As predicted, the McCain / Palin ticket have benefited from a bounce in the polls. CNN reports that McCain and Obama are tied, at 48% each, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp poll released on Monday afternoon.
A USA Today/Gallup poll taken over the weekend shows a 4% lead for McCain over Obama, with a 50% of respondents favouring McCain versus 46% for Obama.
Will this last? Apparently only a limited number of Hillary Clinton’s supporters have decided to back Obama, while the Republicans themselves are only just starting to get organised. It’s probably too early to tell: I anticipate the polls will swing closer towards a tie as we progress towards October. It’s going to be a hard race, and will most likely be decided by get-out-the-vote on Election Day.
This may come as a shock to most Democratic supports, who can’t imagine why their candidate isn’t further ahead in the polls. Nothing should be taken for granted at this stage.
Some other things to keep track of:
· David Frum’s superlative article Times entitled “The Vanishing Republican Voter” appeared in the September 5th New York Time. This article explores the links between rising inequality and political orientation in the United States. If you read one article this week, it should be this one.
· The Republican Base is back. As predicted, Palin’s selection has changed the game for the GOP. Alec MacGillis covers the new energy injected into one core constituency of the Republican party in a perceptive article, “For the Republican Base, Palin Pick Is Energizing” in Monday’s Washington Post.
I’ve been slightly mystified by the Democratic reaction to the Palin pick. Pundits, bloggers and others are making the mistake of analysing this choice rationally, i.e. in terms of performance. Don’t. Sarah Palin’s value is as a symbol of achievement, an inspiration, rather than a statement of the achievements themselves. She is dynamite, and her nomination alongside John McCain has changed the game and may–if the Republican base catches up–win the election.
Tuesday, 9 September 2008
Sunday, 7 September 2008
Stranger, spare a thought for Afghanistan
The FT’s Editorial Comment on Afghanistan ("Afghan Harvest," August 27th, 2008) paints a grim, succinct picture of the role of economic development and security in that country, and why the struggle for security may fail.
In a nutshell, conditions in Afghanistan are deteriorating. The Taliban and its sponsors have taken a page from classic insurgency strategy, and are interdicting convoys carrying fuel, food and humanitarian aid from Kabul to the south. The recent attack on French paratroopers 40 miles from Kabul is another indication of their ability to strike at will throughout the country. If this reminds anyone of the Viet Cong strategy in Vietnam, it should be no surprise.
Afghanistan is a country of some 38 million people, 80% of whom are Sunni, and divided into over 30 major ethnic groups, of which the Pashtun and Tadjik are estimated as the largest. The terrain is extremely rugged, and transport links are vital to assuring basic economic activity. It is one of the poorest countries in the world, and among the least developed on the UNDP's Human Development Index , when it is ranked at all.
In this environment, it should come as no surprise that the conditions for insurgency are flourishing. The Taliban has maintained its fundamental attractiveness as a political, social and religious force among a significant segment of the Afghan population, particularly in the Pashtun-dominated south-east of the country, bordering Pakistan. The actions of the US-led NATO alliance appear to be fanning the flames of the insurgency, either through brutal air assaults which lead to high “collateral damage” among civilians, or due to the humiliating way in which most military patrols interact with civilians.
For a review of the latter, just turn on CNN and watch how the average military patrol speaks with, frisks and detains Afghans. In a culture where possession of firearms is not only a necessity, but a cultural heritage, the fact that someone can be arrested apparently for possessing a firearm is slightly absurd. Beyond this, the fact that these people are searched, at gunpoint, in full view of other males and occasionally females, must go against every cultural and social tenet in the book. In other words, it’s a major humiliation, in a country where wars have been started for less.
There is no easy solution to this specific problem, and I don’t raise it with an alternative solution in mind. The key to defeating an insurgency is security, which would allow the conditions for economic growth, political engagement and social modernisation. Although the Afghanistan Compact provides a well-thought, well-intentioned strategic framework for doing so, it’s clear that the implementation of this framework is not sufficiently resourced.
Consider that the Afghanistan Compact provides for three key pillars of activity:
1. Security
2. Governance, Rule of Law and Human Rights
3. Economic and Social Development
In this post, I will focus primarily on the first pillar, security, since without it the remaining two pillars will be impossible to achieve. This is also an issue of prime importance, since it affects decisions made in the current US Presidential election, as well as long-term issues in international security.
In the last 2 years, the Taliban have regrouped and taken the fight to major population centres outside the south-west of the country. They are interdicting the major transport axes to and from Kabul, and are mounting attacks against major military bases and within Kabul itself. In 2007, for instance, the Taliban launched a suicide bombing attack outside Bagram air base during Vice President Cheney’s visit. The number of US and ISAF casualties in Afghanistan has been rising, and US casualties are surfacing as a sound bite in US political coverage.
There are a number of root causes to government's inability to control security:
Insufficient Troops
There are not enough ISAF or Afghan boots on the ground to provide security and defeat the insurgency. ISAF reports a total of 52,700 troops, including National Support Elements. According to the Congressional Research Service (report available from the Federation of American Scientists), the US has a total of 48,250 troops deployed in-country as of June 1, 2008, of which about 60% are tasked to ISAF, with the remainder of Operation Enduring Freedom.
Assuming that 52,700 ISAF troops are joined by the 40% of US troops in OEF (19,300 troops), then there are a total of 72,000 western troops in-country. Of these, a number of German, French and other troops contributing to ISAF are stationed in the north of Afghanistan, and are not deployable to conflict regions. To this, we can add the 46,000 troops of the Afghan National Army forces, but these are widely acknowledged to be insufficient for independent command.
An Unknown Enemy
We can only define a number of troops as “insufficient” if we know the nature and deployment of the enemy they are confronting. Here, unfortunately, we are operating in the dark. The Taliban enjoys apparently unlimited ability to deploy its forces, either from its strongholds across the border in Pakistan, or from its bases within Afghan territory. According to a 2007 article in the New York Times, there are approximately 10,000 Taliban insurgents, of which 2,000 – 3,000 are committed, motivated fighters. The Senlis Council estimated that the Taliban controlled approximately 54% of Afghanistan’s territory in November 2007. The Taliban’s leadership is widely reported to be based in Pakistan, which itself appears to be undergoing a rapid melt-down of national government authority, at least in the Tribal Areas.
Regional Enemies and Safe Havens
Afghanistan’s neighbours, primarily Iran and Pakistan, can hardly be considered friendly states. US security services have accused Iran of supporting the Taliban, particularly through provision of weapons and expertise. Although these charges have not been sufficiently proven, the fact that Iran is following an active strategy against US interests in Iraq and the Persian Gulf indicates that its role could easily change: Iran holds the initiative on the border, not the Afghan government.
The New York Times recently reported a meeting between the CIA and the new Pakistani Prime Minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, about the ISI’s support for the Taliban attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul. It’s also clear that although Pakistan has been trying to impose central government control on the so-called Tribal Areas, it has been failing. The government has lost any number of military engagements in the region, and the Pakistani Taliban has shown that it is up to the task of defeating government forces on its own territory. Whatever the case, the fact that both Iran and Pakistan are, de facto or de jure, hostile towards the United States (in the former case) and of Afghanistan (in the latter) indicates that the Taliban insurgency has a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks in the country.
Opium
Perhaps the final element in the security situation is the cultivation of the opium poppy, which provides not only a high value crop for Afghan farmers, but finances the Taliban. Although recent reports indicate that the opium harvest is declining, with poppy cultivation down 19% over 2007, the laws of supply and demand mean that the Taliban will, if anything, gain income as prices rise in response to diminished supply. In the absence of foreign sponsors, the cultivation, processing and trafficking of opium provides a constant and reliable source of income, which until now neither ISAF, nor the UN, the Afghan government nor Operational Enduring Freedom have managed to shut down. Indeed, opium production is fuelling government corruption, with many reports questioning President Hamid Karzai’s inability to stop the trade.
The scale of the root causes of the security issue cannot be underestimated, and are complex. To define the Taliban as a group of ignorant Islamic fanatics is to confuse the issue, rather than to illuminate it. The Taliban’s religious and political philosophy, no matter how much we may disagree with it, is profoundly rooted in regional culture, history and current events. To “win hearts and minds” will be extremely difficult in the current situation, far more difficult than in Iraq, which can build on successive generations of secularism under Saddam Hussein and prior rulers.
Into this maelstrom, both US Presidential candidates, as well as President George W. Bush, have resolved to send more troops. Barack Obama has mentioned two combat brigades – about 7,000 troops – to Afghanistan. John McCain wants to send three additional brigades. President George W. Bush has announced plans to increase the troop commitment to Afghanistan as well, although this is contingent on the draw-down following the surge in Iraq.
Additional forces are welcome: there is no doubt about this. Yet this will certainly not be enough: a generation of international assistance for the second and third pillars of the Afghanistan Compact will be needed.
I wonder as well if the political dimensions of the Afghan conflict are being properly addressed, or even though about. The US-led troop presence of Afghanistan has now nearly completed 7 years since the original invasion in October 2001, following the Al Qaeda attack on the World Trade Centre on September 11th. As recounted in this article, the Taliban insurgency has gained ground in recent years. This leads me to raise a series of questions, particularly since I’m tired of hearing the bromide that “Afghanistan is too important to fail”:
1. How do we define success or failure?
2. What scenarios exist for success or failure in Afghanistan?
3. What drivers and barriers exist to success (and failure)?
4. What price is appropriate for assuring that Afghanistan succeeds?
5. Are we prepared to pay this price?
This is a highly complex subject, and requires extensive further reporting. But for the time being, if anyone is interested in this subject, I invite you to check the websites of the two candidates – Barack Obama and John McCain, and consider whether this is receiving anything near the attention is should be. The Obama campaign doesn’t even have a page on Afghanistan (although it does have pages on Iran and Iraq); John McCain’s campaign also lacks a page on Afghanistan, although it has issued a press release.
As with many other issues in this Presidential Campaign, we are hearing promises with something approaching blithe indifference to conditions on the ground, root causes and likely approaches needed to bring about a solution. I would not be surprised if four years from today, in September 2012, we are hearing the very same promises from two different candidates.
In a nutshell, conditions in Afghanistan are deteriorating. The Taliban and its sponsors have taken a page from classic insurgency strategy, and are interdicting convoys carrying fuel, food and humanitarian aid from Kabul to the south. The recent attack on French paratroopers 40 miles from Kabul is another indication of their ability to strike at will throughout the country. If this reminds anyone of the Viet Cong strategy in Vietnam, it should be no surprise.
Afghanistan is a country of some 38 million people, 80% of whom are Sunni, and divided into over 30 major ethnic groups, of which the Pashtun and Tadjik are estimated as the largest. The terrain is extremely rugged, and transport links are vital to assuring basic economic activity. It is one of the poorest countries in the world, and among the least developed on the UNDP's Human Development Index , when it is ranked at all.
In this environment, it should come as no surprise that the conditions for insurgency are flourishing. The Taliban has maintained its fundamental attractiveness as a political, social and religious force among a significant segment of the Afghan population, particularly in the Pashtun-dominated south-east of the country, bordering Pakistan. The actions of the US-led NATO alliance appear to be fanning the flames of the insurgency, either through brutal air assaults which lead to high “collateral damage” among civilians, or due to the humiliating way in which most military patrols interact with civilians.
For a review of the latter, just turn on CNN and watch how the average military patrol speaks with, frisks and detains Afghans. In a culture where possession of firearms is not only a necessity, but a cultural heritage, the fact that someone can be arrested apparently for possessing a firearm is slightly absurd. Beyond this, the fact that these people are searched, at gunpoint, in full view of other males and occasionally females, must go against every cultural and social tenet in the book. In other words, it’s a major humiliation, in a country where wars have been started for less.
There is no easy solution to this specific problem, and I don’t raise it with an alternative solution in mind. The key to defeating an insurgency is security, which would allow the conditions for economic growth, political engagement and social modernisation. Although the Afghanistan Compact provides a well-thought, well-intentioned strategic framework for doing so, it’s clear that the implementation of this framework is not sufficiently resourced.
Consider that the Afghanistan Compact provides for three key pillars of activity:
1. Security
2. Governance, Rule of Law and Human Rights
3. Economic and Social Development
In this post, I will focus primarily on the first pillar, security, since without it the remaining two pillars will be impossible to achieve. This is also an issue of prime importance, since it affects decisions made in the current US Presidential election, as well as long-term issues in international security.
In the last 2 years, the Taliban have regrouped and taken the fight to major population centres outside the south-west of the country. They are interdicting the major transport axes to and from Kabul, and are mounting attacks against major military bases and within Kabul itself. In 2007, for instance, the Taliban launched a suicide bombing attack outside Bagram air base during Vice President Cheney’s visit. The number of US and ISAF casualties in Afghanistan has been rising, and US casualties are surfacing as a sound bite in US political coverage.
There are a number of root causes to government's inability to control security:
Insufficient Troops
There are not enough ISAF or Afghan boots on the ground to provide security and defeat the insurgency. ISAF reports a total of 52,700 troops, including National Support Elements. According to the Congressional Research Service (report available from the Federation of American Scientists), the US has a total of 48,250 troops deployed in-country as of June 1, 2008, of which about 60% are tasked to ISAF, with the remainder of Operation Enduring Freedom.
Assuming that 52,700 ISAF troops are joined by the 40% of US troops in OEF (19,300 troops), then there are a total of 72,000 western troops in-country. Of these, a number of German, French and other troops contributing to ISAF are stationed in the north of Afghanistan, and are not deployable to conflict regions. To this, we can add the 46,000 troops of the Afghan National Army forces, but these are widely acknowledged to be insufficient for independent command.
An Unknown Enemy
We can only define a number of troops as “insufficient” if we know the nature and deployment of the enemy they are confronting. Here, unfortunately, we are operating in the dark. The Taliban enjoys apparently unlimited ability to deploy its forces, either from its strongholds across the border in Pakistan, or from its bases within Afghan territory. According to a 2007 article in the New York Times, there are approximately 10,000 Taliban insurgents, of which 2,000 – 3,000 are committed, motivated fighters. The Senlis Council estimated that the Taliban controlled approximately 54% of Afghanistan’s territory in November 2007. The Taliban’s leadership is widely reported to be based in Pakistan, which itself appears to be undergoing a rapid melt-down of national government authority, at least in the Tribal Areas.
Regional Enemies and Safe Havens
Afghanistan’s neighbours, primarily Iran and Pakistan, can hardly be considered friendly states. US security services have accused Iran of supporting the Taliban, particularly through provision of weapons and expertise. Although these charges have not been sufficiently proven, the fact that Iran is following an active strategy against US interests in Iraq and the Persian Gulf indicates that its role could easily change: Iran holds the initiative on the border, not the Afghan government.
The New York Times recently reported a meeting between the CIA and the new Pakistani Prime Minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, about the ISI’s support for the Taliban attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul. It’s also clear that although Pakistan has been trying to impose central government control on the so-called Tribal Areas, it has been failing. The government has lost any number of military engagements in the region, and the Pakistani Taliban has shown that it is up to the task of defeating government forces on its own territory. Whatever the case, the fact that both Iran and Pakistan are, de facto or de jure, hostile towards the United States (in the former case) and of Afghanistan (in the latter) indicates that the Taliban insurgency has a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks in the country.
Opium
Perhaps the final element in the security situation is the cultivation of the opium poppy, which provides not only a high value crop for Afghan farmers, but finances the Taliban. Although recent reports indicate that the opium harvest is declining, with poppy cultivation down 19% over 2007, the laws of supply and demand mean that the Taliban will, if anything, gain income as prices rise in response to diminished supply. In the absence of foreign sponsors, the cultivation, processing and trafficking of opium provides a constant and reliable source of income, which until now neither ISAF, nor the UN, the Afghan government nor Operational Enduring Freedom have managed to shut down. Indeed, opium production is fuelling government corruption, with many reports questioning President Hamid Karzai’s inability to stop the trade.
The scale of the root causes of the security issue cannot be underestimated, and are complex. To define the Taliban as a group of ignorant Islamic fanatics is to confuse the issue, rather than to illuminate it. The Taliban’s religious and political philosophy, no matter how much we may disagree with it, is profoundly rooted in regional culture, history and current events. To “win hearts and minds” will be extremely difficult in the current situation, far more difficult than in Iraq, which can build on successive generations of secularism under Saddam Hussein and prior rulers.
Into this maelstrom, both US Presidential candidates, as well as President George W. Bush, have resolved to send more troops. Barack Obama has mentioned two combat brigades – about 7,000 troops – to Afghanistan. John McCain wants to send three additional brigades. President George W. Bush has announced plans to increase the troop commitment to Afghanistan as well, although this is contingent on the draw-down following the surge in Iraq.
Additional forces are welcome: there is no doubt about this. Yet this will certainly not be enough: a generation of international assistance for the second and third pillars of the Afghanistan Compact will be needed.
I wonder as well if the political dimensions of the Afghan conflict are being properly addressed, or even though about. The US-led troop presence of Afghanistan has now nearly completed 7 years since the original invasion in October 2001, following the Al Qaeda attack on the World Trade Centre on September 11th. As recounted in this article, the Taliban insurgency has gained ground in recent years. This leads me to raise a series of questions, particularly since I’m tired of hearing the bromide that “Afghanistan is too important to fail”:
1. How do we define success or failure?
2. What scenarios exist for success or failure in Afghanistan?
3. What drivers and barriers exist to success (and failure)?
4. What price is appropriate for assuring that Afghanistan succeeds?
5. Are we prepared to pay this price?
This is a highly complex subject, and requires extensive further reporting. But for the time being, if anyone is interested in this subject, I invite you to check the websites of the two candidates – Barack Obama and John McCain, and consider whether this is receiving anything near the attention is should be. The Obama campaign doesn’t even have a page on Afghanistan (although it does have pages on Iran and Iraq); John McCain’s campaign also lacks a page on Afghanistan, although it has issued a press release.
As with many other issues in this Presidential Campaign, we are hearing promises with something approaching blithe indifference to conditions on the ground, root causes and likely approaches needed to bring about a solution. I would not be surprised if four years from today, in September 2012, we are hearing the very same promises from two different candidates.
Friday, 5 September 2008
Another Great Speech
Wow! I didn’t know he had it in him – honestly. John McCain just gave a great acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. Although visibly uncomfortable at the beginning, he really hit his stride in his invocation of his captivity in the Vietnam war and how it changed him. Emotional, compelling: an eloquent testimony as to why John McCain is qualified to lead the United States of America.
As a result of the Republican Convention, I expect a bump in the polls, restoring the Republican “lag” to the Democratic campaign by about 2-3%, statistically insignificant given the problems with polling technology and sample selection. We may even see a Republican lead. Polls will no longer be as reliable as they have been in the past: much will depend on voter mobilisation, the ease of voting on Election Day, and the next two months of the campaign.
I’ve now spent some time observing the two conventions, and have just a few comments on the process:
a. The Republicans are relying on the heart: stirring images, patriotism, idealism. They ask us to forget the miserable record of the last 7.5 years of Republican administration. They focus on John McCain’s track record – his CV – and ask us to believe in this as an indication of future success, ignoring the rather poor policy recommendations on the McCain website. There is simply not enough detail, and not enough background on how to pay for things. This approach is effective: my impression is that the average citizen, and average family, wants to feel comfortable with the leader, and rely on them to sort out the problems. (Factors such as failed housing investments and high credit card debt are a good indication of the “average voter’s” economic and financial understanding, regrettably.)
b. The Democrats are relying on the head, the brain. They offer clear policies pitched to improve the lives of the majority of citizens. They are relying on an image of correcting past mistakes – even though they have controlled Congress since 2006, and have voted for many decisions before that. They focus on Barack Obama’s track record as one of a new reformer, even though his CV, objectively speaking, is essentially one of academia and legislation, not executive action, or business. This approach is currently effective among younger, college-educated, affluent voters. It remains to be seen whether it will be effective among the large majority of voters, who are of high school education, who have family incomes below $ 50,000 per year, and have far less social sophistication than the candidate.
In my opinion, neither the Iraq war nor “Foreign Policy” are major issues at the moment, but wedge issues, or issues affecting certain interest groups and affiliations who have largely already made up their minds. How different things are from 2006: America is now “winning” in Iraq, and the issue has faded from public consciousness, and public debate. There remains a total absence of real foreign policy strategy from both parties (not to mention the government) for dealing with global, regional and bilateral issues over the next 4 years. But this is par for the course in the last 20-25 years.
Neither party offers a comprehensive policy platform that addresses both economic competitiveness (education, tax reform, manufacturing, energy efficiency, legal reform, public sector reform) and social competitiveness (education, health care, environment) in any convincing way.
Neither party, or candidate, offers a credible plan for funding their many promises.
Neither party addresses the paradigm shift in economic, political, demographic, social and technological trends that have been occurring since 1990, and will dominate the next 25-30 years.
As a result, they are basically offering Band-Aids in an Intensive Care Unit: some Band-Aids are blue, some are red.
What are the risks? These are legend. On the Republican side:
• I have doubts as to whether John McCain’s health will let him see out the campaign, let alone his term if he is elected. He appears increasingly frail. While the “wise grandfather” role suits him well, his public appeal is limited by his age.
• The lack of detail on the McCain website is extremely worrying. Many platforms are heavily ideological in nature, yet suitable Orwellian. For instance, the “Workplace Flexibility” promise could be construed to mean fewer job protections for employees. There is absolutely no way the “spending” promises can be paid for by the tax plan. Nonetheless, the section on tax competitiveness for companies and entrepreneurs is compelling: the US has lost tax competitiveness relative to its competitors in the past 10-15 years.
• Is he evangelical enough? Will the “religious right” rally around to provide the same turnout as they did in 2004?
• Is his campaign working? On multiple measures, from fund-raising to local organisation to use of the Internet, the McCain campaign appears to be trailing the Obama campaign. To some extent, this margin can be compensated for by negative campaigning, but a lot will depend on Voting Day turn-out. The Obama campaign has been extremely well-run, and is adding new voter registrations at an impressive rate.
• The Republican star may be on the wane. The last 8 years, including the corruption, the scandals and the mismanagement, have created a tremendous burden to overcome. Together with the current economic downturn – which may or may not be measured in economic statistics useful to the “average worker” – will extract a price.
On the Democratic side:
• Although Obama is a compelling candidate to certain voter groups, he tends to over-reach and come across as arrogant in some contexts. In others, he cannot give a simple answer to a complex question. For me, this is natural; for a US Presidential Candidate, this is anathema. The sound bite rules on Main Street.
• The lack of experience, the intellectual background and the issue of racial identity provide a powerful reason among many voters to mistrust Obama, to project their own stereotypes and fears on him.
• The policy background is much clearer and more specific, but it would take a miracle to pay for everything. The ambitious nature of some reforms, such as healthcare, will absorb tremendous energy and financial resources. Implementation will also depend on a clean sweep, assuring Democratic control of the legislative and executive branches of government.
• Proposed solutions for international military engagements are not convincing. A withdrawal from Iraq will certainly not happen according to the campaign promise of a full withdrawal within 16 months. I estimate that at least 40,000 US troops will maintain a permanent presence in Iraq or its immediate vicinity (Turkey, Kuwait) to maintain as much stability as possible. To leave Iraq to its fate, which almost certainly means Iranian domination, would be a foreign policy blunder to disastrous proportions. The idea of stabilising Afghanistan by stationing 2 US combat brigades will, regrettably, not be enough either: a far higher engagement will be needed.
• The Democratic party appears united, but is in fact heavily divided. Unlike the Republican party, which only includes 3-4 coherent ideological interest groups, the Democratic party is trying to do far too many things at the same time. This is leading to promises that can never be fulfilled. The campaign is fuelled by outrage expressed over internet-based fora, usually by people with no real experience or understanding of what they are supporting (and how it links to other issues), focussing on a single issue. The Democratic ideological firmament comprises many stars in a single sky, each one claiming to be the sun and the source of all truth. This is not a recipe for success. Obama’s main challenge upon taking power will be to assure party unity and prioritise those major and minor issues that can be solved. Can this be achieved in the current cacophony? How long will the honeymoon last before the various components of the Democratic party base splinter and turn sour? Can the skills learned in a political campaign translate into executive effectiveness? It’s a long shot, in my opinion.
I’ve read a number of posts postulating the threat of an assassination of Barack Obama, some claiming that this is a certainty. My feeling (and hope) is that his Secret Service detail is capable of protecting him, but certainly this is a risk. Another threat is his background, which may contain surprises ranging not only from campaign finance, personal housing loans, or drug use, but other factors as well. The full story is probably yet to be heard, and there is already enough to “Swift Boat” his campaign.
Despite these risks, my bet is on Barack Obama winning the election by a 2-3% margin of the electoral vote, and a slightly higher margin of the popular vote. I believe he will run a disciplined campaign and prevail over the negative attacks which are sure to increase. Everything will depend on ground operations in the 72 hours preceding Election Day, and the day itself. He understands this, and his campaign is based on it.
However, I would not at all be surprised if John McCain wins the election. He still has time to put a strong ground operation in place and fine-tune his message to the different interest groups. His tax plan will probably gain major funding for the Republican party. If he can get the right team on board and run the right campaign, he has a very strong chance to win.
And, we may have an “October surprise” which will swing things McCain’s way. Such an event may include
- An Iranian or Iranian-affiliated attack on US forces in the Persian Gulf (including Iraq or Bahrain, or possibly Afghanistan), with a robust US response probably involving a heavy aerial bombing campaign.
- Another Al Quaeda attack on US soil, or probably on US interests in Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa or the Middle East and Near East. This will probably result in minor casualties – perhaps on the order of 150-200 fatalities – but would be enough to rally popular opinion behind a very hawkish candidate.
- The collapse of Pakistan, necessitating US intervention to secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
- Major power actions, such as renewed Russian or Chinese actions in Central Asia or the Near East.
Of these four possibilities, I regard the first two as more likely, and having a greater impact, than the second two.
And now look at the bright side: two excellent campaigns, ideological coherent to specific supporter groups, with compelling candidates, fighting for the Presidency. The next two months promise to be extremely interesting, but how happy I am that this process occurs every four years, and not sooner.
As a result of the Republican Convention, I expect a bump in the polls, restoring the Republican “lag” to the Democratic campaign by about 2-3%, statistically insignificant given the problems with polling technology and sample selection. We may even see a Republican lead. Polls will no longer be as reliable as they have been in the past: much will depend on voter mobilisation, the ease of voting on Election Day, and the next two months of the campaign.
I’ve now spent some time observing the two conventions, and have just a few comments on the process:
a. The Republicans are relying on the heart: stirring images, patriotism, idealism. They ask us to forget the miserable record of the last 7.5 years of Republican administration. They focus on John McCain’s track record – his CV – and ask us to believe in this as an indication of future success, ignoring the rather poor policy recommendations on the McCain website. There is simply not enough detail, and not enough background on how to pay for things. This approach is effective: my impression is that the average citizen, and average family, wants to feel comfortable with the leader, and rely on them to sort out the problems. (Factors such as failed housing investments and high credit card debt are a good indication of the “average voter’s” economic and financial understanding, regrettably.)
b. The Democrats are relying on the head, the brain. They offer clear policies pitched to improve the lives of the majority of citizens. They are relying on an image of correcting past mistakes – even though they have controlled Congress since 2006, and have voted for many decisions before that. They focus on Barack Obama’s track record as one of a new reformer, even though his CV, objectively speaking, is essentially one of academia and legislation, not executive action, or business. This approach is currently effective among younger, college-educated, affluent voters. It remains to be seen whether it will be effective among the large majority of voters, who are of high school education, who have family incomes below $ 50,000 per year, and have far less social sophistication than the candidate.
In my opinion, neither the Iraq war nor “Foreign Policy” are major issues at the moment, but wedge issues, or issues affecting certain interest groups and affiliations who have largely already made up their minds. How different things are from 2006: America is now “winning” in Iraq, and the issue has faded from public consciousness, and public debate. There remains a total absence of real foreign policy strategy from both parties (not to mention the government) for dealing with global, regional and bilateral issues over the next 4 years. But this is par for the course in the last 20-25 years.
Neither party offers a comprehensive policy platform that addresses both economic competitiveness (education, tax reform, manufacturing, energy efficiency, legal reform, public sector reform) and social competitiveness (education, health care, environment) in any convincing way.
Neither party, or candidate, offers a credible plan for funding their many promises.
Neither party addresses the paradigm shift in economic, political, demographic, social and technological trends that have been occurring since 1990, and will dominate the next 25-30 years.
As a result, they are basically offering Band-Aids in an Intensive Care Unit: some Band-Aids are blue, some are red.
What are the risks? These are legend. On the Republican side:
• I have doubts as to whether John McCain’s health will let him see out the campaign, let alone his term if he is elected. He appears increasingly frail. While the “wise grandfather” role suits him well, his public appeal is limited by his age.
• The lack of detail on the McCain website is extremely worrying. Many platforms are heavily ideological in nature, yet suitable Orwellian. For instance, the “Workplace Flexibility” promise could be construed to mean fewer job protections for employees. There is absolutely no way the “spending” promises can be paid for by the tax plan. Nonetheless, the section on tax competitiveness for companies and entrepreneurs is compelling: the US has lost tax competitiveness relative to its competitors in the past 10-15 years.
• Is he evangelical enough? Will the “religious right” rally around to provide the same turnout as they did in 2004?
• Is his campaign working? On multiple measures, from fund-raising to local organisation to use of the Internet, the McCain campaign appears to be trailing the Obama campaign. To some extent, this margin can be compensated for by negative campaigning, but a lot will depend on Voting Day turn-out. The Obama campaign has been extremely well-run, and is adding new voter registrations at an impressive rate.
• The Republican star may be on the wane. The last 8 years, including the corruption, the scandals and the mismanagement, have created a tremendous burden to overcome. Together with the current economic downturn – which may or may not be measured in economic statistics useful to the “average worker” – will extract a price.
On the Democratic side:
• Although Obama is a compelling candidate to certain voter groups, he tends to over-reach and come across as arrogant in some contexts. In others, he cannot give a simple answer to a complex question. For me, this is natural; for a US Presidential Candidate, this is anathema. The sound bite rules on Main Street.
• The lack of experience, the intellectual background and the issue of racial identity provide a powerful reason among many voters to mistrust Obama, to project their own stereotypes and fears on him.
• The policy background is much clearer and more specific, but it would take a miracle to pay for everything. The ambitious nature of some reforms, such as healthcare, will absorb tremendous energy and financial resources. Implementation will also depend on a clean sweep, assuring Democratic control of the legislative and executive branches of government.
• Proposed solutions for international military engagements are not convincing. A withdrawal from Iraq will certainly not happen according to the campaign promise of a full withdrawal within 16 months. I estimate that at least 40,000 US troops will maintain a permanent presence in Iraq or its immediate vicinity (Turkey, Kuwait) to maintain as much stability as possible. To leave Iraq to its fate, which almost certainly means Iranian domination, would be a foreign policy blunder to disastrous proportions. The idea of stabilising Afghanistan by stationing 2 US combat brigades will, regrettably, not be enough either: a far higher engagement will be needed.
• The Democratic party appears united, but is in fact heavily divided. Unlike the Republican party, which only includes 3-4 coherent ideological interest groups, the Democratic party is trying to do far too many things at the same time. This is leading to promises that can never be fulfilled. The campaign is fuelled by outrage expressed over internet-based fora, usually by people with no real experience or understanding of what they are supporting (and how it links to other issues), focussing on a single issue. The Democratic ideological firmament comprises many stars in a single sky, each one claiming to be the sun and the source of all truth. This is not a recipe for success. Obama’s main challenge upon taking power will be to assure party unity and prioritise those major and minor issues that can be solved. Can this be achieved in the current cacophony? How long will the honeymoon last before the various components of the Democratic party base splinter and turn sour? Can the skills learned in a political campaign translate into executive effectiveness? It’s a long shot, in my opinion.
I’ve read a number of posts postulating the threat of an assassination of Barack Obama, some claiming that this is a certainty. My feeling (and hope) is that his Secret Service detail is capable of protecting him, but certainly this is a risk. Another threat is his background, which may contain surprises ranging not only from campaign finance, personal housing loans, or drug use, but other factors as well. The full story is probably yet to be heard, and there is already enough to “Swift Boat” his campaign.
Despite these risks, my bet is on Barack Obama winning the election by a 2-3% margin of the electoral vote, and a slightly higher margin of the popular vote. I believe he will run a disciplined campaign and prevail over the negative attacks which are sure to increase. Everything will depend on ground operations in the 72 hours preceding Election Day, and the day itself. He understands this, and his campaign is based on it.
However, I would not at all be surprised if John McCain wins the election. He still has time to put a strong ground operation in place and fine-tune his message to the different interest groups. His tax plan will probably gain major funding for the Republican party. If he can get the right team on board and run the right campaign, he has a very strong chance to win.
And, we may have an “October surprise” which will swing things McCain’s way. Such an event may include
- An Iranian or Iranian-affiliated attack on US forces in the Persian Gulf (including Iraq or Bahrain, or possibly Afghanistan), with a robust US response probably involving a heavy aerial bombing campaign.
- Another Al Quaeda attack on US soil, or probably on US interests in Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa or the Middle East and Near East. This will probably result in minor casualties – perhaps on the order of 150-200 fatalities – but would be enough to rally popular opinion behind a very hawkish candidate.
- The collapse of Pakistan, necessitating US intervention to secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
- Major power actions, such as renewed Russian or Chinese actions in Central Asia or the Near East.
Of these four possibilities, I regard the first two as more likely, and having a greater impact, than the second two.
And now look at the bright side: two excellent campaigns, ideological coherent to specific supporter groups, with compelling candidates, fighting for the Presidency. The next two months promise to be extremely interesting, but how happy I am that this process occurs every four years, and not sooner.
McCain Picks a Winner
I feel John McCain picked a winner in Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential Candidate. She has a compelling resume and an easily-packaged track record, despite the many inconsistencies between her words and her approach. Her experience in general economic development is affected by the fact that Alaska’s economy is totally different from the remaining 49 states: it runs a large budget surplus due to energy production. And of course there is “TrooperGate” and a range of other issues and voting positions.
Yet on stage in St. Paul on September 3rd, she made an excellent impression, in a speech rich in political theatre. She came across as full of common sense and quiet achievement. She appears to be an ordinary person who has done extraordinary things, without the benefit of coat-tails or the establishment. I believe this aspect of her track record, and her character – I have no reason not to. She started out by joining the PTA, and the rest is history, as they say.
To attack her for her inconsistencies or lack of foreign policy experience will backfire and is in any case inappropriate. Is this election really about foreign policy in the eyes of the average voter? I'd say that's a highly doubtful proposition - and always has been, except in the most superficial of terms. She certainly has more executive experience than Barack Obama, and resonates more strongly with Main Street. She is a strong Vice Presidential candidate, and if John McCain were a little younger, would be perfect.
In picking Sarah Palin, John McCain has reversed the tenor of the campaign and seized the initiative. This is excellent political work, particularly given the multitude of problems against which he is running: the economic fall-out of the credit crunch, the war in Iraq, the unpopularity of President George W. Bush, and the superior campaigning of the Obama campaign. The first day of the Republican convention opened in what appeared to be disarray, with less-than-spectacular results, with the uncertainty of cancellation due to Gustav’s landfall. Yet what a difference 2 days makes.
On Wednesday night, Sarah Palin restored momentum to the Republican campaign, rallied the troops, and made a very compelling case for herself and her party. I'm impressed.
Yet on stage in St. Paul on September 3rd, she made an excellent impression, in a speech rich in political theatre. She came across as full of common sense and quiet achievement. She appears to be an ordinary person who has done extraordinary things, without the benefit of coat-tails or the establishment. I believe this aspect of her track record, and her character – I have no reason not to. She started out by joining the PTA, and the rest is history, as they say.
To attack her for her inconsistencies or lack of foreign policy experience will backfire and is in any case inappropriate. Is this election really about foreign policy in the eyes of the average voter? I'd say that's a highly doubtful proposition - and always has been, except in the most superficial of terms. She certainly has more executive experience than Barack Obama, and resonates more strongly with Main Street. She is a strong Vice Presidential candidate, and if John McCain were a little younger, would be perfect.
In picking Sarah Palin, John McCain has reversed the tenor of the campaign and seized the initiative. This is excellent political work, particularly given the multitude of problems against which he is running: the economic fall-out of the credit crunch, the war in Iraq, the unpopularity of President George W. Bush, and the superior campaigning of the Obama campaign. The first day of the Republican convention opened in what appeared to be disarray, with less-than-spectacular results, with the uncertainty of cancellation due to Gustav’s landfall. Yet what a difference 2 days makes.
On Wednesday night, Sarah Palin restored momentum to the Republican campaign, rallied the troops, and made a very compelling case for herself and her party. I'm impressed.
Saturday, 30 August 2008
Pimp my Convention
I’ve been watching the Democratic Convention with something approaching disbelief on the one hand, and disgust on the other. Yes, I can understand the need for a slickly-packaged, made-for-TV event to rally the party faithful and usher in the Democratic candidate. But is it really necessary to this extent? Four days of saccharine, feel-good, ultra-politically-correct posing, culminating in fireworks? Has politics in the United States become so devoid of meaning, so ridiculous, that we need to sell it like a rock concert?
Honestly speaking, I can’t reconcile the political tradition that stretches back to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, or George Washington with this spectacle we’ve been watching the past few days. I certainly can’t reconcile it with the two great Democratic figures Barack Obama invoked in his acceptance speech – Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. Neither Roosevelt nor Kennedy had to work this hard. Has the country changed, or the quality of the candidate?
The only thing I can reconcile this spectacle with is Caligula and the “bread and circuses” approach of the early Roman empire. The decadence, palpable commercialisation and lack of substance of the entire process is so blatant, that I’m surprised it’s taken seriously by so many. The drive to sell appears to have usurped any kind of self-respect, or respect for the voter’s basic intelligence. Instead, we must apparently advertise everything to everyone, as furiously as we advertise McDonald’s hamburgers or Coca Cola.
I find it entirely demeaning-not just to myself, but to the candidate-that we have to hear not only from Barack Obama, but from his wife and two children, not to mention about his mother and grandmother. None of these people are on the ticket, and from my perspective they have no bearing on my vote or my political priorities. We should respect their privacy and leave them out of it, and Barack Obama should have the strength of character to establish that some things are off limits and do not need to be marketed.
I also read with great interest that, inevitably, someone’s making money off the Convention. As I read in the International Herald Tribune (As conventions rev up, carmaker buffs its image, 28 August 2008), GM has provided 700 vehicles to the convention, some of them running on “waste beer”, or “beer that gets damaged during the production process.” Over 100 corporations, ranging from Qwest to FedEx to Hewlett Packard, “are treating the conventions as a glorified trade show.” The host committees of Minneapolis and Denver have raised over $ 112 million in private money so far.
Now, why would they be going to all that trouble? According to the IHT,
“Donations to the host committees are tax-deductible, and they come with the promise of political access that is increasingly difficult to come by under ethics rules passed by Congress last year. Corporations are barred from making direct political contributions, but they can write six and seven-figure checks and get VIP credentials to the convention floor, invitations to private events with lawmakers and state officials, and the ability to plaster their logo and set up exhibition booths at events.”
What happened to “Change we can believe in?” Has it now been substituted with “Advertising we can believe in?” Or “Fundraising we can believe in?”
Now, in the middle part of my life, I am finally beginning to understand that William Butler Yeats line that was drilled into our heads in high school:
The best lack all conviction, while
the worse are filled with a passionate intensity.
How in the world have things come to this?
Honestly speaking, I can’t reconcile the political tradition that stretches back to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, or George Washington with this spectacle we’ve been watching the past few days. I certainly can’t reconcile it with the two great Democratic figures Barack Obama invoked in his acceptance speech – Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. Neither Roosevelt nor Kennedy had to work this hard. Has the country changed, or the quality of the candidate?
The only thing I can reconcile this spectacle with is Caligula and the “bread and circuses” approach of the early Roman empire. The decadence, palpable commercialisation and lack of substance of the entire process is so blatant, that I’m surprised it’s taken seriously by so many. The drive to sell appears to have usurped any kind of self-respect, or respect for the voter’s basic intelligence. Instead, we must apparently advertise everything to everyone, as furiously as we advertise McDonald’s hamburgers or Coca Cola.
I find it entirely demeaning-not just to myself, but to the candidate-that we have to hear not only from Barack Obama, but from his wife and two children, not to mention about his mother and grandmother. None of these people are on the ticket, and from my perspective they have no bearing on my vote or my political priorities. We should respect their privacy and leave them out of it, and Barack Obama should have the strength of character to establish that some things are off limits and do not need to be marketed.
I also read with great interest that, inevitably, someone’s making money off the Convention. As I read in the International Herald Tribune (As conventions rev up, carmaker buffs its image, 28 August 2008), GM has provided 700 vehicles to the convention, some of them running on “waste beer”, or “beer that gets damaged during the production process.” Over 100 corporations, ranging from Qwest to FedEx to Hewlett Packard, “are treating the conventions as a glorified trade show.” The host committees of Minneapolis and Denver have raised over $ 112 million in private money so far.
Now, why would they be going to all that trouble? According to the IHT,
“Donations to the host committees are tax-deductible, and they come with the promise of political access that is increasingly difficult to come by under ethics rules passed by Congress last year. Corporations are barred from making direct political contributions, but they can write six and seven-figure checks and get VIP credentials to the convention floor, invitations to private events with lawmakers and state officials, and the ability to plaster their logo and set up exhibition booths at events.”
What happened to “Change we can believe in?” Has it now been substituted with “Advertising we can believe in?” Or “Fundraising we can believe in?”
Now, in the middle part of my life, I am finally beginning to understand that William Butler Yeats line that was drilled into our heads in high school:
The best lack all conviction, while
the worse are filled with a passionate intensity.
How in the world have things come to this?
Tuesday, 26 August 2008
US Elections - Will you take the Red or Blue Pill?
So, the Democratic Convention has finally opened. Back in January 21st, I predicted that John McCain would win the Republican nomination, and Hillary Clinton the Democratic one. I also predicted that if Hillary did win the nomination, it McCain would win by a small margin, whereas if Obama won it, it would be too close to call before the election: a 50-50 tie.
A little bit later, I, like many others, decided to switch votes (from Hillary) and back Obama. There were a range of reasons for this, but primarily the fact that I didn’t trust the Clintons to keep the business of the country above their personal business, and I didn’t feel that the incremental changes promised on the Clinton campaign site would lead to anything. To my vast surprise, he won the primaries. He’s run an incredible campaign, and it keeps getting better. By contrast, the McCain campaign gets worse and worse.
And this brings us to the Convention. I’m amazed. I knew we had entered the age of “MTV Politics”, but I didn’t quite realize how prevalent this is. We have the corporate sponsors, opening acts, balloons, everything except the fireworks, and I’m sure those will be coming soon. How fortunate the Convention was scheduled after the Beijing Olympics.
Pundit after pundit gravely inform me that this is all necessary, that elections aren’t about policy platforms, but about personality and running a good campaign? Really? How sad. Here I was complimenting myself on making an informed decision on who to vote for based on their internet platforms, and now I have to change my mind, again?
Quite simply, I believe that Barack Obama is the candidate most suited to lead the US in the 21st Century. This statement comes with a number of caveats: As I’ve already stated, I doubt Barack Obama will be able to pay for many of his promises. Many other promises – such as the pledge to re-negotiate NAFTA or tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve – are unhelpful or disingenuous. The solutions to other problems, such as tax competitiveness and reform of the financial regulatory system, are barely mentioned. But on the whole, he’s the most suitable candidate. We can re-phrase this as the “least bad choice.”
And given that the other candidate promises to bankrupt the country by continuing business as usual, this is good enough. Despite my respect for his life story, I don’t see how John McCain’s foreign policy experience or “character” are the best options. As Frank Rich wrote on August 23rd: Does a bellicose Vietnam veteran who rushed to hitch his star to the self-immolating overreaches of Ahmad Chalabi, Pervez Musharraf and Mikheil Saakashvili have the judgment to keep America safe? Not to mention the Iraq invasion, and the fact that he apparently doesn’t use email. Hello?
I must also confess that I’ve entered the post-euphoric stage of political engagement in this election. Honestly speaking, “a pox on both your houses.” The entire process is ridiculous. A game show convention. Media stupidity. The war of polls. Negative advertising. Political promises that no one can keep, or are unrelated to the root causes of the problem (and therefore do not present a real solution). Projections that over $ 1.5 billion will be spent on the Presidential election alone this year.
It’s a disgusting, unwholesome mess which serves almost no useful purpose that I can see, except to seduce a number of participants in the belief of their own importance and, perhaps, relevance. Welcome to the “desert of the real.” Do we really have a choice, or is this all a grand illusion?
A little bit later, I, like many others, decided to switch votes (from Hillary) and back Obama. There were a range of reasons for this, but primarily the fact that I didn’t trust the Clintons to keep the business of the country above their personal business, and I didn’t feel that the incremental changes promised on the Clinton campaign site would lead to anything. To my vast surprise, he won the primaries. He’s run an incredible campaign, and it keeps getting better. By contrast, the McCain campaign gets worse and worse.
And this brings us to the Convention. I’m amazed. I knew we had entered the age of “MTV Politics”, but I didn’t quite realize how prevalent this is. We have the corporate sponsors, opening acts, balloons, everything except the fireworks, and I’m sure those will be coming soon. How fortunate the Convention was scheduled after the Beijing Olympics.
Pundit after pundit gravely inform me that this is all necessary, that elections aren’t about policy platforms, but about personality and running a good campaign? Really? How sad. Here I was complimenting myself on making an informed decision on who to vote for based on their internet platforms, and now I have to change my mind, again?
Quite simply, I believe that Barack Obama is the candidate most suited to lead the US in the 21st Century. This statement comes with a number of caveats: As I’ve already stated, I doubt Barack Obama will be able to pay for many of his promises. Many other promises – such as the pledge to re-negotiate NAFTA or tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve – are unhelpful or disingenuous. The solutions to other problems, such as tax competitiveness and reform of the financial regulatory system, are barely mentioned. But on the whole, he’s the most suitable candidate. We can re-phrase this as the “least bad choice.”
And given that the other candidate promises to bankrupt the country by continuing business as usual, this is good enough. Despite my respect for his life story, I don’t see how John McCain’s foreign policy experience or “character” are the best options. As Frank Rich wrote on August 23rd: Does a bellicose Vietnam veteran who rushed to hitch his star to the self-immolating overreaches of Ahmad Chalabi, Pervez Musharraf and Mikheil Saakashvili have the judgment to keep America safe? Not to mention the Iraq invasion, and the fact that he apparently doesn’t use email. Hello?
I must also confess that I’ve entered the post-euphoric stage of political engagement in this election. Honestly speaking, “a pox on both your houses.” The entire process is ridiculous. A game show convention. Media stupidity. The war of polls. Negative advertising. Political promises that no one can keep, or are unrelated to the root causes of the problem (and therefore do not present a real solution). Projections that over $ 1.5 billion will be spent on the Presidential election alone this year.
It’s a disgusting, unwholesome mess which serves almost no useful purpose that I can see, except to seduce a number of participants in the belief of their own importance and, perhaps, relevance. Welcome to the “desert of the real.” Do we really have a choice, or is this all a grand illusion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)