Is Obama really a friend of the developing world?

If you believe that either solving the global food crisis or preventing global warming should top the agenda of world leaders, then Obama may not be the US presidential candidate best positioned to deliver results.

I previously blogged about Obama's biofuel problem. Recently, I had the impression that Obama had reconsidered his position. I am afraid I was too optimistic about Obama. According to a NY Times report published Monday:

Ethanol is one area in which Mr. Obama strongly disagrees with his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona. . . they offer sharply different visions of the role that ethanol, which can be made from a variety of organic materials, should play in those efforts.

If the NY Times article is to be believed, Obama continues to favor ethanol subsidies to US farmers in spite of the recent food crisis. On the other hand, McCain has a track record of standing against biofuel subsidies to US farmers.

Most tellingly perhaps, McCain said he would have voted against the recent farm bill, whereas Obama said he would have supported it. (As they were both campaigning, neither showed up to vote).

Would President Obama be a genuine friend of the developing world? Or is Obama mainly devoted to transferring US taxpayer dollars into the pockets of the US corporations who have sponsored him? At a time of world food shortages, the once obscure issue of ethanol subsidies raises big questions about Obama.

Does the NY Times article fairly reflect Obama's position?

I must say I had my doubts about whether the NY Times article accurately presented Obama campaign's present position on ethanol. So I checked his website. The Energy and Environment page of Obama's website portrays biofuels as a panacea. Obama says he wants to:

• Expand Locally-Owned Biofuel Refineries: Less than 10 percent of new ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels refineries.
• Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Barack Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard to speed the introduction of low-carbon non-petroleum fuels.
• Increase Renewable Fuel Standard: Obama will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030.
• Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure. . .
• Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass. . . .
• Renewable Fuels: Obama has worked on numerous efforts in the Senate to increase access to and use of renewable fuels. Obama passed legislation with Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) to give gas stations a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol refueling pumps.

Fully one quarter of Senator Obama's energy/environment plan - 6 of 21 policy points -- read like a strategy to enrich the biofuel lobby. Has no Obama advisor read a newspaper in the past six months? Two recent developments should have caused the Obama campaign to rethink the candidate's support for biofuels. First, two major studies by climate scientists found that biofuel is a net contributor to both global warming and deforestation regardless of where a particular biofuel crop happens to be grown. Second, from Kenya to Indonesia poor people have been protesting high food prices. The law of supply and demand says that continuing to subsidize biofuel production in the United States contributes to higher food prices worldwide. The question begs to be asked: Is Senator Obama sincere about strengthening America's ties to the developing world and saving the environment?

What about John McCain?

The "global warming" page of McCain's website makes no mention whatsoever of biofuels like ethanol. McCain's website has only this to say about biofuels:

John McCain Will End Policies That Contribute To Higher Transportation And Food Costs. Ethanol subsidies, tariff barriers and sugar quotas drive up food prices and hurt Americans.

People living in the least developed countries need a US president willing to stand up to Congress and put an end to US biofuel and agriculture subsidies. For everyone on the planet, the question of selecting the most effective tactics to counter global warming is paramount. The respective responses of the two candidates to these questions could not be more different.
___
Photo: by Jotman. In central java, a rice farmer walks across his field.

President Obama's easiest betrayal was his worst

Melissa Harris-Perry, a Princeton professor and MSNBC commentator, recently proposed a hypothesis to explain Obama's declining poll numbers.  Even though the professor's explanation is familiar, it may come as a surprise:

President Obama has experienced a swift and steep decline in support among white Americans—from 61 percent in 2009 to 33 percent now. I believe much of that decline can be attributed to their disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation. His record is, at the very least, comparable to that of President Clinton, who was enthusiastically re-elected. The 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent. If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism.

She writes, "His re-election bid, however, may indicate that a more insidious form of racism has come to replace it." Harris-Perry claims Obama's poll numbers are falling on account of white racism.  By way of evidence, the professor suggests Obama is doing no worse job than Bill Clinton.   Needless to say, the evidence on this score is not at all convincing.    More people are unemployed and more suffer civil rights abuses under Obama than Clinton.  As a blogger wrote in response to the Harris-Perry article, "Saying that Barack Obama is 'just as competent' as Clinton is like saying that an ostrich can fly just as well as an eagle."  The new Obama biography by Ron Suskind comes to the same conclusion in more words.

As for the explanation for Obama's declining poll numbers, I'm not impressed when someone hangs their credentials on an untested hypothesis.   People should be less interested in Harris-Perry explanation's for the Obama poll numbers than the larger tragedy her whole argument overlooks.  

President Obama hasn't done enough improve the economic situation for poor and middle class Americans generally, and the African American community in particular.  The numbers tell us so.  Blacks face astoundingly high unemployment, and the demographic was dealt a serious blow by a housing crisis for which there has been scant relief at the bottom. 

The Obama administration has acted as if it can take black voters for granted.  Of course, other groups in the Democratic Party "base" have likewise been ignored: unionized workers, environmentalists, civil libertarians, etc.   To the extent it fills the hearts of many African Americans with pride to see a black man in the White House, Obama may enjoy considerable leeway with the demographic.   That's simply human nature and the politics of identity.  For example, to some extent JFK could take the Irish-Catholic vote for granted.

But just because a particular leader can take a particular demographic for granted doesn't make the practice acceptable. Absolutely, it should be condemned whenever the demographic in question faces greatly diminished prospects, as has been the case with blacks under President Obama.

Rather than making excuses, I think Harris-Perry would be doing many African Americans--along with the vast majority of Americans--a far greater service if she focused on holding the Obama administration accountable for its spectacular ideological capitulation to the right.

UPDATE
African-American support for the president appears to be slipping.   WaPo reports:

New cracks have begun to show in President Obama’s support amongst African Americans, who have been his strongest supporters. Five months ago, 83 percent of African Americans held “strongly favorable” views of Obama, but in a new Washington Post-ABC news poll that number has dropped to 58 percent. That drop is similar to slipping support for Obama among all groups.

Assuming the poll is correct, and blacks are losing confidence in Obama at the same rate as whites, this fact would seem to destroy Harris-Perry's hypothesis that white racism explains the drop in support for Obama among white voters. Support for Obama among blacks has long been higher. It seems Obama is increasingly perceived as a failed leader across all demographic groups.

In one act, Obama could yet prove himself the world-historical leader we need him to be. And he could fulfill his 2008 campaign promises of "hope and change."  Obama need only withdraw from the 2012 presidential contest.  That would restore our hope -- at least for a time.

Hope. Anybody remember what that felt like?

What Barack Obama could learn from Ronald Reagan

A magnificent orator, Barack Obama evokes memories of Ronald Reagan. But a comparison of Obama to Reagan points to a difference between their campaigns. As a candidate in 1980, Ronald Reagan was not only understood to be a "great communicator" promising "Morning in America."

Reagan also displayed strong convictions; revolutionary ideas. In 1980, Ronald Reagan declared: Down with big government! And concerning foreign policy he said: America ought to negotiate with the Soviets from a position of strength. Reagan had unambiguous policy objectives. Moreover, his straightforward ideas were highly contentious. Saying controversial things with a sense of conviction made Reagan appear brave.

By contrast, Barack Obama's message is all "Morning in America." The Obama campaign reflects the sunny side of Reagan, not the underdog fighter side. With respect to Obama, it is hard to detect anything concrete about a message that amounts to little more than the hopeful promise of change. I happen to believe Obama is a man of principle. But I am left wondering what his principles stand for in terms of substantive policies. In 1980 Ronald Reagan spelled this out for Americans and the world.

Obama -- assuming he wins his party's nomination -- will be pitted against a man with a clear message: McCain -- McCain who is winning the Republican Party nomination because his main opponent, Romney, was perceived not to stand for anything. At least when you see McCain's strange website, you know McCain has convictions. McCain's campaign shouts: America is at war with terrorists and so must elect a warrior to lead the country in battle -- and do some good societal things on the side.

And if Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, in November there remains a strong likelihood that Americans will pick McCain as their leader. Because John McCain clearly stands for something.

On the other hand, if Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, in a match-up with McCain at least Hillary Clinton will be able to say: "I'm every bit as competent as McCain. And I am better than McCain because I have a plan to end the war in Iraq and the knowledge to keep American safe." Hillary is not vulnerable on the basic question of competence or whether she and Bill can protect the American people.

To date, Obama's inspiring speeches have attracted many educated Democrats with high-level aspirations. Obama's present approach might win him a general election in Sweden or Canada. But in the US, a presidential candidate must address the safety issue before he or she can successfully appeal to people's dreams and higher aspirations. Despite the "land of the free" rhetoric, America is a country where many people subsist near the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs pyramid. Many Americans are not at the "self-actualization stage." The demographics of the US do not mirror the profile of the enthusiastic early Obama supporter.

Unless Obama learns from Ronald Reagan's successful bid for the White House, McCain's campaign is liable turn the rhetoric of the Obama candidacy against Obama. McCain's people will bombard US voters with variations of these lines:

Hope won't keep America safe. Vote McCain.
Hope won't save your job. Vote McCain.

However, McCain cannot use these devastating slogans against Hillary Clinton. She is not vulnerable to the charge that she offers hope of change without substance.

Barack Obama might yet be the Democrats' ticket to the presidency in 2008. But first Obama needs to show he is brave enough to present his priorities clearly with conviction. I long to hear some bold ideas worthy of the rhetoric.

I want to hear Obama say he will make America safe. Safe from corporate predators. Safe from inept bankers, media conglomerates, drug and insurance companies, big oil, and the shady dealings of military contractors. What if Obama redefined national security?

Because Barack Obama's present approach won't cut it. He is unlikely to win if he is perceived both lacking in conviction and short on competence. Obama can't do much about the second, but now is the time for him to shore up the first. Twenty-eight years ago a former actor made up by way of sheer audacity what he lacked in terms of knowledge and experience. It's a lesson for Barack Obama.

Obama's overhead projector

UPDATE: This more recent post is must-read: "McCain, Obama and the Adler Planetarium Projector"

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE TOWN HALL DEBATE

The source for this commentary are my jots from having live-blogged the debate. See here.

Hands down, Obama handily won what was by far the most substantive of the three debates to date (for my commentary on the first debate see here, the second here).

I thought McCain's physical performance was shaky. He walked around as if lost, seemed hesitant to call Obama by name, otherwise acting as if he was afraid to get close to Obama.

If Obama hit a home run the debate, it was on the issue of health care:

Tom Brokaw: Health care: is it a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?
McCain: Responsibility -- for every American. (Bad answer. Obama should say: "It's a right!"- - because it is everywhere else in the developed world)
Obama: I think it should be a right for every American. (YES!) For sick to have to argue with insurance companies, that's fundamentally wrong. No 1: If you got an insurance plan you like, you can keep it. Because children are relatively cheap to insure. McCain doesn't say that he voted against expansion of kid's health insurance. Final point: it's true that I think it's important to crack down on insurance companies that are cheating their customers. It's a problem, these companies will find a state, where there are no requirements to get cancer screens. They all set up shop there. Works that way in banking. Delaware. They go.... Protections you have.... M believes in deregulation in every sense.

Health care is a right. In 2008, how can a leader in a Western country suggest it is anything other than a right?

Obama just may have hit it out of the ballpark tonight. He just may have won the election.

My sense that the election could be over is not based on Obama's health care answer alone. I suspect Obama cut into McCain's longstanding lead on national security. In contrast to the first debate, Obama had rebuttals against McCain on the foreign policy issues (Obama still agreed with McCain, but nevertheless managed to explain some shortcoming with McCain's positions). In fact, Obama shot down two of McCain's strongest answers of the night.

McCain: Roosevelt "talk softly.... big stick" When you announce, you turn Pakistan opinion against us. We washed hands of Afghan after 1990. Our relations with Pak critical. Petreus had strategy, get support of people. We need to help Pak in NW to get support of people. Not threatening to attack. Use force where necessary (McCain at his best).

Obama: I want to be clear, if Pak unable or unwilling to get Bin Laden, then we should, because they are threatening to kill Bin Laden. M saying bomb iran, next he's calling for invasion of N Korea. Not finished in Afghan, and M says next stop Baghdad. (Great response! You are destroying M's greatest strength, taking the battle to his home territory).

The second blow against McCain here was self-inflicted. McCain made the mistake of responding:

McCain: Not true. I understand what it's like to send people into harms way. I was joking with a veteran about saying I would attack Iran. (Joking about attacking? McCain, you are not helping yourself).

But the second win for Obama I was referring to came here:

McCain: I hope Iran abandons quest for nukes. We can never allow a second Holocaust to take place. (As if Israel will allow it either, with its 65 nuclear weapons).

Obama: We cannot allow Iran to get nuke. Will never take military options off the table. No veto power to UN. (Obama is matching McCain on toughness, it's a strategy not to give McCain an advantage on this score). When you talk to these countries it gives you better options. Talk, but don't take military option off the table (Obama won this exchange one with this point).

I honestly don't think McCain can recover at this point. To turn around the election, McCain would have to resort to some kind of "nuclear option." Obama came across as highly competent and cool-headed.

One last thing, a couple times McCain seemed concerned about Obama's purchase of an expensive overhead projector. But do we care?*
___
*UPDATE: It seems "we should care." McCain was actually criticizing Obama for funding an important educational initiative for the city of Chicago. See this new post.

Can Barack Obama save Kenya?

By winning the Iowa Primary this week, US Senator Barack Obama surmounted the first hurdle toward becoming his party's nominee in the 2008 US presidential election. But Americans may not be the only people turning to Obama in the coming days. Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times views US presidential contender Barack Obama as a potentially influential figure in Kenya, during this bleak hour in that nation's history. Referring to Obama's visit to Kenya, Sweet wrote:

The Kenya leg of Obama's four-nation trip to Africa was the highlight because it was seen as a homecoming for the Illinois senator, whose father was Kenyan. Obama got his first taste of being treated by a nation as a hero. The upbeat press he got in the United States from the trip helped set the stage for his presidential bid.

Like the Chinese ideogram for "crisis," the situation in Kenya presents both "opportunity" and "danger" for the Obama candidacy. His critics claim Obama has a tendency to duck controversy (For example, the senator has reputation for avoiding controversial votes). Lynn Sweet continues:

I understand Obama has to be careful because while he is one of the most credible figures the United States has to deal with Kenya, the dispute between Odinga and Kibaki is mired in tribal politics. Obama, very aware that Kenyans may see him as a Luo* in this context, does not want to be seen as taking sides.

But Obama's claim of uniqueness is being offered as a reason he should be president. The Voice of America statement is a good first step. What's next? Obama can't vote present on Kenya.**

The senator from Illinois may be called upon rise to the challenge of Kenya. If the situation there continues to deteriorate, it may well prove the defining crisis of his candidacy.
___________
* This ABC news commentary describes Obama's family connections with Kenya: "His father was an educated member of the Luo tribe, who much of the Luo elite -- like Odinga, the president's challenger -- actually knew. Obama told ABC News that his father also knew President Kibaki personally."
** "Obama can't vote present. . ." -- what does this mean? This NY Times article explores critics' (unfounded?) allegations that as Illinois state legislator, Obama ducked votes on contentious issues.
More:
- Obama's recent statement on VOA.
- Someone claiming to be Obama's "cousin" in Kenya was a candidate in the recent election (more here).
- BBC reports on the reaction in Kenya to Obama's victory in Iowa.
- Obama's Wiki biography.

Psst, Obama: your party won the election!

The Republicans lost, but it's as if nobody told Obama.

Republicans lost for a clear and simple reason: their ideology of deregulation and lack of oversight over critical financial institutions spoiled the US and global economy. The Republican Party is as bankrupt as Lehman Bros, Bear Sterns, or GM -- in spirit if not in name.

Therefore, I am perplexed by Obama's behavior. Having won an overwhelming victory in November against bankrupt opponents, Obama has been busy expending his political capital placating Republicans. He has put together a so-called stimulus package that is loaded with tax cuts favored by Republicans, but that seems unlikely to give much of a jolt to the failing economy. And what did the Republicans do today?

They voted against Obama's $900 billion stimulus package -- a bill constructed with a view to placating the demands of the Republicans! The bill passed today with not a single Republican vote.

Someone ought to remind Obama that -- since he launched his American unity-themed campaign -- the times have changed. There is no opposition party in Washington D.C. that any well-informed person would bother listening to. Do you care what Republican politicians are saying? I doubt you do.  In the laboratory of real life, the Republican party's ideology has been tested and found wanting.  Economic reality has consigned the greater part of the Republican legacy to the trash-heap of history.  

Yet, Obama talks as if he is afraid of doing anything without GOP approval. He fears being too "divisive."

We know that Obama wants to be a unifier. But there are two ways to unify. You can go this way, and that way, listen to everyone, finally enticing people to join you in your big tent. Call this strategy "expanding your tent." Or, in the second instance, you can be a magnet. You can stand firm for what you think is most likely to work, and by the power of your convictions, the gravity of your ideas, attract people to your own position. Bring others to where you now stand. You can be a weighty object in the universe of scattered minds.

I get the sense Obama is far more comfortable with the first approach. The first way is not altogether loopy. Clinton used it effectively to govern in the relatively stable 90s. But it is unlikely to produce results today. A strategy of "expansive inclusiveness" and "accommodation" is not likely to prove an effective strategy for governing during this time of nation crisis.

So what should Obama do?

Obama would be well advised to declare what we all know to be the case: that today's Republican Party is bankrupt. He should make it clear that will guide the economic recovery on the basis of the recommendations of those wise economists and financial planners who had themselves foreseen the impending financial crisis. Obama should put all the effort he has expended placating insatiable Republican demands into selling his own plan. The last thing we need is for Obama to consult with Republicans about what to do next.

The new president should declare that members of the Republican Party who hope to get re-elected have a clear choice: get with us or get out of the way. Republicans (who want to survive) should be reaching out to Obama, not the other way around.

Finally, it needs to be said that the stimulus package debacle attests to a deeper problem concerning the young Obama Administration: the president and his men are thinking too small. Probably, Obama's approach to date was to be expected. From what I understand of Obama's political career, the president is a world-class tweaker; he favors improvement by increment. It is not a coincidence that one of Obama's philosophical mentors, Cass Sunstein, recently co-authored a book called Nudge. There is a lot of wisdom in this approach, and Obama rightly considers this quality -- his passion for consensus politics -- to be one of his strengths.

However, so long as banks are not loaning money, and massive layoffs continue, tweaks and nudges won't be sufficient. These times call for nothing short of a revolutionary agenda.

We did not come here to fear the future, we came here to shape it

Live-blogging Obama's address to Congress on health care reform.

I'm watching the president give his address on CNN.    Obama's remarks in bold; my comments in regular font.   Pelosi introduces Obama.

Thank you.   When I spoke last winter, worst economic crisis losing 700,000 jobs a month.   Still losing jobs.  I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them.  He has got his priorities straight.  Until businesses that seek capital  can thrive, until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes.   And those responsible bankers?  Silence on that point.

. . . .  It has now been nearly a century since T. Roosevelt called for health care reform.   (Gives history....)  Americans -- middle class -- one accident away from losing home; many denied by insurance companies; We are the only Advanced Democracy that allows such hardship for its citizens.    30 million affected.  Not just problem for uninsured.  Worry that if you change your job you will lose coverage.   Happens every day.    One man lost coverage in the middle of chemotherapy when coverage canceled.  Died.  A  breast cancer patient had her coverage denied (for silly reason).   This is good.   He's reminding people of the horror stories.

Insurance premiums have gone up 3 times faster than wages.  If  we do nothing, will end up spending more on healthcare than any other govt program.

Question is how?  Those on left, think only way is to have system-wide (universal) coverage.  On the right, end employer based systems, leave individuals.  Either one would represent a radical shift.  Makes  more sense to  build on  what works.   This is classic "Obama Philosophy," but it's notable that Obama has framed the arguments more favorably for the left than he had earlier in August.   This time he equated the the "far left" with Universal Coverage.  Back in August Obama had equated those favoring the Public Option with the far left.  Yet the public option is a fairly centrist position, a compromise -- at least from the perspective of anyone who favors Universal Coverage.  

Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change existing coverage. What plan will do:  "As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most."  

"No one should go broke because they get sick."

"If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage," Obama will say. "If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage."  "Strike out on your own to start a small business, you can get coverage."

Speaking to those who don't already have coverage, Obama will say his plan calls for a new "insurance exchange," to allow individuals in small business to shop for health insurance at competitive rates.  A brilliant idea?  A new trading scheme people in the financial industry will profit from?  Details.

We pay for emergency room visits anyway.... 

 You will be required to carry basic health insurance, just like auto insurance.   Businesses will be required to offer it, or chip in to help Americans cover it.   I don't like this at all.   Still nothing about a public option, and requirement to buy insurance industry's products.

While still details to get worked out.  (Laughter).  Requirement for those who can afford insurance to get coverage. 

Obama adresses myths.  "Reforms would not apply to those who are here illegally"  (Hooting from audience.)  Odious spectacle. Disgusting. "Government take-over of entire health care system....?"  "Let me set the record straight: consumers do better when there is choice and competition."  Unfortunately in 34 states (little competition) so incentive to abuse customers.  "Executives don't do this because bad people, they do it because it is profitable." Key point, it's the profit-motive that's inherent in the system, not greedy individuals.

The reforms that I've just mentioned would do that, but an addition measure that would do that would be a not-for-profit public option.  Loud applause from Democrats.   Only an option for uninsured, not mandatory.   Taxpayers won't subsidize this.  Has to be self-sufficient, relying on premiums it collects.   Avoids overhead and need to make profit, so could be good deal for consumers.   Just as we have public universities and private universities, we can have the public and private options coexist in health care.  This is a great slogan, I'm glad he used it.  Still neither side should over-emphasize the importance of the public option.  OK up until this point, then why must he start to equivocate?   Obama would preserve his freedom to drop the public option.   Essentially, Obama calls stuff that's important to a lot of Democrats not that important.    Republicans don't use this language when talking about points that are important to the base.

I will not back down on the basic principle that if you cannot find coverage, we will provide you with a choice.  Good!  Very strong!  Finally Obama draws a line in the sand.   And make sure no insurance ?? gets between you and the coverage you need.

Iwill not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future.   Obama mentions that during the Bush era, wars  and tax cuts were not paid for.   I'm glad he pointed this out.

Seniors need not worry.  Notes that seniors have been subjected to campaign of lies and distortions.  We won't use Medicare funds to pay for this new program. Don't pay attention to those people scaring you, some of whom wanted to privatize medicare.  Don't worry, I will protect medicare."

Will help bring down the costs of healthcare. 

Now this is the plan I'm proposing.  If you come to me with serious proposals, my door is open, but I won't waste time with people who say it's better politics to kill plan than keep it.  Mainly a threat directed at Democrats threatening not to back a plan that doesn't include the public option?  Or mainly a threat to blue dogs who don't want a public option? If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out.  (Applause) I will not accept status-quo as a solution.

Quotes Ted Kennedy:  ".... The character of our country."  Self-reliance, fierce defense of freedom,  figuring out proper role of government always central.   Repubs. John McCain, Owen Hatch worked with Kennedy to provide care to the weak; Kennedy had 2 kids with cancer, so could imagine what like to not have insurance.  Good story.  This concern for the plight of other is not a Democrat or a Republican trait.  An acknowledgment that sometimes government has to step in.  Social Security.  Medicare.  Medicaid.   Monopolies can stifle competition. 

When any efforts to help people in need attacked; when we can't have civil debate, that's the worst thing. Great line, I should get the exact quote. 

Update, here is the exact wording of this passage which reads so true (from here):

And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

"We did not come here to fear the future, we came here to shape it."  Great line.*   I still believe we can ....  That is our calling...  That is our character.

The strength of Obama's speech was that he did not make it make it mainly about cutting costs.  (I'm listening to the Republican response, and that's their main point).

Obama delivered a speech that was largely about values.  Obama presented an expanded vision of American values; it includes concern for others, it affirms a constructive role for government in protecting the weak and ensuring fairness.  Obama explained that this tradition is as much a part of American heritage as free enterprise and individualism. By aligning his health care initiative with American values, Obama may have successfully shifted the discussion tonight from one that had been mainly about people's fears to one centered on peoples' hopes and aspirations.  Obama was also correct to warn the country about the dangers of allowing intolerance and negativity to poison the debate.  Although we don't know what will come of this approach, it matters that Obama has attempted to re-frame the discussion.

Some past posts about the US health care debate:

• When boredom is healthy 
  
• Who still trusts Obama?
• Barbarians worthy of a yawn
• What needs reform even more than health care?
• Is the United States a democracy?
• Seriously, who cares about bipartisanship?
  

___
*  "We did not come here to fear the future, we came here to shape it." Others have commented on this line as well, and it may give rise to yet another right-wing conspiracy theory about Obama. "Glenn Beck [outrageous Fox News commentator] will love this" noted BBC's Mark Mandell referring to the line in his own live-blog.  Ali Eteraz of True Slant explains the Karl Marx reference:

  ... to me, at the end of his healthcare speech, Obama just evoked one of the most famous of Karl Marx’s phrases. . . . Sayeth Marx in Theses on Feurebach: 'The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.'  Again, not equating Obama with socialism — that would be foolish — but the linguistic formulation is similar, especially because when Obama verbalized those two sentences he said them as if there were a semi-colon between them, not a period.   

As you can see from my own jot, I heard it with a comma.  Nevertheless, the Obama line does not strike me as sounding particularly similar to the Marx quotation.  Of course,  if it's possible to spin it that "Obama was channeling Karl Marx," someone at Fox News is sure to run with it.  (Speaking of which, I just watched Hannity of Fox News say to a guest on his program: "What do you think about the fact Obama called insurance company CEOs 'bad people' in his speech?"  Actually, Obama said the exact opposite:  "Executives don't do this because they are bad people, they do it because it is profitable.")

Update: In his July 4th radio address the president said, "We are not a people who fear the future. We are a people who make it."

Who is the real Barack Obama?

McCain calls out to the crowd, "Who is the real Barack Obama?"

"Terrorist!" replies a man in the crowd. (video)

That this outburst occurred on Monday should come as no surprise. It is the answer that the McCain campaign elicits by way of its latest smearing of Obama.

On Monday, Sarah Palin drew attention to Obama's acquaintance with a 1960s radical, suggesting Obama's political career started in a terrorists' living room. This is what happened at that Palin rally on Monday:

“Now it turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers,” Palin said.

“Boooo!” said the crowd.

“And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, ‘launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,’” she continued.

“Boooo!” the crowd repeated.

“Kill him!” proposed one man in the audience.

Also on Monday a sheriff in Florida used Barack Obama’s middle name "Hussein" -- snarling it -- when introducing Sarah Palin to a crowd.

The recent reactions of McCain supporters point to where this kind of electioneering quickly leads. And it is not a pretty place.

McCain has already provided some indication of the depth of his contempt for Obama. For example, McCain refused to look at Obama even once during the debate. McCain has leveled the accusation that Obama's opposition to the surge in Iraq was a politically motivated stunt. The venom of McCain's language has been matched by his running mate's contemptuous sneers when this topic comes up. When the campaign channels demeaning sentiments into a smear campaign, the result was described as an appeal to racism Monday by Douglas K. Daniels of Associated Press:

Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?

In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.

Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as "not like us" is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.

Whereas the attacks will appeal to American racists, when you take into account the sum of the various smear tactics, overall the effect -- if not the planned intent -- of the strategy is the dehumanization of Obama. As recently as September, McCain commercials portrayed Obama as a pervert.

A large number of right wing fanatics are convinced Obama is a Muslim. Outrageous theories about the candidate are widely shared. McCain and Palin inflame the twisted ideas of the most unbalanced and ignorant of their supporters through their new choice of strategy. When McCain insists on launching attacks against Obama "the man" -- rather than Obama "the candidate" -- McCain and Palin feed the dangerous element in right wing American politics. This is not speculation. Hear that supporter cry out "terrorist." It is happening now.

Viewed within this context, it should not come as a surprise that on Monday, the McCain-Palin campaign announced that reporters would no longer be permitted to talk to their supporters at rallies. With a new more vicious effort to smear Obama underway, their supporters are responding in kind.

They play with fire.

__
Graphic: the Chinese ideograph for "fire."
Photo: by Jotman. I took this photo of Obama's so-called "madrasah" on a trip to Jakarta, Indonesia. See this post for my first-hand investigation of the allegation.
Update: WaPo reports, "Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, 'Sit down, boy."

Obama's new mantra: "Drill baby, drill"

UPDATED

Is the most memorable Republican campaign slogan from 2008 -- one of Sarah Palin's signature lines -- about to become Obama Administration policy?

It would seem so.   Many who rejected "drilling" as a simple-minded, short-term solution to America's energy situation voted for Obama and the Democrats.  Today the NY Times reports:

The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday....  the sheer breadth of the offshore drilling decision will take some of his supporters aback. 

Obama calculates that his recent give-away to the insurance industry in the guise of health-care reform has won the White House sufficient political capital to capture some additional campaign financing from the oil industry.   The president is walking on thin ice.

Obama has not secured any kind of carbon trading scheme.  Neither drilling nor tossing a few billion into nuclear power is any kind of substitute for a national energy policy.*  It is not that any offshore drilling is necessarily a bad idea, but in the absence of serious progress on the issues that Obama got elected for, on behalf of constituencies that campaigned for him, the drilling proposal will not merely be received as another slap in the face.   This time the anger may boil over.
__
* Obama allocated $8 billion for nuclear power. The same figure -- a pittance any way you look at it -- that went towards passenger rail.   

Update:  What bothers me most about this announcement is that it appears to be yet another example of Obama negotiating against-- what is supposed to be -- his own side.   In return for this preemptive "concession" to the oil lobby, what has Obama won for the environmental movement?  

The decision also further undermines Obama's claim to stand for anything.    During the campaign in 2008, Obama made strong and compelling statements against offshore drilling.  Have any of the facts that informed his reasoned critique of offshore drilling changed?  

Here's Obama explaining his opposition to offshore drilling in June 2008:



Here's Obama describing his support for offshore drilling today:



In 2008 Obama offered voters his reasons for opposing drilling. In 2010 all the president provides are platitudes. Obama owes it to the public to explain why his previous reasoning on the issue is no longer valid.

Did Obama oil spill speech reveal hidden White House energy agenda?

Last night, as more oily goo descended on the beaches of the Gulf Coast of the United States, the president announced his willingness to entertain various modest initiatives from same people who strongly advocated increased drilling just two months ago.  Rather than use a major televised energy speech from the oval office to rouse Americans to embrace decisive action on pollution, climate change, and US dependence on fossil fuels, Obama declared his willingness to compromise with the naysayers.  Sound incredible?

Consider what the president actually told Americans last night.  Reading Obama's own words, it certainly sounded to me as if the president has proposed taking a step back from pursuing truly meaningful action on energy and climate change.   I thought this passage of Obama's speech was particularly troubling:

When I was a candidate for this office, I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence. Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill - a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America's businesses. 

Now, there are costs associated with this transition. And some believe we can't afford those costs right now. I say we can't afford not to change how we produce and use energy - because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.

So I am happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party - as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. Some have suggested raising efficiency standards in our buildings like we did in our cars and trucks. Some believe we should set standards to ensure that more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power. Others wonder why the energy industry only spends a fraction of what the high-tech industry does on research and development - and want to rapidly boost our investments in such research and development.

All of these approaches have merit, and deserve a fear hearing in the months ahead. But the one approach I will not accept is inaction.

"Some believe we can't afford those costs now."  Does Obama disagree?   He certainly does not take the opportunity to entirely dismiss this perspective, which is shared by opponents of energy reform.   Note that none of the examples of "other ideas and approaches" -- that Obama is open to hearing about -- represent  sufficient or credible alternatives to either a carbon tax or a serious carbon trading scheme.  Tinkering with the problem of pollution and carbon emissions through rebates, efficiency standards, and research grants is  insufficient.  We desperately need an economy in which market pricing rewards clean energy use.

Only by taxing pollution can market forces be efficiently harnessed in support of clean energy development.   Properly executed,  revenues from a carbon tax could subsidize the cost associated with the transformation to a clean energy economy.   As Royal Dutch Shell Chairman Jorma Ollila told the IPI World Congress in Helsinki last June, "Firstly, we need a cap and trade system [essentially a carbon tax] that a puts a cost on emissions, that credibly commits us to a path of energy reductions by creating incentives to cut emissions."
 
Although Obama wants "action," Obama has no plan of his own -- no apparent convictions of his own -- concerning the most pressing crisis of the day.  He says he wants to see something done.   But he has no apparent notion as to what that something should look like.  The fact that Obama did not push for a carbon tax, a gasoline tax, or a carbon trading plan last night was surely significant.

Yet, let's not be fooled into thinking last night's speech was some kind of "overlooked opportunity."  It was a missed opportunity alright, but I would argue that the White House knew what it wanted -- and how to get it.

Obama's position on energy and climate change is reminiscent of his negotiating tactic during the  health care debate.   Back then, Obama announced at the onset that the "public option" -- generally accepted as the best means of controlling spiraling costs short of a Canadian-style single payer system-- was merely "on the table."  From early on Obama made it clear that the public option was negotiable.

Sure enough, it was negotiated away. 

Similarly, last night, rather than seizing the historic moment, Obama let it be known that he is willing to compromise with "some [who] believe we can't afford those costs right now."    From my reading of Obama's statement, he would be willing to substitute "a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill" -- one that by definition must include either a carbon trading scheme or carbon tax -- for an array of industry-targeted benchmarks, incentives, and research subsidies.

Think about that for a moment.  Effectively, Obama announced last night that a carbon trading mechanism or carbon tax is negotiable.  If that's what just happened, it's a major development.  Just as the public option was an ideal way to control costs on behalf of taxpayers and consumers, a carbon tax -- or  carbon trading mechanism -- in which proceeds of a tax or trade are returned to consumers is an ideal way to cut greenhouse emissions while helping citizens pay for the cost of the transition to clean energy. 

It's déjà vu.  We saw this all before with respect to the healthcare bill. Obama's comprising stance was critical to shepherding a bill through Congress that did not anger the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.  We saw it early in 2009 with respect to Obama's position on legislation that might have protected mortgage holders from asset siezure by the banks. I think it's no mystery how the Obama Administration juggles public pressure for political change with the interests of powerful corporate donors.  I think it's no accident that this president never quite seems to "seize the moment" in a crisis.   I strongly suspect the administration wants to hold out for some kind of compromise energy bill: a bill that will have consumers and taxpayers subsidizing the profits of big energy companies.

Update:  See my next post concerning questions raised in this post.

October Surpirse for 2008: war with Iran

If it is not stopped by September or October of 2008, it will be too late; Iran will have crossed the threshold to the last lap of its military program. Israeli intelligence and its armed forces have three months to finish the job which has long been in preparation.

- Debka (Israel), July 12, 2008

Despite Obama's recent surge in the polls, the same polls continue to report that significantly more Americans trust McCain in the "Commander in Chief" capacity than Obama.* Clearly, McCain is most likely to win the election is if he can remind voters that he is the preferable Commander in Chief during wartime.

I suspect nothing short of war is likely swing the election for McCain. Which brings us to the October surprise.

October Surprise
Imagine that the news media reports that has Iran just shot down a US plane or sunk a US naval vessel. Realize that these actions will likely be claimed to have occurred in retaliation for a US-backed Israeli strike against nuclear facilities in Iran. Think how the McCain campaign will respond.

1. If McCain has not already dumped Palin, he will quickly replace her with someone with serious foreign policy credentials -- perhaps a retired general.
   
2. McCain will make hawkish pronouncements. McCain will immediately fly to Israel and the Persian Gulf. He will be photographed giving news conferences on an aircraft carrier while fighter jets take off. The country facing war, McCain will be in his element.
3. Obama, still campaigning back in the US, will make statements supportive of US troops. Although Obama will understand that the whole thing is a probably a set-up, he will be unable to prove that it is. Obama will likely feel he has no choice but to go along with the whole thing. Moreover, Obama's attempts to match McCain's hawkish pronouncements are likely to sound inauthentic.
4. Some of Obama's most outspoken supporters will lead anti-war protests. Republican campaign strategists will claim that Obama is allied with "anti-Americans," "the unpatriotic," and "traitors" on the far left. Republicans will demand Obama repudiate the demonstrators. When Obama refuses to distance himself from critics of the looming war, campaign strategists will label Obama "weak on national security," "not Commander-in-Chief material" etc.
5. Frightened Americans vote into office the candidate they most trust as Commander in Chief.
   

___
* "When it comes to the all-important Commander-in-Chief test, a majority of Americans still do not believe Obama would be a good Commander-in-Chief. The poll found McCain leading Obama on who would make a good Commander-in-Chief of the military, with 73 percent of Americans saying McCain would do a good job, while just 46 percent said Obama would make a good Commander-in-Chief." (ABC News, September 30, 2008)
Note: Other Israeli estimates give a broader window of time, a NY Times Op/Ed predicted a strike as late as January, just before the next president takes office. The writer's assumption was that the present White House would be more supportive of such a strike than Obama's. It seems equally clear that with McCain installed in the White House, Bush and his friends can live four more years without having to worry much about the prospect of war crimes trials, and their supporters want McCain. They might say to Israeli: it's October or never.

Obama's fateful choice

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—   
I took the one less traveled by,   
And that has made all the difference.
- Robert Frost

No sooner did the economy show signs of starting to recover from the Great Recession than President Obama came to a fork in the woods where two roads diverged. The sign by the well-trodden path to his right read "Austerity." The sign by the overgrown trail to his left read, "Invest in Our Future."  Obama chose the path on the right.  The choice was made months ago, and it was a fateful decision.

The path Obama selected had been hacked out of the forest by Herbert Hoover's administration; it's the path that led to the Great Depression of the 1930s.  Recently the path has been popularized by conservatives and their allies in the corporate  media.   It's the path championed by Sarah Palin, Wall Street banks, FoxNews, network news commentators and newspaper columnists, and every presidential contender in the Republican Party.  The path leads to continued high unemployment and low wages as far as anyone who understands the basic principles of economics can see.   Obama chose the path of continued high unemployment.

At least 7% of America's assets is up for grabs

But the path on the right is not bad for everyone.  The catch is that you have to have a lot of money saved up to make the journey worthwhile. The super rich are crazy about the path, because it's deflationary.  By further reducing demand, it makes things cheaper to buy.  The effect of traveling it makes investment dollars go farther.  The path makes it more affordable for the rich to buy up the property, meager stock portfolios, and other assets of the unemployed and struggling worker.  As you can see by the red slice in the chart at right, at least seven percent of the country's total wealth will be up for grabs.   

Republicans may have built the road, but Obama claims he's a better driver.   In the interest of "fairness," the president tells us he will close some loopholes in the tax code, raise some taxes.  It's true this will help to pay for the journey. But as long as Obama leads the country down Austerity Road, raising taxes on the rich won't change the destination.  At best, an overall decrease in government spending that includes a tax increase will spare some jobs.   It means Obama won't need to travel so far down Austerity Road to achieve a given level of deficit reduction.  It doesn't mean the unemployment level will subside. 

In a year, some brilliant pundit will look at Obama's dismal poll numbers and say "it's the high unemployment stupid." Because by 2012 the jobs situation is unlikely to have improved.  It could be worse -- even a lot worse.   Obama won't be able to claim to have been dragged kicking and screaming down the wrong road.   The crux of Obama's problem is that no matter how far Obama travels down the "slash spending" road, he'll be blamed for not having traveled it far enough.   However far he agrees to go, they'll say he didn't go the distance.    For example, supposing Obama negotiates a tax increase, this fact will later be used against him. "Your tax increases slowed our journey down Austerity Road," his Republican opponent will say.  To the typical under-informed voter, the attack will seem reasonable, as Obama approved the destination and route.

Obama took the road well-traveled.  By election time, that will have made all the difference.  

Obama's comments on G20 protesters in Pittsburgh

I thought Obama's remarks about the protests in Pittsburgh were misplaced.  According to a Fox News live-blog of the news conference in Pittsburgh Obama said:

If you've looked at any of the other summits that have taken place-- in London, there were hundreds of thousands on the streets. Mayor and county executive deserve credit for managing a very tranquil summit. Many protests are addressed generically at capitalism. One of great things about the US is you can speak your mind, but I disagree free market is source of all ills. If they'd paid attention to what was going on inside, they would have heard strong recognition that it's important to make sure the market is working for ordinary people and doesn't cause the kinds of crises we had.

I just watched the news conference on CNN, and that's a fair summary of what Obama said in response to a question. (UPDATE: I posted the full transcript of the exchange here).  The journalist had referred to protesters as people who "oppose the summit" -- so the journalist had set up a straw man. Obama took the bait, and spoke of the protesters as if they were simply "opposed to capitalism."   He didn't call the protesters "pinko commies," but he might as well have.  "If they'd paid attention to what was going on inside..."  Could Obama have come up with a line that sounded any more arrogant than that if he tried?

I don't think Obama gets it.   As much as anything, the anger of protesters is directed at the way capitalism has been mismanaged -- or rather not managed at all -- over the past several decades.  Obama ought to have acknowledged that in the aftermath of a global economic crisis, protesters have a lot to be concerned about. Obama might have said that citizens of the world need to be vocal in asking how well world leaders are managing the economic recovery, inquiring about the lack of any new financial industry regulations.  Had Obama given this kind of a thoughtful response, he would have sounded less like a representative of Singapore or the People's Republic of China, and more like an American president.

Recall President Clinton's remarks in the aftermath of the massive Seattle WTO meeting protests of 1999:

"Those who heard a wake-up call in Seattle got the right message," he said. "I do not agree with those who view with contempt these new forces seeking to be heard in the global dialogue."

Today, at least to my ears, Obama came across as one of those who views "with contempt these new forces seeking to be heard in the global dialogue." The president's brazen insensitivity shocked me. Consider the fact that the protesters in Pittsburgh must have included many of the same young people who worked tirelessly throughout 2008 to get Obama elected in the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania.

Crucially, Obama appears to have lost touch with the level of frustration -- indeed, anger -- people are feeling with the economic system.  Even as businesses move into a period of relative recovery, unemployment remains perilously high, and continues to worsen in most states. 
____
You might want to check out this post: First use of sonic weapons on American citizens
Photo credit:  I took the above photo which shows Obama at the G20 in  London.

Irony or strategy?

3 UPDATES (which tell the story)

Yesterday I blogged:

Perhaps the hope is that awarding Obama the prize now will encourage Obama to take a step back from the precipice; that it might alert this young president not to continue his steady drift toward the Dark Side.

If so, the prize does not come a moment too soon.  The Obama presidency may be only a few weeks away from being inexorably squandered.   A decision on General Stanley McChrystal's proposal to escalate the war in Afghanistan looms.  The US seems to be standing in the way of progress at the Bangkok Climate Change Talks. 

Naomi Klein, interviewed from Bangkok for Democracy Now, also picked up on the irony of Obama winning the prize in view of the American negotiating position at the Bangkok Talks:

....one of the things that the Obama administration is being rewarded for with this prize or what Barack Obama is personally being rewarded for in this prize is his supposed breakthroughs on international relations. What we’re actually seeing, as we speak, in Bangkok—this is the final day of two weeks of climate negotiations—has been extraordinarily destructive behavior on the part of the United States government, on the part of the Obama administration, absolutely derailing the climate negotiations in the lead-up to Copenhagen. Developing countries are absolutely shocked by what US climate negotiators have done. They have gone into these talks saying, you know, “We’re back. We want to reengage with the world.” What they’ve actually done is made a series of demands that would destroy the Kyoto Protocol and the binding emission architecture that was set up under Kyoto. So, to reward the Nobel Prize in the context of destroying the climate, where the US is destroying the climate negotiations, or threatening to, to me, is just shocking.

Have any mainstream media commentators taken any notice of this remarkable coincidence?  Not to my knowledge. For more on the talks, see my post: In Bangkok US talks "green eggs and ham"

UPDATE 1
Earlier in the week, shortly before five Norwegian parliamentarians would award Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, Norway stepped up the ante at the Bangkok Climate Change Talks.  On Oct. 8, Oxfam reported in a media release from Bangkok:, "“Today, Norway has entered this debate and set a target of 40 per cent below 1990 levels, so we know what leadership looks like.” 

A Huffington Post story explains why the Norwegian initiative at the Bangkok talks matters:

Because Norway is the first developed nation to make any solid commitment on this front and it has the potential to break through a major impasse. Up until this point developed nations - like the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, France and Japan - have been unwilling to bring anything to the table on this point.

This announcement from Norway, a major petroleum producing country, testifies that the Norwegians take climate change question extremely seriously.

UPDATE 2
On Friday, after the Bangkok Climate Talks had  ended in an atmosphere of recrimination, The Guardian reported:

Global climate change talks came to an end in Bangkok today in an atmosphere of distrust and recrimination, with the rift between rich and poor countries seemingly wider than ever. After two weeks of negotiations there have been no breakthroughs on big issues such as money or emissions cuts.

With just five days of negotiating time now left before the concluding talks in Copenhagen in December, delegates said it appeared a weak deal was the most likely outcome, and no deal at all was a possibility.

However, President Obama's expected visit to Oslo to receive the Nobel peace prize in the middle of the climate talks raised hopes that he would make the short journey to Copenhagen to galvanise governments.

"World leadership is now vital if the talks are not to fail completely. It is inconceivable that Obama could now ignore the climate change talks," said one diplomat.

One striking connection between the Copenhagen Climate Conference and Obama's Nobel Prize Award concerns the calendar:

• Nobel Peace Prize award ceremonies in Oslo: Dec. 10, 2009
• Copenhagen Climate Change Conference: Dec. 7-18.

Obama's Nobel Prize would seem to raise the expectations for the United States at Copenhagen. Might the decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama have been a strategic last-ditch attempt to, in effect, corner the Obama Administration?   Is it conceivable -- as per my suspicion  yesterday -- that the Norwegians on the prize committee were not exhibiting Eurobamania, but had actually thought this one through -- -strategically?  

UPDATE 3 
If you were to get all your news from mainstream US media, it would be hard to comprehend the extent to which Europeans, Scandinavians in particular, consider climate change to be the issue of our times.

I would venture to say that when Americans hear the words "Nobel Peace Prize" they think about their country's wars.  But my hunch is that this year in particular, the Norwegians would have been thinking about their Peace Prize in terms of stopping climate change.  Copenhagen is a big deal. To understand why Obama got the prize, it makes sense to consider Norway's position on the climate change question.

Why Obama's offer to Egypt isn't good enough

What did Obama say about Egypt in his Middle East speech?  Here's an excerpt from the full text of Obama's speech: 

After all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets. The tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table and providing for a family. Too many in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, and perhaps the hope that their luck will change. Throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job. Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from them.

The greatest untapped resource in the Middle East and North Africa is the talent of its people. In the recent protests, we see that talent on display, as people harness technology to move the world. It’s no coincidence that one of the leaders of Tahrir Square was an executive for Google. That energy now needs to be channeled, in country after country, so that economic growth can solidify the accomplishments of the street. Just as democratic revolutions can be triggered by a lack of individual opportunity, successful democratic transitions depend upon an expansion of growth and broad-based prosperity.

This is all true, and Obama has said it well.  But the big question is how the outside world can help these economies.  How can these countries put millions of unemployed youth to work?   What is Obama offering to do for them?  And can it work?  Obama continued:

Drawing from what we’ve learned around the world, we think it’s important to focus on trade, not just aid; and investment, not just assistance. The goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness; the reigns of commerce pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for the young. America’s support for democracy will therefore be based on ensuring financial stability; promoting reform; and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global economy – starting with Tunisia and Egypt.

Obama talks about the need for Egypt to end "protectionism," yet does not offer to eliminate US cotton subsidies.   Obama does not mention that under Hosni Mubarak, Egypt liberalized its markets substantially (see this post) yet widespread economic misery persists.   Obama continued: 

First, we have asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week’s G-8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt. Together, we must help them recover from the disruption of their democratic upheaval, and support the governments that will be elected later this year. And we are urging other countries to help Egypt and Tunisia meet its near-term financial needs.

Second, we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past. So we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship. We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation. And we will help newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen.

Third, we are working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt. These will be modeled on funds that supported the transitions in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. OPIC will soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the region. And we will work with allies to refocus the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development so that it provides the same support for democratic transitions and economic modernization in the Middle East and North Africa as it has in Europe.

Fourth, the United States will launch a comprehensive Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa. If you take out oil exports, this region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same amount as Switzerland. So we will work with the EU to facilitate more trade within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with U.S. and European markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade arrangement. Just as EU membership served as an incentive for reform in Europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.

Spoken like a Republican:  Obama speaks of "trade liberalization" as if it is the tried and proven panacea for economies of the developing world.   Yet how well has that worked out for Iraq so far?   Many of the most successful industries in today's economic powerhouses were nurtured on protectionist trade policies. Think South Korea or Japan.  Obama continued:

Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress – the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business; the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect. We will help governments meet international obligations, and invest efforts anti-corruption; by working with parliamentarians who are developing reforms, and activists who use technology to hold government accountable.

Egytians need to examine the details before accepting any foreign offers of economic assistance.  Are they sincere?  Or are they just a ploy to get Egypt to open-up its market to foreign-branded goods and services?  What's good for US-based multinationals (Monsanto, Pfizer, GE, etc.) or Apple Computer and its Chinese factory workers is not necessarily what's best for the people of Egypt.

Governments in the Middle East face the same problem that confronts Barack Obama at home:  how to create jobs for millions of people -- especially young people.  Given that the economic system of the United States, its political leadership, its most vocal ideologues, and even its media have failed to address America's own unemployment crisis, Egyptians should be careful about taking economic advice from Americans. 

* * * * *

In post-Mubarak Egypt, protesters are often beaten by thugs.

There's another thing Obama ought to have said but did not.  Obama should have promised that the US would hold the leadership of the Egyptian Army accountable for their actions during Egypt's transition to democracy.  Obama should have said that attacks against peaceful protesters by thugs working in conjunction with soldiers are reprehensible, and that torturing protesters, virginity-testing them, and subjecting them to military trials is unacceptable.   Obama should have made clear that future US military assistance to Egypt's army will contingent upon its adherence to basic principles of human rights and the rule of law. 

Obama and the summer of little hope

Too little to show for all that hope?  (Photo by Jotman shows Obama at the G20) 

Regardless of what some of his brainwashed opponents on the right say, the election of Barack Obama did not mark the beginning of any revolution -- socialist or otherwise.  Although Obama has taken the rough edges off the George W. Bush view of the world, the policies are not markedly different.  On issue after issue, the country's trajectory has scarcely budged an inch.  Offshore drilling?  Obama supported it -- at least until the spill (more on that bellow).  Escalate the war in Afghanistan?  Obama did that.  Close Guantanamo?  Obama dithers about where to locate the replica.   Reform education?   Obama merely recycled NCLB.  Stem the country's declining infrastructure?  Eight billion for rail won't cut it.  Curtail the influence of corporate lobbyists?  Not a chance.   And then there's the economy.