As polling is looking increasingly likely that Rick Santorum will place in the top three in Iowa, one of the most important aspects of the race to watch in the final days is actually farther down the list from the frontrunners.
As I have mentioned in my recent article- discussing the atmosphere that a strong Gingrich campaign brings to a Ron Paul candidacy- only two candidates have the real significant strength (at this moment) to wage a significant campaign against Paul and Romney past Iowa and New Hampshire, especially absent a major drop out and/or defection from one of the other current candidates. Those two candidates are Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry. Perry 'cause he has the money, and Gingrich 'cause he has the national polling numbers.
Neither of these two candidates is likely to drop out after Iowa, as long as their showing isn't stunningly abysmal- like getting much less than 10% of the vote. For perspective, 15-20% would represent a good showing.
Therefore a key aspect to watch this coming Tuesday will be which of the two candidates, Gingrich or Perry, does better, and by how much. In recent conversations with friends I've been fairly bullish on Perry recently, expecting him to offer a surprise showing for the current expectations (but probably not a top three finish). With all the negative attacks against him, Gingrich seems to be continuing his downward slide, so if Perry can beat Gingrich and even perform near Santorum's level, he may be able to re-assert himself as the 'establishment' (meaning that the national party leaders could easily get behind him) conservative alternative to Romney.
Expectations for Perry in NH are all but nothing, so he'll move directly on to South Carolina after Iowa. Of course then he'll have to convince voters that he's a better choice than Santorum, going forward. If Santorum, whose campaign has indicated an interest in competing in New Hampshire, fails to garner a solid finish there, Perry's argument may be made for him. South Carolina should have some natural regional play for Perry.
But what about Gingrich? Previous polling has indicated that his most solid bases of support are the 3rd and 4th contests; South Carolina and Florida respectively. If he finishes close to- or ahead of- Perry in Iowa, Gingrich's campaign could attempt to make a comeback with a respectable placement in New Hampshire. All he needs is a win (or close to it) in South Carolina to put him back on track. Of course, like I just pointed out, this is also true of Perry.
There is something to be said for the lack of establishment enthusiasm for Gingrich; it's probable that a good Perry showing in Iowa would do more for Perry than if his place was switched with Gingrich. Perry is seen as having less baggage than Gingrich, and seen as being a solid campaigner (if not debater- although his recent performances have been adequate). This also has to do with expectations: Gingrich, until recently, was expected to win the Iowa caucuses; Perry has been weak in polling for weeks now.
If neither of the two manages to put in a surprise showing, Romney may have a nearly unobstructed path to the nomination. It's hard to see Bachmann or Santorum managing to upset Romney in the long run like Perry or Gingrich could, mainly because Gingrich and Perry are likely to be persistent for at least the next few contests, regardless of their placement. However, if Bachmann or Santorum ended up in 5th or 6th place, I don't know how well their campaigns could continue functioning. (This is a rhetorical example, since Santorum at least is likely to place in the top three)
Ultimately, what I am trying to say is this: The outcome of the lower tier placement in the Iowa caucuses will matter just as much as the top tier finalists for the long term outlook of the Republican nomination. And the contrast between the placements of Perry and Gingrich, particularly if it is stark, is likely to be very telling.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Friday, December 30, 2011
Are you still watching Santorum?
Remember way back when? You know about a month ago when I put out my guide to the Republican Nomination, 2012? That was way back when Herman Cain was still a candidate. Like years ago or something. Ancient history. Anyway...
In it I outlined three Republican candidates to make sure to keep an eye on. Well we already know that one of those mentioned has been worth keeping an eye on, and I've been doing it here: Ron Paul, the most important of those mentioned, is living up to expectations. He's been a frequent topic of this blog, and the implications of his candidacy and voters have been well fleshed out in at least three recent posts.
But this blogger has also been patiently waiting to see if one of the two other special candidates mentioned would suddenly appear out of the woodwork. It is looking now, and I can feel triumphant in saying this, that Rick Santorum, is having a very late, last minute surge.
It wasn't a farfetched prediction, but it's nice to have one's opinions validated when one is just an ammeter political handicapper. For those of you who have not been watching Santorum, the background and analysis I printed a month ago still works now, so I'll just reprint it here for your (but mainly my) amusement. Or you can skip down to the meat of it.
* * * * *
Rick Santorum- If the nomination truly is a game of musical chairs, this guy's next in line after Gingrich. Although he tends to skew a touch too right on social issues and (perhaps) a touch too left on economic for the tea-party-leaning-maybe-more-libertarian GOP base these days, to the casual observer, Santorum sits next to Gingrich and Perry regarding his ideological substance, making him a serious "last resort" conservative "anti-Romney" contender if Gingrich falls apart in the next few weeks. He's run a good campaign in Iowa, although he's largely under the radar elsewhere, and he's a solid debater with youthful energy and almost unparallelled anti- abortion/gay marriage credentials that might be appealing to a block of the electorate, particularly in socially conservative Iowa. He's a stronger candidate than the polls have shown, which I think is due to the lack of attention paid to him in the mainstream media. Therefore, all he needs is a breakout win or surprising finish in Iowa to make him viable, again, assuming Gingrich is somewhat out of the picture.
What to watch:
Iowa. Santorum only has one hand to play and it's here. His resources are thin, but he's the only candidate to have visited all 99 counties in Iowa, so he's clearly playing to win. A strong debate performance from him alongside some Gingrich scandal would be enough to give him the viability edge that Iowa caucus-goers would need to commit their support to him. Of course, after that, he may not have the staying-power to go much further; if it were to happen, a last-minute Santorum rise could seal the deal for Mitt Romney.
* * * * *
Here are the averages (for four select candidates) of three recent Iowa pollsters about 10 days ago:
Paul: 22%, Romney: 21%, Gingrich: 15%, Santorum: 8%
And here are those same three pollsters averaged for this week:
Paul: 21%, Romney: 20%, Gingrich: 14% Santorum: 13%
What a difference five points can make. As you can see, there's really only one place in the Iowa top tier with significant last-minute movement, and its with the Santorum campaign. This jump is readily apparent on the RCP aggregate poll graph for Iowa. As Gingrich campaign has weakened, and as conservatives in Iowa seek to rally around a central non-Romney non-Paul candidate, recent polls are pointing toward Santorum being the choice for many Iowans, particularly those who are concerned with social issues. This momentum could build, as Bachmann and Perry supporters look to support the candidate most likely to win Iowa- and jump on the Santorum bandwagon. Santorum, Bachmann and Perry all have very similar views, and outside hardcore supporters, it's possible many Iowa conservatives will consider it a victory if any of the three manages to coalesce voters for a surprise. This is, of course, what Santorum hopes will happen, especially since getting the endorsement of Bob Vander Plaats, an important voice in the Iowa social conservative community. We'll just have to see if this is a temporary spike, or a lasting surge- if it is lasting, it will likely be at the expense of Bachmann, Perry, and even Gingrich.
A Santorum upset would be a great media generator, even if he doesn't get first or second, since his rise would be seen as sudden and potentially exciting. But after Iowa, there's not much more to be said for what Santorum can do. New Hampshire is just too much a Romney stronghold to be within his grasp, and Santorum has been counting on an all-or-nothing Iowa gambit, with little resources or campaign in place in any other state. What I said a month ago about Santorum's prospects are still true: a Santorum surge that puts him in a surprising position in Iowa is only likely to put Romney in a better position further along.
That is unless he captures Iowa with a resounding victory; that would be a real surprise!
So who knows; strange things happen in primaries, and this nomination process has been stranger than most. If Santorum manages to trounce Bachmann and Perry in Iowa and (one or both) drop out and endorse him, the situation could change dramatically. If voters truly are committed to defeating Romney at all costs and Santorum seems more viable than Gingrich coming into South Carolina, he has a real chance at winning the nomination, something that was virtually unthinkable just a couple of weeks ago.
Regardless of how the surge plays out, Santorum will continue to be worth keeping a close eye on, at least through Iowa and immediately afterward. His presence is changing the dynamic- in a dynamic way- and to observers like me, that's always a lot of fun.
In it I outlined three Republican candidates to make sure to keep an eye on. Well we already know that one of those mentioned has been worth keeping an eye on, and I've been doing it here: Ron Paul, the most important of those mentioned, is living up to expectations. He's been a frequent topic of this blog, and the implications of his candidacy and voters have been well fleshed out in at least three recent posts.
But this blogger has also been patiently waiting to see if one of the two other special candidates mentioned would suddenly appear out of the woodwork. It is looking now, and I can feel triumphant in saying this, that Rick Santorum, is having a very late, last minute surge.
It wasn't a farfetched prediction, but it's nice to have one's opinions validated when one is just an ammeter political handicapper. For those of you who have not been watching Santorum, the background and analysis I printed a month ago still works now, so I'll just reprint it here for your (but mainly my) amusement. Or you can skip down to the meat of it.
* * * * *
Rick Santorum- If the nomination truly is a game of musical chairs, this guy's next in line after Gingrich. Although he tends to skew a touch too right on social issues and (perhaps) a touch too left on economic for the tea-party-leaning-maybe-more-libertarian GOP base these days, to the casual observer, Santorum sits next to Gingrich and Perry regarding his ideological substance, making him a serious "last resort" conservative "anti-Romney" contender if Gingrich falls apart in the next few weeks. He's run a good campaign in Iowa, although he's largely under the radar elsewhere, and he's a solid debater with youthful energy and almost unparallelled anti- abortion/gay marriage credentials that might be appealing to a block of the electorate, particularly in socially conservative Iowa. He's a stronger candidate than the polls have shown, which I think is due to the lack of attention paid to him in the mainstream media. Therefore, all he needs is a breakout win or surprising finish in Iowa to make him viable, again, assuming Gingrich is somewhat out of the picture.
What to watch:
Iowa. Santorum only has one hand to play and it's here. His resources are thin, but he's the only candidate to have visited all 99 counties in Iowa, so he's clearly playing to win. A strong debate performance from him alongside some Gingrich scandal would be enough to give him the viability edge that Iowa caucus-goers would need to commit their support to him. Of course, after that, he may not have the staying-power to go much further; if it were to happen, a last-minute Santorum rise could seal the deal for Mitt Romney.
* * * * *
Here are the averages (for four select candidates) of three recent Iowa pollsters about 10 days ago:
Paul: 22%, Romney: 21%, Gingrich: 15%, Santorum: 8%
And here are those same three pollsters averaged for this week:
Paul: 21%, Romney: 20%, Gingrich: 14% Santorum: 13%
What a difference five points can make. As you can see, there's really only one place in the Iowa top tier with significant last-minute movement, and its with the Santorum campaign. This jump is readily apparent on the RCP aggregate poll graph for Iowa. As Gingrich campaign has weakened, and as conservatives in Iowa seek to rally around a central non-Romney non-Paul candidate, recent polls are pointing toward Santorum being the choice for many Iowans, particularly those who are concerned with social issues. This momentum could build, as Bachmann and Perry supporters look to support the candidate most likely to win Iowa- and jump on the Santorum bandwagon. Santorum, Bachmann and Perry all have very similar views, and outside hardcore supporters, it's possible many Iowa conservatives will consider it a victory if any of the three manages to coalesce voters for a surprise. This is, of course, what Santorum hopes will happen, especially since getting the endorsement of Bob Vander Plaats, an important voice in the Iowa social conservative community. We'll just have to see if this is a temporary spike, or a lasting surge- if it is lasting, it will likely be at the expense of Bachmann, Perry, and even Gingrich.
A Santorum upset would be a great media generator, even if he doesn't get first or second, since his rise would be seen as sudden and potentially exciting. But after Iowa, there's not much more to be said for what Santorum can do. New Hampshire is just too much a Romney stronghold to be within his grasp, and Santorum has been counting on an all-or-nothing Iowa gambit, with little resources or campaign in place in any other state. What I said a month ago about Santorum's prospects are still true: a Santorum surge that puts him in a surprising position in Iowa is only likely to put Romney in a better position further along.
That is unless he captures Iowa with a resounding victory; that would be a real surprise!
So who knows; strange things happen in primaries, and this nomination process has been stranger than most. If Santorum manages to trounce Bachmann and Perry in Iowa and (one or both) drop out and endorse him, the situation could change dramatically. If voters truly are committed to defeating Romney at all costs and Santorum seems more viable than Gingrich coming into South Carolina, he has a real chance at winning the nomination, something that was virtually unthinkable just a couple of weeks ago.
Regardless of how the surge plays out, Santorum will continue to be worth keeping a close eye on, at least through Iowa and immediately afterward. His presence is changing the dynamic- in a dynamic way- and to observers like me, that's always a lot of fun.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Ron Paul's best hope could be... Gingrich?
In my last several posts I've been discussing the Republican Nomination in general, and prospects for Ron Paul, the seeming Iowa frontrunner, specifically. I have noted several times that the Paul campaign has changed it's media strategy in Iowa and New Hampshire recently, specifically regarding Newt Gingrich.
His campaign has been running a negative spot on the airwaves in an attempt to erode Gingrich's popular support, particularly from conservative audiences, which would theoretically position Ron Paul as the 'true' conservative anti-Romney candidate. This strategy to woo conservatives, including social conservatives is echoed in his other most recent ad. Paul has said in TV interviews that he had decided to go after Gingrich because he thought that Gingrich's hypocrisy needed to be brought to light, particularly the fact that Gingrich took over a million dollars in compensation from Freddie Mac, a corporation Ron Paul has railed against for being a part of crony corporatism.
It has been my opinion that Ron Paul actually benefits from staying out of the fray so long as he is still seen as a second tier candidate in national polls. Romney and Gingrich, both running about 10 points better than Paul nationally, don't want to elevate Paul's position by attacking him- at least if they don't have to. Meanwhile Paul can use his organizing power and positive spots highlighting his consistent conservative position to build his vote share in Iowa, where he is running even or better than Romney and Gingrich. There's three reasons why tearing Gingrich down is risky, and maybe even counter productive.
First, attacking Gingrich, not surprisingly, has invited counter attacks, and although Gingrich probably doesn't have the funds to go on a major ad campaign against Paul, he can go on national TV to swipe back. For example, on CNN today he declared that he would not vote for Ron Paul against Barack Obama, that 'decent' Americans wouldn't agree with Paul on foreign policy, and that past controversial campaign mailers have not been adequately explained. It may not be much, but I can't see this extra negative attention helping Paul- and the attention may increase.
Second, Paul's ads may truly have helped to drag Gingrich down; certainly Gingrich has fallen to a tangible third place in Iowa polls behind Paul. But these attacks could also help Romney in Iowa. Perhaps increasing distaste of Gingrich could be cementing Romney's position as the alternative to Gingrich for voters who simply cannot stomach Paul's brand of libertarian conservatism- it appears that Romney's numbers have been on the rise in the last few weeks, corresponding with Gingrich's fall. But even if not, by splitting the vote in Iowa, Paul lowers the threshold for a victory, allowing the possibility that even with a ceiling of 25%, Romney could win or come in a narrow second place; both would be a victory for a campaign that has comparatively ignored the state.
One might argue that Romney doing well in Iowa doesn't matter as long as Ron Paul wins the overall Iowa caucus. I disagree. Romney is almost certain to win New Hampshire, with a nearly 20 point lead in polling there; even if Ron Paul grabs momentum from Iowa, he is unlikely to win in NH. So if Paul was to hope to win NH, it would be through attacking Romney, not Gingrich. In fact, if Gingrich remained relatively strong at Romney's expense and Huntsman could glean away enough moderates, it would lower the threshold for victory in NH as well, opening a possibility for a Paul win. Attacking Gingrich, and ruining him in Iowa will only further weaken the Gingrich campaign's ability to focus on pulling establishment conservatives away from Romney. Paul doesn't have a lot of play in the establishment.
But finally, the risk in attacking Gingrich has a much longer term effect. As Nate Silver wisely points out in a recent post, the best thing for the Paul campaign is to keep the Republican field as fractured as possible for as long as possible, and to enter into a brokered convention with as much influence as possible. To think that a majority of the GOP electorate would ever choose Paul as a nominee is very wishful thinking, but I could see a plurality supporting him in a fractured field. Therefore the best strategy for Paul, it seems to me, is not to win, but just to hold his own and hope the other weaker candidates can too. We could call this a winning (sort of) strategy.
Unfortunately to have a long term fractured field, you have to have candidates who can fight a long fight, continuing to split the vote with Romney much past Iowa and New Hampshire, since Romney's campaign is the only campaign that seems to have the game an resources to play a long game with Paul. The only other options for long-term candidates are Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich- Perry cause he has the money, Gingrich cause he has the numbers. And Gingrich was, and may still be, the best hope for the Paul campaign. But since being attacked from all sides, Gingrich has been weakened significantly, and without victories in either Iowa or New Hampshire, he may not be able to continue his campaign long enough to prove a contender for Romney.
Thus Ron Paul may emerge as the only Romney alternative, and I can't see Paul pulling in 55% of the overall national vote against an establishment-backed, well funded candidate, can you? Wild as it may sound, Paul's best overall chance for victory may have been to run positive spots on Gingrich's behalf, rather than bashing Gingrich down with negatives. I say this tongue in cheek.
Either way, and whatever the true reason for the changing fortunes, Romney's position is looking better and better for the long term- as Gingrich has fallen- even as Paul's position in the short term has skyrocketed. Now that Gingrich is fading, maybe the best chance for the Paul campaign is to hope for a Perry upset in Iowa, or a Huntsman surprise in NH. Or switch strategies and run a full court press on Romney, like, right now. Absent these possibilities, I'm having to admit that it's looking more and more like Romney just has to not mess up, and he could coast just ahead of the Paul tide, straight into the convention...
But to conclude, let's have a reality check here. Keep in mind that Gingrich's plummeting numbers are not- at all- entirely due to Paul's attacks; these attacks have simply added fuel to a growing chorus. There is not much Paul could have done to stop Gingrich's slide; my point here is that it may really have not been worth the resources attacking him. Remember, Gingrich still has a lot of play left, and he could ride strong performances in Iowa, NH, (and some debates) into a victory in SC and Florida, reviving his campaign. It's hard to know how much it will hurt Gingrich to lose two contests in a row- perhaps he will emerge into SC with the strength to hold his superior numbers there.
The outcome for Gingrich- and Ron Paul's fate too- may end up hinging on what candidates do after Iowa. It is likely that at least a couple of candidates will drop out if they have disappointing Iowa performances. If those candidates all consolidate around Romney, the end result seems clear. If they do nothing, it is unpredictable where their supporters might go, but Gingrich- and Paul- could benefit. However, if Santorum or Bachmann chooses to endorse Gingrich (or Perry) in the hopes of keeping Romney off the ticket, it may give Gingrich (or... possibly Perry) the credibility to continue to contests in SC and FL and grapple with Romney beyond.
And that could also be enough to give Ron Paul a winning (sort of) strategy.
His campaign has been running a negative spot on the airwaves in an attempt to erode Gingrich's popular support, particularly from conservative audiences, which would theoretically position Ron Paul as the 'true' conservative anti-Romney candidate. This strategy to woo conservatives, including social conservatives is echoed in his other most recent ad. Paul has said in TV interviews that he had decided to go after Gingrich because he thought that Gingrich's hypocrisy needed to be brought to light, particularly the fact that Gingrich took over a million dollars in compensation from Freddie Mac, a corporation Ron Paul has railed against for being a part of crony corporatism.
It has been my opinion that Ron Paul actually benefits from staying out of the fray so long as he is still seen as a second tier candidate in national polls. Romney and Gingrich, both running about 10 points better than Paul nationally, don't want to elevate Paul's position by attacking him- at least if they don't have to. Meanwhile Paul can use his organizing power and positive spots highlighting his consistent conservative position to build his vote share in Iowa, where he is running even or better than Romney and Gingrich. There's three reasons why tearing Gingrich down is risky, and maybe even counter productive.
First, attacking Gingrich, not surprisingly, has invited counter attacks, and although Gingrich probably doesn't have the funds to go on a major ad campaign against Paul, he can go on national TV to swipe back. For example, on CNN today he declared that he would not vote for Ron Paul against Barack Obama, that 'decent' Americans wouldn't agree with Paul on foreign policy, and that past controversial campaign mailers have not been adequately explained. It may not be much, but I can't see this extra negative attention helping Paul- and the attention may increase.
Second, Paul's ads may truly have helped to drag Gingrich down; certainly Gingrich has fallen to a tangible third place in Iowa polls behind Paul. But these attacks could also help Romney in Iowa. Perhaps increasing distaste of Gingrich could be cementing Romney's position as the alternative to Gingrich for voters who simply cannot stomach Paul's brand of libertarian conservatism- it appears that Romney's numbers have been on the rise in the last few weeks, corresponding with Gingrich's fall. But even if not, by splitting the vote in Iowa, Paul lowers the threshold for a victory, allowing the possibility that even with a ceiling of 25%, Romney could win or come in a narrow second place; both would be a victory for a campaign that has comparatively ignored the state.
One might argue that Romney doing well in Iowa doesn't matter as long as Ron Paul wins the overall Iowa caucus. I disagree. Romney is almost certain to win New Hampshire, with a nearly 20 point lead in polling there; even if Ron Paul grabs momentum from Iowa, he is unlikely to win in NH. So if Paul was to hope to win NH, it would be through attacking Romney, not Gingrich. In fact, if Gingrich remained relatively strong at Romney's expense and Huntsman could glean away enough moderates, it would lower the threshold for victory in NH as well, opening a possibility for a Paul win. Attacking Gingrich, and ruining him in Iowa will only further weaken the Gingrich campaign's ability to focus on pulling establishment conservatives away from Romney. Paul doesn't have a lot of play in the establishment.
But finally, the risk in attacking Gingrich has a much longer term effect. As Nate Silver wisely points out in a recent post, the best thing for the Paul campaign is to keep the Republican field as fractured as possible for as long as possible, and to enter into a brokered convention with as much influence as possible. To think that a majority of the GOP electorate would ever choose Paul as a nominee is very wishful thinking, but I could see a plurality supporting him in a fractured field. Therefore the best strategy for Paul, it seems to me, is not to win, but just to hold his own and hope the other weaker candidates can too. We could call this a winning (sort of) strategy.
Unfortunately to have a long term fractured field, you have to have candidates who can fight a long fight, continuing to split the vote with Romney much past Iowa and New Hampshire, since Romney's campaign is the only campaign that seems to have the game an resources to play a long game with Paul. The only other options for long-term candidates are Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich- Perry cause he has the money, Gingrich cause he has the numbers. And Gingrich was, and may still be, the best hope for the Paul campaign. But since being attacked from all sides, Gingrich has been weakened significantly, and without victories in either Iowa or New Hampshire, he may not be able to continue his campaign long enough to prove a contender for Romney.
Thus Ron Paul may emerge as the only Romney alternative, and I can't see Paul pulling in 55% of the overall national vote against an establishment-backed, well funded candidate, can you? Wild as it may sound, Paul's best overall chance for victory may have been to run positive spots on Gingrich's behalf, rather than bashing Gingrich down with negatives. I say this tongue in cheek.
Either way, and whatever the true reason for the changing fortunes, Romney's position is looking better and better for the long term- as Gingrich has fallen- even as Paul's position in the short term has skyrocketed. Now that Gingrich is fading, maybe the best chance for the Paul campaign is to hope for a Perry upset in Iowa, or a Huntsman surprise in NH. Or switch strategies and run a full court press on Romney, like, right now. Absent these possibilities, I'm having to admit that it's looking more and more like Romney just has to not mess up, and he could coast just ahead of the Paul tide, straight into the convention...
But to conclude, let's have a reality check here. Keep in mind that Gingrich's plummeting numbers are not- at all- entirely due to Paul's attacks; these attacks have simply added fuel to a growing chorus. There is not much Paul could have done to stop Gingrich's slide; my point here is that it may really have not been worth the resources attacking him. Remember, Gingrich still has a lot of play left, and he could ride strong performances in Iowa, NH, (and some debates) into a victory in SC and Florida, reviving his campaign. It's hard to know how much it will hurt Gingrich to lose two contests in a row- perhaps he will emerge into SC with the strength to hold his superior numbers there.
The outcome for Gingrich- and Ron Paul's fate too- may end up hinging on what candidates do after Iowa. It is likely that at least a couple of candidates will drop out if they have disappointing Iowa performances. If those candidates all consolidate around Romney, the end result seems clear. If they do nothing, it is unpredictable where their supporters might go, but Gingrich- and Paul- could benefit. However, if Santorum or Bachmann chooses to endorse Gingrich (or Perry) in the hopes of keeping Romney off the ticket, it may give Gingrich (or... possibly Perry) the credibility to continue to contests in SC and FL and grapple with Romney beyond.
And that could also be enough to give Ron Paul a winning (sort of) strategy.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Who's surging with two weeks to go? Ron Paul
Iowa caucuses, the first official contest in the GOP primary calendar, take place on January 3rd this year. That means we're two weeks away from the eve of Iowa, and the polls and ground game are pointing toward an unexpected winner: Ron Paul. Fivethirtyeight now gives him better than 50% odds.
Now if you've been reading this blog, you'd already know that a Ron Paul victory in Iowa has been a distinct possibility for weeks, but we now have the first polling which suggests a veritable surge for Paul, not just in Iowa, but across the country.
This is the average of polls released two weeks ago for Ron Paul, Gingrich, and Romney:
Gingrich: 31%, Romney: 18%, Paul: 16%
This is the average of polls released last week:
Gingrich: 23%, Romney: 17%, Paul: 19%
And here is the average of the polls released so far this week:
Gingrich: 14%, Romney: 19%, Paul: 24%
The trend is obvious. Paul, capitalizing on the Cain supporters who came to his camp, seems to have capitalized further on the 5-candidate attack on Gingrich that has weakened Gingrich's position over the last couple of weeks. His strategy of also attacking the former Speaker may be paying off, after running his spot regularly in Iowa and New Hampshire for the last couple weeks.
As I pointed out in my previous post, this attack strategy is dangerous, because it invites a response and may hurt Ron Paul's favorability (voters generally don't like a negative campaign). But I also noted then that Ron Paul may be safe as long as he is still seen as somewhat of a joke to the larger GOP, and if his national polling stays weak. If a front-runner were to attack Ron Paul, s/he would only elevate Ron Paul to the position of 'worthy opponent', something the candidates have so far avoided. As a result, Ron Paul has been left relatively unscathed by the primary process, while the others fight amongst themselves.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) for Ron Paul, his polling numbers are on the rise outside of Iowa: a New Hampshire poll out today shows him in second place, and several national polls now put him in the low double digits. These national numbers are significant because Paul has so far been unable to win more than about 9% of the national electorate to his cause. These numbers also mean that the other candidates can no longer afford to laugh off Paul and that could be bad news for the Texas congressman. They may now have no other choice but to attack Ron Paul, since he is becoming an inarguable front runner, positioned to win the first GOP primary contest.
The good news for the Paul campaign is that there's virtually no time for the other candidates to outmaneuver Paul's current position. People aren't usually paying much attention to politics during the holidays and there are no more debates left between now and the caucuses. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are probably the only candidates with the monetary resources to beat Paul, and Romney at least is more likely to pin his hopes on a New Hampshire win than to make a large ad buy in Iowa. Perry might try an attack on Paul; he desperately needs a good showing in IA; so might Bachmann, although she isn't rolling in money. Overall, a last minute attack ad is not out of the question, but seems unlikely. On the other hand, we have desperate campaigns shaping up here, with several candidates relying on Iowa for a break out win. A dirty mailer or robocall attack may emerge.
Setting all speculation aside, these Iowa numbers are undeniably good news for Ron Paul. And his increasing traction with the national electorate suggests that he may be surging at just the right time. Better polling across the board also points to the possibility that Paul will be able to sustain his position even after Iowa and New Hampshire, and compete long term-- he just finished raising 4 million in a money bomb over the weekend, so he'll have the funds to compete.
So the final question is, will he hold on to these good numbers, or even see them increase? He probably has a good chance of staying where he is. We will have to see whether the other candidates react with a Paul pile-on, but I am skeptical either way that Ron Paul will see much more of a boost than he already has. Not only is Paul a divisive figure, what with his 'wacky' and 'off the rails' foreign policy perspectives, but no candidate has been able to secure more than a third of the vote in Iowa so far, mainly because the field is just too crowded. It would be a downright shocking achievement if Paul ended up with much more than a third of the vote. But even 25% is enough to win, with all the other candidates splitting the rest.
After that, it's hard to say. His numbers are still pretty weak nationally, even though they are on the rise. Will a win in Iowa give a boost to that support?
I should note here that we should all be careful not to underestimate Ron Paul. He is an unusual candidate with an unequaled ground game in Iowa and a base enthusiasm that is also unmatched amongst the candidates. If he does win Iowa, it'll be because of these supporters and volunteers; and with them, Paul really may have just enough of a foundation to make a real play for the nomination.
Now if you've been reading this blog, you'd already know that a Ron Paul victory in Iowa has been a distinct possibility for weeks, but we now have the first polling which suggests a veritable surge for Paul, not just in Iowa, but across the country.
This is the average of polls released two weeks ago for Ron Paul, Gingrich, and Romney:
Gingrich: 31%, Romney: 18%, Paul: 16%
This is the average of polls released last week:
Gingrich: 23%, Romney: 17%, Paul: 19%
And here is the average of the polls released so far this week:
Gingrich: 14%, Romney: 19%, Paul: 24%
The trend is obvious. Paul, capitalizing on the Cain supporters who came to his camp, seems to have capitalized further on the 5-candidate attack on Gingrich that has weakened Gingrich's position over the last couple of weeks. His strategy of also attacking the former Speaker may be paying off, after running his spot regularly in Iowa and New Hampshire for the last couple weeks.
As I pointed out in my previous post, this attack strategy is dangerous, because it invites a response and may hurt Ron Paul's favorability (voters generally don't like a negative campaign). But I also noted then that Ron Paul may be safe as long as he is still seen as somewhat of a joke to the larger GOP, and if his national polling stays weak. If a front-runner were to attack Ron Paul, s/he would only elevate Ron Paul to the position of 'worthy opponent', something the candidates have so far avoided. As a result, Ron Paul has been left relatively unscathed by the primary process, while the others fight amongst themselves.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) for Ron Paul, his polling numbers are on the rise outside of Iowa: a New Hampshire poll out today shows him in second place, and several national polls now put him in the low double digits. These national numbers are significant because Paul has so far been unable to win more than about 9% of the national electorate to his cause. These numbers also mean that the other candidates can no longer afford to laugh off Paul and that could be bad news for the Texas congressman. They may now have no other choice but to attack Ron Paul, since he is becoming an inarguable front runner, positioned to win the first GOP primary contest.
The good news for the Paul campaign is that there's virtually no time for the other candidates to outmaneuver Paul's current position. People aren't usually paying much attention to politics during the holidays and there are no more debates left between now and the caucuses. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are probably the only candidates with the monetary resources to beat Paul, and Romney at least is more likely to pin his hopes on a New Hampshire win than to make a large ad buy in Iowa. Perry might try an attack on Paul; he desperately needs a good showing in IA; so might Bachmann, although she isn't rolling in money. Overall, a last minute attack ad is not out of the question, but seems unlikely. On the other hand, we have desperate campaigns shaping up here, with several candidates relying on Iowa for a break out win. A dirty mailer or robocall attack may emerge.
Setting all speculation aside, these Iowa numbers are undeniably good news for Ron Paul. And his increasing traction with the national electorate suggests that he may be surging at just the right time. Better polling across the board also points to the possibility that Paul will be able to sustain his position even after Iowa and New Hampshire, and compete long term-- he just finished raising 4 million in a money bomb over the weekend, so he'll have the funds to compete.
So the final question is, will he hold on to these good numbers, or even see them increase? He probably has a good chance of staying where he is. We will have to see whether the other candidates react with a Paul pile-on, but I am skeptical either way that Ron Paul will see much more of a boost than he already has. Not only is Paul a divisive figure, what with his 'wacky' and 'off the rails' foreign policy perspectives, but no candidate has been able to secure more than a third of the vote in Iowa so far, mainly because the field is just too crowded. It would be a downright shocking achievement if Paul ended up with much more than a third of the vote. But even 25% is enough to win, with all the other candidates splitting the rest.
After that, it's hard to say. His numbers are still pretty weak nationally, even though they are on the rise. Will a win in Iowa give a boost to that support?
I should note here that we should all be careful not to underestimate Ron Paul. He is an unusual candidate with an unequaled ground game in Iowa and a base enthusiasm that is also unmatched amongst the candidates. If he does win Iowa, it'll be because of these supporters and volunteers; and with them, Paul really may have just enough of a foundation to make a real play for the nomination.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
How Occupy Wall Street is Changing Washington
Occupy Wall Street has captured news headlines and provoked journalistic investigations. The movement has taken root all over the nation, and everywhere it goes occupiers have met both resistance and support. But as OWS spreads, it's dynamism is also fostering discussions and questions about the movement from those who are looking in from outside. Many of those questions have been adequately answered, as journalists examine the movement from the inside out, trying to help the public understand what is going on. But one question has not been comprehensively addressed: Is Occupy Wall Street really making a difference to the politicians in Washington?
It's a question worth asking. For all the discussions about the changes being brought about by OWS, not enough has been said about whether or not politicians are even listening. In order to answer this question we will have to examine the tangible political implications of OWS for those in power. Has OWS affected the overall American national discourse in such a way that politicians are addressing the movement's goals? Are politicians moving to embrace- or castigate- Occupy Wall Street? And how is the movement engaging with those running for office? As it turns out, events in the last few weeks can give us some great insight into this matter.
This Tuesday, President Barack Obama delivered a speech in Osawatomie, Kansas that frames what is likely to be the central platform of his campaign in 2012. In language that (in no small way) echoed the goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement, Obama laid down hard facts about disparity in the country, contrasting the vast wealth of the 1% with the plummeting incomes of most workers. Calling it “wrong” and “the height of inequality” Obama blasted the entrenched government systems and loopholes that shelter the wealthy while crushing the poor.
Obama's speech was a great indicator that the chief expression of OWS has made its way into the national and political discourse: the growing difference between the 99% and the 1%. Obama spoke of "inequality" six different times.
And as Chrystia Freeland notes in her fantastic discussion of the speech, Obama essentially declared American inequality “the defining issue of our time”, a modest nod toward OWS and the (perhaps misguided) Tea Party. But Freeland also points out that whereas the Tea Party's version of American restoration had helped to change the debate in Washington to a question of spending and cutting, Obama's speech was a recognition of how the Occupy Wall Street movement is utterly re-framing the debate too: for Occupy Wall Street, restoring America means recognizing (and changing) the power of the 1% to make room for everyone else.
In that capacity, Obama seems to agree. And by lending the weight of his voice to the cause, he only gives momentum to OWS' perspective of inequality.
So there's no question that Occupy Wall Street is substantially changing the national discourse. If the Presidential bully-pulpit is blasting out 1% tirades to win an election- if Obama is staking his Presidency on the issue of inequality- we can be certain that the message of OWS is catching on, even in political circles. Although many members of OWS may be loathe to compare themselves to the Tea Party movement, it looks like grassroots OWS has offered (to the Democrats at the top) the campaign-ready ideological response to the Republican co-opted Tea Party.
And that begs the question: are the Democrats interested co-opting OWS members into their party? Do Democrats want to join the OWS protests and turn them into a political operation? In my home state of North Carolina, Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (who is running for re-election next year) has fully embraced the movement, and protesters also embraced her, even as she turned an appearance at Occupy Raleigh into a campaign advertisement. Marshall represents a very small portion of Democrats, however, (mainly local leaders) who have risked the political dangers of being associated with such a 'radical' movement. National leaders, while glad of the ideological framing, have been wary of declaring themselves a part of OWS (and joining in). Nancy Pelosi, for example, has said that she 'supports' the movement... from the comfortable chair of a national interview.
This wariness shouldn't be too surprising, though, since OWS has also gained a reputation for having little appreciation for political attention. Occupy Atlanta gained headlines in October when General Assembly rules blocked Congressman John Lewis from addressing the crowd in support of the movement's goals. It was understandable; after all, OWS is a movement that strives to ignore the celebrity of power and privilege. It's also understandable that those Democrats who already have considerable power would strive to steer clear of outright participation.
But what about Republicans? If Democrats are wary of OWS, it would follow that the GOP must be deathly allergic. But Occupy Wall Street's popular influence has even had an affect on the Republican discourse, albeit at the margins. Buddy Roemer- the former Governor of Louisiana and Presidential candidate- showed up at Occupy DC in late November to listen to (and debate with) the occupiers. While there, he defended the importance of the movement: “I told the other Republican candidates, 'Listen, listen -- they're saying something we oughta hear. They're saying that the few at the top gets the best of America, and everybody [else] gets what's left over.'”
Meanwhile, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, whose libertarian supporters sometimes join OWS gatherings, has also declared his sympathy for the movement. Despite being heckled at a rally by members of OWS, Paul signaled his agreement with the protesters, saying “The people on Wall Street got the bailout and you guys got the bills and I think that’s where the problem is.”
But Roemer and Paul both represent significant outliers amongst Republican politicians. Most Republicans see OWS as a threat to American capitalism or at least an opportunity to score a good applause line from the conservative Republican electorate. Candidate Mitt Romney has called the movement “dangerous”, and Republican frontrunner Newt Gingrich has declared that Occupy Wall Street demonstrates the moral collapse of America, saying to occupiers, “Go get a job, right after you take a bath”. Zing. Applause.
Occupy members don't seem too phased by the criticism, however, and some have begun to change their protest tactics to go on the offensive against those running for office. This marks a significant change in strategy, with OWS members singling out some of the Republicans for disruptions on the campaign trail. On Wednesday night, several activists sneaked into a D.C. Fundraiser for Newt Gingrich, interrupting his $1000 ticket event to remind him of the suffering of the 99%.
It is unclear whether or not this kind of direct political action by Occupy Wall Street will continue, but as elections approach next year, those of the OWS movement will have to decide how they will approach the political system. Will they protest Democrats as much as Republicans, or will they become entangled in party preference? Can occupiers embrace direct political advocacy without compromising their ideals?
In the meantime, Occupy Wall Street's mark on the political sphere is only going to grow. Even if the protests fizzle, the discussion that was started by OWS is causing the whole American discourse to shift, and politicians are watching. OWS is fundamentally changing the way politicians in both parties approach delicate issues like loopholes, tax brackets, bailouts, inequality, and free speech. Because of OWS, Americans are even beginning to wonder if the central American problem lies in an even more fundamental structure, rather than cronyism or misconduct. At a Republican Governor's Association meeting last week in which the GOP struggled to reframe the subject, strategist Frank Luntz discussed his fears about the way the movement has changed the national dialogue: "I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death. They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism."
Oh yes. Occupy Wall Street is making a difference in Washington.
Editorial Note 12/15/11: A version of this article was published at WagingNonviolence.org
It's a question worth asking. For all the discussions about the changes being brought about by OWS, not enough has been said about whether or not politicians are even listening. In order to answer this question we will have to examine the tangible political implications of OWS for those in power. Has OWS affected the overall American national discourse in such a way that politicians are addressing the movement's goals? Are politicians moving to embrace- or castigate- Occupy Wall Street? And how is the movement engaging with those running for office? As it turns out, events in the last few weeks can give us some great insight into this matter.
This Tuesday, President Barack Obama delivered a speech in Osawatomie, Kansas that frames what is likely to be the central platform of his campaign in 2012. In language that (in no small way) echoed the goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement, Obama laid down hard facts about disparity in the country, contrasting the vast wealth of the 1% with the plummeting incomes of most workers. Calling it “wrong” and “the height of inequality” Obama blasted the entrenched government systems and loopholes that shelter the wealthy while crushing the poor.
Obama's speech was a great indicator that the chief expression of OWS has made its way into the national and political discourse: the growing difference between the 99% and the 1%. Obama spoke of "inequality" six different times.
And as Chrystia Freeland notes in her fantastic discussion of the speech, Obama essentially declared American inequality “the defining issue of our time”, a modest nod toward OWS and the (perhaps misguided) Tea Party. But Freeland also points out that whereas the Tea Party's version of American restoration had helped to change the debate in Washington to a question of spending and cutting, Obama's speech was a recognition of how the Occupy Wall Street movement is utterly re-framing the debate too: for Occupy Wall Street, restoring America means recognizing (and changing) the power of the 1% to make room for everyone else.
In that capacity, Obama seems to agree. And by lending the weight of his voice to the cause, he only gives momentum to OWS' perspective of inequality.
So there's no question that Occupy Wall Street is substantially changing the national discourse. If the Presidential bully-pulpit is blasting out 1% tirades to win an election- if Obama is staking his Presidency on the issue of inequality- we can be certain that the message of OWS is catching on, even in political circles. Although many members of OWS may be loathe to compare themselves to the Tea Party movement, it looks like grassroots OWS has offered (to the Democrats at the top) the campaign-ready ideological response to the Republican co-opted Tea Party.
And that begs the question: are the Democrats interested co-opting OWS members into their party? Do Democrats want to join the OWS protests and turn them into a political operation? In my home state of North Carolina, Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (who is running for re-election next year) has fully embraced the movement, and protesters also embraced her, even as she turned an appearance at Occupy Raleigh into a campaign advertisement. Marshall represents a very small portion of Democrats, however, (mainly local leaders) who have risked the political dangers of being associated with such a 'radical' movement. National leaders, while glad of the ideological framing, have been wary of declaring themselves a part of OWS (and joining in). Nancy Pelosi, for example, has said that she 'supports' the movement... from the comfortable chair of a national interview.
This wariness shouldn't be too surprising, though, since OWS has also gained a reputation for having little appreciation for political attention. Occupy Atlanta gained headlines in October when General Assembly rules blocked Congressman John Lewis from addressing the crowd in support of the movement's goals. It was understandable; after all, OWS is a movement that strives to ignore the celebrity of power and privilege. It's also understandable that those Democrats who already have considerable power would strive to steer clear of outright participation.
But what about Republicans? If Democrats are wary of OWS, it would follow that the GOP must be deathly allergic. But Occupy Wall Street's popular influence has even had an affect on the Republican discourse, albeit at the margins. Buddy Roemer- the former Governor of Louisiana and Presidential candidate- showed up at Occupy DC in late November to listen to (and debate with) the occupiers. While there, he defended the importance of the movement: “I told the other Republican candidates, 'Listen, listen -- they're saying something we oughta hear. They're saying that the few at the top gets the best of America, and everybody [else] gets what's left over.'”
Meanwhile, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, whose libertarian supporters sometimes join OWS gatherings, has also declared his sympathy for the movement. Despite being heckled at a rally by members of OWS, Paul signaled his agreement with the protesters, saying “The people on Wall Street got the bailout and you guys got the bills and I think that’s where the problem is.”
But Roemer and Paul both represent significant outliers amongst Republican politicians. Most Republicans see OWS as a threat to American capitalism or at least an opportunity to score a good applause line from the conservative Republican electorate. Candidate Mitt Romney has called the movement “dangerous”, and Republican frontrunner Newt Gingrich has declared that Occupy Wall Street demonstrates the moral collapse of America, saying to occupiers, “Go get a job, right after you take a bath”. Zing. Applause.
Occupy members don't seem too phased by the criticism, however, and some have begun to change their protest tactics to go on the offensive against those running for office. This marks a significant change in strategy, with OWS members singling out some of the Republicans for disruptions on the campaign trail. On Wednesday night, several activists sneaked into a D.C. Fundraiser for Newt Gingrich, interrupting his $1000 ticket event to remind him of the suffering of the 99%.
It is unclear whether or not this kind of direct political action by Occupy Wall Street will continue, but as elections approach next year, those of the OWS movement will have to decide how they will approach the political system. Will they protest Democrats as much as Republicans, or will they become entangled in party preference? Can occupiers embrace direct political advocacy without compromising their ideals?
In the meantime, Occupy Wall Street's mark on the political sphere is only going to grow. Even if the protests fizzle, the discussion that was started by OWS is causing the whole American discourse to shift, and politicians are watching. OWS is fundamentally changing the way politicians in both parties approach delicate issues like loopholes, tax brackets, bailouts, inequality, and free speech. Because of OWS, Americans are even beginning to wonder if the central American problem lies in an even more fundamental structure, rather than cronyism or misconduct. At a Republican Governor's Association meeting last week in which the GOP struggled to reframe the subject, strategist Frank Luntz discussed his fears about the way the movement has changed the national dialogue: "I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death. They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism."
Oh yes. Occupy Wall Street is making a difference in Washington.
Editorial Note 12/15/11: A version of this article was published at WagingNonviolence.org
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Calculating Ron Paul
In my last post (which you should read!) I indicated that the most important non-Romney/Gingrich candidate to watch during this Republican Nomination is Ron Paul. I also stated that the effects of his campaigns in IA and NH will be difficult to predict. While that still holds true, this post will attempt to play out some scenarios regarding "Dr. no".
In the last few days five different pollsters have interviewed prospective Iowa caucus-goers and come up with the same stunningly uniform result: Ron Paul is sitting at around 17% support in the state. That's up from around 12% the last few weeks. Similar good numbers in NH have yet to be confirmed by substantial polling agreement like this.
Although it might not seem like it, 17% is very good. It actually ties Paul for second with Romney, and puts him only 10 points behind Gingrich. And yet this has corresponded with virtually no change in his national polling numbers, which remain in the high single digits, meaning that this is a local phenomenon, probably due to Paul's powerful campaign infrastructure in Iowa.
In order to understand what all this means for the nomination as a whole, we have to ask this question: So, what is this Ron Paul boost due to, and will the trend continue? To try to answer this question, I have looked at three of the five pollsters (those which have surveyed Iowa multiple times) to compare this new result with their last result of these polls in October. We'll look at the 4 candidates that have appreciably changed their numbers before and after, the others have remained roughly static. Averaging (and rounding) them together gets this result:
October: Gingrich: 7% Romney: 23% Paul: 11% Cain: 24% Undecided: 11%
Now: Gingrich: 26% Romney: 17% Paul: 18% Cain: 6% Undecided: 9%
(Herman Cain had dropped out and was not surveyed by one of the 3 polls the second time, but the numbers still work)
Look at that! Cain and Gingrich have swapped numbers, and Paul has sapped 6 or so points from Romney. Romney? Well, looks can be deceiving. Cain having imploded (as predicted last post) and dropped out of the race was a big game changer for the race, but he had been on a downward trajectory for weeks now. Cain's support in Iowa does appear to have transferred largely to Gingrich, but it is likely that some of his anti-establishment supporters have and will go to Ron Paul as well. We also know from national poll numbers that it is Gingrich, not Paul, who has largely sapped Romney's strength, and this is probably playing out in Iowa, as well.
It's hard to be sure what a Ron Paul supporter looks like, but we know that his support is coming from a nearly even mix of (self-identified) Moderate, Somewhat Conservative, and Very Conservative voters. Therefore it would actually not be too surprising that Romney, beaten down from all sides by flip-flop allegations, might be losing some more moderate Republican voters (what few there are in Iowa) to Ron Paul, even as some Herman Cain conservatives quietly slide into the Paul camp. It's also possible that undecideds are beginning to break for him, especially now that he is establishing himself as a viable candidate in the state, but right now it is too early to tell.
Paul is certainly playing to win the very conservative crowd in Iowa, but if he is picking up moderate support as well, he may begin to pull within striking distance of Gingrich. Romney meanwhile is probably kicking himself for his recent decision to ramp up in Iowa which will serve to raise expectations of a better than third place standing come January.
So while the majority of Paul's boost is probably from Cain, he may also be playing well in moderate and undecided circles. I'll be keeping an eye on it. But now we must ask: will the trend continue?
My answer is absolutely yes. Here's why: the front-running Republican candidates, like the media, are having a hard time taking him seriously. And for once this is coming in handy for the Texas Congressman. See, Paul has a national viability problem, and he's seen as somewhat of a joke in some Republican circles, so if Romney or Gingrich were to attack him (to bring his numbers down) it could make Paul into a threat- a viable threat. So Romney and Gingrich will be reluctant to spend time attacking Paul when they are busy attacking each other; no need to elevate Paul's position to that of front-runner, right?
But this means Paul can fly under the national radar to pull a (by national polling standards, surprising) upset in Iowa and New Hampshire, since he has continued to concentrate his resources there. Its possible that he can even get away with attacking Gingrich without drawing return fire, and although I think it is a risky move, Paul probably doesn't have a whole lot to lose at this late stage. All the while Paul can continue to solidify his base in IA while Gingrich and (especially) Romney are gearing up for a lengthy nomination fight, concentrating their resources down the road.
All of this is good news for Ron Paul. It shows in hard numbers for the first time that he could actually win IA and possibly even NH, which would at the very least elevate his personal stature from side-show to main attraction, force his critics to stop laughing, and inject his views into a serious national discourse. Even if this were to happen, Gingrich and Romney are making a wise bet that the Paul campaign will run into a brick wall at SC and beyond. But maybe being taken seriously on a national stage is all Ron Paul needs to make his case to the Republican electorate- to force them to consider whether there really is something credible in Paul's sometimes rambling answers, and for him to prove to Republicans that he can win- not just the primary, but the Presidency too.
In the last few days five different pollsters have interviewed prospective Iowa caucus-goers and come up with the same stunningly uniform result: Ron Paul is sitting at around 17% support in the state. That's up from around 12% the last few weeks. Similar good numbers in NH have yet to be confirmed by substantial polling agreement like this.
Although it might not seem like it, 17% is very good. It actually ties Paul for second with Romney, and puts him only 10 points behind Gingrich. And yet this has corresponded with virtually no change in his national polling numbers, which remain in the high single digits, meaning that this is a local phenomenon, probably due to Paul's powerful campaign infrastructure in Iowa.
In order to understand what all this means for the nomination as a whole, we have to ask this question: So, what is this Ron Paul boost due to, and will the trend continue? To try to answer this question, I have looked at three of the five pollsters (those which have surveyed Iowa multiple times) to compare this new result with their last result of these polls in October. We'll look at the 4 candidates that have appreciably changed their numbers before and after, the others have remained roughly static. Averaging (and rounding) them together gets this result:
October: Gingrich: 7% Romney: 23% Paul: 11% Cain: 24% Undecided: 11%
Now: Gingrich: 26% Romney: 17% Paul: 18% Cain: 6% Undecided: 9%
(Herman Cain had dropped out and was not surveyed by one of the 3 polls the second time, but the numbers still work)
Look at that! Cain and Gingrich have swapped numbers, and Paul has sapped 6 or so points from Romney. Romney? Well, looks can be deceiving. Cain having imploded (as predicted last post) and dropped out of the race was a big game changer for the race, but he had been on a downward trajectory for weeks now. Cain's support in Iowa does appear to have transferred largely to Gingrich, but it is likely that some of his anti-establishment supporters have and will go to Ron Paul as well. We also know from national poll numbers that it is Gingrich, not Paul, who has largely sapped Romney's strength, and this is probably playing out in Iowa, as well.
It's hard to be sure what a Ron Paul supporter looks like, but we know that his support is coming from a nearly even mix of (self-identified) Moderate, Somewhat Conservative, and Very Conservative voters. Therefore it would actually not be too surprising that Romney, beaten down from all sides by flip-flop allegations, might be losing some more moderate Republican voters (what few there are in Iowa) to Ron Paul, even as some Herman Cain conservatives quietly slide into the Paul camp. It's also possible that undecideds are beginning to break for him, especially now that he is establishing himself as a viable candidate in the state, but right now it is too early to tell.
Paul is certainly playing to win the very conservative crowd in Iowa, but if he is picking up moderate support as well, he may begin to pull within striking distance of Gingrich. Romney meanwhile is probably kicking himself for his recent decision to ramp up in Iowa which will serve to raise expectations of a better than third place standing come January.
So while the majority of Paul's boost is probably from Cain, he may also be playing well in moderate and undecided circles. I'll be keeping an eye on it. But now we must ask: will the trend continue?
My answer is absolutely yes. Here's why: the front-running Republican candidates, like the media, are having a hard time taking him seriously. And for once this is coming in handy for the Texas Congressman. See, Paul has a national viability problem, and he's seen as somewhat of a joke in some Republican circles, so if Romney or Gingrich were to attack him (to bring his numbers down) it could make Paul into a threat- a viable threat. So Romney and Gingrich will be reluctant to spend time attacking Paul when they are busy attacking each other; no need to elevate Paul's position to that of front-runner, right?
But this means Paul can fly under the national radar to pull a (by national polling standards, surprising) upset in Iowa and New Hampshire, since he has continued to concentrate his resources there. Its possible that he can even get away with attacking Gingrich without drawing return fire, and although I think it is a risky move, Paul probably doesn't have a whole lot to lose at this late stage. All the while Paul can continue to solidify his base in IA while Gingrich and (especially) Romney are gearing up for a lengthy nomination fight, concentrating their resources down the road.
All of this is good news for Ron Paul. It shows in hard numbers for the first time that he could actually win IA and possibly even NH, which would at the very least elevate his personal stature from side-show to main attraction, force his critics to stop laughing, and inject his views into a serious national discourse. Even if this were to happen, Gingrich and Romney are making a wise bet that the Paul campaign will run into a brick wall at SC and beyond. But maybe being taken seriously on a national stage is all Ron Paul needs to make his case to the Republican electorate- to force them to consider whether there really is something credible in Paul's sometimes rambling answers, and for him to prove to Republicans that he can win- not just the primary, but the Presidency too.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Who to watch in the Republican Nomination
After several requests, and at least one assertion that my blog posts are more entertaining toilet reading than CNN, I am returning to the posting land now that we have entered the buckle down phase- the final stretch of pre-campaign that takes place before the 5 months of primary campaigning- of the Republican Nomination.
As a refresher, there are five early primary states that the Republican candidates will be campaigning in and which will frame the course of the nomination fight. Most important are Iowa (Jan 3) and New Hampshire (Jan 10), being first and second and due to their historic role in determining successful candidates- which will garner massive media attention. Here's a comprehensive calendar.
This is just aquick post on who to watch in the Republican field and the reasons for their importance in the race right now. So if you want to sound smart to your friends when you analyze the race, take some time to work through this short guide.
The guys to beat:
Mitt Romney- The most stable candidate in the race; easily amassing the most establishment support from the Republican Party, and never dropping below 20% in national preference polls since his declaration. One of the reasons for this is that Romney has been running a Presidential campaign since losing to John McCain almost 4 years ago; campaigning for the party, making new friends (and money), and creating an air of inevitability about his nomination. This strategy has served him well: the more inevitable you seem, the more your party will want to jump on your bandwagon and close out the nomination fight- after all, the goal above all other goals of the GOP is to remove the sitting President, not repeat Dem. Primary 2008. As is stands, one lesson we take from 2008 is that long-term inevitability does not always win (see Hillary Clinton), but that large scale support and financing makes it very difficult to lose also, since you can weather a long campaign (see again Hillary Clinton). This leaves Mitt Romney in the most enviable, if not completely unassailable, position.
What to watch:
1. Although Romney has a lot of establishment support relative to the other candidates, large scale endorsements have not been forthcoming for any candidate. If there is a large break for, or against Romney, it would be a serious indicator, so watch from which direction endorsements begin to pile up.
2. National polling has been trending weakly downward for Romney, so a major gaffe on any issue could be enough to reinforce the trend. Romney is almost over-polished, however, so this is unlikely. But another flip-flop would not surprise and would do similar damage. Either way, use 20% as a marker. If his polling drops below this number by more than a point or two, you will know he's becoming seriously vulnerable and his air of inevitability is deflating. Around 20-25% and you will look for a likely protracted nomination fight, and 30-35% shows that he's been able to break through his ceiling and rally enough of the base for a nearly assured win.
3. A win in Iowa or a loss in New Hampshire. Romney's largest base of support is in NH. Iowa not so much. Here's the easy formula: If he wins in Iowa (he's just upped expectations there), he'll win in NH, and he'll almost certainly win the nomination. If he loses NH he will have already lost Iowa and his nomination chances become very weak indeed (but certainly not impossible, as he will have the resources to drag things out).
Newt Gingrich- I heard one commentator describe this year's Republican nomination as a game of musical chairs. Almost every candidate has had their shot in the limelight, sitting in the "front runner" seat for a few weeks, but only to be replaced by another one week later. If that's true, it's just a matter of seeing who's sitting in the chair when the music stops at the Iowa caucuses and NH primary. There's no question that Newt Gingrich is enjoying such a distinction at the moment, but is he just the next flavor of the month to be replaced by someone else just in time for the start of the primary calendar? It's hard to tell, but I don't think so. Newt has a few things going for him that point to his increasing steadiness. First, this isn't his first surge in the polls. Gingrich has been running for the nomination for almost as long as Romney, though perhaps not quite as overtly, and as early as a year ago a couple of polls even showed him leading Romney. My point is that Gingrich's name has been out there for a long time and after his campaign imploded over the summer, nearly every negative of the former Speaker of the House has been showcased. Therefore it is telling that voters are coming back around to Gingrich, knowing his flaws and skeletons- and despite those issues, choosing him anyway. Unlike Bachmann, Perry, and Cain, who crumpled when they were introduced to the electorate and their inadequacies made known, Gingrich has already been through the grinder, and is less likely to suffer since there cannot be much more that will come out of the woodwork. His advantage is that he is seen as the anti-Romney; consistently conservative, and willing to speak his mind even if it isn't the most politically expedient. Romney is slick but perhaps untrustworthy; Gingrich is a little dirty, but he's demonstrably smart and ideologically close to the center of the Republican party.
What to watch:
1. Fundraising. Although endorsements will also come in handy, Gingrich has a massive fundraising deficit when compared with Romney. If his 4th quarter numbers come in close to Romney's or even above, you'll know he's not just noise and will have the firepower to compete in and outside of the 4 early states.
2. Iowa, but mainly South Carolina. It's hard to see a path to the nomination for Gingrich without winning one of these two states, or both, preferably. He's tamped down expectations in NH enough, but he should have some natural play in SC, being from Georgia himself and appealing to the more conservative SC GOP electorate. Watching SC polls will be the key here; Gingrich's got a lot of competition in Iowa, with Bachmann, Santorum, Paul, and Perry all struggling for a break-out hit there. If he has a slight win, or even a narrow loss in Iowa, it won't matter if he can resoundingly smash Romney in South Carolina after NH. That leaves Gingrich open for a run at Florida voters with whom he may also have some natural play- that'll be a devastating 1-2 punch against Romney who has also been courting Florida.
The ones to keep an eye on:
Rick Santorum- If the nomination truly is a game of musical chairs, this guy's next in line after Gingrich. Although he tends to skew a touch too right on social issues and (perhaps) a touch too left on economic for the tea-party-leaning-maybe-more-libertarian GOP base these days, to the casual observer, Santorum sits next to Gingrich and Perry regarding his ideological substance, making him a serious "last resort" conservative "anti-Romney" contender if Gingrich falls apart in the next few weeks. He's run a good campaign in Iowa, although he's largely under the radar elsewhere, and he's a solid debater with youthful energy and almost unparallelled anti- abortion/gay marriage credentials that might be appealing to a block of the electorate, particularly in socially conservative Iowa. He's a stronger candidate than the polls have shown, which I think is due to the lack of attention paid to him in the mainstream media. Therefore, all he needs is a breakout win or surprising finish in Iowa to make him viable, again, assuming Gingrich is somewhat out of the picture.
What to watch:
Iowa. Santorum only has one hand to play and it's here. His resources are thin, but he's the only candidate to have visited all 99 counties in Iowa, so he's clearly playing to win. A strong debate performance from him alongside some Gingrich scandal would be enough to give him the viability edge that Iowa caucus-goers would need to commit their support to him. Of course, after that, he may not have the staying-power to go much further; if it were to happen, a last-minute Santorum rise could seal the deal for Mitt Romney.
Jon Huntsman: It is clear to me that Huntsman has the best chance to beat Barack Obama. If Republicans see that, he could have a chance. Huntsman sports probably the best resume for the office out of all the candidates: exceptionally successful #1 jobs producing former two term Governor of Utah, three time US Ambassador, most recently to China under the Obama administration, can himself speak Chinese, supports civil unions, exceptionally moderate center-right, with market-friendly solutions to global warming and job creation. This cycle of course, Republicans are very wary of nominating someone who looks that much like Obama, or is moderate in any way- especially not someone who served under the man. But as semi-moderate (maybe) Romney flip-flops around, some moderate to liberal Republicans see Jon Huntsman as the better center-right option to confront the more extreme party elements. Yet, overall, he may just be too liberal for his party to rally behind, since moderates are not a majority of the GOP anymore.
What to watch:
Left-leaning New Hampshire is the perfect place to take such a message as Huntsman's, so he's gambled his cards there, trying to convince New Hampshire's electorate that he's a better voice for the moderate wing of the Republican party than Romney. He's been creeping up in the polls there, but he needs a win or something very close to it to break through Romney's support there. Of course if Romney's campaign fell apart for some reason, Huntsman would be in a great position to replace him. He has some funding and is personally wealthy; these things could help him maintain his showing better than Santorum.
Ron Paul- Paul is probably the most important candidate to keep an eye on, so I left him for last. Not because he is likely to win the nomination, but perhaps because he could play the role of spoiler for one of the two front-runners or create an opening for a third candidate to break through. Paul is one of the most unique phenomena of the GOP that I've ever seen; known during his long years in Congress as the man who always votes "no", his libertarian positions are extremely popular among the youngest generation of Republicans who largely eschew interventionist foreign policy and social conservatism. His support ranges across the political spectrum, from the most conservative fiscal hawks, to liberal peace activists, to anti-corporate anarchists, to marijuana users across the US, to, yes, even some conspiracy theorists. But his views also limit his support to around 10% of the Republican voters nationally; he seems to be completely unable to break through that ceiling. Although Paul supporters will chalk that up to the mainstream media's failure to take Paul seriously or a failure of the polling to account for Paul's kind of support, there is something to be said for the fact that his views are just simply out of step with most Republicans. Still his polling is moderately strong in both New Hampshire and Iowa where his socially liberal and fiscally conservative views, respectively have played well.
What to watch:
Iowa and then New Hampshire. Outside of the Mountain West, Paul doesn't have a strong core base of support. But the closest that he's likely to get will come in NH and Iowa where he's concentrated almost all of his energy. He's right around 10-15% there right now, if he can pull it up 10 points or so with some liberal help he could split the overall vote which would throw a lot of variables into the equation. This would lower the threshold for what percentage of votes a candidate would need to win in both these contests. It's unclear which candidate would be most likely to benefit, but I'd guess Mitt Romney, since Ron Paul's supporters tend to skew conservative and might spoil Gingrich's chances at upending Romney. On the other hand, if he can pull support away from either of the front-runners Huntsman, Santorum, Bachmann, or Perry might benefit. Finally, Paul could surprise everyone and win Iowa, only to go on to win NH also. What this would create is unpredictable, but it could cause party support to coalesce around Romney or Gingrich to make sure Paul doesn't coast to success in the nomination. Paul is weak in SC and FL, so it may simply refocus the race on those contests as the frontrunner(s) dismiss Paul's "freak" wins. There seems to be a lot of confusion around how the Ron Paul candidacy will affect race dynamics, so I'll have more on it in the future.
But what about...?
Herman Cain- I think Cain's campaign is on it's last legs. If he doesn't drop out soon, he'll probably pull in some of the vote in Iowa or NH, but not enough to create a stir or spoil another candidate's chances. He's helped to remind voters that substance and experience mean something, and I'm skeptical that they'll rally to him now that he's displayed incompetence, a myriad of controversies, and hesitation regarding his own campaign. Still, he has such an unconventional ...campaign that it's hard to predict anything.
Michele Bachmann- I feel sorry for Michele; her thunder was stolen by Rick Perry right on the cusp of when she saw her star rise. She's obscenely conservative even to the GOP, prone to gaffes on American history, and relatively inexperienced as a politician, although she has shown strength in the debates and on the campaign trail. I think there's only room for one candidate to rise if Gingrich falls, and I think Bachmann is old news. But I could be wrong, and she has focused almost singularly on Iowa, polling better than Santorum.
Rick Perry- That's a good question. Old-school political thought says that money and institutional support mean something, and Rick Perry has acquired quite a bit of both. So much so, that it's possible that Perry will try to ride out the fight on his millions and wait until the field narrows and he can get into some Southern contests. My school of thought says that his debate performances were beyond crippling and that Perry's negatives are too much to overcome, even with his money. He'll certainly be a factor as we go forward since he will have some endurance, but at the moment he's in such a compromised position that it's barely worth watching his campaign. I'll let you know if that changes.
This, this, and this could come in handy when watching polls.
As a refresher, there are five early primary states that the Republican candidates will be campaigning in and which will frame the course of the nomination fight. Most important are Iowa (Jan 3) and New Hampshire (Jan 10), being first and second and due to their historic role in determining successful candidates- which will garner massive media attention. Here's a comprehensive calendar.
This is just a
The guys to beat:
Mitt Romney- The most stable candidate in the race; easily amassing the most establishment support from the Republican Party, and never dropping below 20% in national preference polls since his declaration. One of the reasons for this is that Romney has been running a Presidential campaign since losing to John McCain almost 4 years ago; campaigning for the party, making new friends (and money), and creating an air of inevitability about his nomination. This strategy has served him well: the more inevitable you seem, the more your party will want to jump on your bandwagon and close out the nomination fight- after all, the goal above all other goals of the GOP is to remove the sitting President, not repeat Dem. Primary 2008. As is stands, one lesson we take from 2008 is that long-term inevitability does not always win (see Hillary Clinton), but that large scale support and financing makes it very difficult to lose also, since you can weather a long campaign (see again Hillary Clinton). This leaves Mitt Romney in the most enviable, if not completely unassailable, position.
What to watch:
1. Although Romney has a lot of establishment support relative to the other candidates, large scale endorsements have not been forthcoming for any candidate. If there is a large break for, or against Romney, it would be a serious indicator, so watch from which direction endorsements begin to pile up.
2. National polling has been trending weakly downward for Romney, so a major gaffe on any issue could be enough to reinforce the trend. Romney is almost over-polished, however, so this is unlikely. But another flip-flop would not surprise and would do similar damage. Either way, use 20% as a marker. If his polling drops below this number by more than a point or two, you will know he's becoming seriously vulnerable and his air of inevitability is deflating. Around 20-25% and you will look for a likely protracted nomination fight, and 30-35% shows that he's been able to break through his ceiling and rally enough of the base for a nearly assured win.
3. A win in Iowa or a loss in New Hampshire. Romney's largest base of support is in NH. Iowa not so much. Here's the easy formula: If he wins in Iowa (he's just upped expectations there), he'll win in NH, and he'll almost certainly win the nomination. If he loses NH he will have already lost Iowa and his nomination chances become very weak indeed (but certainly not impossible, as he will have the resources to drag things out).
Newt Gingrich- I heard one commentator describe this year's Republican nomination as a game of musical chairs. Almost every candidate has had their shot in the limelight, sitting in the "front runner" seat for a few weeks, but only to be replaced by another one week later. If that's true, it's just a matter of seeing who's sitting in the chair when the music stops at the Iowa caucuses and NH primary. There's no question that Newt Gingrich is enjoying such a distinction at the moment, but is he just the next flavor of the month to be replaced by someone else just in time for the start of the primary calendar? It's hard to tell, but I don't think so. Newt has a few things going for him that point to his increasing steadiness. First, this isn't his first surge in the polls. Gingrich has been running for the nomination for almost as long as Romney, though perhaps not quite as overtly, and as early as a year ago a couple of polls even showed him leading Romney. My point is that Gingrich's name has been out there for a long time and after his campaign imploded over the summer, nearly every negative of the former Speaker of the House has been showcased. Therefore it is telling that voters are coming back around to Gingrich, knowing his flaws and skeletons- and despite those issues, choosing him anyway. Unlike Bachmann, Perry, and Cain, who crumpled when they were introduced to the electorate and their inadequacies made known, Gingrich has already been through the grinder, and is less likely to suffer since there cannot be much more that will come out of the woodwork. His advantage is that he is seen as the anti-Romney; consistently conservative, and willing to speak his mind even if it isn't the most politically expedient. Romney is slick but perhaps untrustworthy; Gingrich is a little dirty, but he's demonstrably smart and ideologically close to the center of the Republican party.
What to watch:
1. Fundraising. Although endorsements will also come in handy, Gingrich has a massive fundraising deficit when compared with Romney. If his 4th quarter numbers come in close to Romney's or even above, you'll know he's not just noise and will have the firepower to compete in and outside of the 4 early states.
2. Iowa, but mainly South Carolina. It's hard to see a path to the nomination for Gingrich without winning one of these two states, or both, preferably. He's tamped down expectations in NH enough, but he should have some natural play in SC, being from Georgia himself and appealing to the more conservative SC GOP electorate. Watching SC polls will be the key here; Gingrich's got a lot of competition in Iowa, with Bachmann, Santorum, Paul, and Perry all struggling for a break-out hit there. If he has a slight win, or even a narrow loss in Iowa, it won't matter if he can resoundingly smash Romney in South Carolina after NH. That leaves Gingrich open for a run at Florida voters with whom he may also have some natural play- that'll be a devastating 1-2 punch against Romney who has also been courting Florida.
The ones to keep an eye on:
Rick Santorum- If the nomination truly is a game of musical chairs, this guy's next in line after Gingrich. Although he tends to skew a touch too right on social issues and (perhaps) a touch too left on economic for the tea-party-leaning-maybe-more-libertarian GOP base these days, to the casual observer, Santorum sits next to Gingrich and Perry regarding his ideological substance, making him a serious "last resort" conservative "anti-Romney" contender if Gingrich falls apart in the next few weeks. He's run a good campaign in Iowa, although he's largely under the radar elsewhere, and he's a solid debater with youthful energy and almost unparallelled anti- abortion/gay marriage credentials that might be appealing to a block of the electorate, particularly in socially conservative Iowa. He's a stronger candidate than the polls have shown, which I think is due to the lack of attention paid to him in the mainstream media. Therefore, all he needs is a breakout win or surprising finish in Iowa to make him viable, again, assuming Gingrich is somewhat out of the picture.
What to watch:
Iowa. Santorum only has one hand to play and it's here. His resources are thin, but he's the only candidate to have visited all 99 counties in Iowa, so he's clearly playing to win. A strong debate performance from him alongside some Gingrich scandal would be enough to give him the viability edge that Iowa caucus-goers would need to commit their support to him. Of course, after that, he may not have the staying-power to go much further; if it were to happen, a last-minute Santorum rise could seal the deal for Mitt Romney.
Jon Huntsman: It is clear to me that Huntsman has the best chance to beat Barack Obama. If Republicans see that, he could have a chance. Huntsman sports probably the best resume for the office out of all the candidates: exceptionally successful #1 jobs producing former two term Governor of Utah, three time US Ambassador, most recently to China under the Obama administration, can himself speak Chinese, supports civil unions, exceptionally moderate center-right, with market-friendly solutions to global warming and job creation. This cycle of course, Republicans are very wary of nominating someone who looks that much like Obama, or is moderate in any way- especially not someone who served under the man. But as semi-moderate (maybe) Romney flip-flops around, some moderate to liberal Republicans see Jon Huntsman as the better center-right option to confront the more extreme party elements. Yet, overall, he may just be too liberal for his party to rally behind, since moderates are not a majority of the GOP anymore.
What to watch:
Left-leaning New Hampshire is the perfect place to take such a message as Huntsman's, so he's gambled his cards there, trying to convince New Hampshire's electorate that he's a better voice for the moderate wing of the Republican party than Romney. He's been creeping up in the polls there, but he needs a win or something very close to it to break through Romney's support there. Of course if Romney's campaign fell apart for some reason, Huntsman would be in a great position to replace him. He has some funding and is personally wealthy; these things could help him maintain his showing better than Santorum.
Ron Paul- Paul is probably the most important candidate to keep an eye on, so I left him for last. Not because he is likely to win the nomination, but perhaps because he could play the role of spoiler for one of the two front-runners or create an opening for a third candidate to break through. Paul is one of the most unique phenomena of the GOP that I've ever seen; known during his long years in Congress as the man who always votes "no", his libertarian positions are extremely popular among the youngest generation of Republicans who largely eschew interventionist foreign policy and social conservatism. His support ranges across the political spectrum, from the most conservative fiscal hawks, to liberal peace activists, to anti-corporate anarchists, to marijuana users across the US, to, yes, even some conspiracy theorists. But his views also limit his support to around 10% of the Republican voters nationally; he seems to be completely unable to break through that ceiling. Although Paul supporters will chalk that up to the mainstream media's failure to take Paul seriously or a failure of the polling to account for Paul's kind of support, there is something to be said for the fact that his views are just simply out of step with most Republicans. Still his polling is moderately strong in both New Hampshire and Iowa where his socially liberal and fiscally conservative views, respectively have played well.
What to watch:
Iowa and then New Hampshire. Outside of the Mountain West, Paul doesn't have a strong core base of support. But the closest that he's likely to get will come in NH and Iowa where he's concentrated almost all of his energy. He's right around 10-15% there right now, if he can pull it up 10 points or so with some liberal help he could split the overall vote which would throw a lot of variables into the equation. This would lower the threshold for what percentage of votes a candidate would need to win in both these contests. It's unclear which candidate would be most likely to benefit, but I'd guess Mitt Romney, since Ron Paul's supporters tend to skew conservative and might spoil Gingrich's chances at upending Romney. On the other hand, if he can pull support away from either of the front-runners Huntsman, Santorum, Bachmann, or Perry might benefit. Finally, Paul could surprise everyone and win Iowa, only to go on to win NH also. What this would create is unpredictable, but it could cause party support to coalesce around Romney or Gingrich to make sure Paul doesn't coast to success in the nomination. Paul is weak in SC and FL, so it may simply refocus the race on those contests as the frontrunner(s) dismiss Paul's "freak" wins. There seems to be a lot of confusion around how the Ron Paul candidacy will affect race dynamics, so I'll have more on it in the future.
But what about...?
Herman Cain- I think Cain's campaign is on it's last legs. If he doesn't drop out soon, he'll probably pull in some of the vote in Iowa or NH, but not enough to create a stir or spoil another candidate's chances. He's helped to remind voters that substance and experience mean something, and I'm skeptical that they'll rally to him now that he's displayed incompetence, a myriad of controversies, and hesitation regarding his own campaign. Still, he has such an unconventional ...campaign that it's hard to predict anything.
Michele Bachmann- I feel sorry for Michele; her thunder was stolen by Rick Perry right on the cusp of when she saw her star rise. She's obscenely conservative even to the GOP, prone to gaffes on American history, and relatively inexperienced as a politician, although she has shown strength in the debates and on the campaign trail. I think there's only room for one candidate to rise if Gingrich falls, and I think Bachmann is old news. But I could be wrong, and she has focused almost singularly on Iowa, polling better than Santorum.
Rick Perry- That's a good question. Old-school political thought says that money and institutional support mean something, and Rick Perry has acquired quite a bit of both. So much so, that it's possible that Perry will try to ride out the fight on his millions and wait until the field narrows and he can get into some Southern contests. My school of thought says that his debate performances were beyond crippling and that Perry's negatives are too much to overcome, even with his money. He'll certainly be a factor as we go forward since he will have some endurance, but at the moment he's in such a compromised position that it's barely worth watching his campaign. I'll let you know if that changes.
This, this, and this could come in handy when watching polls.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Taking Sides
I had a great conversation with a friend the other day that focused on many things, but one of them was the foreign policies of the Obama administration and his predecessors. I have discussed this subject on this blog before, but there are many subjects which have gone uncovered. This is also related to many of the subjects discussed by the new Zeitgeist movie which I will discuss after this post, and to the last post on Islamism and Egypt which I wrote last week.
If you have not had a chance to watch this video from my last post, please do, it may help to elucidate the arguments which follow. Or it may be better to watch it after reading this piece. Either way, take 20 minutes out of your day and watch it (caution to those with reaction to moderate to strong images of violence and some language)--
http://www.vbs.tv/watch/vbs-news/vbs-news-presents-taliban-in-pakistan-full-length
So, if only because the subject continues to come up, in the face of what is going on in Egypt and what has been going on in Afghanistan for almost 10 years, I thought it might be useful to some readers to see a short essay I put together (loosely as un-blog-related work), and then revised, responding to a famous piece by Wendell Berry written shortly after 9/11. I very much encourage you to take some time out and read Berry's somewhat brief article before continuing on to the rest of this piece. Mine is not remotely brief.
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/214/
For those of you just skimming or ignoring- again, not recommended- let's go over what Berry is talking about really quick. Wendell Berry's essay delves into 2 principle points.
First, referring to our (the world's) international economic interactions, based on a Western Capitalist model, he discusses the argument that our global system of free trade, built upon the growth of prosperity (which is) dependent upon the permanence of technological innovation, frantic consumption, and world marketing of the system, and the presence of global security to ensure it... is unsustainable. Dangerous even, for it favors growth over all other things, including people, especially those in countries which are forced to grow (sure, pun intended) dependent upon this system.
Berry points out that this global system is a breeding ground for inequality on an international and local scale because nations tend to support their own self interest regardless of the expense to other nations since there is little incentive in our world trade system for a nation, corporation, or individual to restrain greedy hands backed by raw power. Of course this "power" I refer to is the hard power (military) that sometimes must accompany soft power negotiations across the world; it is the reason we have a vast network of bases across the world-- to safeguard the "peace" of the global system of trade.
With me so far?
This argument is augmented by Berry's second point, mainly that such a global system can and should be confronted with an alternative. This alternative, to Berry, is Peaceableness, and it follows in the footsteps of the great non-violent, compassionate, compromising, and educated leaders of our time. Peaceableness starts with sustainability and information/education, demands restraint, and aspires to a higher moral calling. This goes beyond overarching policy considerations to Berry, and is reliant on an essential transformation of attitudes that penetrates down to the communal and individual level.
Ok, here is the commentary.
Regarding the first section- and I would argue that Berry is saying this, but not explicitly enough- it would have been really helpful if Berry had pointed more clearly to the link between the free-trade system that we enforce across the world- encumbering other cultures different from our own with a liberalism for which they had not prepared themselves nor necessarily requested- and the attacks upon our country on 9/11.
When I use "liberalism", (and now we wander somewhat questionably into the territory of Neoliberalism, but this represents too much to examine here) I mean two different philosophies in the "Western" sense, first (hereafter considered philosophy 1) referring to attitudes of Laissez-Faire economics and protection of persons with regard to their rights to property, and second (philosophy 2) to domestic and international movements for equal treatment under respective laws for differing social groups, classes, races, sexes, genders, etc, ostensibly for the purpose of allowing all humans to have the capacity to have access to the first philosophy. In a word, both of these perspectives are concerned with what we call "freedom" but perhaps "individualism" is a better fit-- ironically the first philosophy, using overtures of the second, seems to create foreign policies which end up looking very much like subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle Social Darwinism, which often runs contrary to substantial progress for the second philosophy. But now we are too far into the finer points.
It seems inconceivable that other peoples might reject our version of social progress- liberalism as described above-, but a progress forced upon any people is at serious risk for being one much maligned. It is not unlikely that given time all peoples may yet come upon some version of the same "progress" we have attained, meaning economic and social opportunity for all people. Let me give an example.
For a long time we have used the Taliban's treatment of women in Afghanistan as a specific reason why we must not allow them to come back into power, that is if the charges of supporting Al-Qaeda don't do it for you. We may decry the Taliban for it's treatment of women, but will installing a government that protects women's rights change the hearts and minds of the people? Is it impossible that allowing them to come to the same realization on their own may be better? Or worse, that their culture is not wrong for being different?
May I pause here for some additional potentially (though by no means intentionally) inflammatory dialogue?
I say the following things in good faith, making a comparison which is probably unfair, but I beleive helps to explain my point to an American audience; please be patient.
_______________________________________________________
Before you shake your head at this relativism that I am positing, consider some of the implications of, say, desegregation in our own country. Especially in the South, but in many parts of this country, Blacks were in a terrible position, oppressed, poor, and with little voice a century after the abolition of slavery. Some in America suggested that without the government intervening and forcing desegregation, nothing could be done about equality. But nothing happened; those in power did not act, fearing repercussions from an equally fearful electorate. Then, over the course of a decade and more, the groundswell that represented the many facets of the Civil Rights struggle forced the hand of authorities, and the desegregation process began. It was only after Americans forced themselves to come face to face with the racism in the country, that change began to occur, and this self realization was done largely at the grassroots level, not otherwise imposed. Some may argue that we should have stepped in sooner to stop such an oppression, and if the federal government had acted to impose these rules, it would have ended Black suffering sooner. But I think it took waiting for Americans to realize it themselves, for it to, unfortunately, get almost to the breaking point that allowed public opinion to go strongly for civil rights, that prevented even more very serious violence or even a race war. Because much of Black suffering was/is from the institutions, and those institutions are made up of people- change the institution all you want, and the people may never change their minds, or even act out against being forced, but allow social pressure to change the people's minds? And suddenly overt racism of the kind 50 years ago is virtually extinguished in this country. In my opinion it is also why the changes have lasted, without a strong backlash.
Let us suppose another example. There is a school district in the rural Deep South which now must integrate by federal order. Is it better to force them to desegregate, or is it better to let them watch the rest of the nation shame them into not falling "behind the times"? Some will argue that without the federal order, the school will never desegregate, and that the federal order forces the change to occur faster and just as authentically. My essential argument, and yes this does come from my own observations about the world, and some relativism, is that the school district will decide to desegregate on its own over time, when the people who elect such a board realize what social, financial, infrastructural, moral, and associational benefits they are missing out on by continuing its policies. It is slower, and possibly involves more suffering (although in the long run this is up for debate) but it is probably much more genuine, and very likely reflects genuine attitude changes at the individual level. In the meantime the rest of us outside of the district get to reexamine our own attitudes and truly question whether our systems are more effective than the "other's" at achieving the goals of our own liberalism.
I acknowledge and recognize the validity of the other side of the argument for the subject above; do not think I am attempting to reduce in any way a situation of potent complexity. But my argument does gain strength when it is more closely applied to the analogy of foreign policy, fair or unfair as an analogy as it may have been. See, now imagine that the conflict isn't even domestic. It is thousands of miles away in a place where the culture hardly resembles ours, the languages are many and complex, and the expense of implementing overhead, top-down reforms is nearly prohibitive. Can we afford not to wait for an Afghani groundswell as we have seen in Egypt?
_____________________________________________________
Now that I've dealt with that aside, (if it frustrated you, please drop it and continue along in good faith with me) let us return to the argument at hand. The real truth regarding our attitudes about the Taliban in Afghanistan (again, here we return to Berry's main argument) is that philosophy #2 is not the main reason why American military forces are engaged over there.
Because although social progress is sometimes a byproduct of our economic interaction with other countries, it is not the primary reason we desire interaction, rather we seek resources, oil primarily, and while we seek these resources for the mutual benefit of both nations, we do so only as long as the benefit to our nation is greater. What I mean is, we are willing to aid Saudi Arabia in building infrastructure, but we also do have strong influence on who controls access to their oil (and its prices). We do not engage in equal business transactions; this is impossible because we wield much more political and economic influence than most countries with which we deal. And we ensure this state of being through our 'hard power', the global police of which Berry speaks, and this police enforces our economic law, our philosophical perspective, and our cultural preferences, regardless of disagreements locals may bring. After all they are rarely in a position to disagree, and will accept any help they can get to pull themselves up out of poverty, even at the price of what we would call their "freedom".
And since philosophy 1 comes intrinsically and intractably connected to philosophy 2, the policies involving both are practiced in a way that is dependent on this unequal relationship between countries, and leads inevitably to domination of the other, because we have decided that they involve inferior philosophies and inferior economies. Because these other ideas possibly threaten to rob us of the freedom to use our own liberalism to make the world safe for our opportunism, which has suddenly become a violation of our rights.
This is what "they" (sadly government officials oftentimes) mean when they say that the "Terrorists" hate your "freedom". They probably do hate that we have given ourselves the opportunity to live our lives in freedom because, with the permanently consumerist system we have enacted, it seems we must always exploit other countries for this lifestyle they hate us for. And if we run into trouble, our military is powerful enough to be used as a bargaining chip to help negotiations slide our way in many circumstances.
Ok, but let's ask this question. Let's say the system changed, Berry is now World Premier, wouldn't these enemies of ours still hate us regardless? Don't they want to impose themselves on us? Let's say we were to withdraw from all global 'entanglements' -one of Ron Paul's favorite terms- wouldn't we still invite attack because we are still a beacon of domestic freedom, and these enemies despise freedom, they oppose it on a philosophical and theological level, right? Plus, they attacked us; regardless of the world trade system, it's too late to change their minds, and meanwhile how did it suddenly become unreasonable for us to punish those who kill innocent people! We have a lesson to teach here. We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.
In this way our language regarding 9/11 is a confusing mixture of vengeful emotional rhetoric and noble defense, this part somewhat grounded in logic, of the cultural mores that define millions of people in "the West". But it seems that Berry and I both agree that both of these are a form of national self righteousness; they require one way to be right (ours) and another way to be wrong, speaking always in dichotomies- sometimes if only because God is on our "side". I ask the next question seriously, and I request that it be taken so. Need there be sides? Because as I see it, all people are just negotiating for a better life in the best way they know how. Many of us negotiate in violence or quietly support such negotiations with our taxes or votes or views and then become surprised when violence is turned back upon us. If we saw all people as people rather than representations of ideologies or sides we might be able to find solutions tailored to individual needs and comprehension of individual compulsion and drive.
Perhaps we like to comfort ourselves with this supposition of dichotomies, that we must fight the physical presence of the ideology which groups like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda espouse in order to protect ourselves from these ideas, but to me this brings into play Berry's second point. Such a supposition is a distraction from what is truly at stake, and education can resolve this point. In fact, I wish fervently that everyone would read some of the publications put forth by Osama bin Laden and sympathetic groups to his cause, to learn exactly what it is that they desire. We would learn that quite often the large majority of what they point to is transgressions caused by our occupation/destruction of what they view as their homeland and people, our exploitation of their resources, or our support of countries which do the same. It is a disturbingly logical case. They are giving us the recipe for their own dissolution. After all, do you think significant support of groups like Al-Qaeda would continue if our liberal global systems and our destructive policing of those systems couldn't be used as a recruiting tool? Because the other smaller parts of their rhetoric which reek of the same national, moral, and religious self righteousness that Berry and I so dislike seems so much weaker without the substance of our great transgressions used for justification. Think on this.
What if... Is is possible that they are speaking out in the only way they know how, the only way they feel the world will listen, in this global society where hard power dominates, and capitalism quashes the voice of the poor and disadvantaged? What would that say about us? What would happen to us if we dared to take the higher road and offer first to extend the olive branch instead of attack, to recognize some of their demands as legitimate, even to apologize when we feel an apology would make us weak, or when we feel after being attacked ourselves that they couldn't possibly deserve to have US apologize to THEM- THEY that killed innocents before our very eyes- but what if we did it anyway, because that was how we wanted to show our strength?
Could we be forgiven for the times we've taken the lives of innocents too? Would so many countries see an opening in our weakness to take an eye for an eye? Would the world turn against us then? Or at the very least, could the world's people possibly hate us more for such an act of patience and compassion than one of revenge and moral imperiousness?
I ask: Would we have everything to lose, or everything to gain?
If you have not had a chance to watch this video from my last post, please do, it may help to elucidate the arguments which follow. Or it may be better to watch it after reading this piece. Either way, take 20 minutes out of your day and watch it (caution to those with reaction to moderate to strong images of violence and some language)--
http://www.vbs.tv/watch/vbs-news/vbs-news-presents-taliban-in-pakistan-full-length
So, if only because the subject continues to come up, in the face of what is going on in Egypt and what has been going on in Afghanistan for almost 10 years, I thought it might be useful to some readers to see a short essay I put together (loosely as un-blog-related work), and then revised, responding to a famous piece by Wendell Berry written shortly after 9/11. I very much encourage you to take some time out and read Berry's somewhat brief article before continuing on to the rest of this piece. Mine is not remotely brief.
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/214/
For those of you just skimming or ignoring- again, not recommended- let's go over what Berry is talking about really quick. Wendell Berry's essay delves into 2 principle points.
First, referring to our (the world's) international economic interactions, based on a Western Capitalist model, he discusses the argument that our global system of free trade, built upon the growth of prosperity (which is) dependent upon the permanence of technological innovation, frantic consumption, and world marketing of the system, and the presence of global security to ensure it... is unsustainable. Dangerous even, for it favors growth over all other things, including people, especially those in countries which are forced to grow (sure, pun intended) dependent upon this system.
Berry points out that this global system is a breeding ground for inequality on an international and local scale because nations tend to support their own self interest regardless of the expense to other nations since there is little incentive in our world trade system for a nation, corporation, or individual to restrain greedy hands backed by raw power. Of course this "power" I refer to is the hard power (military) that sometimes must accompany soft power negotiations across the world; it is the reason we have a vast network of bases across the world-- to safeguard the "peace" of the global system of trade.
With me so far?
This argument is augmented by Berry's second point, mainly that such a global system can and should be confronted with an alternative. This alternative, to Berry, is Peaceableness, and it follows in the footsteps of the great non-violent, compassionate, compromising, and educated leaders of our time. Peaceableness starts with sustainability and information/education, demands restraint, and aspires to a higher moral calling. This goes beyond overarching policy considerations to Berry, and is reliant on an essential transformation of attitudes that penetrates down to the communal and individual level.
Ok, here is the commentary.
Regarding the first section- and I would argue that Berry is saying this, but not explicitly enough- it would have been really helpful if Berry had pointed more clearly to the link between the free-trade system that we enforce across the world- encumbering other cultures different from our own with a liberalism for which they had not prepared themselves nor necessarily requested- and the attacks upon our country on 9/11.
When I use "liberalism", (and now we wander somewhat questionably into the territory of Neoliberalism, but this represents too much to examine here) I mean two different philosophies in the "Western" sense, first (hereafter considered philosophy 1) referring to attitudes of Laissez-Faire economics and protection of persons with regard to their rights to property, and second (philosophy 2) to domestic and international movements for equal treatment under respective laws for differing social groups, classes, races, sexes, genders, etc, ostensibly for the purpose of allowing all humans to have the capacity to have access to the first philosophy. In a word, both of these perspectives are concerned with what we call "freedom" but perhaps "individualism" is a better fit-- ironically the first philosophy, using overtures of the second, seems to create foreign policies which end up looking very much like subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle Social Darwinism, which often runs contrary to substantial progress for the second philosophy. But now we are too far into the finer points.
It seems inconceivable that other peoples might reject our version of social progress- liberalism as described above-, but a progress forced upon any people is at serious risk for being one much maligned. It is not unlikely that given time all peoples may yet come upon some version of the same "progress" we have attained, meaning economic and social opportunity for all people. Let me give an example.
For a long time we have used the Taliban's treatment of women in Afghanistan as a specific reason why we must not allow them to come back into power, that is if the charges of supporting Al-Qaeda don't do it for you. We may decry the Taliban for it's treatment of women, but will installing a government that protects women's rights change the hearts and minds of the people? Is it impossible that allowing them to come to the same realization on their own may be better? Or worse, that their culture is not wrong for being different?
May I pause here for some additional potentially (though by no means intentionally) inflammatory dialogue?
I say the following things in good faith, making a comparison which is probably unfair, but I beleive helps to explain my point to an American audience; please be patient.
_______________________________________________________
Before you shake your head at this relativism that I am positing, consider some of the implications of, say, desegregation in our own country. Especially in the South, but in many parts of this country, Blacks were in a terrible position, oppressed, poor, and with little voice a century after the abolition of slavery. Some in America suggested that without the government intervening and forcing desegregation, nothing could be done about equality. But nothing happened; those in power did not act, fearing repercussions from an equally fearful electorate. Then, over the course of a decade and more, the groundswell that represented the many facets of the Civil Rights struggle forced the hand of authorities, and the desegregation process began. It was only after Americans forced themselves to come face to face with the racism in the country, that change began to occur, and this self realization was done largely at the grassroots level, not otherwise imposed. Some may argue that we should have stepped in sooner to stop such an oppression, and if the federal government had acted to impose these rules, it would have ended Black suffering sooner. But I think it took waiting for Americans to realize it themselves, for it to, unfortunately, get almost to the breaking point that allowed public opinion to go strongly for civil rights, that prevented even more very serious violence or even a race war. Because much of Black suffering was/is from the institutions, and those institutions are made up of people- change the institution all you want, and the people may never change their minds, or even act out against being forced, but allow social pressure to change the people's minds? And suddenly overt racism of the kind 50 years ago is virtually extinguished in this country. In my opinion it is also why the changes have lasted, without a strong backlash.
Let us suppose another example. There is a school district in the rural Deep South which now must integrate by federal order. Is it better to force them to desegregate, or is it better to let them watch the rest of the nation shame them into not falling "behind the times"? Some will argue that without the federal order, the school will never desegregate, and that the federal order forces the change to occur faster and just as authentically. My essential argument, and yes this does come from my own observations about the world, and some relativism, is that the school district will decide to desegregate on its own over time, when the people who elect such a board realize what social, financial, infrastructural, moral, and associational benefits they are missing out on by continuing its policies. It is slower, and possibly involves more suffering (although in the long run this is up for debate) but it is probably much more genuine, and very likely reflects genuine attitude changes at the individual level. In the meantime the rest of us outside of the district get to reexamine our own attitudes and truly question whether our systems are more effective than the "other's" at achieving the goals of our own liberalism.
I acknowledge and recognize the validity of the other side of the argument for the subject above; do not think I am attempting to reduce in any way a situation of potent complexity. But my argument does gain strength when it is more closely applied to the analogy of foreign policy, fair or unfair as an analogy as it may have been. See, now imagine that the conflict isn't even domestic. It is thousands of miles away in a place where the culture hardly resembles ours, the languages are many and complex, and the expense of implementing overhead, top-down reforms is nearly prohibitive. Can we afford not to wait for an Afghani groundswell as we have seen in Egypt?
_____________________________________________________
Now that I've dealt with that aside, (if it frustrated you, please drop it and continue along in good faith with me) let us return to the argument at hand. The real truth regarding our attitudes about the Taliban in Afghanistan (again, here we return to Berry's main argument) is that philosophy #2 is not the main reason why American military forces are engaged over there.
Because although social progress is sometimes a byproduct of our economic interaction with other countries, it is not the primary reason we desire interaction, rather we seek resources, oil primarily, and while we seek these resources for the mutual benefit of both nations, we do so only as long as the benefit to our nation is greater. What I mean is, we are willing to aid Saudi Arabia in building infrastructure, but we also do have strong influence on who controls access to their oil (and its prices). We do not engage in equal business transactions; this is impossible because we wield much more political and economic influence than most countries with which we deal. And we ensure this state of being through our 'hard power', the global police of which Berry speaks, and this police enforces our economic law, our philosophical perspective, and our cultural preferences, regardless of disagreements locals may bring. After all they are rarely in a position to disagree, and will accept any help they can get to pull themselves up out of poverty, even at the price of what we would call their "freedom".
And since philosophy 1 comes intrinsically and intractably connected to philosophy 2, the policies involving both are practiced in a way that is dependent on this unequal relationship between countries, and leads inevitably to domination of the other, because we have decided that they involve inferior philosophies and inferior economies. Because these other ideas possibly threaten to rob us of the freedom to use our own liberalism to make the world safe for our opportunism, which has suddenly become a violation of our rights.
This is what "they" (sadly government officials oftentimes) mean when they say that the "Terrorists" hate your "freedom". They probably do hate that we have given ourselves the opportunity to live our lives in freedom because, with the permanently consumerist system we have enacted, it seems we must always exploit other countries for this lifestyle they hate us for. And if we run into trouble, our military is powerful enough to be used as a bargaining chip to help negotiations slide our way in many circumstances.
Ok, but let's ask this question. Let's say the system changed, Berry is now World Premier, wouldn't these enemies of ours still hate us regardless? Don't they want to impose themselves on us? Let's say we were to withdraw from all global 'entanglements' -one of Ron Paul's favorite terms- wouldn't we still invite attack because we are still a beacon of domestic freedom, and these enemies despise freedom, they oppose it on a philosophical and theological level, right? Plus, they attacked us; regardless of the world trade system, it's too late to change their minds, and meanwhile how did it suddenly become unreasonable for us to punish those who kill innocent people! We have a lesson to teach here. We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.
In this way our language regarding 9/11 is a confusing mixture of vengeful emotional rhetoric and noble defense, this part somewhat grounded in logic, of the cultural mores that define millions of people in "the West". But it seems that Berry and I both agree that both of these are a form of national self righteousness; they require one way to be right (ours) and another way to be wrong, speaking always in dichotomies- sometimes if only because God is on our "side". I ask the next question seriously, and I request that it be taken so. Need there be sides? Because as I see it, all people are just negotiating for a better life in the best way they know how. Many of us negotiate in violence or quietly support such negotiations with our taxes or votes or views and then become surprised when violence is turned back upon us. If we saw all people as people rather than representations of ideologies or sides we might be able to find solutions tailored to individual needs and comprehension of individual compulsion and drive.
Perhaps we like to comfort ourselves with this supposition of dichotomies, that we must fight the physical presence of the ideology which groups like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda espouse in order to protect ourselves from these ideas, but to me this brings into play Berry's second point. Such a supposition is a distraction from what is truly at stake, and education can resolve this point. In fact, I wish fervently that everyone would read some of the publications put forth by Osama bin Laden and sympathetic groups to his cause, to learn exactly what it is that they desire. We would learn that quite often the large majority of what they point to is transgressions caused by our occupation/destruction of what they view as their homeland and people, our exploitation of their resources, or our support of countries which do the same. It is a disturbingly logical case. They are giving us the recipe for their own dissolution. After all, do you think significant support of groups like Al-Qaeda would continue if our liberal global systems and our destructive policing of those systems couldn't be used as a recruiting tool? Because the other smaller parts of their rhetoric which reek of the same national, moral, and religious self righteousness that Berry and I so dislike seems so much weaker without the substance of our great transgressions used for justification. Think on this.
What if... Is is possible that they are speaking out in the only way they know how, the only way they feel the world will listen, in this global society where hard power dominates, and capitalism quashes the voice of the poor and disadvantaged? What would that say about us? What would happen to us if we dared to take the higher road and offer first to extend the olive branch instead of attack, to recognize some of their demands as legitimate, even to apologize when we feel an apology would make us weak, or when we feel after being attacked ourselves that they couldn't possibly deserve to have US apologize to THEM- THEY that killed innocents before our very eyes- but what if we did it anyway, because that was how we wanted to show our strength?
Could we be forgiven for the times we've taken the lives of innocents too? Would so many countries see an opening in our weakness to take an eye for an eye? Would the world turn against us then? Or at the very least, could the world's people possibly hate us more for such an act of patience and compassion than one of revenge and moral imperiousness?
I ask: Would we have everything to lose, or everything to gain?
Friday, February 11, 2011
What paths will Egyptians tread now?
For more background on this from PL vs: look here. Or for a good recap/summation from CNN, here.
I am sure that some of even the most staunch conservatives in this country, those that advocate stability and security over democracy for our world partners, could not help but smile at the inspiring events today in Egypt. It has largely been since the Vietnam War and Civil Rights Protests that we have seen such non-violent demonstrations in our own country for political change, and it is difficult not to find success like what has occurred in Egypt today uplifting.
Hosni Mubarak, greeted by an overwhelming protest movement culminating with great intensity today in several cities across Egypt, has officially resigned his post as President of Egypt, fleeing with his family from the Capital.
The announcement was made by his Vice President, Omar Suleiman, in what has been described as a terse minute-long concession. Power will be handed over to the Egyptian Military (specifically a group of military leaders who make up the Supreme Council of the Armed forces) which has largely refused to take part action against or to protect the protesters.
Last night, Mubarak enraged protesters by appearing on television and refusing to resign, handing over only some of his powers to the Vice President. Some Egyptian leaders had hinted that the speech would signal Mubarak's resignation. When that wasn't what happened, the crowds felt further deceived. Earlier in the week, attention had turned away from Tahrir Square to worker strikes across the nation, but on Friday, new lifeblood had been pumped into the student and young-people driven protests because of the previous night's events.
And now, these demonstrations have turned into cheering, chanting crowds, shooting off fireworks and dancing in the streets. A few hours ago, even now, some streets were so full of people that they were entirely blocked off.
But what will happen to Egypt now? Can we expect things to return to normal? Or will instability spread? The world watches patiently, eagerly, wondering what example Egypt's new leaders will demonstrate. Perhaps the rest of the word's countries will show that they have learned something from this, and dare to illustrate some respectful restraint for a time before inevitably exercising their influence on Egypt's new affairs.
Meanwhile, Egyptian protesters, your tenacity has paid off. May your non-violence and passion be reflected in the policies and personnel of the new government. Now, we can only hope, Egypt is finally free. Let us also hope that America is willing to accept the real consequences of Democracy in action, regardless of its benefit to our people, companies, or way of life.
Egyptians I raise my glass to you tonight. Your efforts remind us of the achievements humanity is capable of in the face of poverty, violence, and all adversity. Your rage compels us to reexamine our own actions and their many extensive consequences for the world. Your spirit inspires us to work for global change before the human condition pushes any population to such a breaking point. And finally, we wish you all good luck.
I am sure that some of even the most staunch conservatives in this country, those that advocate stability and security over democracy for our world partners, could not help but smile at the inspiring events today in Egypt. It has largely been since the Vietnam War and Civil Rights Protests that we have seen such non-violent demonstrations in our own country for political change, and it is difficult not to find success like what has occurred in Egypt today uplifting.
Hosni Mubarak, greeted by an overwhelming protest movement culminating with great intensity today in several cities across Egypt, has officially resigned his post as President of Egypt, fleeing with his family from the Capital.
The announcement was made by his Vice President, Omar Suleiman, in what has been described as a terse minute-long concession. Power will be handed over to the Egyptian Military (specifically a group of military leaders who make up the Supreme Council of the Armed forces) which has largely refused to take part action against or to protect the protesters.
Last night, Mubarak enraged protesters by appearing on television and refusing to resign, handing over only some of his powers to the Vice President. Some Egyptian leaders had hinted that the speech would signal Mubarak's resignation. When that wasn't what happened, the crowds felt further deceived. Earlier in the week, attention had turned away from Tahrir Square to worker strikes across the nation, but on Friday, new lifeblood had been pumped into the student and young-people driven protests because of the previous night's events.
And now, these demonstrations have turned into cheering, chanting crowds, shooting off fireworks and dancing in the streets. A few hours ago, even now, some streets were so full of people that they were entirely blocked off.
But what will happen to Egypt now? Can we expect things to return to normal? Or will instability spread? The world watches patiently, eagerly, wondering what example Egypt's new leaders will demonstrate. Perhaps the rest of the word's countries will show that they have learned something from this, and dare to illustrate some respectful restraint for a time before inevitably exercising their influence on Egypt's new affairs.
Meanwhile, Egyptian protesters, your tenacity has paid off. May your non-violence and passion be reflected in the policies and personnel of the new government. Now, we can only hope, Egypt is finally free. Let us also hope that America is willing to accept the real consequences of Democracy in action, regardless of its benefit to our people, companies, or way of life.
Egyptians I raise my glass to you tonight. Your efforts remind us of the achievements humanity is capable of in the face of poverty, violence, and all adversity. Your rage compels us to reexamine our own actions and their many extensive consequences for the world. Your spirit inspires us to work for global change before the human condition pushes any population to such a breaking point. And finally, we wish you all good luck.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Quick Update on Sudan and Tunisia
I was exhausted after that long post yesterday (please DO check it out below) so one thing I didn't have a chance to talk about was the announcement on Monday of the results of the referendum held in Southern Sudan. Some of you are probably aware that, as a part of an agreement to have a ceasefire between the almost constantly fighting South and North in Sudan, it was agreed that a referendum would be held on whether or not the South would split from the North forming a brand new country. While North Sudan is largely Arabized and Muslim, South Sudan is more typical of Sub-Saharan Africa, so there were serious differences to overcome, especially when there were questions of implementing Sharia Law across the whole country, even to non-Muslims. Surprisingly, dictator (and North Sudanese) Umar Al-Bashir allowed the referendum to take place, and amazingly the results were almost 99% in favor of forming a new country. That kind of voting strength speaks volumes, especially because a lot of the voters, up to 85%, were illiterate and had to choose between an image of hands clasped or an image of a hand palm outward. The image of hands clasped, representing unity with Northern Sudan, only received 1.17% of the vote.
Unfortunately this vote has little to do with the Darfur conflict, which is complex in a different way (it's between two Muslim groups) and this conflict has not been affected by the vote (it is still a part of Northern Sudan).
For more on Sudan, go here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/07/sudan.referendum.results/index.html
The other thing I wanted to briefly mention is that we still haven't heard about the Tunisia revolution and its ongoing problems. In my last post I mentioned that Tunisia's revolution was quick and largely successful, which was only partially true. More clearly, violence is still an issue there, and the interim government is wading through dark waters at this time.
For more on Tunisia, I recommend this: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/20112892047655465.html
Enjoy!
Unfortunately this vote has little to do with the Darfur conflict, which is complex in a different way (it's between two Muslim groups) and this conflict has not been affected by the vote (it is still a part of Northern Sudan).
For more on Sudan, go here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/07/sudan.referendum.results/index.html
The other thing I wanted to briefly mention is that we still haven't heard about the Tunisia revolution and its ongoing problems. In my last post I mentioned that Tunisia's revolution was quick and largely successful, which was only partially true. More clearly, violence is still an issue there, and the interim government is wading through dark waters at this time.
For more on Tunisia, I recommend this: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/20112892047655465.html
Enjoy!
Monday, February 7, 2011
Egypt, Islamism, and Questions of Revolution
I hope none of you get that reference.
Thank you everyone for being patient with this blog, I hope that now that posting will resume, those of you who did follow it before will continue to follow it now. I have had my break from politics, and it was a good time for it, since very little happened in the world of politics outside of 2 major stories, the State of the Union, and the conflicts going on in Egypt now. But now it’s time to start again. I have devoted much time to the study of the Arab world as well as the Islamic world and I could not stay out of the discussions going on about Egypt. These events are too critical a tool for the use of exposing the major problems in US foreign policy. The post below is lengthy, and I debated breaking it up into parts, but I think I'd rather have it all out there and encourage you to take your time reading it.
But first a note on future programming. I am under the impression that the next post will be from our elusive guest author, the Dr. Professor of Economics; I will try to ensure that we remain on schedule for an interesting fleshing out of our economic systems here in the US and issues regarding the deficit. I also have received a request to review the new Zeitgeist Movie and I fully intend to do so when I have 3 hours to devote to taking a critical eye to it. From what I’ve seen so far, it is much less conspiratorial than previous iterations, and is very careful to ground itself better in established wisdom. I fully recommend you check it out yourself when you have the time, or you can wait until I’ve examined its value. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&feature=player_embedded
But back to the issue at hand. In light of the recent political turmoil in Tunisia and Egypt, and many other locations across the Arab world, I wanted to tie together a few things that may be of interest.
Most of you are familiar with what has been going on in Egypt, many of you may not know that the whole thing began in Tunisia where several weeks prior to Egypt, the “Jasmine Revolution” occurred. We didn’t hear so much about the Jasmine Revolution in America, but we are hearing about Egypt- this is for a few reasons. First, Tunisia’s population is 1/8 that of Egypt’s, it is not considered to be a “critical ally” for strategic or trade reasons, and the revolution that occurred there was rapid, virtually bloodless and successful. Egypt didn't play out the same way.
But here’s the background story. Tunisia had been ruled by a short series of dictators for a generation, the most recent of whom was Ben Ali. Like most of the Arab world today, the economic recession has caused a lot of poverty, and food prices in particular are quite inflated. So, the story goes, a young computer scientist, after failing to find a job in his field or any field, was forced, like many Tunisians, to sell food goods-evidently without a permit- on the street to make ends meet. Some officers of the Regime were trying to clear the streets of such vendors and “asked” him to leave. When the man refused, his goods were confiscated and, evidently lost and hopeless, he proceeded to set himself on fire.
This act of protest was the spark for massive demonstrations in support of the man and in support of removing Ben Ali. After a few tense days, Ben Ali fled the country and the Tunisians are now in the process of reforming their government with opposition members for the first time being allowed to involve themselves in the process.
Encouraged by what happened in Tunisia, protests erupted in various Arab countries, but on January 27 they crystallized in Egypt, when demonstrations probably exceeding 70,000 people broke through police lines and occupied Tahrir Square, a central location in the capital of Cairo. Mirror protests occurred in other major cities. This event was preceded by several acts of self immolation in Egypt in front of government buildings- this should give you an idea of how bad things have become there.
The President and dictator of Egypt is Hosni Mubarak; he’s been serving in Egyptian public office for 62 years now and he is in his eighties. The protesters want to happen to him what happened to Ben Ali, for him to leave and take his influence with him.
Last week the protesters were forced to fight off pro-Regime supporters, but after almost 2 days of street fighting, the protesters persevered, and they are still occupying Tahrir Square as of the writing of this post. This is an up-to-date article with good pictures: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/07/egypt.protests/index.html
The primary discussions which have been going on in America regarding the occurrences in Egypt have been over whether or not to support the Mubarak Regime. A lot of military aid goes to Egypt in exchange for Mubarak’s cooperation on matters with Israel, which is the US’s primary and unbreakable ally in the region. But Egypt has also been a close partner regarding the United States’ prosecution of the War on Terror, allowing certain interrogations to take place on Egyptian soil which might be illegal in the US, and passing on useful intelligence data regarding the Arab world.
In general, fears of foreign policy experts are that although Mubarak’s Regime is a Dictatorship, it is better to leave in place a US-friendly government than one that is democratically elected but could be an ally of the “Islamists” or "Terrorists" (these terms sometimes used interchangeably). Critics have claimed that it is hypocrisy to promote democracy as an ideology, but support it in practice only when it suits the needs of US interests. Sadly, the United States government has had a history of supporting moderate dictatorships in order not to risk the formation of fundamentalist Islamist republics. I will debate whether this has been a successful strategy, and flesh out the term "Islamist", later. Given the chance to democratically control their fate, some voters in the Middle East have chosen Islamic Fundamentalist parties that support US definitions of terrorism rather than more secular parties backed by the United States.
For example, in Palestine, when democratic elections were held, the people rejected the ruling moderate Fatah Party in favor of Hamas, a terrorist organization by US standards. In Iran, a popular revolution unseated the moderate and pro-West Shah in favor of a Theocracy ruled by the Ayatollahs. And in Lebanon right now there are struggles over whether or not Hezbollah, another terrorist organization according to the US Government, will dictate policy under their pick for Prime Minister.
Likewise in Egypt there are those who are concerned that were democratic elections to take place, Egypt might stop being so supportive of United States policy, or worse, become ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist and relatively conservative Islamic political movement. Fears of the Muslim Brotherhood have become so great that at least one media personality- and perhaps a few others on one particular network- is using this occasion to warn against the perils of a rising Islamist power bloc in the Middle East. Maybe centered in Ancient Babylon.
But I say, so what if the Muslim Brotherhood ends up on top, as long as the elections were fair? If such an organization can provide for the people and support their needs as Mubarak has failed, why should we be so concerned? It will give the people of Egypt, even the world, a chance to see what positive impacts Islamism is capable of. But more importantly, it’s just not so likely that they will succeed. After all, while there have been examples of Islamism taking hold in some countries , there have been others where popular support falls a different way: look at Tunisia for instance, or the main body of protesters in Egypt. These people are secularists for the most part. And those who are not secularists, well who’s to say they shouldn’t also have a voice, after all, no political leader in Egypt has declared war on us yet! I think if people are allowed to realize their own potential through democracy, they will support moderation and peace, since this is the nature of people who are not pushed to war!
Let me give an example.
There are fears that Islam itself tends to support violence, but I see no basis to this claim. I want to be clear. Islam is not a peaceful religion. Islam is not a violent religion. People have used interpretations of the Islamic cultural sphere and Islamic texts to use violence on behalf of Islam. But when most public figures will tend to say “Islam is a peaceful religion” what they mean is that the overwhelming majority of those practicing Islam practice it in a way that promotes peace in the local community and often abroad. This is true of every religion, because human nature seeks stability and peace in order to live life in a fulfilling way.
Those who do not use religion for peace usually do so for two primary reasons. This is not to say that the 3rd reason, what I’ll call “Fervent Ideology” (someone passionately believing in a social system that does not promote peace) is not ever a factor, but most of the time it is a result of the 1st or 2nd reason and does not spring up on its own. The 1st reason is that the ruling state incentivizes the violent use of religion. This was true of the Crusades. Or 2nd, the peace, stability, and prosperity of a location is destabilized by poverty, religious or non-religious violence, famine, drought, overpopulation, prejudicial discrimination, and trampling of popularly perceived rights and freedoms, etc, and these destabilizations can be clearly and closely connected to an antagonist force against which religious violence can be turned (like a country, or the "West"). These two factors motivate the use of religion for means outside that of a peaceful society. BUT even given these two factors, the MAJORITY of the populace will always support peace and stability, regardless of poverty and state incentivization, etc.
You could argue that Egypt is destabilized and poor, and if the people representing the Muslim Brotherhood are elected they will sponsor religious violence-- these are all the precursors mentioned above! But I don't think this is likely if Egypt remains truly a democracy. Firstly because the Muslim Brotherhood is not necessarily a violent organization or one promoting violence, at least not openly if so, because it has historically promoted non-violence. And secondly, because the majority of people will seek stability, not violence; they will not tolerate a ruling party that trends too far from the center of the general popular view. This is what is happening in Lebanon. Yes, Hezbollah may gain some power through elections, but they are unlikely to advocate something truly unpopular with more than half the populace, like having Lebanon go to war with Israel, or implementing universal Sharia Law- and it's unlikely they'd have the political power to do so even if they wished. I think this will have to be the result of any ruling party in Egypt: relative peace and stability. There is no real benefit to Egyptians waging holy war when they can’t even put food on their table. Meanwhile, it is better for Egyptians to see the United States as supporting their democratic aims; in that case it is even possible, dare I say, for Egyptians to start liking the United States and truly work towards partnering with us of their own will. The longer it takes for the United States to jump on this bandwagon, the weaker the chance there will be for a true democracy, or partnership, to develop!
Because right now the only image of the US that Egyptians have gotten is the “Made in the USA” engraving on the tear gas canisters fired on them by Mubarak’s police, according to an article I read recently. This picture says it all.
My point, and where the irony lies, is here: it is precisely our insistence on supporting Regimes that trample democracy and help us exploit the natural wealth of others which is actually what is causing the kind of instability, poverty, and prejudice that is a perfect environment for Islamic fundamentalism and notions of religious violence to grow and spread. First and foremost in the mind of US policy makers are the strategic and economic interests of the global business of and people in the United States. Not the wellbeing of all those across the world. The disconnect seems to be that supporting the wellbeing of the world’s citizens seems to also be the thing that best and most efficiently serves the interests of US citizens. Wait. But why are we afraid of supporting the wellbeing of the world’s people then? Instead of explaining myself, I will let images tell the better story...
I strongly strongly encourage you to view this video about the Taliban in Pakistan, and you will catch my meaning. It’s under 20 minutes, but be prepared for some moderately intense images of violence and a little language.
One thing I like about this video is that it hopefully helps people to understand that the Taliban is different than Al-Qaeda. That Islamic fundamentalists, or even supporters of Al-Qaeda, are not themselves Al-Qaeda.
So, if you will, let me finish with a few more clarifications. So, what is all of this stuff about Islamism? It seems that what many of us is afraid of is what has been described as an Islamist ideology that will unite the Islamic world against the “West” in a great violent renunciation of all the freedoms and progress that we enjoy. The word Islamist is thrown around a lot by the media and political figures, but I want to make one last point regarding our use of that word.
Islamist has been taken to mean different things depending on the context. Either it refers to “Islamic fundamentalist”, “Terrorist”, “Jihadist”, “favoring a violent overturn of a secular or pro-west government”, or “favoring the restoration of the historical Caliphate”.
Let me break this down really quickly. Only the last definition is truly correct; Islamists favor the uniting of the Islamic world or parts of the Islamic world under one religious and political rulership (called a Caliphate) that would help to dictate the unified interests of the Islamic world. This could mean one country or several. Historically the Islamic world has been united at various points and to various degrees in this way. One does not have to be, nor is likely to be a terrorist or a jihadist to be an Islamist. Nor does one necessarily favor fundamentalism or violence at all, in fact, some Islamists favor democratic reforms which would bring about such a unification. There are other definitions to Islamism, but this is what most people are trying to mean.
There are Islamists who favor the use of violence and violence against civilians to accomplish such reforms, and some who want the entire world to be united under this Caliphate so that Islam could unquestionably thrive; if it is necessary to articulate an "enemy" for the United States, please let it be these people, so described. Al-Qaeda almost certainly falls in this category.
There are Islamists who favor the use of violence and violence against civilians to accomplish such reforms, and some who want the entire world to be united under this Caliphate so that Islam could unquestionably thrive; if it is necessary to articulate an "enemy" for the United States, please let it be these people, so described. Al-Qaeda almost certainly falls in this category.
Islamists alone, though, are not our “enemy”. Remember, Islamism is an Islamic political and religious movement aimed at protecting the Islamic faith and the interests of those practicing it, and only a tiny portion of those favoring Islamism would likely go out and join something like Al-Qaeda given the opportunity.
Moreover, Islamist is not the same as Islamic, though I’ve seen the mistake before; Islamic simply means one of the Muslim faith. The large majority of Muslims are not Islamist.
And finally, I have used the words “Arab world” in this post. Not all Arabs are Muslims, and Arabs constitute a minority of practicing Muslims. Arabs are an ethnic group and in general they speak a Semitic language related to Hebrew, and this is the language of the Qur’an. It is disappointing when I hear the word “Arab” substituted for “Muslim”. So when I say Arab world in this post, I mean North Africa and the Southwest Middle East. Primarily Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, the Arabian Peninsula, Jordan, Syria, Palestine, and Iraq. Neither Iran nor Afghanistan nor Pakistan are majority Arab countries.
Glad to get those extra things out of the way. Ask questions if you like. Post comments as you please. Seek more information on this subject if you desire it. And as always, thanks for reading!
::Update 9:15pm, I put the article out before I had made some very important edits, please ensure you are reading the most up-to-date copy of this post. Thanks!::
::Update 9:15pm, I put the article out before I had made some very important edits, please ensure you are reading the most up-to-date copy of this post. Thanks!::
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)