Does Paul’s antiwar stand matter?  Well, probably anyone concerned about America’s role in the world ought to at least watch his ad – it’s that good, particularly at a time when hardly anyone else is being heard on the topic.  And we just might want to ask ourselves how it has come to pass that a Republican presidential candidate is putting something like that out there and we’re not.  At the very least we shouldn’t pretend that the Ron Paul antiwar phenomenon isn’t happening simply because we don’t like the man’s stand on other things.

Really, this whole thing shouldn’t be that confusing to us in the first place.  Since we don’t have the tightly disciplined parties found in some other countries, this short of crossover phenomenon is a somewhat regular feature of American politics.  During the Vietnam War, for instance, liberal California Republican Congressman Pete McCloskey famously challenged his party’s sitting president, Richard Nixon, on the war issue in the 1972 primaries.  Of course, what’s set current antiwar activists in a tizzy about Paul is that he ain’t no liberal.

Still, the intensity of the debate over whether he is ultimately, on balance, a good guy or a bad guy seems somewhat misplaced, given how little it has to do with any likely set of events.   For one thing, few, if any, of those engaged in the argument are going to ever find themselves standing in a voting booth holding a primary ballot that includes Ron Paul’s name.  And so far as November goes, let’s face it – the Republican Party isn’t going to nominate him.

Better, perhaps, to direct this passion to analyzing how we might conceivably steal his thunder on the war issue.  For again, like it or not, the man has demonstrated an ability to attract political support among independents and young voters.  He drew 48 percent of the entire under-thirty vote in the Iowa Republican caucuses and 47 percent in the New Hampshire primary; and led with 44 percent of independents in New Hampshire and 32 percent in Iowa.  He also held a 34 percent plurality of first time participants in Iowa and was the top vote getter among those making less than $50,000, with 31 percent in both states.  He actually polled better among self described “moderates” than among those calling themselves “very conservative” – in Iowa by a factor of two to one.

We don’t want to make too much out of numbers from Republican voters, certainly, yet it’s hard to ignore those demographics.   And there seems little doubt that Paul’s anti-imperialist stance constitutes a very significant aspect of his appeal.  Unquestionably, Paul’s Republicanism has given him greater leeway on foreign policy than a Democrat or an independent from the Left might have.  It’s the Nixon-goes-to-China, Clinton-ends-welfare-as-we-know-it syndrome.  Even the Republicans who hate him don’t call him an “un-American” or a “terrorist sympathizer” – not yet, anyhow.

It’s also not the case that he’s saying things that we haven’t said.  What’s important though, is that he’s delivering that message to people and places that haven’t heard it before. What is ultimately so impressive about Paul’s Chinese in Texas ad is the empathy at its core.  Americans would resist foreign invaders, it argues, just as others do when it’s the Americans who are the foreign invaders.  Why, one might even conclude that the lives of people in strange countries are just as valuable as those of Americans!

(A Guardian article denouncing “Ron Paul’s useful idiots on the left” provides a useful contrast, as author Megan Carpentier berates said “idiots” for thinking that “people whose lives, safety, livelihoods and health depend on them [policies and programs opposed by Paul] should accept that they are trading their concerns for, say, the lives of Muslim children killed by bombs in Afghanistan” – the idea that the latter could approach the former in importance being so obviously ridiculous as to require no further comment.)

Who could have imagined that the best mass market educational material on American foreign policy would seen mostly by Republicans?  Perhaps if some of the vehemence currently displayed in rendering an overall judgement on Paul were redirected toward figuring out what we could do to change that situation, we just might have an antiwar movement worthy of the name.

Certainly, so far as domestic economic policy goes, Paul holds about zero appeal – he doesn’t just favor cutbacks in Social Security and Medicare, but complete abolition of the programs. Basically a utopian capitalist, Paul presumably doesn’t even hold an “enlightened capitalist” position that might acknowledge that New Deal and Great Society programs may have forestalled a return to Great Depression-era conditions by directing resources to the lower rungs on the economic ladder. So, no matter how critical we might be of the shortcomings of Obama’s health insurance plan or his defense of Social Security, there’s no question that his policies are far superior to Paul’s in all of this.

And that would be that, except for one thing – the rest of the world. Rejecting equally the welfare and the warfare state, Paul categorizes current American foreign policy as “delusional” and, in that regard, he is far superior to a President who appears to have embraced war as a permanent condition of American life, to be conducted on a worldwide basis, with targets that may now even include American citizens.

What are we make of a split like this? If we were we speaking in electoral terms, the answer might be simple: “It’s the economy, stupid;” you don’t win elections on foreign policy – at least not when there’s no military draft. But for the purposes of our political thought experiment, let’s not confuse what we think would work with what we think is right. The question here is whether one of these two deeply flawed political profiles is somehow better, or at least not as bad as the other. This could be a much more difficult calculation.

Let’s consider the Afghanistan War – something not likely to be much of an issue in the campaign that will actually transpire next year. Twice as many American troops have now died there under Obama’s watch as during the Bush years (1153 of the 1728 total.) And with talk of keeping 25,000 soldiers there until 2024, can any but the hardest core Obama zealot really believe that he’s working on any kind of plan other than not being the president who “lost Afghanistan”? For a point of reference, we had “only” 25,000 troops there in 2007. So under the Obama Plan, America’s Ten Years War will become its Twenty Years War. Clear point to Ron Paul on this one.

And let’s look at some much larger numbers – like the cost of this war. In its recommendations to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, the Congressional Progressive Caucus estimates the savings from “a responsible end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan” at $1.6 trillion. Where will the money come from to continue this military adventure from one decade to the next as Obama apparently hopes to do? Probably not Wall Street.

We’re still just talking about the tip of the iceberg, though. Obama appears to have drunk the military establishment’s Kool Aid in a single gulp. With nary a murmur about the absurdity of continuing to defend Western Europe from the Soviet Union, twenty years after that country has ceased to exist, the President has accepted the necessity for seven hundred or so foreign military bases. As for the idea of his administration being in some way “transformational,” as some once hoped, so far as foreign policy goes, the only transformation he’ll be remembered for is the transition to drone warfare.

Which is worse, then – Paul’s domestic policy or Obama’s foreign policy? So far as their effect on Americans goes, there are arguments to be made either way. But, again, there’s the rest of the world. Estimates of civilian deaths caused by U.S. led operations in Afghanistan run from 10-30,000. These numbers, of course, carry little weight in any domestic American political calculation since the friends and relatives of these unfortunates – collateral damage, as we call civilian casualties when they’re not Americans – cannot vote or even be heard in this country. But one might argue that they hold greater moral weight for that very reason. For all that we may suffer under our government’s misguided domestic policies, the fact is that we have some say in them. Limitations and imperfections in our democratic system notwithstanding, we could vote the people responsible for them out of office, but, for a variety of reasons, we have not done so. Those who suffer under our misguided foreign policy, however, do not have that power – not even in theory.

For better or worse, any electoral match-up that we are actually likely to see next year will pose no such dilemma. The Republican candidate will almost certainly be calling for both more war and more domestic cutbacks than Obama, so the considerations raised by an Obama-Paul match up will remain just abstract questions. We’ll be “lucky” that way.

Nevertheless, if there is ever to be a paradigm shift in American politics of the sort that the Occupy movement hints at; if we are ever to be able to make common cause with the wider range of people necessary to effect real change, then it will probably require that we think all of this through and see our supposed friends with as clear eyes as we see our supposed enemies.

Part III

Why is it so hard to understand the need for a primary challenge to Barack Obama?  When Jesse Jackson ran in the 1988 presidential primaries, pretty much everybody understood the point.  No, he wasn’t going to get elected president – or even win the nomination, but the reasons for a primary campaign don’t end there.  What Jackson would do was say what needed to be said.  He would get ideas shared by a lot of people onto the front page for the first time in a long time, maybe ever.  He would point out the nation’s shortcomings on the domestic front as well as our excesses on our many foreign fronts.  People would talk to each other about them; some would organize.  Other candidates might even have to address some of this for once.  As he used to put it, he would “keep hope alive.”

The Obama “Hope” posters notwithstanding, it seems obvious that Jackson’s “hope” is very much in need of life support these days.  Even those convinced that the President has fought the good fight, that in his heart he remains a man of peace, and that our problems are all due to Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats, must certainly recognize the still growing gap between rich and poor, as well as the fact that we currently bomb more countries than in the Bush years.  Whatever else may be the case, by now it seems clear that just being the change we wish to see doesn’t cut it as political strategy.  We need government committed to making the change we wish to see.  And for that to happen, at the least, we need someone spelling out the nature of that  change – on the national level, much as Jesse Jackson once did.

The surface arguments against challenging Obama are the fears that it would somehow weaken him and might alienate Black America, the group that formed the base of Jackson’s campaign.  The reluctance to promote an alternative vision seems to run even deeper, though, for the fact is that the Jackson candidacy was an anomaly.  A look back at the last two presidential campaigns – when there was no Democratic incumbent – may provide a more typical example of the American Left’s unwillingness to support candidates aspiring to promote its ideas.

When the Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006, the most widely cited cause was the Bush Administration’s war in Iraq.  So when the Democratic takeover produced virtually no impact on that war, it seemed inevitable that Iraq become the defining issue of the 2008 presidential race.  And yet primary voters did not back the serious antiwar candidates who were available, with the result that by Super Tuesday, the only remaining Democratic presidential aspirant pledged to complete troop withdrawal was Mike Gravel, the former Alaska Senator and prominent Vietnam War opponent, whose exceedingly modest campaign never netted so much as a half of one percent of the vote in any primary or caucus.Before the race was over, Gravel would actually bolt the Democratic Party entirely and join the Libertarians.

Meanwhile, the small “l” libertarian Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul mounted the most unlikely, and most successful antiwar candidacy of the entire presidential season, although by Super Tuesday it too had become quite marginal.  The later stages of the race were then dominated by Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama – who were not committed to removing all American troops from Iraq during the four-year term that they sought – and Republican John McCain – who did not appear committed to removing them during the twenty-first century.  If anti-Iraq War sentiment had once been a defining electoral force, it was not any longer.  And along with the antiwar movement went any notion that a significant electoral left existed in America in 2008.  We might say it committed suicide.

Some thought any sense of urgency about the Iraq War left the Democratic race with the departure of John Edwards.  As a U.S. Senator, Edwards had voted to authorize the war, just as Clinton had; and also voted to fund it, as both Clinton and Obama had.  As a presidential candidate, however, he had tried to carve out some kind of acceptable antiwar campaign position, that is to say, to the left of the other well funded candidates, but not too far to their left.  Media critic Norman Solomon’s generous interpretation was that Edwards’ position on the war was “evolving,” once calling him “the most improved presidential candidate of 2007.”  And, in fact, by the time Edwards withdrew, he was calling for the removal of all combat troops within a year.  In many respects he was the 2008 version of Howard Dean, the former Vermont Governor deemed the “electable” antiwar candidate four years earlier.  Neither proved either as antiwar or as electable as most supporters wished, however.

The antiwar candidate from whom many Dean and Edwards backers averted their vision was Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich. In 2004, his supporters used to say that Kucinich actually was the candidate many people thought Dean to be.  Both had opposed the Iraq War at the start, but where Kucinich continued to call for complete U.S. troop withdrawal in ninety days, Dean grew vague on the question.  Similarly, up until the day he withdrew from the 2008 race, Edwards still envisioned 5,000 troops guarding the U.S. Embassy in Iraq at the end of his projected first White House term, a possibility that only made sense in the context of an ongoing military occupation.

Edwards’ candidacy met pretty much the same fate as Dean’s: premised upon their supposed electability, both quickly melted away once that premise proved chimerical – unlike the issues-based Kucinich campaign which chugged on through the entire 2004 primary season.  In 2008, however, Kucinich found himself shut out of network television debates before the first votes were even cast in the Iowa caucuses.  (The networks were likely only too happy to do this, of course, but were able to justify his exclusion with polls showing antiwar voters not supporting antiwar candidates.)  2008 proved less a reprise of his prior campaign than of the 1992 effort of Larry Agran, the once and future mayor of Irvine, California, who ran on a platform similar to the then-recent Jesse Jackson candidacies, but was deemed too obscure to participate in the presidential debates.

Kucinich’s withdrawal from the race ended what slim chance remained for any presidential primary discussion, not only of immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but of a Canadian-style single payer health care plan, a serious critique of free trade policies, and a range of other issues.  Gravel remained, true, but while his positions (quite close to Kucinich’s, with the exception of a flat tax plan) were quite serious, his fundraising was not.  Where the less than $4 million Kucinich had raised by the end of 2007 was quite insubstantial compared to Clinton’s $115 million and Obama’s $102 million, it was nonetheless an order of magnitude larger than Gravel’s $379,795.  Raising less than Jim Gilmore (you’ll have to look that one up) had in pursuit of the Republican nomination, Gravel’s campaign was quite simply unknown to the overwhelming majority of the electorate.

Much of Kucinich’s 2008 difficulty undoubtedly stemmed from the fact that while his wire-to-wire 2004 campaign had arguably been the most significant left wing Democratic presidential candidacy since Jesse Jackson’s 1988 run, that wasn’t saying all that much.  Kucinich had netted but 67 delegates compared to the nearly 400 Jackson won in his first try in 1984.  So where Jackson’s supporters felt they had something to build on and went on to win over 1,200 delegates the second time out, many of Kucinich’s no doubt began looking elsewhere after the first race.
The disparagement Kucinich’s candidacy encountered from the right and center was only to be expected – and no doubt would have been far more vociferous had they thought there was any need to take him more seriously.

The criticism from the left probably deserves greater scrutiny, though.  A widely cited article on the Edwards campaign by Bill Fletcher, Executive Editor of The Black Commentator, argued that both Edwards and Kucinich “fell prey to the historic ‘white populist error.’ What is this error, you ask?” he wrote, “Simply put, it is the idea that unity will magically appear by building a campaign that attacks poverty and corporate abuse, supports unions and focuses on the challenges facing the working class, BUT IGNORES RACE AND GENDER.” (Capitals in original).  Given that Kucinich actually supported reparations for slavery, this seems less a seriously considered critique than a rote add-on to an article about Edwards, particularly in light of Fletcher’s later role as a leader of “Progressives for Obama,” despite obvious Obama’s failure to live up to the standards Fletcher previously enunciated. (Fletcher currently opposes a primary challenge to Obama on the grounds that it would alienate black voters – and the argument for a black challenger to Obama is certainly worth considering.)

This was not the typical left wing critique of Kucinich, though, and one wonders whether its wide circulation might have had something to do with its offering white leftists an out from having to do anything for better candidates with lesser prospects.  Many actually seemed to feel that Kucinich was too good on the issues.  Supporters of more “mainstream” candidates routinely acknowledged that he was better on Iraq or health care than the candidate they actually backed, but felt the country somehow wasn’t ready for that.  Certainly the Pentagon and the insurance industry weren’t, anyhow.  So why even try?

It’s true that when Jackson ran not everyone immediately got the point – mainstream political commentators continually asked, “What does Jesse want?” The real question, though, was what Jackson’s voters wanted.  Why did they break with the conventional wisdom that you “threw away” your vote when you backed someone you didn’t think had much chance of becoming the eventual nominee?  For some, of course, the main reason was that he was a black candidate who brought that community’s concerns to the attention of a wider audience.  For others, though, it was his platform that included creating a Works Progress Administration-style program to rebuild America’s infrastructure; a fifteen percent Department of Defense budget cut; reparations to descendants of slaves; a single-payer system of universal health care; increased federal funding for public education; free community college for all; and reversing tax cuts for the richest Americans and earmarking the revenue for social welfare programs.  In other words, it was a platform of the left, a platform very much like that of Dennis Kucinich.

Some of Jackson’s ideas – like the Canadian-style health care system – had never received front page treatment before.  Among other things, keeping hope alive meant keeping those ideas in the political debate.  But this was not to be.  When Jackson opted against a third try in 1992, those ideas were no longer to be found in the presidential discussion, Larry Agron’s efforts notwithstanding.  Four years later, despite widespread discontent over his tack to the right, no significant Democrat challenged Bill Clinton’s re-election.  And by 2000, the presidential primaries showed no trace at all of the ideas that had motivated Jackson’s base twelve years earlier – even with no incumbent in the race.
There have now been five Democratic presidential nominating conventions since Jesse Jackson’s last run.  In those gatherings, the sum total of delegates elected to represent a candidate with a platform similar to Jackson’s is the 67 Kucinich delegates elected in 2004.  Did those ideas disappear?  Obviously not.  Some, like a single payer health care system have steadily gained support, to the point where one state, Vermont, has started on the path of implementation.  What has disappeared, however, is the American Left’s will to take itself seriously – and with it any need for the rest of the nation to do so either.

Right now, pollsters for Rasmussen Reports tell us that 70% of Democrats support immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, a position that, as of the moment, will be represented only in the Republican Primaries (by not one, but two candidates – Ron Paul and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.)  Rasmussen (whose polls are generally considered skewed to the right) also reports 39% of all voters (compared to 32% in 2009 Rasmussen poll) supporting a single-payer health care system along the lines of the bill recently re-filed by Senator Bernie Sanders.   Right now, that position would have no supporters in either set of primaries.

The Obama candidacy was supposed to be all about energizing and activating America’s youth.  Well, many of those once energized and activated are now alienated.  And what are they told today?  Be quiet.  Don’t go jeopardizing what we’ve got.  Not the wisest course, even for the Obama supporters, me thinks.

It may well be true that those who heard what Obama actually said during the 2008 campaign – as opposed to what they wanted to hear him say – don’t have all that much reason to be disillusioned with his performance.  But for a very large number of his voters it was not like that.  They thought that a community organizer would try to bring about real change.  They didn’t expect him to give the insurance industry half the loaf before the health care fight even began.  They thought he only said that he would expand the Afghanistan War and bring it to Pakistan because he had to say things like that to defuse the right.  They shouldn’t have thought these things, but they did.  Hey, if the Nobel Peace Prize Committee could fool itself, why shouldn’t the average American voter?  If anything, Obama’s backers might welcome a primary challenge as a way for him to try to restate his case and revitalize his base.  If he’s got something to say for his actions – and inactions – by all means, let him say it.  If nothing else, the man does give a good speech.

To some, a primary challenge is a diversion from what we really need to be doing – some type of “organizing” to provide a base for the change that we wish Obama really wanted to effect.  We need to become better, more active citizens – the argument goes – committed to “making” him do the right thing – as in that story about FDR once telling someone or other to “make me do it.”  Certainly we could actually benefit from more activism on all levels, but to argue that community or labor organizing can substitute for electoral activity is, well, a-political – in the real-world sense of politics.

The sad fact is that, since the Jackson campaigns, the American Left has largely opted out of the biggest political game in the land – the race for the White House, the national discussion that comes only every fourth year.  Right now, Obama faces a reelection campaign in which he will have to answer to no one to his left.  Oh, there will no doubt be some third party challenge or other, but few of even Obama’s harshest critics will want to run the risk of inadvertently facilitating a Republican take over of the White House.  One might even consider Obama guilty of an impeachable offense – the continued bombing Libya in violation of the War Powers Act – or an indictable offense (were the International Criminal Court to hold the U.S. to the same standards as militarily weaker nations) – the drone bombing campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen – and still recognize that worse is possible.   After all, we had it for the previous eight years.

But the need for careful action is not an excuse for inaction.  Do we really mean to tell every new young voter disillusioned with our never-ending state of war that the only place to go is to Ron Paul and the libertarians?  Do we mean to tell all the budding activists outraged at seeing the poor stay poor and the rich get richer, that there’s no room for that discussion in the presidential election process?

To commit to a primary race against Obama requires a vision.  A vision, first, of a 2012 nominating convention with a bloc of delegates committed to ending the corporate warfare state, and saying so.  And a vision of future conventions with blocs of delegates of the left large enough to make a difference in the policies of the eventual nominee.  All of this may seem like quite a stretch, given how lifeless the presidential nomination process has become.  It requires hope – not the passive kind where we keep our mouths shut, cross our fingers and hope that Obama will bend our way, but active hope.

Jesse Jackson was on to something.  Let’s find a candidate.  Let’s talk to people.  Let’s send some delegates to Charlotte, North Carolina next year.  Let’s make the president answer to us.  We may not be able to “make him do” the things we want, but I think we’d at least be heading in the right direction.

As the 2012 presidential campaign warms up, increased calls for another shot at a “third party” presidential candidacy are inevitable. After all, the party holding the White House has switched and yet America’s disparity of wealth and income appears to grow unchecked; military spending continues on a pace nearly matching that of the entire rest of the planet put together; and the pointless, and increasingly obviously unwinnable war in Afghanistan that started with George Bush will pass the ten year mark bigger than ever – with Barack Obama at the helm.

Why not then just start afresh with a new party, like people in other countries do when they don’t like the parties they’ve got? Well, the simple answer is because parties can function quite differently in various situations. And we can’t consider an approach toward the current situation truly political – as opposed to philosophical – unless it measures the system in which it operates. So, while a third party may intuitively seem to be the “really radical” way to go, if it doesn’t work well in our system, it’s not. Outrage, however justified, is never a substitute for strategy.

The Tea Partiers got nothing on these ladies

Were we in Germany, for example, we’d be dealing with political parties with very different characteristics, operating under very different rules. So, when some on the German left found the politics of the Social Democratic Party disappointing, inadequate, or maybe not even left wing at all, they started a new party; first the Green Party and more recently the Left Party. These moves were quite logical within a system that allows parties to combine their respective parliamentary delegations to form a coalition government when no one of them has a majority – as is usually the case. A new party might realistically hope, then, to first become a junior coalition partner – and have some of its program adopted – and later even become the larger party. All of this can be done without great worry that a vote for the new party might inadvertently facilitate the worst possible outcome, namely a Prime Minister from the party whose policies the new party’s voters favor the least (in this case, probably the Christian Democrats.)

An American presidential election unfortunately offers no such assurance. There are no provisions for coalition governments. The White House goes to the winner of the vote of the Electoral College, the makeup of which is determined by pluralities of popular votes in the various states. Come in first in the state and get all of its electoral votes, even if you don’t have a majority. (Maine and Nebraska distribute their Electoral Votes on a Congressional District rather than statewide basis.) All of which means that in the U.S. a “third party” vote can unintenionally facilitate the election of a President from the least-liked party – probably the Republicans in the case of a “third party” of the left. Where German (or French or Italian) “third party” voters have reasonable assurance that their vote will actually increase the prospect of blocking the least desired electoral outcome, American “third party” voters do not. Ignore that fact and you might as well be playing American football without a helmet.

NO DIFFERENCE?

Are there circumstances that might outweigh these considerations? Well, there could be. The most common argument for not worrying too much about whether “third party” efforts might result in a Republican president is that there’s no essential difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Let’s look.

So far as domestic politics go, the stark profile that Republicans are currently presenting in the U.S. House of Representatives and various state capitals, most famously Madison, Wisconsin, would seem to make this argument a fairly difficult one to press at the moment. When it comes to labor rights, for instance, Democrats may disappoint, but Republicans destroy – not a trivial distinction. While Democrats may fail to press forward aggressively on women’s rights, Republicans defund Planned Parenthood. And so on.

Since my goal is analysis rather than rhetoric, I don’t want to ignore the fact that Massachusetts’ Democratic controlled House of Representatives has since attempted to match the anti-union efforts of their Republican in Wisconsin.  There’s no question but that the Democrats can make it very hard to defend them.  But no matter how many times we’re moved to say, “They’re almost as bad as the Republicans,” the “almost” does matter.

And then there is the matter of day-to-day the consequences of appointments to bodies such as the Supreme Court and the National Labor Relations Board, an area where there may be the broadest agreement that there is a real difference between the effects of electing one of the “major” parties or the other.

On the foreign policy side, the argument for the rough equivalence of the parties can be a lot stronger though. For instance, the recent U.S. veto of a U.N. Security Council resolution that declared Israeli West Bank settlement illegal came as no big surprise since Democratic and Republican administrations have both done such things for decades. And not only is Obama’s pursuit of the Afghanistan War more aggressive than Bush’s – as promised – but he has also authorized American bombing in Pakistan, Yemen and Libya, the latter serving as a reminder of the Democrats’ embrace of the “humanitarian” military intervention during the Clinton Administration.

And yet, there has been a difference – certainly on the congressional level, anyhow. The invasion and occupation of Iraq, which stands out as the premier atrocity even in a decade of unceasing American military action, was initiated by a Republican president and opposed by most Democrats in the House of Representatives. And even when it’s been Obama initiating military action in Libya, it’s been Democrats who have been the most vigorous in calling him on his failure to consult Congress.

It also seems hard to argue that any Republican likely to replace Obama wouldn’t be even worse on foreign policy. For instance, while the Obama Administration’s pursuit of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and its treatment of alleged leaker Bradley Manning certainly give us nothing to cheer about, consider the stance of presumed Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee: “Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason, and I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty.”

Candidate Newt Gingrich, who was for the Libya bombing before he was against it, believes “We certainly have to be prepared to use military force” to oust the government of Iran and in years past has called for legislation “that recognizes that we are entering World War III and serves notice that the United States will use all its resources to defeat our enemies – not accommodate, understand, or negotiate with them, but defeat them.”

Speaking of the possible development of a nuclear program in Iran, whose government he calls an “unalloyed evil,” former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney laments that “Unfortunately, for reasons that are unfathomable to me, our government has signaled that the military option is effectively off the table.”

Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty tells the President to “Stop apologizing for our country,” as “we undermine Israel, the U.K., Poland, the Czech Republic and Colombia, among other friends. Meanwhile, we appease Iran, Russia and adversaries in the Middle East, including Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachman believes that if “we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play.”

And, of course, Sarah Palin’s views are well known.

The Choice vs. The Echo?

In short, so far as foreign policy goes, while it might not be such an open and shut case as domestic policy, if you think it’s bad now … (There is one Republican presidential candidate who does differ from all of the above, however – Texas Representative Ron Paul. But Paul will not receive the nomination, in no small part because his sane views on foreign policy are so far out of tune with the bulk of his party. It will also constitute a tremendous failing on the part of antiwar forces within the Democratic Party if Paul and former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson should be the only candidates in either major party calling for an immediate end to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and occupations.)

BUT STILL,

Still, some may argue that even if the Republicans are worse than the Democrats, the Democratic Party is nevertheless a corporate dominated entity that is an unworthy and/or unworkable vehicle for social change. While not wishing to discourage anyone from hurling righteous brickbats at the party’s current leadership in Congress and the White House, I think arguing that the “essence” of the Democratic Party somehow precludes our useful participation in also fails to take into account the actual structure of American political parties.

Where parties in many other countries are “disciplined,” in the sense that their elected representatives are expected to vote that party’s position, American parties famously are not. (The best source on this may well be the humourist Will Rogers, whose remarks on the topic included, “I’m not a member of any organized political party, I’m a Democrat!”) Apart from voting for the party’s candidate for Speaker or Majority Leader, it’s largely understood that American legislators will not be bound by any party strictures. Representatives like Dennis Kucinich or Barbara Lee may vote “off” from the majority of their party colleagues time and time again, yet they are in no way prevented from doing so. In a sense, the members of the House and Senate, dependent on their own fundraising devices as they largely are, could be seen as constituting 535 independent parties.

Likewise, presidents routinely govern without consulting the wishes of their party. Does anyone really think there is a Democratic Party structure telling Obama what to do? Or that Republican Party bosses directed Bush?

THINGS NEED TO GET WORSE?

And then you may also hear the argument that things need to get worse before they get better. So even if a third party candidacy did facilitate the election of a Republican who was the greater of two evils, it might have the effect of waking people up to what’s really going on. For instance, didn’t Wisconsin and the American labor movement come to life after Scott Walker was elected governor? Unfortunately, the most infamous formulation of this notion comes from Weimar-era Germany: “Nach Hitler uns” (After Hitler, us) – in other words, some on the German left thought once people saw how bad the right wing really was, they’d turn to them. You know how that worked out. And while nothing so dramatic may happen here, it seems that if there were anything much to that theory, you’d figure people would be pretty wide awake by now after their eight years of George Bush.

I’m no doubt short shifting a range of other arguments here, but the one additional that does come to mind is from people who say they just can’t bring themselves to vote for a Democrat because they would feel tainted by the very act. And ultimately you can’t argue with an individual’s feeling on that score – but that’s a personal statement and not a political act.

INSANITY?

Of course, there are those who simply find the notion of making big change within the Democratic Party a dreary prospect – a high school classmate responded to my argument for challenging Obama in the primaries by citing Einstein’s definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and thinking you’re going to get a different result. A fair enough assessment of recent left wing Democratic Party primary efforts, I’ll concede. Unfortunately, it’s a spot-on critique of recent left wing third party campaigns as well.

This is not the place to rehash all of the elements that led up to the Supreme Court decision declaring George Bush the winner of the 2000 election, but it seems undeniable that the perceived effect of Ralph Nader’s candidacy upon the outcome caused many potential supporters to simply apply the Einstein dictum and pay little attention to his subsequent efforts – or those of any third party candidate.

The context of Nader’s 2000 candidacy may be worth recalling, though. The Democratic primaries that year produced the most soporific race to occur in a year absent a sitting Democratic president in a very long time: Al Gore against Bill Bradley. Anyone out there remember what they disagreed on? As a result, Nader’s effort produced enough buzz to prompt a bit of serious consideration of how one might utilize the Electoral College system for a kind of “tactical voting,” a concept unfamiliar here, but fairly well known in the United Kingdom.

Second past the post?

Although quite dissimilar overall, the British and American electoral systems do share the feature of not directly electing the head of state, but instead choosing those who do elect that person – Members of Parliament in the U.K. and Presidential Electors in the U.S. – and doing so by a simple plurality in each district. In the latter years of the last Conservative government, the fact that their votes had no impact outside of their own district led some U.K. voters to act very differently than they would if their votes were totaled nationally. Aided by the availability of reliable polling information, Labourites and Liberal Democrats frequently voted for whichever of the two parties appeared to have the better chance of defeating the Tory in their particular district. (The recent Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition has shelved such tactics for the time being, of course.)

Likewise, in the U.S., some proposed that if you liked Nader and you lived in New York where Gore was sure to win, or Idaho where Bush was sure to win, you should just go ahead and vote for Nader. But if you lived in a state where the outcome was not so clear like, say, Florida, you should vote for Gore because he would be better than Bush, even if he was far less than ideal. Websites for negotiating interstate Gore–Nader vote swapping even sprung up before the government shut them down – on grounds that would later fail to pass muster in federal court. But talk of utilizing the Electoral College system for progressive ends pretty much came to a halt when the 2000 Nader vote exceeded Bush’s margin of victory in Florida and New Hampshire and it hasn’t been revived since.

All of this is not fundamentally an argument against either Ralph Nader or “third parties” in general. So far as Nader goes, the only thing that really bothered me about his most recent candidacy is that his announcement provided an opportunity for people who I don’t think could carry his briefcase to denounce him for ruining their lives’ work.

So far as “third parties” go, there have been some obvious notable successes on the local level, particularly in non-partisan elections. In San Francisco, for instance, over the past decade, two Greens have won seats on the city’s Board of Supervisors, two on the School Board and one on the Community College Board, while Green Party member Matt Gonzalez came within five points of defeating Democrat Gavin Newsom for mayor. (Two of the city’s chartered Democratic Clubs even endorsed Gonzalez, prompting an unsuccessful drive to de-charter them that ultimately established the right of the Clubs to endorse freely in nonpartisan elections. Four of the five successful Greens, by the way, have since left the Party; three to become Democrats.)

And then there is the wholly remarkable case of Bernie Sanders, who has won election to the United States Senate as an independent, in the process achieving sufficient stature that it would be a Democratic opponent rather than Sanders who would be deemed the spoiler should a three way race result in the seat going to a Republican.

Significantly, however, since the time Sanders reached Congress he has never embraced a “third party” presidential campaign, standing back from the Nader candidacy even in 2000, when in the early stages it looked to have the potential to exceed ten percent of the popular vote and really put the Greens on the map.

To hell with Truman!

In the end, the 2000 Nader campaign actually played out quite similarly to Henry Wallace’s 1948 Progressive Party candidacy. Former Vice President Wallace, who would have become president following the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had the 1944 convention not pushed him off the Democratic ticket in favor of Harry Truman, was likewise early on expected to garner at least ten percent of the vote in a four way race with the now-incumbent Truman, New York Republican Governor Tom Dewey and South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond. The same dynamic as would develop fifty-two years later came into play, though, and fear of electing Dewey overrode lack of enthusiasm for Truman. Wallace’s vote sank to under three percent, just as Nader’s would.

In retrospect, if the 2000 election were considered a test for the American people on the use of the Electoral College, you’d have to say we flunked it. Hence, the growing popularity of the probably ultimately more desirable strategy of ditching the eighteenth century “College” entirely (which would, though, only intensify the danger of “third party” votes producing undesirable outcomes.)

Obviously nothing lasts forever and the current structure of the American political system won’t either. Still,  it took a civil war to effect the last major alteration in the political landscape – the rise of the Republican Party. Likewise, we probably won’t see the next realignment until a significant portion of one party’s members – elected officials included – are ready to jump ship en masse – a possibility that does not seem to be on the immediate horizon.

However, a serious backlash among President Obama’s true believers does seem unavoidable, particularly among those who voted for him because of who they wanted him to be rather than who he was. “Third parties” can be particularly appealing to the relatively newly radicalized, who often want to put as much distance as possible between themselves and what they have just rejected. For one thing, a bold new party venture sure can seem a lot more glamourous than slogging though Democratic Party primaries.

In the end though, all of us, old or new, have to ask ourselves the same questions about the effectiveness of our political choices. And knowing the rules of the political system is ultimately a lot more important than knowing the rules of a game because so much more is at stake.

The only anti-war candidate?

It does look like there will be at least one candidate in next year’s presidential primaries opposing these policies – Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul.  Paul, however, does not support the federal government taking a significant role in environmental protection, health care, reducing economic inequality and a lot of other things.  But unless antiwar Democrats do something, Paul’s libertarian campaign will represent the only significant 2012 primary season challenge to what he calls “America’s delusional foreign policy.”

It’s a year now since Harper’s Magazine publisher John R. MacArthur first publicly called for a challenge to Obama from the left.  And for a while the idea did gain a little traction, but it seemed to disappear when the President won a few legislative victories in the lame duck Congress.  Still, even those who hold fast to the Clinton-era “It’s the economy stupid” take on presidential politics can’t avoid asking to what better use the Afghanistan War’s $119 billion annual budget might be put in the midst of the greatest recession in seventy years.

The reason for the reluctance is, of course, to a great extent a legacy of Ted Kennedy’s 1980 primary challenge to Jimmy Carter followed by Ronald Reagan’s election.  Err in a hasty primary challenge and repent for a leisurely four years, the thinking goes.  Bill Clinton got a primary-free re-election in 1996 in some large part because of that take.  Longtime San Francisco community organizer Mike Miller sums up the current fear:

A perilous course being proposed by “progressives” that, if successful, will contribute to a Republican government—both houses of Congress and the White House—in 2012. That course is to nominate a ‘progressive’ to run against Obama in the primaries and, implicitly, sit out the election if Obama is the nominee.

If A, then B?  Is it impossible then to challenge the Administration in the way that really matters – electorally – without helping to usher in a President we’d find worse – both in domestic and foreign affairs?  Not an unreasonable fear, I’d say, yet not one that should prevent us from taking a broader look at the situation.

For one thing, while Clinton’s foreign policy may itself have left something to be desired (the U.S. did bomb Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan and Yugoslavia on his watch), nothing he did remotely approached the insanity of the current $1,000,000-a-year per soldier war with no perceptible goal other than to negotiate in the future with the Taliban enemy that we fight today.   So, in this case it’s not just nameless/faceless foreigners euphemistically referred to as “collateral damage”– there are Americans being asked to die.

As for the political dangers inherent in the enterprise, well Joe Biden ran against Barack Obama in 2008 and that seemed to work out all right.  To be sure, we would want a level-headed challenge, rather than one primarily fueled by personal anger at Obama.  Disappointment, sure, but even MacArthur’s initial appeal to those who “feel betrayed by Obama’s expansion of the war in Afghanistan and mercenary forces in Iraq” seems slightly off.  Those feeling betrayed by Obama’s expansion of the Afghanistan War really have only themselves to blame, in that he told us that this was precisely his intent.  But he also managed to accomplish what all successful presidential candidates do – he convinced a lot of voters that he really believed what they did, even when he said he didn’t.  People rationalized that he just said all that stuff about Afghanistan because he had to if he wanted to get elected.

Robert Naiman, Policy Director of the organization Just Foreign Policy, goes so far as to say that:

A key organizing principle of a progressive primary has to be something that many may find at first counterintuitive: it must not be directed against President Obama.

What it should be is directed at some of his policies and aimed at building and demonstrating a political base for a series of alternatives.

Can the left make him do it in Afghanistan?

Over the last two years, many of us have heard more than one variation on the story of FDR telling those to his left that if they wanted him to do something, they had to go out and “make me do it.”  And surely there is something to that – you’ve got to somehow demonstrate a motivated constituency to be a political player.  This is precisely why we should be seriously thinking about what we can do during the upcoming primary season which seems, realistically, to be about the only time we’re going to have much chance of exerting pressure on Obama to rethink his wars.  What would be the goal of a primary challenge?  Several hundred delegates pledged to making the President do something different than he has been.

But, by the way, none of this is meant to suggest that foreign policy constitute the entire basis of a primary challenge, or even necessarily be its central element.  There seems little doubt that the basis for an antiwar candidacy exists – a December ABC News/Washington Post Poll found people answering “No” to the question “Do you think the war in Afghanistan has been worth fighting?” by a 60-34 percent margin (with only 25 percent of Democrats saying “Yes”) –  and this is with a minuscule amount of mainstream political opposition to the war.  Still, the cynical view that the domestic casualty rate – 500 U.S. military deaths and 4,500 wounded last year – is simply not high enough to turn this war into a mass issue may well be correct.

Either way, though, an ideal primary challenge would also take on the bank bailout, offer a broad government investment strategy and argue for improving the health care reform law as well.  And, of course, today’s wars represent only the tip of the iceberg: The U.S. currently maintains anywhere from seven hundred to a thousand foreign military bases and spends nearly as much as on its military apparatus as the entire rest of the world combined – because it is locked in a Cold War mindset in which Al Qaeda has replaced the Soviet Union.

Zimmerman in 2012?

In arguing that “Lefty focusing on Obama distracts us from the work we need to do,” New Left veteran Richard Flacks says:

Progressive organizations need to reinvest in college campus organizing.

And as far as focusing on Obama – the man goes, I think his critique is correct, but so far as certain of the President’s policies go, they seem to be precisely the thing that a progressive organization would organize against on a college campus.

As the man once said, “The times, they are a changing” and it seems a shame to let the libertarians be the only ones saying anything about that next year.

Few Americans may recognize OSCE by name, but in addition to the above mentioned nations, the group includes virtually all of Europe, the U.S. and Canada and calls itself “the world’s largest regional security organization” with “56 participating States” spanning “the geographical area from Vancouver to Vladivostok.”  Its roots lie in the 1975 Helsinki Accords of the East-West détente era,  but it has assumed a larger role since the end of the Cold War, supervising the post-Yugoslav Civil War elections in Bosnia and acting as the prime electoral monitoring agent in former Eastern Bloc and Yugoslav nations.

OSCE also conducts less intensive “assessment” missions – to review the “administrative and legal framework for the conduct of elections” in long established democratic member nations.  The U.S. Mission was conducted by the organization’s Parliamentary Assembly, with 56 observers included 42 Members of Parliament from 21 countries who were briefed in Washington D.C. and sent to observe voting in six states and the District of Columbia.

Although finding that “polling proceeded in a calm and well-organized manner,” the observers were struck by the “lack of voter secrecy” due to “voting booths and electronic voting machines … often placed too close to each other, which enabled clear insight as to how a voter marked the ballot,” as well as “the widespread possibility to vote without any picture I.D.” – a requirement in most of the elections the organization monitors.

The foreign law makers also noted the degree to which “the electoral system continues to be decentralized and highly diverse with a lack of uniform country-wide standards,” adding that “there are several voting systems within some states, as regulations are made at the local county level” and even “the right to access polling stations by international election observers is regulated by state law, and in some cases parliamentary observers were not able to observe the voting inside polling stations.”  All of this will come as no surprise to anyone remembering the infamous “hanging chads” and “butterfly ballots” of the 2000 presidential election.

What is new, however, and, judging from the space their brief report accords it, what apparently made the strongest impression upon the OSCE Mission was “money playing a significant role in creating an uneven playing field between candidates.”  Noting that “the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC that private corporations should enjoy the same rights as individuals regarding campaign spending, tying this to the right of freedom of speech in the U.S. Constitution,” they found the ruling expanding “possibilities for interest groups, including private corporations” and likely helping “to determine the outcome in a number of races.”

The fact that “many political ads did not reveal the source of the funding, as this is not required by law,” struck them as undermining “the transparency and accountability in the elections,” which “could also lead to questions of whether all donations originated in the U.S., as the law stipulates in the Federal Election Campaign Act, or whether any funds came from foreign sources.”

So, in case you’ve been thinking that giving corporations a free hand in the electoral process represents a fundamental threat to American democracy, at least you know you’re not alone in this world.  And if you’ve been wondering just how big a deal that Supreme Court decision was, well the Sunlight Foundation – an American “non-profit, nonpartisan organization that uses the power of the Internet to catalyze greater government openness and transparency,” as it describes itself – estimates “outside groups raised and spent $126 million on elections without disclosing the source,” constituting “more than a quarter of the total $450 million spent by outside groups.”  And adding “the $60 million spent by groups that were allowed to raise unlimited money, but still had to disclose … the total amount of outside money made possible by the Citizens United ruling reaches $186 million or 40 percent of the total.”

Humongous jump in corporate electoral spending results in big wins for candidates with leave-big-business-alone platforms.

The above would pretty much qualify as a “Dog bites man” headline.  So maybe from that point of view we can understand why the newsmedia might not bother to treat this as the overriding story of the election.  I mean, what else would we expect, really?   And the fact that more of CNN’s election day exit poll respondents blamed Wall Street for the country’s current economic problems than either George W. Bush (the runner-up choice) or Barack Obama and still voted the way they did tells us how very effective that spending was in obfuscating the issues.

The biggest question coming out of the elections, of course, remains unanswered as of yet. And it will not be answered by studies, observation missions or news reporting.  Are we willing and able to save our democracy from going to the highest bidder?

Tom Gallagher has participated in eight OSCE missions, most recently in Kyrgyzstan.  Contact him at TomGallagherwrites.com

These guys are presumably HBO subscribers

In the United States, some citizens subject themselves to IRS fines and penalties and actually resist paying taxes. And while many Americans may be disgruntled by Timothy Geithner’s bank plan, tax resisting (not to be confused with tax evasion, which is subject even stricter penalties and possible jail time), has always has been an integral part of American democracy in spite of the the fact that it is subject to fines and penalties. In the 1790s the first US Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, implemented a controversial luxury tax on whiskey that had some citizens so riled up that they actually tarred and feathered a handful of tax collectors. While Hamilton insisted that the tax had to be instated in order to pay off debts from the Revolutionary War, the tax resisters were not pleased with that explanation, and in 1794 Washington had to send an army of 12,000 to rural Pennsylvania to quell a rebellion (by the time the troops arrived, the dissenters had dispersed).

Of course, Henry David Thoreau is probably the most famous tax resister, spending a night in jail for refusing to pay six years of back taxes on the principle that he did not support the Mexican-American War and institutionalized slavery. But what about today? Is withholding taxes, despite the fact that it is subject to heavy government penalties, still one of the best ways to show anger and frustration towards one’s government?

A resident of Brooklyn, who I will call Barb Smith for purposes of anonymity, thinks that if you’re frustrated with your government, it makes you a “more responsible citizen.” At a demonstration on the front steps of the New York Post Office, she and fellow disgruntled citizens gathered to lend their voice to the anti-war movement. Handing out fliers that document military spending in this country, Smith, a third-year tax resister and war protester, pointed out that, “Money has an impact and where you spend your money has an impact. My decision [not to pay federal taxes] is in alignment with my conscience.”

Also gathered on the steps on the Post Office was a small group of elderly women from an international pacifist organization. One woman brandished a sign that said, “Raging Grannies and their Daughters.”

However, the sign did not mention granddaughters and Smith noted that, “Unfortunately, there are not many young people involved [in the tax resisting movement]. It’s mostly middle-aged and older people who are passionate about the issue.”

Best sign of the day, no contest

However, despite the age gap, the movement definitely gained momentum this year in cities around the country. Fox News had all day coverage of  “tea parties” in cities like Atlanta and Salt Lake City where protesters angrily voiced their tax boycott of the Wall Street bailouts. In Austin, Texas, Governor Rick Perry galvanized a crowd of angry citizens and even suggested that Texas might secede one day while, in downtown Houston, close to 2,000 people turned out to protest the federal government and threaten secession.

In Boston (the home of the first tea party back in 1773) gay rights groups gathered to protest their inability to file federal joint tax returns, even though Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage. A group with similar concerns gathered on the steps of the New York Post Office but when asked, none claimed to be resisting taxes. “We just want Albany to give us equality,” one woman implored.

Yet, despite all the hoopla surrounding tax resisting this year, the demonstrations still beg the question, does tax resisting in spite of the potential penalties really make a difference?

“I don’t know if the IRS cares,” another protester, who I will call Mark Johnson for anonymity, a fifth year tax resister from New Jersey said, “but I’m appalled at what the money is used for and I resist with a token amount.”

When asked what he does with the money he owes, Johnson insists, “I don’t keep it, I give it to organizations that do good that hopefully counterbalance what the government would do with the money. This year, I’m giving the $198 I owe and I’m sending it to the Iraq Collateral Repair Project.”

And, while he admits he only protests with a small amount of money, Johnson notes that there “is not enough outrage” and that he does the little that he can to press the point that he is not pleased with military spending in this country.

Although it is doubtful that Congress or the Obama administration paid much attention to tea parties, protests, or tax resister demonstrations on Wednesday, many see tax resistance, despite the fact that it is illegal, as the one act outside of voting that citizens can participate in to vocalize their disappointment with their government. And, while there is always the possibility that you can be audited, Smith notes that, “This is America. I’m not afraid of the IRS.”

Editor’s Note: This Web site does NOT in any way endorse or condone any act of tax resisting or tax evasion. Because of possibly incriminating statements, the names of quoted individuals were changed at the request of the editor.

GOP past or future?

On Wednesday, New York’s registered Independent mayor Michael Bloomberg met with local GOP leaders to ask for their support for his run for a third term as mayor. Although it’s understandable that they would be wary of his sincerity (he dropped the party back in 2007, and many think he only wants their endorsement because he’d be placed more visibly on the ballot), there are currently no clear Republican front-runners that could legitimately challenge Bloomberg when he runs later this year. And, while the party certainly reserves the right not to back him, they ironically need a candidate like him—someone who understands their commitment to balanced and fair economic incentives but also encourages public works projects and city-supported programs for the broader citizenry. In fact, if you look at New York as a political microcosm of the United States, Republicans can only remain relevant in this country if they promote candidates and leaders with Bloomberg-esque ideas; ones that offer innovative policies for their fiscal proposals along with new, bolder initiatives that support individual citizens.

Of course, Bloomberg isn’t perfect. However, the point is that if the Republican party wants to survive, it can’t only look to out-of-touch spokespersons such as Mark Sanford to deliver their fractured message. Although they seem to be avoiding it like the plague, Republicans are going to have to change their agenda, their ideas, and even their mission to go beyond the same old trickle-down, tax-cut, tax-credit mantra. Americans just aren’t buying it.

One possible reason the Republicans are having such a hard time promoting a new, appealing agenda is because while they’ve certainly evolved since their inception to favor the interests of an elite minority of the electorate, they’ve also clung to the image that they represent just the opposite. This stolid Party-of-No got its start by being a conflicted party of misfits: Disgruntled Democrats, frustrated Whigs, angry Know-Nothings, and other politically passionate individuals who really could only agree on their opposition to slavery. This team of outcasts banded together in Wisconsin in 1854 to form the party that only six years later would usher in its first and most famous president—Abraham Lincoln. As the party evolved from one that supported small businesses and individual rights to one that consistently favors corporate tax breaks and social conservatism, it has tried to hang on to its message and supporters by pretending to be Joe the Plumber when it’s really Joe the CEO. Granted, the Democrats are just as guilty of supporting big banks and big companies. However,  they lack the Achilles heel that the Republicans will not confront—denial. Republicans don’t want to change their image, but, ironically, they often misrepresent themselves and don’t embrace the interests of most Americans.

Despite all the best efforts of the Democrats, we need Republicans to challenge them, offer ideas, and approach our economic problems with a different, fresh perspective. We don’t need one party running the show in Washington. Unfortunately, the GOP is making this paradigm easy when congressional members stonewall Obama and his administration, GOP governors threaten to deny crucial funding for their constituents based on ideological disagreement, and Republican leaders and pundits cry “Socialism!” every time the Democrats offer forth a plan but at the same time fail to offer any constructive agenda of their own. (Sorry, the so-called “minority tyranny” that Senate filibustering provides does not constitute as a genuine effort either.)

In his speech on Tuesday night, Governor Jindal implored:

Democratic leaders in Washington, they place their hope in the federal government. We [Republicans] place our hope in you, the American people.

Of all the patronizing statements he made that night, this was the most striking. If the past election taught Americans anything, it was that they are their government and can certainly accomplish a lot if they stay motivated and involved. Jindal’s assertion corroborates the Republican “people v. government” attitude and fails to recognize that Americans want Washington to work for them—they don’t pay taxes for their representatives to sit on their hands. By suggesting that Americans have the power and know-how to overcome the hardships of the economy, health care, and education as individuals, Jindal minimizes the severity of the people’s problems and shirks the responsibility of the post in which he was elected.

Americans don’t expect government to solve all their problems. However, they do expect them to make their best and most qualified effort. If Republicans want to complain about how horrible and intrusive government is, then why are they involved in government at all? They can’t claim the title of watchdog, if they’re just going to bark and not bite.

Which brings us back to Bloomberg. Why exactly did this very popular Republican leader leave the ticket he ran on in two successful elections? In a speech at the University of Southern California in 2007 he explained:

The politics of partisanship and the resulting inaction and excuses have paralyzed decision-making, primarily at the federal level, and the big issues of the day are not being addressed, leaving our future in jeopardy.

This was pre-economic crisis, and yet his words still hold true today for the Grand Old Party. And if the Republicans can’t convince a Wall Street billionaire that they’re capable of instituting effective, industrious policies, whom can they convince? Hey, if Bloomberg wants you back, take him.

• create jobs by lowering income tax rates for working families;
• cutting taxes for small businesses;
• strengthening incentives for businesses to invest in new equipment and hire new workers;
• stabilizing home values by creating a new tax credit for home-buyers

The Republican evaluation of these plans is that they “would cost less and create more jobs.” I assume the less and more adjectives refer to the Democratic plan. Here is what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act does, viz a viz the above Republican bullet points:

• A refundable tax credit of up to $400 per individual and $800 for couples in 2009 and 2010. It is calculated at a rate of 6.2 percent of earned income and is phased out for individuals with adjusted incomes over $75,000 and couples with incomes over $150,000. How does this not lower tax rates for working families?
• Small businesses with gross receipts of up to $15 million can write off 2008 losses against five previous tax years. Current laws allows a two-year carryback of losses. How does this not cut taxes for small businesses?
• An $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers for homes purchased between Jan. 1 and Dec. 1, 2009. The tax credit phases out for individuals earning more than $75,000 and couples earning more than $150,000. How is this not a new tax credit for home-buyers?

Look out, Sarah Palin....

So, what’s the difference? Republicans want to cut taxes and decrease spending. We’ve seen that before in recessions, and the results weren’t good. Sure, Gov. Jindal and the Republicans believe that “empowering you” is the best way to stop this recession. But what if you don’t have any money? That was precisely the problem that led to the Great Depression, and as noted in the link above, the government’s reaction — to increase taxes and decrease spending — made the problem worse. When no one wants to buy anything, it’s hard to “empower” the consumer to spend money. This is why, in a time of recession, the government intentionally incurs debt in order to increase aggregate demand. Then — and this is the part that Republicans either willfully or negligently don’t mention — when the economy recovers, the government increases taxes and cuts spending in order to pay itself back!

On the Issue of “Small Businesses”

Republicans are fond of conflating individual income taxes and “small business taxes.” There is no such thing as a “small business tax.” The owner of a small business pays himself as an employee, and he pays the marginal tax rate for the salary he pays himself. Concurrently, the small business (which is a corporation if it is incorporated, which it probably is) pays the marginal tax rate for its amount of taxable income. The top corporate tax rate is 38%, which is for taxable income between $15,000,000 and $18,333,333. According to an IRS report from 2005 (the most recent date that the report was issued), 6,082,975 returns were filed for corporations in 2005 (this is adding the number of forms 1120 and 1120S that were filed for 2005, which are by far the most common types of corporate tax forms filed). Of these six million or so returns, 5,475 were for corporations with net income of greater than $15,000,000. That’s 0.09% of corporations. So, when Republicans talk about corporate taxes “hurting” “small businesses,” that’s a lie. The largest single category of business size (as defined by net income) is the “under $25,000″ range.

According to the Small Business Administration, in 2006 (the most recent date that comprehensive figures were available), there were 17,403,814 “firms” in the United States, of which 10,755,262 (62%) have 20 or fewer employees. I think we can agree that the majority of businesses are small by sheer number of employees; this is a purely qualitative evaluation, however, as there are no technical definitions of “small.” This figure does not include nonemployer firms (see below).

Now, if you qualify as self-employed, you pay a flat rate of 15.3%. This rate takes into account the fact that, as a person who is self-employed, your normal payroll taxes — specifically, Social Security and Medicare — don’t happen like they do for people who get a regular payroll check. Also note that only the first $102,000 of self-employment income is subject to the 12.4% Social Security component of the self-employment tax.

The term “small business,” much like the term “partial-birth abortion” and “death tax,” is a public relations phrase, not a legal one. The U.S. Census Bureau, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Small Business Administration (oddly enough) all use the term “employer firm” or “nonemployer firm.” SBA defines a nonemployer firm as “one that has no paid employees, has annual business receipts of $1,000 or more ($1 or more in the construction industries), and is subject to federal income taxes.” There is a larger quantity of nonemployer firms, but there is a far greater amount of revenue from employer firms.

So, in summation, “small business owners” fall into the “working class” tax brackets that get tax cuts, anyway, so they will necessarily get tax relief. Businesses that don’t make a whole lot of money — and that’s the vast majority of them — do get tax breaks. And, in case farms enter the discussion, these numbers don’t include farms. Farms are taxed and regulated differently from every other business.

Republicans like to play up the notion that “Joe the Plumber” would be hurt by Democratic tax policies. In truth, Joe would get a tax cut, and the “small business” that he works for would probably get a tax cut, as well. I doubt, though, that “facts” will stop them from trying.

Not a single House Republican voted in favor of the “bipartisan” H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed into law by President Obama last Monday. Republicans were proud of their united opposition to what they called a bill filled with “pork,” though, technically, “pork-barrel spending” is defined as non-essential spending made for specific, pet projects in a congressman’s home district — say, for a $398 million bridge from one scantily-populated town to an airport. Using that definition, there is no pork in this bill, since it allocates money for only large, federal projects, with no mention of specific projects and nothing targeted at specific districts (in fact, the bill’s flaw may just be its breadth, with line-items for things like “Science” within NASA’s budget).

So, anyway, Republicans are very proud of themselves. But it may be a case of cutting off their noses to spite their faces. On the one hand, they want this stimulus bill to be their first major conflict with the Obama administration, so that they have a clearly defined message in opposition to his; i.e., “wasteful spending.” On the other hand, states are seriously hurting for money. Just this last week, the Great State of California finally closed a $40 billion chasm in its budget for next year. (Although, in spite of that, Governor Schwarzenegger terminated 10,000 state employees and cut the salaries of thousands more in an effort to save some cash. Hasta la vista, employees.)

Republican governors are also in charge in some of the poorest states, like Louisiana, South Carolina, and Mississippi, where this money could be really useful! At what point does adherence to ideology actually start hurting people? You may wish to ask the citizens of Louisiana, where Republican Governor Bobby Jindal may refuse $4 billion in infrastructure funds allocated to it under the stimulus plan, according to CBS News. The New York Times reports that Governor Jindal has already refused expanded unemployment benefits because it would raise business taxes.

Republicans don’t want to appear to be hypocrites, so they’ll do the next-best thing: appear to be obstinate. Of course, all of this posturing isn’t being done because Republicans staunchly adhere to their ideals. What did you think this was, Bizzaro United States? Oh, no; these governors are refusing the money because they plan on running for president in 2012! Refusing stimulus money may cause real damage to millions of people in states where demand for social services and entitlement benefits is on the rise, but that clearly isn’t important to Republican presidential contenders who need to be able to point back to a time when they were 100% in line with the Republican talking points about the stimulus.

Thankfully, Governor Schwarzenegger is not running for president (unless they amend the Constitution. Fingers crossed!). Maybe that’s why he will not only take the stimulus money allocated to California, but why he is urging other Republican governors to do so (although he also said he would gladly take whatever money the other governors don’t want). Unless, of course, the other governors are so unselfish that they’re willing to risk the welfare of their states for a cynical attempt at appearing “fiscally responsible” so that they can make a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 by out-conservativing each other. That’s change we can sink in!

Let this serve as another example of why Republicans lost so much in November: as it turns out, they may not care about people. That may be a generalization (and it is!), but I wonder about the guy in New Orleans who’s been laid off and who can no longer make his mortgage payments. I know it will do his heart good to know that Governor Jindal is fighting to prevent him from getting any help because, in so doing, Governor Jindal would boost his chances of being elected president. What does the word “constituency” mean, anyway? Especially when you have to choose between an electorate that can only drag you down and a Republican elite that could be your meal ticket to the presidential nomination.

I’ll give this much to them, though: they stick to their guns, even if those guns will send them hurtling over a cliff. You’ve got to respect someone who is self-centered enough to play chicken with other people’s lives simply to prove a stupid point.

Or not. Which is good, because I don’t.