouble with this line of reasoning is that it doesn’t get to the root problem of the “revealed word”.  If each of us can interpret it as we see fit, who is to say whom is correct?  It is the whole problem of faith versus rationalism.  For my money, religion should be seen as a philosophy of life that is susceptible to rational evaluation and change.  But that is counter to very definition of religious belief.  Good luck Queen Rania.
• Finally there is the claim by John McCain in his campaign speech on Saturday (it is the fear card again) that Barack Obama is a socialist.  It is the old class warfare of the rich versus everyone else.  It was evident in the debate when McCain said, “this is no time to be spreading around the wealth.”  This is part and parcel of Republican mythology that protecting and growing the rich will mean more enterprise and raise up everyone, except it hasn’t worked in this global economy.  What the Republicans can’t seem to incorporate into their ideology is that a vibrant and growing middle class is critical to a vibrant and growing economy. Actually that is not quite true.  They believe that, but they can’t let go of the dogma that making the rich richer benefits everyone.  Numbers don’t lie and under the conservative economic policies, our middle class is shrinking and the poor are growing.  So what John McCain labels socialism is really looking at new ways to grow this middle class again for a vibrant economy.  It’s too bad that the “maverick” can’t see reality because he is blinded by his conservative glasses.

So there is a lot out there to tell you that there is only one real path for change.  It is amazing that with differences so stark, and the history of failure of the Republican policies, this election stays close.  But I heard an interview with an undecided voter that struck terror in my heart.  He basically came away from the debates feeling that he likes John McCain more because he related to him.  It’s a beauty contest and they have thrown rational thinking out the door if they ever had any.  I would say to that voter,” Judge not what he says, judge what he does”, and what he is doing is proposing old solutions to new problems and using the campaign strategy of intolerance and fear to gain their votes.  He is no maverick.  That is just wishful thinking.

The answer to that question depends on which century you live in, the 20th, or the 21st.  If you are in the 20th century and we are a rich nation that can afford to fight on in Iraq till we “win” without any sacrifice by your citizens in terms of taxes or a draft then John McCain is your man.  If you think trickle down economics works, McCain is your man.  If you think the way forward in our tough economic times is lower taxes and less regulation (except the markets), without major government involvement, then again John McCain is your man.  If you think the market place will solve our energy and healthcare problems, John McCain is your man.  If you like the 80’s approach to the world and Russia, John McCain is your man.  If you think the same Republican infrastructure of power and policy are going to change things, John is your man.

On the other hand if you think we have done what we can in Iraq and we need to start nation building at home, Barack Obama is your man.  If you think we need to take a more inclusive approach in approaching challenges throughout the world, Barrack Obama is your man.  If you believe that government is a big part to play in our energy future, Barack Obama is your man.  If you believe that some sacrifice by you and all Americans is necessary to get America back on track, Bararck Obama is your man.  If you believe that healthcare is not going to be solved by deregulating, and government has a major role to play in leveling the playing field, Barack Obama is your man.  If you believe that government will have to invest in infrastructure, R&D, and energy then Barack Obama is your man.  If you think our solutions to the problems we are facing in this 21st century will take new approaches not based upon 20th century thinking, Barack is your man.

So the answer to the question depends on which century you are living in.  Which is it?

Well I would guess you are starting to get it.  The conservative Republican idea of compromise and country first only applies to their proposals and their ideas.  The economic bailout went down to defeat because the Republicans decided not to support it even with John McCain’s “leadership” (who most of them don’t like).  Speaker Pelosi made no secret that the bill would require 50% participation from the Republicans to make this thing work.  Then the Democratic leadership worked hand in hand with the Republican leadership and the White House to produce a comprised bill that was accepted by all parties.  After the leadership had agreed, they froze it, put it out for all to read, so that the vote would be a clean and quick process.  Then the Republicans leadership did not deliver their votes and somehow this is the Democrat’s fault.  I find this rather interesting thinking.  John McCain called its failure due to partisanship by the Democrats and then called for bipartisanship.  See any irony in this statement?  In plain terms, “You guys are stupid, ignorant jerks!  Now let’s stop calling each other names and work together.”

House Minority Leader John Boehner tells us that Speaker Pelosi gave a partisan speech prior to the vote that turned off the Republican Caucus and they responded by voting “no”.  Now lets think about this:  Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats recognized that something must be done and were willing to work with both the White House and the Republicans for a bill.  They gave and gave and gave in the negotiations and this bill is not what they wanted and they gave up their most important priority for a bill that would pass (mortgage rate relief).  So with a bill that is unpopular with the rabble in the country that just wants to lynch someone, she felt the need not to give those voting “no” cover by pointing out that this bill was the result of eight years of Republican economic policy, nobody liked taking this bitter medicine, but for the good of the country here it is.  The Republicans were offended and decided to screw the country.

Now it is true that 40% of Democrats did not support the bill.  Most didn’t support it, it would appear, because they were angry over the removal of the ability of the government to own the mortgages and negotiate new rates that would keep many in their houses or do enough for Main Street.  But two-thirds of Republicans were against it.  Most were standing behind the mantra that we should not reward the evil doers on Wall Street and the government should not be in the business of controlling the marketplace.  It is a faith-based belief that has served us poorly in the past and will continue to fail us until we finally grow up and quit believing in a magical invisible hand.  Most of us don’t know or understand the complexities of this market meltdown and the credit crunch we are facing, and neither do most in Congress; but most respected experts have said we are facing a calamity if no action is taken.  Apparently that is true since the market lost over $1 trillion dollars on Monday and that does not reflect the pain to come as credit freezes up.  That loss reflects the loss of real people’s retirement planning, education planning, hopes and dreams.  Meanwhile the Republicans sunk the whole deal because it wasn’t their perfect deal, didn’t reflect their religious belief in the marketplace, or their feelings were hurt by Speaker Pelosi.  So much for compromise, political courage, and country first.

Here is what I think really happened:  Like the Democrats, the Republicans have about 40% of their members who on basic philosophical terms (in the Republican’s case government has no place in the marketplace), disagreed with the bill.  But what about the other 26% of the Republicans that could have passed this bill?  They were gaming the system for political advantage.

According to Chuck Todd of MSNBC, those Republicans who voted “no” almost to the man/woman are in or have been in very tough re-election campaigns.  They wanted to go back home and convince their voters that they are not the lap dog of the Bush Administration (which of course they have been), and they have protected their constituents from rewarding the evil doer Wall Street financiers.  Even better, they wanted to make the case that they prevented the spending Democrat’s attempt to waste all that money and turn us into a socialist state.  People in the country have yet to really understand this problem and they are still in lynch mob mode.  They want to lash out instead of looking at solving the problem that will be much worse if they don’t reign in their need for revenge.  These Republicans were showing a total lack of moral courage by pandering to these constituents instead of supporting their country.  They were looking for a way to cover their political asses and they found one.

So where do we go from here?  If you believe like I do that we have to do something, then I would strongly recommend that the Democrats blow off the Republicans (except for the moderates) and write a bill that they really could whole heartedly support and then pass it.  That probably won’t happen and, after reality sets in, the Republicans will come back to the table.  I would give them nothing.  The bill is already bad so don’t make it worse.  Either pass the existing bill you worked so hard to build in a bipartisan way, or pass the bill you really think will not only help the market, but main street and let the Republicans flounder behind their leader, John McCain, who led them to nowhere.

I don’t know about you but I had a hard time listening to the debate.  I would listen to some of the pandering comments and just rage at the machine that was issuing them.  I finally had to listen to it outside on my satellite radio so I could pace and shout without disturbing my wife who was focused on ignoring the whole thing.  However my trusty golden retriever would come over and lick my hand after each of my outburst as to say, “There, there.”  It was like a football game and you just have too much invested in one side and the battle becomes a little too personal.  The suspense on the outcome becomes too much and you just can’t watch it anymore.

Okay, but it is over so who won?  Well the first thing I will tell you is that I am so biased I would not be a good source for an honest evaluation.  The pundits (ignore the campaign representatives who are simply spin misters and I have no idea why the networks/cable news bothers with them) seem to think McCain won it because he was more on the attack, although Obama’s defenses were excellent.  On the other hand they all thought he held his own during the portion of the debate on foreign policy threat the conventional wisdom says was John McCain’s strong point.  Some criticism of Obama’s performance centered on him not being aggressive enough on the economy and tying John McCain to the Bush Administration.  My own impression right after the debate was that Barrack held his own and I doubted if this debate was a decider in the minds of many voters.  But having some time to think about it, and the initial numbers supporting Obama’a performance, I think there was something else going on here on the visceral level that the pundits and I missed.

I think the first thing that the pundits did notice, but did not attach much importance to was that John McCain would not look at Barack Obama or address him directly.  Whatever the reason, whether visceral or planned, it was perceived, I believe, as condescending and arrogant.   Now for diehard McCain fans this is just fine:  “Who does this uppity Democrat think he is?”   But I think for that 10% undecided that this campaign is really fighting for, instead of reinforcing strength and steadiness, it presented a stubbornness and a unwillingness to listen to other opinions that is representative of how we got into the messes we are in today.  For conservative Republicans he was showing the strict father who would lecture the undisciplined and inesperienced  child.  For the rest of us it was the aging parent who had not moved on with the times and could not listen to new ideas.

Then there was the debate over Iraq.  We have heard all the points before.  But it was John McCain’s fixation on Iraq and his continuing belief that this war is central to our war on terrorism that I think once again emphasized his inability to move on to a more global view of the world.  Most Americans have moved on from Iraq no matter how they feel about “winning”.  They want to start nation building at home.  So I think what they wanted to hear was a way to quickly end this thing and get on to more pressing problems at home.  They don’t care if the surge is working, they just want out.  What they got from John McCain was a never ending commitment to “winning” with no end in sight.  Focus here:  I am not talking about which side had a better approach to ending our involvement in the Middle East, because neither one of them presented a comprehensive or realistic plan(see Looking Forward and Looking Forward II – Pakistan), but what I am talking about is an emotional feeling about which of them is better suited to face the crises of the future. In this argument, John was perceived as focused and stuck in a war of the last administration while the rest of the nation is moving on.

I will take on one thing that John McCain said that I deeply disagree with and Chris Mathews also pick up on and properly criticized McCain for and that is that if we don’t win in Iraq, all those people (it wasn’t just our soldiers who paid the ultimate price for this folly) died in vain.  The logic is that once we start a war we can never admit we were wrong or we will abandon and dishonor those who fought and died for us.  I have a few friends who died in Viet Nam, I fought there, and we lost that war.  But these people did their duty for their country and the outcome has nothing to do with their sacrifice.  It is another indication of John McCain’s rigid pattern of thinking that I think many voters recognize as not what we are looking for in the 21st century.

So all in all here is what I think:  Barack held his own, even though he missed many opportunities, especially in the economic portion of the debate to expose John’s basic unchanging approach to the economy from typical Republican approaches in the past.  To the conservative Republican who is looking for a leader who establishes obedience and discipline, John fits the bill with his unwavering beliefs (regardless of his “maverick” claims) and experience.  But to the voters he really has to connect to, that undecided 10%, he may have shown his intransigent world view that will not bring the change we need, even as he touts his “maverick” side.  Instead of the wise father figure, he looks like the aging patriarch stuck in another time, unable to make the transition to new ideas and ways of doing business, his experience firmly rooted in another time.  If the debate is finally judged a win by Obama, I think it was on these more visceral feelings than rational arguments about the issues.

I once heard a Republican in the Bush Administration say Republicans will define reality.  They may be right.  I found a web page by a Republican, Dick Bush, who said, “We Republicans need to remember our morals make us right.”   Apparently they really believe it because the Republican Convention was about an America that doesn’t exist and facts that weren’t facts.  It would appear that the truth doesn’t make any difference anymore*.  Just get your story out there, the 24/7 press will repeat it over and over, and by the time the truth is known, nobody cares anymore.  You have convinced whom you need to convince.  That was the Republican approach at their convention with most of speeches full of outright misrepresentations to lies.  They invented the liberal eastern establishment that has caused all of our problems even though they have been ruling the roost for 12 years.  The K Street project, a scheme by Republicans to force all lobbyists to be Republican, wasn’t a Democratic scheme.  Then they brought out Sarah Palin with a whole biography that is not holding up to examination.  But my point is it may not matter.  They made their point, although a fabrication, the mainstream press gave it a full airing without vetting, and now it is going to stick even when reality testing shows it doesn’t pass the test.  This is how they won the last two elections and it just may work again. Why do you think she won’t face the press?  The downside is what they propose for our future has not worked in the past.

I don’t think there is any point in going over Sarah Palin’s resumé, the touted one or the real one.  It will come out in the next several weeks from the librarian she tried to fired for not being compliant enough in banning books, to her lack of credentials as a fiscal conservative and how she has lied about her accomplishments (the plane did not sell on ebay and it was at a loss, etc., but it sounded good).  The corrections will probably not matter with a public that only listens to what they want to hear.  What is really important is the politics she could potentially bring to the White House and how John McCain has compromised all of the beliefs we use to admire him for in standing up to the Republican Party in an attempt to win the White House.  The Republican’s strategy will be that with the pick of Sarah Palin, she is real change.  Well here is what we do know about her and her politics so far and I am not sure it is a change we can survive:

• We know she tried to have a librarian fired and that she had approached the woman about the potential for banning some books in the library.  Are they related?  You be the judge.  I would just tell you that anyone who thinks that they can judge what the rest of us can read is not a democrat (small “d”).  Note she also fired the police chief for purportedly not supporting her re-election.  First thing you have to think about is how many librarians do you ever see fired and second, can she work in a government that doesn’t agree with her on every issue?
• We know that she thinks creationism should be taught in the schools albeit along side evolution.  What this tells me is that she does not understand the appropriate separation of church and state, nor does she understand the difference between science and religion.  This mixing of religion and science simply dumbs us down and brings faith and dissention back into the classroom.  By the way, if we should teach creationism, what other religious beliefs about the origin ought to be given equal time?  From her view there is only one true view and that should worry you shouldn’t it?
• We know that she is being investigated for firing the Alaskan public safety commissioner as an abuse of power.  We don’t know if it is true or not but it does smack of good old boy politics which is what Alaska is all about.  So at the lowest level, this raises the specter of same old politics in Washington.  K Street project come to mind?
• She believes that life should be defined as beginning at conception and as a result of this believes all abortions should be banned period.  Joe Bidden also believes this but he understands that this belief is based upon his faith and he cannot and should not legislate his faith on others.  What does Sarah think?  We won’t know until she finally faces the press, which may never happen if they can’t rehearse her enough.  Does this make you nervous?
• She has said she supports a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage.  The California Supreme court overturned the ban on gay marriage in California as being inherently unequal.  You have to wonder who would modify our Constitution to enforce inequality on some of our citizens because of their religion.  Certainly that wouldn’t be the Party of Lincoln would it?

More will come out about her claimed fiscal conservative approach in Alaska and the reality that Alaska is an oil welfare state that has received more federal aid than their population will justify ($4000/citizen in earmarks in her little town).  But one has to wonder why John McCain, the supposed maverick, would pick such a person who is so opposite to his original views on these issues and would bring the religious right back into government.  There are two highly probable answers here that should give you pause.  The first one is that it was not his choice.  And from that conclusion you should realize that he does not have the free reign to implement change and reach across the aisle as he claims and someone else may be pulling the strings.  The second answer is that it distracts the voters from the real issues and we are going to waste our time on all of the above identified cultural wars we thought we had put behind us.

And where are John McCain and Sarah Palin campaigning?  In the hinterlands in Middle America where people really do cling to their religion and guns.  Yes I know it was Barack’s impolitic remark, but that doesn’t make it not true.  These are the voters responsible for our last eight years of misery with their “small town values.”  It is easy to distract these voters with these cultural wars where the real issues of our economy, the mortgage crisis, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, our energy crisis, the climate crisis, Russia’s new found thugism, are all ignored or addressed with sound bites to dismiss them because all these crises happened under the Republican’s watch as part and parcel of Republican policies.  It’s smart politics, but it may be disastrous for our country.  It may even win an election, but will not move the nation in the direction we need to go.   I think on the issues, the real issues, the Republicans lose, but it remains to be seen if we will ever get to discuss them.

* There may be another reason that facts don’t inform reality for conservatives:  If you followed my blog, How Conservatives Think, then you will understand that they view the nation state and authority through the strict father family model.  Work hard, be obedient to the strict father (Authority), you will develop discipline, be successful, and most importantly moral.  Conservatives cannot believe that their philosophy (the rules) could be a problem which is why they truly believe that there is a liberal eastern establishment the wrecked their time in power and is painting a false picture of them.  If you just have discipline, be obedient to authority, and follow the conservative rules, success and morality are guaranteed.  In conservative’s eyes this is what Sarah Palin represents.  She is a conservative Republican therefore by definition she is moral, she is disciplined, followed the rules (in this case the religious right’s rules), and is proof their morality gets rewarded (her success and meteoric rise in politics), therefore she is the incarnate and embodiment of what they believe about truth and justice in the world.  In other words they are emotionally invested in her story and her success.  Facts that discredit that perception of her must be disregarded as untrue or in their mind are untrue.  Like I said it is very similar to religion where when reality denies their faith, it has no impact on their belief.

One note:  On the issues and one we all care about, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, Fareed Zakaria had an interview with Rory Stewart, a Farsi-speaking British diplomat on his show Sunday (CNN GPS) who was appointed deputy governor of Amarah and then Nasiriyah, provinces in the remote, impoverished marsh regions of southern Iraq; who spent the next eleven months negotiating hostage releases, holding elections, and splicing together some semblance of an infrastructure for a population of millions teetering on the brink of civil war.  Here is a man who knows the reality of that part of the world and his discussion was about what is possible over there.  Our political discussion has been about whether the surge worked, who said we should put more troops into Afghanistan first, but not about a realistic endgame.  Whether the surge worked or not, and whether things in Afghanistan are deteriorating, the real issue is what is possible and what should we do.  Neither candidate has addressed our end game strategy and what we can afford or realistically accomplish.  This interview sheds a great deal of light on this subject and oh how I wish the candidates were discussing it.