call me irresponsible

A message of intolerance goes over much more easily when it comes with a smile and a wink. The "he's not one of us" theme seems ready-made to appeal to the baseness of the Republican base. Hence, the shouts of "kill him" (i.e., Obama) and other slurs heard at McCain-Palin campaign stops are not surprising. The crowds seem less interested in hearing about what McCain will do in office and more interested in "chowing down" on the red meat thrown from the stage. What's interesting is the contrast that is created between Palin as a devout Christian and Palin as an innuendo-mongering candidate. Hence, the question the McCain campaign -- in the absence of any coherent political program -- raises vis-a-vis Obama rebounds on the vice-presidential nominee: do we really know the real Sarah Palin?

*

Obama has said he won't play the politics of personal destruction, and he hasn't. Even when he criticizes Bush, he does it in a more temperate way than the people at MoveOn.org would like, focusing on flaws in Bush's policies and not Bush's motives. I think the situation for the Republican candidates is similar. There are elements in the Republican party who want, who desire, to be inspired by hatred and fear. McCain and Palin have a choice to make: either to give in to this element or not. It seems they have decided to give in, to campaign in a full rich negative position, and are not concerned about the byproduct of this: "kill him." McCain has charged that Obama would do anything to get elected. McCain is now risking a heightening of political and social divisions during a moment of economic crisis and seems to find this to be an acceptable price for getting elected. Pot, Kettle.

**

What we're witnessing is the fact that Governor Palin owns the Republican party. She is the most popular figure in the party now. She will be the party's standard bearer even if McCain is elected. Her tone and her brand of the politics of division (she's a Buchananite) are now at the center of the Republican presidential campaign.

_________________________________________________

Photo credit: Rex Features/The Guardian

body language

Much is being made of the fact that John McCain rarely (if ever) made eye contact with Barack Obama during their first presidential debate. While it's possible that McCain was showing disdain for Obama by not looking at him, I also think the moderator's effort to stage-manage the debate was a little silly. The candidates are trying to persuade us (the television audience, whose perspective is entirely controlled by the camera) not each other, so whether they looked at each other or addressed each other directly is irrelevant.

*

Having said that: McCain, like Hillary Clinton before him, is incredulous as he faces the prospect that people might prefer Obama over him. The entitlement attitude that excreted from the Clinton campaign (and continues to tinge Bill Clinton's remarks) is present in the McCain-Palin campaign. However, whereas Hillary Clinton did articulate a general vision of what her presidency would be like and the policies she felt were significant, McCain-Palin articulate only this: "we aren't Obama." McCain's responses during the debate were mostly attacks on Obama. When he ventured into a description of his own plans, he stumbled to find the right words.

*

Perhaps this is a reflection of McCain's political psychology: the self-proclaimed maverick is most comfortable when he stands against something rather than standing for something. When McCain-Palin venture into stating what they stand for, a string of attractive cliches come forth -- Country First!, patriotism, etc. -- over which they claim exclusive ownership. The performative contradiction in this claim is apparent: they prefer to divide the country (i.e., to stand against other citizens) in order to win the election and are willing to do so by defining their opponents as unpatriotic. In other words, they don't place country first and their effort to demonize other citizens makes their notion of patriotism less than credible.

political hysteria: McCain and the crisis

Deal or no deal? A lot is riding on this for McCain. House Republicans clearly don't want to sign off on the bail out. I assume the plan could pass despite House Republican opposition. But that would seem to doom McCain with important conservative constituents. If McCain can get the recalcitrant House Republicans to sign off (apparently a visit from Dick Cheney didn't move them at all and I doubt Bush's speech will persuade skeptics on the right), then he can take some credit, but only for reeling in the conservative rump. If he can't pull this off, the Republican party would be split (and not without good reasons) and Obama can point to the "ideology-driven partisanship" of House Republicans as another sign that "Washington is broken."

*

McCain's suspension of his campaign and request to postpone the debate scheduled for Friday seems a little hysterical. He has successfully directed attention to himself and the punditocracy is slavishly fixated on his "decision." Will he? Won't he? The media is unable to recognize when it's being jerked around.  The short term strategic impact is that McCain has taken media attention away from Obama. The more general impression is that McCain's histrionics about the debate is another egocentric (generously termed "maverick") move on his part. Refusal to attend the debate would, however, be a disaster for McCain. It would leave a lasting image of the war hero hiding in his bunker, not leading but being led by the crisis. In other words, McCain First!

stealth campaign

Republicans have preferred well choreographed photo-op situations and tightly scripted speeches before handpicked, friendly audiences since the Reagan years. So the sudden press phobia of the McCain/Palin campaign is not unexpected. After Palin's performance during her interview with Charles Gibson (which was hardly a tough interview), one can see why the Republicans don't want her out there giving spontaneous answers to questions about the proposed bail out of finance capitalism, credit-default swaps, or the weakening of the Anbar "Awakening." The format for the vice-presidential debate will suit her strength entirely: the ability to give scripted non-responsive responses.

minima oeconomica

It was precious to see the former AIG CEO Hank Greenberg begging for money during his interview on MSNBC. He implored the Fed: "AIG is a national treasure." And it just so happens that most of his wealth is tied up in shares of AIG.

What was even more precious was learning that the Fed bought the sob story and floated a $85 billion loan to AIG.

I found myself agreeing with Republican Senator Richard Shelby (member of the Senate Banking Committee), who said "No entity is too big to fail."

The events of last week should make it difficult for Conservatives to bemoan "welfare dependency" without including "corporate welfare dependency."

*

The "PC" term on Wall Street for this move by the Fed is "leveraged buyout." Government "bail out" is less PC. However, it could also be called "nationalization" (the term the British newspapers use). So the U. S. government has nationalized, Freddie, Fannie, and AIG.

Somewhere, Hugo Chavez must be smiling.

When Chavez or Evo Morales do it, it's nationalization. When Bush-Paulson-Bernanke do it, it's "stabilization."

I think this duck quacks.

*

I don't know what to make of business leaders who plead for government help and yet resist government oversight. Should they be allowed to have their cake and eat it too?

The politics of blame has taken an interesting turn: now short sellers are the evildoers (not incompetent CEOs like Fuld of Lehman Brothers or Willumstad of AIG).

John McCain could send Governor Palin on a hunting expedition to kill bearish short sellers.

*

It would be nice to have the billions dumped into Iraq back at this point.

*

Since the Reagan era, "liberalism" has been a political schimpfwort and the Democratic party has been tainted by association with liberalism. However, if liberalism is associated with laissez-faire (economic liberalism), then the logic behind this association of liberalism and Democrats becomes more complicated: both Republicans and Democrats are economic liberals, with perhaps more rhetoric on that front from the Republicans. (In reality, laissez-faire is a myth, as the current nationalization of AIG indicates). One offshoot of economic liberalism can be termed "crony capitalism." A commentary by Tim Egan comparing Palin's governing style with the issue of golden parachutes for CEOs of failed corporations is enlightening. 

"People should stop picking on vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin because she hired a high school classmate to oversee the state agricultural division, a woman who said she was qualified for the job because she liked cows when she was a kid. And they should lay off the governor for choosing another childhood friend to oversee a failing state-run dairy, allowing the Soviet-style business to ding taxpayers for $800,000 in additional losses.

What these critics don't understand is that crony capitalism is how things are done in Alaska. They reward failure in this Last Frontier state. In that sense, it's not unlike Wall Street's treatment of CEOs who run companies into the ground.

Look at Carly Fiorina, John McCain's top economic surrogate -- if you can find her this week, after the news and her narrative fused in a negative way. Dismissed as head of Hewlett-Packard after the company's stock plunged and nearly 20,000 workers were let go, she was rewarded with $44 million in compensation. Sweet!

Thank god McCain wants to appoint a commission to study the practice that enriched his chief economic adviser. On the campaign trail this week, McCain and Palin pledged to 'stop multimillion dollar payouts to CEOs' of failed companies. Good. Go talk to Fiorina at your next strategy meeting.

Palin is a cultural cousin to this kind of capitalism. The state may seem like a rugged arena for risky free-marketers. In truth, it's a strange mix of socialized projects and who-you-know hiring practices."

*

I see no substantive distinction between American "liberals" and "conservatives" concerning the economy: both groups are pro-capitalist (the charge that liberals are 'socialists' is preposterous). Hence, we have different political parties that both operate on the assumptions of economic liberalism and have the goal of perpetuating the form of life that derives from economic liberalism. Anti-capitalist, populist rhetoric is a ruse employed by politicians of both parties to appear to be the friend of the "common man." No president of either party would risk enacting anti-capitalist policies for fear of an investment strike or capital flight (of course, capital flight -- outsourcing and relocation -- has already occurred under business-friendly policies).

*

Both parties have put in place policies that have impacted the economy negatively. Everyone can point to a particular example. My example will be energy policy. To be sure, prior presidents have set this policy, but my immediate reference is Bush-Cheney. Today, it seems everyone is alarmed by America's "oil dependency" on foreign oil ("dependency" is a particularly stigmatized term: think "welfare dependency"; this is one step removed from "oil slavery"). After years of denying the existence climate change, now Conservatives are talking about "alternative fuels." However, one can ask who set the pro-oil dependency policies of the Bush-Cheney presidency? Was it not Cheney's still secret energy policy harem? Who can forget Bush's hand-holding diplomacy in Saudi Arabia? Is Cheney "liberal" or "conservative"? Will the U.S.'s energy policy cease to be premised on economic liberalism after the odious pair are gone?

*

I expect free trade, small government, anti-tax Republicans to throw up a road block to the $700 billion dollar bail out of the unhappy few whose improvident behavior has backfired magnificently and will cost the many dearly. The Paulson plan seems to be a reversal of the principle of utility: the greatest happiness for the smallest number.

as the polls turn, or: what would a McCain presidency entail

According to the polls, Obama is losing support from "white" women to McCain. I wonder if those Democrats who have switched to McCain have pondered a McCain Presidency. What exactly would a McCain presidency entail anyway?

*

The only original "idea" (i.e., something that diverges from the Bush presidency) I've heard from him is the "League of Democracies", which I suspect would turn out to be very much like the "Coalition of the Willing" (which turned out to be not much of a coalition and mostly unwilling). It seems very unlikely that European powers (the UK included) who are committed to existing international institutions, namely, the UN, the International Court, the Geneva Conventions, etc., would sign on to such a thinly veiled end run around such institutions. Hence, this "League" would likely be staffed by nations like Poland and Georgia (which, according to McCain's Vice President, should gain NATO membership) who will claim a larger share of American foreign aid largesse (such as the 1 billion dollars that suddenly materialized for Georgia recently). The threat to boot Russia from the G8 is a non-starter as well. McCain says he'll "win" the war in Iraq, but doesn't know when that will happen. How long will a Congress controlled by Democrats continue to allow American taxpayers to foot the bill? I suspect McCain will be on a short leash in Mesopotamia. Eventually, McCain would have to make good on his threat to bomb Iran ("Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain sang to the tune of "Barbara Ann") if the nuclear program isn't suspended, otherwise the USA will look weak. Who knows how much collateral damage will be inflicted if this comes to pass.

*

In terms of domestic politics, as a lame duck in his only term, McCain could feel liberated and engage with his alleged maverick side. That would mean true bipartisanship with congressional houses controlled by Democrats. This would bode well for immigration reform (McCain could tell nativist Tancredoites and the vigilantes patrolling the Mexican border to stuff it). It could mean he proposes non-activist (i.e., non-Scalian, non-Federalist Society) jurists for appointment to the Supreme Court. It could mean he reverses his support for the Bush tax cuts.

*

What is more likely is that McCain's non-maverick side will win out. As his selection of Palin indicates, he feels obligated to the theocratic fringe of the Republican base, as well as the Reaganite dead-enders. This means he'd propose jurists for the Supreme Court who pass the Perkins-Dobson-Norquist-LaHaye-Weyrich litmus test. He'll waste time trying to jam through more tax cuts to the highest income bracket and offer school vouchers as his major social policy initiative. He'd speak tendentiously about the evils of "gay marriage" and the Darwinian threat to God without doing anything about it (or perhaps the culture warrior dossiers would be assigned to the Vice President's office). Energy policy will continue to be directed by the same people Dick Cheney relied upon during the Bush years.

*

On the positive side (yes there is one!), Democrats will likely gain more seats in the House and Senate during the 2010 midterm elections as a consequence of a McCain presidency.

 

I'm John McCain and I'm running against the Republican Party

What a remarkable speech by John McCain to wrap up the monocultural Republican National Convention. Claiming service over selfishness, and arguing that Washington hasn't served the people, he intends to fight against 30 years of Republican leadership. This speech was filled with contradictions. First and foremost: he's a maverick, a fighter, who will nonetheless work with others (who agree with him).  If this was an honest expression of his vision of his campaign, then why has he paired himself with someone who represents the epitome of selfishness, who insists on a moral and cultural politics that is shared by a minority of Americans?

*

The difficulty McCain faces is that he's been in Washington for a very long time. While he's taken some positions that didn't please the increasingly nativist and narrowly fundamentalist base of the Republican party, he has also been very much a supporter of the Republican policies that have done little for the little people for whom he claims he will now fight. If he takes on his own party -- as he must -- in order to do what he claims he'll do, then the likely outcome is a doubling of partisan posturing, first from the hardcore resisters in his own party (its corporate and theological flanks) and then from Democrats. In the end, a McCain presidency would likely produce more of the same rather than 'change.'

getting carded

John McCain played his 'Obama played the race card' card a little early, which shows some desperation to change the narrative from inevitable Republican defeat in November. However, this might be McCain's best strategy: spin out absurd over-reactions to justified criticisms of the Republican playbook (from Atwater to Rove). Otherwise, he is reduced to blaming Obama for high gas prices, which only shows that surrealism is alive and well.

_________________________

Photo credit: McCain for President web site

war cathexis

Obama is willing to lose the war in order to win the election in the fall: this is the message of John McCain, who believes he 'wins' on war. Hence, he cannot afford to suggest anything that would wind down the war in Iraq or ratchet down tensions with Iran. 

The 'Surge' is McCain's political Viagra.

McLame

John McCain, taking a page from the Clinton campaign handbook, is accusing the 'media' of having a love affair with Barack Obama in a TV ad titled 'Love'. However, the 'media bias' claim is wearing thin. After months of being called "Hussein" and "Osama bin Laden", and wading through the muck of Rev. Wright et al., Obama finished ahead of Clinton and is leading nationally versus McCain. Of course, it is still early in the campaign and things could change. But it is interesting that all the arguments against Obama (not experience, not ready, is a closet Islamist, hasn't done anything in his life, etc.) have not enabled McClinton to gain a decisive and expected advantage. I doubt that 'media bias' alone explains this. It is an unusual year and all of Sean Hannity's horses and men have not yet been able to put the Republican Party back together again.