Progressive, nee Liberal

Greg Mankiw features a cartoon mocking liberals who have rebranded themselves 'progressives.' Though funny, the criticism is unfair. All should welcome the switch in terminology simply to undo the semantic perversion of making liberalism synonymous with "big government"," thus distorting the word 'liberal' from its original 18th-century meaning.

Hillary Clinton explains her preference for 'progressive' in a response to a question during the CNN/YouTube debate:

QUESTION:

Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word "liberal?"

And would you use this word to describe yourself?

Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.

Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.

I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.

So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that's the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.

Clinton's explanation is entirely correct. From its historical meaning, someone such as Greg Mankiw (who in policy debates consistently supports more "freedom of choice" irrespective of inequality in outcomes) is more 'liberal' than Hillary Clinton.

So let those left-of-center speak with historical precision by identifying as progressives. Now, we just need to correct the folly (more pronounced in the U.S. than in Europe) of describing free trade, open capital flows, deregulation, etc. as "neoconservative" policies when - by removing barriers to individual enterprise - they are in fact "neoliberal."

If the precise use of language in politics seems irrelevant to you... William Safire's Political Dictionary offers 930 pages (!) of reasons to think otherwise.

Atrocities of Saudi Justice.... and Weak U.S. Response

This article exposes the inhumanity of Saudi Arabia's Wahabbi-based legal system. Not only do the courts sentence a rape victim to lashings - evidently the young woman's crime was being alone in a car with a man unrelated to her - but on appeal the court doubles its punishment! How dare this woman have the temerity to protest her punishment for being raped.

With Wolf Blitzer's questions in last night's Democratic debate about balancing national security with human rights, nowhere is America's selling out of human rights more egregious than in Saudi Arabia. Damn our dependence on Saudi oil! Hillary Clinton famously argued in her 1995 U.N. Beijing address that protecting women's rights is inseparable from protecting human rights; John Edwards now frequently makes the same argument. What will really impress me is when one of these candidates uses the debate platform to blast our shameful alliance with Saudi Arabia, and commits herself to policies that will enable us to sever this alliance with minimal economic harm. Tom Friedman's $1-a-gallon 'patriot tax' on gasoline would be a decent place to start.

If a gas tax is politically impossible, at least use the bully pulpit to call international attention to the horrors of Saudi justice. Perhaps persuade the Europeans to join us in telling the Saudis that neither Boeing nor Airbus will sell aircrafts to Saudi Arabia until it liberalizes its penal code - at the very least ending lashings for rape victims. This probably seems wishful thinking to self-proclaimed 'realists'. but I think it's worth a shot. As DKos argues today, promoting human rights abroad bolsters rather than undermines America's long-term national security.

Economic Advisers to the '08 Candidates

NYT's Louis Uchitelle details to whom the candidates are turning for economic advice. Most of the names will be familiar: Rubin, Sperling, Lindsay. To the econ majors among you eager to know whom your textbook authors are supporting, we find out that Harvard's Greg Mankiw advises Mitt Romney, while David and Christina Romer of UC Berkeley speak exclusively to Barack Obama (take note Reedies who have survived Macro Theory. Your beloved Romer Lounge resides firmly in the Obama camp).

Uchitelle's most notable (if unsurprising) finding is that most liberal professional economists are skeptical of the increasingly populist Edwards campaign. Despite admiration for certain of Edwards' stances (such as his vocal support for closing the hedge-fund/private equity tax loophole), the absence of credentialed academics among Edwards' circle troubles me. He evidently consults on economic matters chiefly with Leo J. Hindery, a cable-television entrpreneur turned private equity guy. More disturbing, Edwards also listens to Clyde V. Prestowitz of the Economic Strategy Institute, whose views on international trade Paul Krugman sharply criticized over a decade ago.

The Congressional battle over the Peru free trade agreement once again exposed the deep rifts over economic policy within the Democratic party. To mediate these disputes, we need a President who gets advice from the best the economics profession has to offer. At least in his circle of advisers for the primaries, Edwards is failing that test.

Though I'm too lazy the summarize the entire argument, Edwards' choice of Hindery and Prestowitz gives new salience to Paul Krugman's famous distinction between professional economists and what he terms "policy entrepreneurs" (e.g. Arthur Laffer, John Kenneth Galbraith, Robert Reich, Lester Thurow). Usually without academic training, policy entrepreneurs address contemporary economic problems for a general audience, but without the theoretical or empirical rigor of professional economists. They thus end up peddling simplistic solutions (tax cuts always good; government should intervene more to protect "high-value added" industries) to complex problems. For Krugman's classic formulation of the issue, see pages 10-15 of Peddling Prosperity.

For anyone wondering what economists actually say to political candidates seeking their counsel, see Alan Blinder's interview with Charlie Rose (Uchitelle lists Blinder as yet unaffiliated, though in the interview he mentions talking to Obama).

Hillary the Healer?

I attended the Hillary Clinton rally at Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem this past Saturday. All the New York Democratic bigwigs were there, but fortunately I missed all of their speeches and arrived just in time to catch the President's introduction of Hillary. His introduction was vintage Bill Clinton, particularly the parts where he rhapsodized about how promoting alternative energy sources would not just reduce carbon emissions and dependence on Arab autocracies, but also create jobs immune to outsourcing, since "somebody's gotta go put up those wind mills and solar panels, and that kinda work can't be done from China or India." Hardly a slam-dunk in itself, but an interesting observation.

The most noteworthy part of Bill's stump speech, however, is that he touts Hillary as the candidate most likely to enact needed reforms because she will be best able to achieve compromise with Republicans. The need for compromise is uncontroversial; unless the Democrats find 60 seats in the Senate (a remote possibility), they will need Republican support to pass anything beyond a budget. The striking part is that Hillary is now the candidate who will best be able to reach across party lines. For anyone familiar with the depths of conservative hatred for Hillary (or for anyone who has watched five minutes or more of Fox News), the idea of Hillary as the most bipartisan of Democratic candidates requires some reflection to accept.

Not that Bill is necessarily wrong. Hillary by all accounts has won grudging respect from conservatives in the senate, probably because of her hawkish foreign policy stances (Iraq, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard terrorist Resolution) and support for select "moral values" resolutions (namely federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case). She has also largely dropped the self-righteous rhetoric that distinguished her early public profile, most notably in the 1993 health care fight. But being a Senator is different from being President; facing a President Hillary Clinton, it seems to me the Republican strategy would be to attack mercilessly and not concede an inch.

Perhaps Hillary could engender fervid opposition and still find a way to work with Congressional Republicans. As Trent Lott recounts in his memoir, after the 1995 government shutdown Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress produced a shocking number of legislative compromises considering how viciously Limbaugh and co. were attacking Clinton in public (I don't share Lott's enthusiasm for all of the laws passed). Maybe Hillary could repeat this feat. But I'm not yet quite ready to rule out the possibility that someone without Hillary's baggage would have an easy time crossing party lines. To me Hillary is undoubtedly qualified, but her decision to tout her bipartisan credentials in particular still strikes me as a bit peculiar and premature.

As for Hillary's speech, it was solid but unremarkable. Iraq, education, housing, healthcare - the expected fare. Following Bill Clinton is not an easy task, but she sounds convincing enough and I would certainly vote for her over any Republican.

For you non-New Yorkers, the location of the rally held special importance because of Abyssinian's hallowed place in Harlem history. Consider Big L's lines from the 95 Stretch Armstrong Freestyle:

And every time a mack eleven bucks/ I'm killing at least seven ducks/I never was a follower of Reverend Butts.

Here Big L is referring to Calvin O. Butts, Reverend of Abyssinian Baptist. Big L's home block of "139 and Lenox" is about two streets away from the church. Just to put the event in context.

Argentine First Lady Becomes President. - a Peek into America's Future?

Supporters of Hillary Clinton may take heart from the recent Presidential election in Argentina, where voters have elected current senator and first lady Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner to succeed her husband Nestor as President. Will American voters in 2008 follow the lead of their Argentine brethren in selecting a first-lady to be President?

In both Argentina and America, any democrat (small d) ought to greet the election of a President's wife with mixed emotions. A woman President represents the ascendancy of a historically disenfranchised minority into the nation's highest office, and this shows welcome success in dismantling unjust barriers to political participation. In one of her most effective anecdotes, Hillary Clinton describes meeting 95 year old women who proudly recount that "they were born before women could vote, and now they'll live to see a woman President."

On the other hand, that free and competitive elections simply produce a transfer of power from one spouse to another (either immediately or with a lag) suggests dynastic dominance of a nation's political system. To the extent that dynastic succession centralizes political power along blood lines, the cause of popular sovereignty is erosion. Americans' attitudes toward the political dynasties which dot our nation's history - slightly embarrassed acknowledgment rather than celebration of the Adamses, the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, the Bushes, and now perhaps the Clintons - reflects unease over this erosion. I have been somewhat surprised at Barack Obama's reluctance to attack Senator Clinton by framing dynasties as damaging to democracy. If I were him, I would simply repeat George Will's observation that "change in America is not represented by Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton."

Lest I be accused of sexism in writing on the Argentine-American parallel, let me note that the men in question also share an interesting similarity. Both Bill Clinton and Nestor Kirchner entered office confronting by major challenges of national indebtedness. In Clinton's case, the tax cuts and spending increases of the Reagan years had created large federal budget deficits and a skyrocketing national debt. Clinton's first major policy initiative was a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts known as the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act (predictably pilloried by Republicans as "the largest tax increase in history); implementation of this legislation contributed mightily to restoring fiscal soundness in America (alas, at least temporarily).

Ten years later, President Kirchner entered office to a fiscal situation far more dire than the one Clinton had faced in 1993. Argentina was burdened with $178 billion in public debt and largely unable to access international capital markets. In an act of considerable courage, Kirchner refused to adopt policies of budget austerity prescribed by the IMF and insisted that the IMF as well as private creditors must agree to a restructuring and rescheduling of debt payments if they hoped to be repaid any of the $93 billion in loans that Argentina had defaulted on in 2001. Though at the time many commentators warned that Kirchner's defiance would consign Argentina to economic ruin, his government in fact succeeded in persuading private creditors to accept repayment on terms far more lenient to Argentina. In 2005 Kirchner canceled completely Argentine repayments to the IMF. Kirchner's willingness to negotiate firmly with the IMF saved his country billions in loan payments, and was just on account of the IMF's bad policy advice in insisting that Argentina continue peso-dollar convertibility (a fixed exchange rate) even at the cost of crippling Argentina's export industries, mandating cuts in sorely needed social programs, and precluding a currency devaluation that could have averted a default and the ensuing disruptions. Since the IMF was partly to blame for Argentina's troubles, Kirchner was right to force the IMF to sacrifice some repayment in the interest of Argentine welfare.

Though the situations differed in severity and complexity, both Clinton and Kirchner responded to their nation's political distress with far-sightedness and courage. Clinton raised on the wealthy while also cutting spending, in the process gaining enemies on both the left and right. Kirchner defied the orthodoxy of international finance and showed that a nation could endure the largest national default in financial history and, with the right policies in place, still enjoy strong economic recovery. The electability of both men's wives is due in no small part to the salutary consequences of their husband's fiscal prudence.

Lesson? Anyone President seeking for his wife to someday succeed him should strive to make his nation less indebted, rather than more. This, among other reasons, is why I don't expect to see a "Draft Laura Bush" campaign anytime soon.

Hillary in Harlem World

Got an automated call this afternoon inviting me to this event. Anyone wanna go? Always a chance Charlie Rangel will say something funny...

Debates Update

Michael Barone proposes letting Republicans and Democrats mix it up in the primaries with two-party debates. Since Republican debaters spend half their time attacking Hillary Clinton anyway, this is surely a good idea (at least once the early primaries weed out a few candidates). The combination of our new super-long election cycle plus legitimate political differences in this country makes for a weird dynamic - much policy debate, but confined within certain taken-for-granted boundaries (in the Dem debates every participant wants to leave Iraq, and the question is merely over the time and method; in the Republican debates everyone wants to get tough with Iran, and the question is only who will be most tough).

Since the next President will almost certainly not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and since the liberal/conservative and centrist wings of both parties often clash in any case, moving forward on the most important issues - Iraq, health care, detainees - will inevitably involve compromise. To find those compromises, we should start comparing the views of each side now, rather than waiting until basically two-thirds through the election cycle.

Put differently, I would much rather hear a debate between Republicans and Democrats over how much government should intervene in the health care market (and how we should pay for that intervention) than a debate between two Democrats over the role of mandates in securing universal coverage. I would rather hear John Edwards attack Republicans for preferring tax breaks for millionaires over coverage for 48 million uninsured than hear him attack Barack Obama for a plan that only achieves near-universal coverage. When Mitt Romney ludicrously proposes to "double Guantanamo", having Democrats present to respond will enliven the debate, whereas now John McCain simply seethes in silence.

There are some issues - e.g. abortion - in which even bipartisan debate will probably not change anyone's mind. But anyone with faith with progressive ideas should welcome clash with conservatives as early and often as possible. The case for raising taxes on the rich to fund universal health care, for engaging in diplomacy with hostile countries, and for respecting basic human rights of detainees is already persuasive to Democratic primary voters. Forcing these ideas to engage the conservative counter-punch early on can strengthen their appeal to independents and moderate Republicans as well.

Presidential Debates.... Not a Waste of Time After All

Everyone from George Will to Jon Stewart has taken to mocking the supposed excess of Presidential debates. The debates thus far have been far from perfect: the large number of candidates forces discussion of complex issues down to thirty-second sound bites, compromising intelligent discourse even more than in election cycles past. Organizing debates with fewer candidates might mitigate this problem, but this raises the inevitable difficulty of deciding fairly who will participate in each debate - and the specter of lesser-known candidates crying foul anytime a debate occurs without them (recall Kucinich's indignant response to the Clinton-Edwards private exchange over smaller debates).

Flawed as they are, the primary debates thus far been undeniably successful in helping citizens to get a better understanding of candidates. For those of us who do not live in Iowa or New Hampshire, and are not rich enough to attend fund-raising dinners, they represent one of the precious few changes to see candidates in action. This is especially true for dark-horse candidates - e.g. Mike Huckabee or Bill Richardson -and the free media exposure that comes through the debates can at least conceivably mitigate the phenomenon of requiring that people already be famous before they can be Presidential contenders.

More than mere familiarity, however, the practice of having competing candidates answer the same questions has drawn attention to substantive differences among the front-runners in each party. It was in response to a question during the August YouTube debate that Obama vowed to talk with leaders - of Syria, Iran, Venezuela, et al. - that the U.S. currently shuns; citing Cold War history, Obama criticized the notion that "the U.S. can punish or change hostile states simply by ignoring them." In response to the same question Hillary pounced on Obama as naive, refusing to commit to talk with leaders who would exploit her for propaganda purposes (specifically Ahmadinejad).

Whatever your position on the merits, the exchange revealed one of the first substantive foreign policy differences between Clinton and Obama (Hillary's vote to brand Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization has subsequently revealed another). The debates have also drawn attention to lesser policy differences, such as the disagreement between Edwards and Obama over whether a health care plan can achieve universal coverage without mandating that everyone purchase insurance.

Beyond highlighting policy differences, one learns a lot about a candidate's character by him to think on his feet. Thus, perhaps the most revealing moment of the debates thus far was Mitt Romney's answer to a question about whether the Constitution would oblige the President to seek Congressional authorization for a strategic attack on Iran's nuclear facilities (think Osirak).
Romney replied:

You sit down with your attorneys and tell you want you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress.

When pressed by Chris Matthews for a clarification, Romney once again insisted that he would "sit down with his attorneys." For a Presidential candidate to punt on a question of such import reveals a frightening lack of seriousness. Coupled with Romney's proposal to "double Guantanamo" (also given during a debate), the Iran answer further illustrated to me the danger of putting Romney in charge of U.S. armed forces.

In the interest of more policy clash and more glimpses into candidate thoughtfulness, I say - more debates! If more candidates can candidates can ape the humor of McCain's Woodstock quip, these things might really become worth watching.