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).

Gore and the Media

Jokingly linked to in my last post, Evgenia Peretz's Vanity Fair article actually deserves a serious read. It's a well-researched indictment of the anti-Gore bias that pervaded mainstream reporting throughout the 2000 election. The author singles out Kit Seelye of the Times for sloppy reporting that helped unfairly brand "GORE IS A LIAR" onto public consciousness. Seelye, as well as Maureen Dowd, is also faulted for uncritically promoting "honest frat boy versus arrogant untrustworthy geek" as the election's dominant narrative frame.

As a writer of opinion pieces, Dowd's disdain for Gore and seeming soft-spot for Bush are questionable as a matter of judgment but not evidence of journalistic incompetence (perhaps of bad taste though, given her gall in writing puff pieces about George W. during the campaign and then a few years later publishing Bushworld, whose premise is that she knew what the Bushes were about all along). The examples from Seelye's reporting are more troubling; that Seelye still covers politics for the Times (see her story on the Obama SNL skit) makes past errors in her reporting very relevant. Without intending to join the (mostly conservative) bloggers who exist solely to second-guess NYT writers (e.g. Krugman Truth Squad), I will be reading Seelye's stories extra-closely throughout this election (especially if Hillary gets the nomination and the right-wing echo chamber really begins to pound). One hopes they will not resemble her real-time web commentary on the second Presidential debate in 2004, when she largely ignored substantive clash to applaud various "Bushisms" ("he looked at me like my buzzer was up") and offer the following concluding observation: "Bush is charged-up and feisty; Kerry seems wordy."

The frustrating question of why American media in 2000 transformed a serious, far-sighted Vice-President (and future Nobel Peace Prize winner) into a gutless and mendacious hack remains far from answered. At least Evgenia Peretz has begun to compile the evidence.

Just to be clear, I don't revive the issue of Gore's 2000 media coverage in the hopes of him receiving better treatment in 2008. Steve Kornacki of the New York Observer convinces me that Barack Obama pre-emptively sapped the thunder from a Draft Gore campaign. In allying themselves with Obama, activist progressives largely disappeared as Gore's natural base. Unlikely to serve again in government, one hopes that private citizen Gore will continue his outstanding efforts even under a Democratic administration.

On a final and totally irrelevant note, check out the above link to Seelye's NYT profile: doesn't she resemble Annette Bening as Sydney Ellen Wade in The American President? Not a bad look. I wonder how Seelye would cover a real life President Andrew Shepherd. The fictional Shepherd shared Gore's commitment to mandatory cuts in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions; unlike Gore, he was willing to stake the White House on climate change legislation. Since the movie's release in 1995, President Shepherd's proposed legislation has seemed pure utopia; today's Times suggests such legislation to be inching closer to reality. I barely need mention Gore's role in making this happen.

Samantha Power as an Example of Team Obama

I have not yet finished reading James Traub's NYT Magazine article on Obama's foreign policy team. The article's focus on Obama's choice of advisers, however, I am somewhat reluctant to endorse. It's terrific that a group of younger foreign policy wonks all think Obama is really smart and capable, with a background uniquely befitting of an American President in an globalized world. That some of these advisers (e.g. Tony Lake) shared the Senator's prescience in outspokenly opposing the Iraq War is an added plus. It is good to know that Obama is not alone in his campaign plane in having exercised sound judgment on the defining foreign policy issue of the decade.

That said, once a foreign policy wonk affiliates herself with a particular campaign, she gains a vested interest in the candidate's electoral success - an Obama victory will likely mean high-profile appointments for everyone of his supporters quoted in the article. Without suggesting any insincerity, I always wonder whether this interest biases a wonk's public appraisal of the candidate's abilities. Nearly impossible to determine.

With that reservation in mind, anyone who liked Traub's article (e.g. Matt Yglesias) ought to watch Charlie Rose's interview with Samantha Power of the Kennedy School. She's listed among Obama's top advisers, and if her acumen is at all representative, than this group surely deserves a shot at shaping America's foreign relations. Power makes Madelaine Albright look positively daft.

Obama-Keyes - the New Lincoln-Douglas?

Alan Keyes' entry into the 2008 Presidential race raises the prospect of an noteworthy historical parallel (and also a religious revelation, since if one believes Keyes that he entered the race at the urging of Jesus Christ, then either Jesus is not aware of Keyes' dismal performance in the 2004 primaries - in which case he lacks omniscience - or Jesus simply endorses hopeless candidates - in which case he's probably a Democrat).

With Keyes joining Obama in the race, we have the possibility (however remote) of a general election with two candidates who had previously squared off in competition for an Illinois Senate seat. Thus 2004 and 2008 would resemble 1858 and 1860, when Abraham Lincoln narrowly lost a Senate race to Stephen Douglas only to beat him and several other candidates in the Presidential election two years later.

Unless Keyes wins the nomination of some third-party (e.g. Constitution or Conservative), the odds of a Keyes-Obama showdown are about the same as those of the Jets making the playoffs. Nonetheless, pondering a parallel to Lincoln-Douglas illustrates America's immense progress in human rights over the past 150 years. Whereas Douglas savaged Lincoln for suggesting that the preamble of the Declaration of Independence applied to blacks, we now have a black man seeking the Presidential nomination in both of our two major political parties (even if only one of them is a contender).

At the same time, the presence of Alan Keyes at Republican Presidential debates is a stark reminder that tolerance and respect for others in this country is far from universal. Though he's no Stephen Douglas, this is a man who not only champions opposition to gay marriage, but who defines homosexuality itself as "selfish hedonism." His eagerness to portray his every political move as carrying out the will of Jesus Christ - in 2004 he famously said that Jesus would not vote for Obama - is also disturbing. While Keyes wields far less influence within the Republican party than Douglas did within the Democratic party, Republicans still respect him enough to let him compete for a Senate seat in the fifth-largest state in the nation. At the September 17 2007 Values Voters Debate, he placed third in a straw poll of those in attendance. So clearly Keyes' outspoken views on topics such as homosexuality do have some support within the Republican party. That this critical institution of American politics can harbor such an intolerant figure (as the Democratic party harbored Douglas in the 1850s) suggests that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as an inalienable right of all citizens remains an idea with which our nation struggles.

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.

Toobin Predicts Obama as Hillary's Supreme Court Nominee

In conversation with Charlie Rose, Jeffrey Toobin predicts that if elected Hillary will nominate Barack Obama to replace Justice Stevens. His rationale for Obama was as follows: former editor of Harvard Law Review, U Chicago con law professor, African-American, would be the first Senator to serve on the Court in a long time – not impossible to imagine. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, however, since in my view Obama still has a decent shot to win the nomination – despite the media as of late anointing Hillary as unbeatable. Even if Hillary does win, might Obama not be a plausible VP candidate?

More substantively, Toobin points out as the Court’s new swing justice, Anthony Kennedy is more powerful than Sandra Day O’Connor ever was. In the last term’s twenty-four opinions Kennedy was in the majority in every one. Kennedy’s decisive influence is at times welcome – as in Hamden and prior Guantanamo cases, where Kennedy has rejected administration claims of executive privilege – and at other times unwelcome – as in Kennedy’s absurdly paternalistic opinion upholding the partial-birth abortion ban in Gonzales v. Carhart. If you want to understand the future of the Court, watch Kennedy…

In discussing Clarence Thomas, Toobin reaffirmed the emerging consensus that Thomas is by far the most conservative member of the Court (much more so than Scalia). Though Toobin did not engage whether Thomas in fact believes stare decisis to be a bankrupt doctrine, he did argue that Thomas regards “large parts of the New Deal as unconstitutional,” inasmuch as they expanded executive power beyond the limits prescribed in the Constitution. One hopes Justice Thomas will eventually be more outspoken about his judicial philosophy. Regrettably, both in his new autobiography and in appearances to promote the book Thomas focuses exclusively on episodes from his life story, giving short shrift to legal matters.

As a final noteworthy fact, Toobin noted that this Court is unique in that each of the justices had served as judges prior to being appointed to the Supreme Court. Evidently this uniformity is rare in history; for example, despite a number of highly respected legal thinkers (Frankfurter, Brennan, Douglas, Black), the Warren Court that ruled on Brown v. Board of Education included not a single justice who had been a judge prior to acceding to the Court. Is there some value to having Supreme Court justices with non-judicial backgrounds? This would be an interesting question for students of American legal history to pursue.