The Mitchell Report

Please Do Not Pester During Sequester

23 February 2013

 

Dear Friends, 

If it isn’t one thing, it’s another.

First, there was the ‘fiscal cliff,’ over which the republic would tumble on its way to another financial disaster.

This was quickly and tragically followed by the ‘slippery slope,’ on which the rights of gun owners would be taken away in treacherous acts of legislative legerdemain by the heirs to the anti-war movement, and the kinds of deadbeats who were once dragooned into appearances before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC).

Now, of course, we are approaching ‘sequestration,’ a euphemism for castration in the fiscal arena, and about which Bob Woodward will soon set us all straight. It’s the thing we most prize about Woodward -- i.e., ‘being set straight.’

And if you fear that TMR is about to leap into that fray, relax. It’s at moments like this where we most need diversions from the solemnity and humorlessness of public policy, and that explains this week’s offering.

When you’re able to set aside seven uninterrupted minutes, and are ready for an exercise in erudition, here’s a graphic and musical journey through the history of music.

But don’t sequester yourself; share it with family and friends in acts of random bipartisanship and generosity of spirit.

http://www.openculture.com/2013/02/the_history_of_music_told_in_seven_rapidly_illustrated_minutes.html

 

 

American Exceptionalism 2.0: Whither America or Wither America?

July 13, 2012

 

 

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.”

                   Voltaire              

 

“Your visions will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.”   

C. J. Jung

 

Dear Friends,

 

During a colloquium hosted last month by the Carnegie Endowment on an insightful new book entitled, “The Dictator’s Learning Curve” (William Dobson, Doubleday) I began thinking about TMR’s buckling bookshelves, which are weighted down with works assessing America’s role in the changing global order of the 21^st century.

The connection was triggered by an exchange between Carnegie’s host scholar, Karim Sadjadpour (who knows a thing or two about dictators and dictatorships,) and the author, Will Dobson, in which the term “Dictatorship 2.0” emerged as a way of distinguishing between “the good old days” when the likes of Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, or the Samozas of Nicaragua held sway with the usual tools of force and torture, and today’s crop that must navigate in a universe where Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and you-name-it have made the profession far more demanding.

“It’s hard to be a dictator these days,” Dobson observed, and that led to some thoughts about how difficult it is to be a democrat these days, as well.

Political leadership, whether of the Dictatorship 1.0 or Democracy 1.0 doctrine, has fallen on hard times. Strong leaders need strong followers, and both brands have lost an ‘iron grip’ on their followers, which may be the most salient political fact of these times – accounting for the sense of possibility and potential in states where dictatorships have ruled for so long, and for the sense of angst and agita in those where democracy has been in place for decades or centuries.

And while the reasons for these changing circumstances vary from country to country, it is the same array of digital communications tools, software, and apps that are fueling the transformations.

It has become difficult to hide, to keep secrets, and to keep the ‘outside world’ out – a fact that North Korea’s newest Kim may learn a thing or two about in the years ahead.

Back to that bookshelf, to questions about America’s posture in the emerging global order, and to a fresh look at American Exceptionalism.

First, an anecdotal observation.

There’s less talk these days about America being “the only global superpower,“ and even the voices trumpeting “American Exceptionalism” have been muted.

Why might that be?

Well, let’s consider some data on education, health care, and economic mobility, and some other factors, as well.

According to an OECD study, the U. S. spending per K-12 student is higher than all other countries, except Switzerland; and yet American students rank 14^th in reading literacy, 25^th in mathematics, and 17^th in science.

High school graduation rates are lower than the rates of the UK, Switzerland, Norway, South Korea, Japan, Italy, Ireland, Germany, Finland and Denmark. And the number of who earn college degrees places America 16^th, while the number who earn graduate degrees puts us in 12^th place.

Add to this that while the U.S. has roughly 36% of the world's college graduates in the 55-to-64 age bracket, it has just 20% percent in the 25-to-34 age range.

Something’s going on here.

According to a World Health Organization report, the U. S. ranks 37^th in terms of “overall effectiveness” of its health care system, 38^th in life expectancy, 29^th in infant mortality, 20^th out of 92 countries in childhood obesity, and 1^st among 28 OECD countries for adult obesity.  

In a 2010 study conducted by the Commonwealth Fund, America ranked last when compared to the six other nations, UK, Canada, Netherlands, Germany, Australia, New Zealand; as the report found, “Americans spend twice as much as residents of other developed countries on healthcare, but get lower quality, less efficiency and have the least equitable system.”

Another of the “wither factors” is the ‘hollowing out’ of America’s middle class, which the Financial Times’ Ed Luce writes about in his new book, “Time To Start Thinking:”

“For the first time in modern history the majority of American households were poorer at the end of a business cycle than at the beginning (2002 to 2007). Since then things have gotten worse.

“In the last full American business cycle, between 2002 and 2007, the top one in one hundred Americans captured almost two-thirds of the all growth while the top one in one thousand Americans (0.1 percent) captured more than a third of the economy’s growth.”

And yet in the most recent OECD study of household income, we are solidly in first place – more than $32,000, leading Canada, Switzerland, UK, Norway, Austria, Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, and Sweden.

So, we’re the richest,

We rank first on defense spending in real dollars ($711 billion) and as a percentage of GDP (4.3 %; only Saudi Arabia exceeds that). All told, we account for 41% of military-related spending.

We rank first in per capita incarceration rates (730 per 100,000) versus the UK (90^th), China (121^st), Canada (130^th), Germany (132^nd), and France (161^st.)

And we rank first in ‘billionaires,’ 425 out of the universe of 1200, followed by Russia (96) and China (95,) data points your grandfather would find inconceivable.

So, where does this leave us in our consideration of whether American exceptionalism is withering, treading water, or just having a “bad hair” decade or two?

As the distinguished historian Robert Kagan writes in his magisterial volume, “Dangerous Nation: America’s Place in the World from Its Earliest Days to the Dawn of the Twentieth Century:”

“The first American exceptionalism was really an English exceptionalism, the first American mission an Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, imperial mission.”

And in what would undoubtedly shock today’s most bombastic “American exceptionalists,” Kagan offered this thought:

“What has been said of Russia, that it found its security only in the insecurity of others, could be said of the colonial Anglo-Americans, too. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, they purchased their security at the price of the insecurity, and often the ruin, of Pequot, Iroquois, and Narragansett, of French and Spaniards, and by the time of the Revolution, of the British, too.”

Thus, it began with the Creator’s gift of geography, was animated by the arrival of religious utopians, followed by a generation or two of their native born sons and daughters, students of the Enlightenment, political pioneers who gave us the founding contours, principles, and even an operating system for the American republic.

Fast forward to the mid-twentieth century, and back to Kagan in his newest book, “The World America Made:”

“Perhaps democracy has spread to over a hundred nations since 1950 not simply because people yearn for democracy but because the most powerful nation in the world since 1950 has been a democracy. Perhaps the stunning global economic growth of the past six decades reflects an economic order shaped by the world’s leading free-market economy. Perhaps the era of peace we have known has something to do with the enormous power wielded by one nation.”

Virtually all serious scholars who have examined the ‘whither’ or  ‘wither’ question in this century have reached two conclusions: first, that the preservation and expansion of the liberal democratic order in the post-great war period of the 20^th century owes most to American leadership; and second, that while it is unclear whether America will be primus inter pares, a “frugal superpower,” as Michael Mandelbaum has predicted, or the “largest minority shareholder in the global order LLC," as Brookings’ Bruce Jones has described, no other nation or group of nations is preparing to assume the lead position.

And thus, we are left with uncertainty, which Voltaire reminds us is vastly preferable to certitude.

Jung’s observation suggests that in order to successfully navigate the transition from Democracy 1.0 to Democracy 2.0, we must disenthrall ourselves from the dream and deal with the reality – as individual citizens, who bear much of the responsibility for the condition of the republic; and as a polity, where our political institutions must find ways of delivering results instead of dividing us further.

But how? Indeed, how?

Not easily or evenly. And probably not without a “transforming transaction,” the prospect of which seems more elusive than finding the Higgs Boson particle, aka, “The God Particle.”

And on that point, it turns out that the term “God particle,” derives not from theological inspiration, but from a 1993 book on Higgs' particle by physicist, Leon Lederman, whose title was “The Goddamn Particle,” until a politically correct publisher intervened and shortened it to a term whose meaning is lost today.

American Exceptionalism needs its ‘goddamn particle,’ and the sooner the better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time To Start Thinking

 

   

“America is a bit like a company. As a start-up, it was nimble and sharp. Then it grew into a behemoth that was able to dominate and shape the world. Now America is so stuck in its habits that it gets harder and harder to change its way of doing things.”

Paul Romer, American economist

 

 

Dear Friends,

One day when we’re all least expecting it, TMR will produce a report on the ‘state of the Union’ that will put a sparkle in your smile, a spring in your step, and perhaps even provide the impetus to toss that vial of Zoloft out the window.

But until then, we’ll continue our practice of reporting on the work of talented and respected scholars, journalists, and the random pundit or retired politician, who can shed light and learning on the complexities of an inconstant, often chaotic, and kaleidoscopic world disorder.

With that in mind, we turn to a compelling new book, “Time to Start Thinking: America in the Age of Descent,” by Edward Luce, chief Washington correspondent for the Financial Times and one of the most thoughtful foreign observers of the American polity.

Like his fellow countryman, James Bryce, who served as Great Britain’s Ambassador to the United States a century ago, and before that authored the classic account, “The American Commonwealth,” a careful retracing of de Tocqueville’s travels through America, Luce finds an America more like the one Bryce described in 1888 than de Tocqueville’s more ‘democratic’ account a half-century earlier.

First, Bryce:

"Sixty years ago, there were no great fortunes in America, few large fortunes, no poverty. Now there is some poverty . . . and a greater number of gigantic fortunes than in any other country of the world.

"As respects education . . . there is an increasing class that has studied at the best universities. It appears that equality has diminished [in this regard] and will diminish further."

Then Luce, reporting on economist Robert Solow’s graduation speech to the 2011 class at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business:

“Approaching ninety years of age, Solow is one of the few surviving American economists to have lived through the Great Depression . . . He won his Nobel Prize for identifying and measuring the technological underpinnings of economic growth, which, during the middle decades of his lifetime created by far the largest and wealthiest middle class the world had seen. That same class has been under a grinding and, until recently, largely ignored siege for a generation or so.

“For most middle-class Americans this had meant years of flat, or declining, incomes at a time when the top one percent were reliving the Gilded Age. The causes of this skewing were complex and deeply rooted . . . But its importance, he added with an understatement beloved of economists, was ‘nontrivial.’

“’It might be that the balance of power in society is permanently shifting [toward the very wealthy],’ said Solow. ‘If so, it is not going to be easily reversible – or reversible at all. If it continues, then your guess is as good as mine as to how society will respond.’”

With that as prologue, the next 275 pages and seven chapters of Luce’s reporting take readers on a journey that, like Bryce and de Tocqueville before him, provides an unvarnished examination of the political, economic, and social conditions in America in the early years of the third millennium.

Luce’s findings are dispiriting, disquieting, and too often textbook cognitive dissonance. The cumulative effect of his reports and fact-finding on capital formation, economic development, education, governance, health care, innovation, and the once ubiquitous American propensity for risk-taking left this reader with alternating bouts of gloom, anger, disbelief, and a Pavlovian tic each time another anecdote or factoid underscored the measurable dimensions of descent.

There is a meandering stream quality to “Time to Start Thinking,” simulating Luce’s travels throughout the country, and the breadth of his conversations with experts and tyros, ‘left-coasters’ and Midwesterners, leading scientists and industrialists, bureaucrats and inventors, liberals and conservatives, political elites and his friends, the Freeman family in Minneapolis – husband, Mark, a warehouse packager at a local hospital where his wife, Connie, is an anesthesia supply technician.

If there is a bias lurking in these pages it is for looking under every rock and reporting what’s there, not what might have been or once was. Beyond that, Luce is a Brit whose understanding of American politics and culture has been acquired through years of residence, including a brief stint as a speechwriter for a leading American cabinet secretary.

He begins with some thoughts on the political quagmire:

“Americans reflexively single out Washington, D.C., as the cause of their ills. As this book will explore, however, Washington’s habits are rooted in American society. Sometimes it seems Americans are engaged in some kind of collusion in which voters pretend to elect their lawmakers and the lawmakers pretend to govern. This, in some ways, is America’s core problem: the more America postpones any coherent response to the onset of relative decline, the more difficult the politics are likely to get.”

And then he moves quickly to the startling evidence about the ‘hollowing out’ of the middle class:

“For the first time in modern history the majority of American households were poorer at the end of a business cycle than at the beginning (2002 to 2007). Since then things have gotten worse.”

“In the last full American business cycle, between 2002 and 2007, the top one in one hundred Americans captured almost two-thirds of the all growth while the top one in one thousand Americans (0.1 percent) captured more than a third of the economy’s growth.”

“The group [business executives supporting Obama’s health care initiative] included Lee Scott, then the chief executive of Walmart, who earned more in two weeks than the average Walmart employee does in her lifetime.”

And in a visit with Harvard economist Lawrence Katz, he hears this observation:

’What we [America] are on track to becoming is a place where the top tiers remain wealthy beyond imagination, and the remainder, in one way or another, are working in jobs that help make the lives of the elites more comfortable – taking care of them in old age, fixing their home Wi-Fi systems or their air-conditioning units, teaching or helping with their kids, and serving them their food’ he said.’  

‘My fear is that it will create an increasingly ugly political culture in America, that will make it even harder to address these problems.’

Then comes a look at the state of education – K-12 and higher education – once the pride of the American experience:

“More than a fifth of American adults have a reading age of fifth grade (eleven years old) or below. Just over half of Americans read books to their young children. ‘There is no magic bullet that will suddenly fix our schools, the problem is too deeply embedded,’ said Hennessy [Stanford president]. ‘We took decades to get into this problem, and it is going to take decades to get out of it.’”

“In just one generation, the United States had fallen from first to ninth in the proportion of its young people with graduate degrees, and it was still falling (in fact the United States ranks twelfth among all nations.)

“America now spends twice as much per student in real terms, as it did in 1973. Yet, according too the National Association of Educational Progress, which measures knowledge as a constant, rather than grade results . . . results have hit a long plateau. The average American score on the mathematics test was 306 (out of 500), in 2010, against 304 a generation ago. The same is true in other subjects. Like the middle class wage earner, America’s schools are suffering from a prolonged bout of stagnation.”

“In 1990, the state [California] spent twice as much on its universities as its prisons. Now it spends almost twice as much on prisons . . . the yearly cost of housing a prisoner is roughly five times the annual tuition for a college degree.”

Much of Luce’s investigation focused on America’s long-time lead on innovation:

“But it is in terms of inventiveness, risk capital, research money, and quality of government that America is falling down.”

“A large part of America’s century of scientific and technological domination was spurred by necessity. It was born neither from government nor by the private sector but from a collaboration of the two. Fear and pragmatism were its parents and imagination was its currency. Amnesia seems to be its price.”

“In the late 1990s the United States had a $30 billion annual surplus in advanced manufactured goods, the high-tech products that enabled the nation to dominate the global economy. Now it has a $40 billion deficit. As recently as 2000, the United States was ranked first in the world in terms of its ability to innovate . . . By 2010 it had moved down to sixth. In the first decade of this century, the United States came last out of forty countries in improvements to its climate for innovation.”

“Everywhere Wang [Ching Hua Wang, immunologist and head of biotechnology at Cal State/Camarillo, PhD from Cornell] looked, it seems America was stagnating. ‘I don’t feel so confident about America anymore . . . It seems to have lost its vision.’ It may also be losing its fabled appetite for risk.”

“Since 2008 risk aversion seems to have paralyzed the banking sector from lending to small businesses. The rate of American business start-ups in 2010 fell to a historic low . . . having already been on the decline before the meltdown.”

Here’s also where we encounter my favorite moment in the book, one which captures a quintessential exchange between leaders in the private sector and one at the top of the political elite:

“The SIA (Semiconductor Industry Association) had also become concerned about Washington’s ignorance of semiconductors . . . At a meeting with Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, and twenty semiconductor chief executives . . . Reid started off by asking, ‘So, what’s a semiconductor?’” After having had it politely explained, Reid kept referring to the ‘supercollider.’”

And then to put punctuation at the end of a long examination about ‘American in the Age of Descent.’ Luce adds this coda:

“America already spends more on health care per head than other wealthy countries – almost triple the level of the British and double the French. Yet Americans continue to die earlier and spend more time disabled than their peers in Europe and Japan. And that gap is getting worse. The average life expectancy of Americans has been virtually stalled at seventy-eight years for more than a decade, at a time when several wealthy countries, including Japan as well as the Scandinavian nations, have edged up to eighty-two or eighty-three years.”

“In fact, on pretty much every social indicator you check, America is off the charts. An American baby is twice as likely to die in its first year as a Scandinavian, German, or Japanese. More than twice as many Americans are obese as is average for wealthy nations. And America’s prison population is more than five times the ratio of the next highest developed country . . . For the generation leading up to the Great Contraction, most of the wrong trends had almost been steepening. Many are now metastasizing. Four years after the housing collapse, one in four American mortgages is still underwater. One in seven Americans is on food stamps. Even Americans life expectancy is starting to look wobbly. And America’s once stratospheric economic participation rate has collapsed to the European average.”

A final note about the book -- about it’s cover, actually -- which suggests that while that you can’t necessarily judge a book by its cover, you shouldn’t ignore it, either.

The American version features an American flag, whose form recalls Salvador Dali’s melting pocket watch on a table in his “Persistence of Memory,” with a man rowing a small boat on the smooth surface, doing his best to keep from edging over the precipice and down the melting, withering part of the flag.

By contrast, the cover for the British publication shows the Statue of Liberty holding a gun to her head, and a subtitle that reads, “America and the Spectre of Decline.”

Some might say that’s simply a matter of taste; others might suggest that it’s the difference between the domestic and international perspectives on America, circa 2012.

And if we hope that this year’s presidential election might lead us to a happier, more enlightened place, consider this final bit of trivia:

“In 1960, the average sound bite for a presidential candidate on the major evening networks was forty seconds. By 2008, it had fallen to nine. Studies show that the presidential address is now pitched at the English proficiency of a seventh grader. In the 1960s presidents spoke to the twelfth grade.”

Time to start thinking, indeed. And on that point, time to start reading, “Time to Start Thinking.”

 

 

R. Garrett Mitchell

The Mitchell Report

June 27, 2012

 

Summer Reading Recommendations

 

I'm late, I'm late for a very important date 
No time to say "Hello", "Goodbye" 
I'm late, I'm late, I'm late, I'm late
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
Lewis Carroll

Dear Friends,

Alice's pal, the White Rabbit, has just the right message for this year's summer reading recommendations, so if you'll forgive the delays and follow us down the rabbit hole, we promise some wonderful reading recommendations - books we've read, and a few that we'll be reading.

Books We've Read

Haunting Legacy: Vietnam and the American Presidency from Ford to Obama, Marvin Kalb and Deborah Kalb, Brookings Press.

I can almost hear the unspoken thoughts as you read this recommendation - “I don't need another book about Vietnam;” “I'm tired of war;” “Give me something new to think about” And that's just exactly what you'll get in this just-published, highly insightful book from one of America's most distinguished television journalists - Marvin Kalb - and his conspicuously talented daughter, Deborah Kalb. 

It's not a book about the Vietnam War; it isn't even a book about war, per se; but it is, perhaps, the first serious piece of scholarship to document the ways in which the experience of that pivotal moment in modern American history has influenced eight presidents:

“The story of Vietnam, the war and its aftermath, runs like a bleeding wound through recent American history, affecting every president from Gerald Ford to Barack Obama and raising profound questions about their prerogatives and powers.

“That war still casts an unforgiving shadow over Oval Office deliberations. Unwanted, uninvited, but inescapable, Vietnam refuses to be forgotten.”

Kalb and Kalb have constructed a meticulous, eminently readable, and thoughtful analysis of how each president has dealt with the specter of Vietnam - from Gerald Ford and the Mayaguez incident through to Barack Obama's decision to increase U. S. troop strength in Afghanistan, and in between a nasty patch of “Swiftboating” that marred and muddied the presidential campaign of 2004.

In the closing chapter, “Good Enough,” the authors make their final pitch:

“He [Obama] fancied himself post-Vietnam, but the war that was lost so many years before he assumed office still hovered over his presidency like Banquo's ghost - unwelcome, but unwilling to release its grip. With Obama or any of the other presidents from Ford on, Vietnam was rarely the only reason for a presidential decision about war or peace, but it was always there whenever the question arose about the possible use of American military power.”

In the service of full disclosure, readers should know three things about the reviewer: first, that that Marvin Kalb is a treasured friend; second, that I was privy to stories about the development of this book for several years before its publication, and read a couple sections in draft form; and third, that I am much taken by the 'back story' of this book, the partnership of a father and daughter in such an important and challenging intellectual adventure.

But if Haunting Legacy were anything short of an important, authoritative, and engaging book, it wouldn't be on this list.


Berlin 1961: Kennedy, Khrushchev, and the Most Dangerous Place on Earth, Frederick Kempe, G. P. Putnam's Sons

Having just ended a review with a 'full disclosure,' this one will begin with a similar notice.

The author is a friend, also president of a Washington DC think tank - The Atlantic Council -- where I spend considerable time participating in their South Asia program. I first met him and learned of his thesis through a mutual friend, at a time when Kempe was in the midst of research-and-writing days. And in clear violation of TMR's commitment to review only those books that have been read cover-to-cover - this review comes to you as I begin Chapter 17 on page 419. One chapter and 83 pages left to cross the finish line. 

Now, about this masterwork.

Berlin 1961 is a story told in three parts - Part I, “The Players,” 'the protagonists,' as Kempe describes them: Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, President John F. Kennedy, West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, and East German leader Walter Ulbricht; Part II, “The Gathering Storm,” John Kennedy's first year in office, which featured two high visibility foreign policy 'failures' - the Bay of Pigs and the Vienna Summit, which JFK described to the New York Times' James, 'Scotty', Reston as “Worst thing in my life. He [Khrushchev] savaged me;” And Part III “The Showdown,” in which the author provides exacting, scrupulous, revealing, and sometimes controversial details about a moment when the world stood on the brink of nuclear war, and when the footprint of the Cold War was fixed for nearly three decades of history that would follow.

One of JFK's national security strategists - William Kaufman -- who was engaged in both Berlin and the Cuban Missile Crisis, describes it this way:

“Berlin was the worst moment of the Cold War. Although I was deeply involved in the Cuban Missile Crisis, I personally thought that the Berlin confrontation, especially after the wall went up, where you had Soviet and U. S. tanks literally facing one another with guns pointed, was a more dangerous situation. We had very clear indications mid-week of the Cuban Missile Crisis that the Russians were not going to push us to the edge . . . You didn't get that sense in Berlin.”

It is in Kempe's Introduction where he sets both the stage and the tone for 500 pages that follow - a scholarly work that reads more like a tantalizing mystery novel; a fascinating character study of four protagonists and other key players, including former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, Vice President Lyndon Johnson, General Lucius D. Clay, and a preview of Henry Kissinger, the young Harvard professor who is briefly a consultant to the Kennedy Administration, but who returns to academia licking a wounded ego, having failed to prevail in minor power struggles for Kennedy's attention owing to blackballing by his former Dean, McGeorge Bundy; and, finally, an historical analysis that challenges much of the conventional wisdom and offers new perspectives on a much under-appreciated moment in history.

Without disclosing specifics of Kempe's thesis, Berlin 1961 is both a page-turner and a head-turner, offering fresh perspectives about the principals and the political calculus in NATO and Warsaw Pact countries. And it all begins with a series of seven questions that provide the framework for the 'gift that keeps on giving' for 500 pages. Here are two:

“Should history consider the Berlin Wall's construction the positive outcome of Kennedy's unflappable leadership . . . or was the Wall the unhappy result of his missing backbone?”

“Was Khrushchev a true reformer whose efforts to reach out to Kennedy following his election were a genuine effort (that the U. S. failed to recognize) to reduce tensions? Or was he an erratic leader with whom the U S. could never have done business?”


Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR's Great Supreme Court Justices, Noah Feldman, Twelve (Hachette Book Group.)

Years ago, I read a stunning book entitled, “A World Lit Only by Fire,” written by the preeminent historian, William Manchester, which is a brief history of the medieval centuries and a look at the medieval mind. It grew out of an assignment to write an introduction to a friend's biography of Ferdinand Magellan, while under doctor's orders to relinquish work on his three-part Churchill biography. Owing to his fascination with this period of world history, Manchester's insatiable intellectual curiosity went into overdrive, and within a matter of weeks his “Introduction” had morphed into what would become a nearly 300-page, award-winning book.

When I first began to write a review of Scorpions, I experienced an instinct similar to Manchester's, taken as I was by the brilliance of Feldman's tour de force about Supreme Court justices Felix Frankfurter, Hugo Black, Robert Jackson, and William O. Douglas.

If you're a devotee of Supreme Court history, a Constitutional scholar at heart, a lay historian of the early-middle years of the 20th century, an FDR aficionado, or someone who simply loves a great story told by a gifted storyteller about the machinations of powerful figures in American history, then Scorpions is for you.

It is Feldman's fifth book - the other four written while still in his 30's - and despite the density of subject matter, it is a genuine 'page-turner,' and one that would challenge any reviewer to be sparing in superlatives.  

After much backing-and-filling, I concluded that Feldman's opening paragraphs set the tone and the thesis better than anything I might offer:

“A tiny, ebullient Jew who started as America's leading liberal and ended as its most famous judicial conservative. A Ku Klux Klansman who became an absolutist advocate of free speech and civil rights. A backcountry lawyer who started off trying cases about cows and went on to conduct the most important international trial ever. A self-invented, tall-tale Westerner who narrowly missed the presidency but expanded individual freedom beyond what anyone had dreamed.

“Four more different men could hardly be imagined. Yet they had certain things in common. Each was a self-made man who came from humble beginnings on the edge of poverty. Each had a driving ambition and a will to succeed. Each was, in his own way, a genius.

“They began as close allies and friends of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who appointed them to the Supreme Court in order to shape a new, liberal view of the Constitution that could live up to the challenges of economic depression and war. Within months, their alliance had fragmented. Friends became enemies. In competition and sometimes outright warfare, the men struggled with one another to define the Constitution and, through it, the idea of America.”


When Art Worked: The New Deal, Art, and Democracy, Roger G. Kennedy and David Larkin, Rizzoli Books. 

You can put this on your “Do Not Take To The Beach” list, but if your summer plans call for spending time in a place where you can sit at trusty old table or desk on a rainy afternoon, this is your prize - a stunning visual exhibition and narrative history by two remarkable scholars who have crafted an encyclopedic, illustrated documentary of the art, architecture, culture, history, politics, and presidential leadership of these remarkable years in a volume that weighs in at something less than a healthy newborn but more than a spirited Brook trout. 

When Art Worked is both a coffee table and art book - but you'll need a sturdy coffee table -- and is a reminder that good things still come in large packages.

Thanks to Larkin's unerring eye and exquisite taste, and Kennedy's encyclopedic familiarity with and feel for the temper and themes of the times, When Art Worked is a stunning portrait of a country barely recognizable to the majority of Americans today -- as distant from the Age of Google as the Civil War or the California gold rush were from the New Deal. 

In ten chapters, 350+ large plate pages, and 460 black-and-white and color images, masterfully produced by Rizzoli Books of New York, you will rediscover 'the real America' through the art and architecture of hundreds of out-of-work artists who helped lift the spirits of a sagging nation and provided works that define the American character to the present day. 

It was the sculptor, Gutzon Borglum, whose most famous work adorns Mt. Rushmore, who wrote that “art helped coax the soul of America back to life.”

Might be just the right gift for your favorite member of Congress or for Barack Obama's 50th birthday, which looms during the same week as the alleged deadlines for America's financial default.


The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama, David Remnick, Alfred A. Knopf. 

David Remnick's masterful biography about the most remarkable politician of his generation is the story of sui generis written by rara avis. 

Strictly speaking, Remnick has crafted more than a biography of a man, it is also a biography of the places, ideas, and people who have influenced America's 44th president.

o The politics of Kenya in the post-WW II years when Jomo Kenyatta and Tom Mboya were leading the country toward independence from the British Crown, and who were important influences in Obama's father's troubled career.

o Chicago, the 'black metropolis,' home to black and white leaders like William Dawson, Saul Alinsky, Richard J. Daley, Harold Washington, and others from whom Obama would learn mostly what not to do.

o The rootlessness of moving back and forth between Hawaii and Indonesia, deserted by his father, living with his mother, then separated from her, living with his grandparents, and being a young black boy thrust into the privileged Punahou School environment where being 'black' was neither alien nor ordinary.

In this nearly 600-page account of Obama's highly textured and unconventional upbringing, Remnick skillfully weaves together the multiple influences that conspired to produce a most uncommon man whose countenance belies the complexity of those early life experiences.

“Obama, who had been attracted to community organizing by the example and the romance of the civil-rights movement, was, by the time his experience with it was over, thinking about how to combine elements of charismatic leadership, the principles of organizing, and a set of liberal political and policy principles.”

And the title -- The Bridge?

It's borrowed from an observation by the great civil rights leader and Georgia Congressman, John Lewis: “Barack Obama is what comes at the end of that bridge in Selma.”


Neoconservative: The Biography of a Movement, Justin Vaisse, Belknap Press of Harvard University. 

This book that took me by surprise on three counts: first, because I could not have imagined becoming engrossed in a nearly 300-page book devoted to a 'movement' about which I have always been skeptical, at best; second, because it provided an in-depth look at American politics from the 1950's through to the first decade of the 21st century, which provided fresh perspective on several of the primary -isms; and finally, because this is the work of a French scholar -- Justin Vaisse, now a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and formerly a member of the Policy Planning Staff of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs -- who demonstrates a remarkable grasp of American domestic politics, recalling a similar skill of his fellow countryman, Alexis de Tocqueville.

Vaisse sorts neoconservatism into its three distinct philosophical and (even) geographic developmental 'ages,' beginning in New York in the 1950's - “Liberal Intellectuals in Dissent;” then another shift in the 1970's in both New York and Washington, DC, “Cold War Democrats in Dissent;” and finally, its form known to most during the late 1990's and into the administration of George W. Bush, which he calls, “National Greatness Conservatives.”

The great strength of Vaisse's scholarship is its objectivity, eschewing the either/or perspectives through which this '-ism' has been typically discussed. He is neither proponent nor critic:

“Neoconservatism also offers a way into the very rich intellectual debate about politics that took place in the United States in the second half of the twentieth century. It can tell us a great deal about both liberalism (which neoconservatives angrily rejected in the end, but in a way that suggests the narcissism of small differences may have played a role) and conservatism (which neoconservatives embraced but never fully identified with.) 

“Finally, neoconservatism sheds a fascinating light on the way in which American political society works . . . Behind political ideas we find not only people but also networks linking intellectuals to journalists and decisionmakers, careers that take individuals back and forth between the academic and political worlds, and a variety of organizations from think tanks to citizen groups to political parties.”

Vaisse quotes his countryman, de Tocqueville, with this coda:

“When Americans have a feeling or idea they wish to bring to the world's attention, they will immediately seek out others who share that feeling or idea and, if successful in finding them, join forces. From the point on, they cease to be isolated individuals and become a power to be reckoned with whose actions serve as an example; a power that speaks, and to which people listen.” 

One wonders what de Tocqueville would observe on a visit today?


Books We're Going to be Reading

Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World, Robin Wright, Simon and Schuster: Wright is among the most accomplished and respected foreign correspondents of her generation who has spent four decades studying the Middle East and its peoples, and who writes with the unerring instincts of a great reporter and the literary skills of an eminent novelist. Her earlier book - Dreams and Shadows: The Future of the Middle East - was one of 2008's “Best Books” rated by both the Washington Post and New York Times. I consider it one of the half dozen best books on the Middle East, and have every expectation that Rock the Casbah will be its equal. So, too, does New York magazine, which rates it as one of this summer's “Five Must-Reads.”

Bloodmoney: A Novel of Espionage, David Ignatius, W. W. Norton: If you're familiar with Ignatius as the foreign policy and national security columnist of the Washington Post (and former Editor-in-Chief of the International Herald Tribune), then you're aware of his matchless reputation as a reporter and foreign correspondent. If you're familiar with his previous novels - The Increment, Body of Lies (adapted to a movie directed by Ridley Scott, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe), Agents of Innocence - then you can anticipate another stunning piece of fiction grounded in his incomparable knowledge of the Middle East and South Asia and in the business of espionage. And if Ignatius is a new name for you, you have gifts awaiting. 

Francie's Fortune, Kita Helmetag Murdock, Blue Mustang Press: This one is for your elementary school-age children or grandchildren, and it's a sure bet that they'll love this at least as much as you'll be engaged by the adult TMR reading list. It's an entrancing story about 10 year-old Francie, a child of Hollywood, who much against her will is spirited off to spend a summer with a grandmother whom she's never really known, and in mountains of Colorado, a place she doesn't want to be. All signs point to a long and disappointing summer, and particularly because Francie suspects that her grandmother might be a witch. But as the story unfolds, it reveals a special gift that they share, and a heartwarming account of the bonds that exist between humans and animals.

And if you can tolerate one more “full disclosure,” the author is “family,” if not in the purely legal sense, enough so that to claim anything less would be misleading. 


If you've made it this far, there is a reward awaiting you somewhere in your future - and I trust that it will be between the covers of at least one or more of these recommended books.


R. Garrett Mitchell
The Mitchell Report
July 27, 2011

Bibi Netanyahu, Politicaster

 May 29, 2011

 

“People may be honest, though they are doing wrong: that is between their Maker and them. But we, who are suffering by their pernicious conduct, are to destroy them. We are sure that [Burke] acts from interest. We know what his genuine principles were. They who allow their passions to confound the distinctions between right and wrong, are criminal. They may be convinced; but they have not come honestly by their conviction.”

Life of Johnson

James Boswell

 

 

 

Dear Friends,

 

I’ve been searching for a word or term to describe Israel’s 27^th and 32^nd Prime Minister, after observing his Trumpian-stentorian-triumphal tour of Washington DC.

 

Having considered many options, and finding bully, coward, and poseur fitting, although insufficient to the task, yesterday’s e-mail provided a moment of discovery, drawn from the weekly edition of “World Wide Words,” and its “Weird Word” entry for the week -- criticaster.

 

“You may gather it [criticaster] is uncomplimentary. It refers to those who set themselves up as arbiters of taste and literary discernment but whose sensibilities are inadequate to the task.

 

“It was coined in the late seventeenth century by adding the ending -aster to critic. The suffix came directly into English from Latin, where it meant an incomplete resemblance. English adapted it to refer to a person of inferior or inadequate qualities. It turns up in a small number of words, of which poetaster, a person who writes bad poetry, and philosophaster, a shallow or pretentious philosopher, are the least rare.”

 

Aha! Just like Pygmalion’s Professor Henry Higgins, I said: “By Jove, I think we’ve go it.”

 

Binyamin Netanyahu, aka, Bibi, is a politicaster, i. e., a person who practices bad politics, is shallow and pretentious, and has sensibilities that are inadequate to the task.

 

It’s about that simple.

 

But because he is also a poseur of considerable skill, he achieved two important goals for his efforts during this visit:

 

First, popularity at home.

 

According to a poll by Haaretz, Israel’s leading English language newspaper:

 

“It emerged that Netanyahu's trip not only put a brake on the drop in his popularity ratings, but actually reversed the trend.

 

“While in a Haaretz poll five weeks ago Netanyahu seemed to be in hot water with the public, with 38 percent expressing satisfaction with his performance and 53 percent disappointed with it, in yesterday's poll the results were essentially reversed: 51 percent were satisfied, while 36 percent were not.”

 

Second, popular acclaim in Washington.

 

Haaretz columnist, Yoel Marcus:

 

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could have read the phone book at the Congress podium and received the same standing ovation. His speech used the advice Moshe Sneh gave to himself . . . on the draft of one of his speeches: ‘weak argument, raise voice.’”

 

That’s the good news for Bibi, the short-term results of his impolitic and injudicious orating, but as columnist Marcus further suggests:

 

“One more victory like that and Israel is done for: A failure of the peace process is not an option. The status quo cannot be maintained. True friends tell each other the truth.”

 

Another commentator, renowned Israeli clinical psychologist Carlo Strenger, who is a blogger at Haaretz, The Guardian, and elsewhere, made this observation:

 

“The clear losers in Netanyahu’s short-sightedness wrapped into grandiose verbal pyrotechnics are the citizens of Israel. Once the dust of the media storm settles down, we will be faced with the stark truth: The specter of Israel’s ever-growing isolation and of increasing international pressure looms large. Once the Palestinians succeed in their bid for statehood, the Netanyahu government will be facing international criticism of its settlement policies unprecedented in force and intensity.”

 

The protagonist in this drama of uncertain length is President Barack Obama, whose reviews for speeches delivered at the State Department and at the AIPAC convention last week range from rabid to supportive – from the scathing criticism of Charles Krauthammer to the tepid rebuke from Congressional Democrats and to the unqualified endorsement of the folks at J Street and elsewhere who heard those speeches via distinctly different antennae.

 

As one insightful TMR reader, a prominent civic leader and respected member of the Jewish community far from the Beltway, put it:

 

“There was an article in the NY Times a few weeks ago describing the responses of Mormons to the new hit Broadway musical, Book of Mormon.  It basically said that conservative Mormons think the play is abominable and liberal Mormons think it’s hilarious.  From what I’ve heard in the last week, this is analogous to Jews’ reactions to the speeches of Obama and Netanyahu.”

 

He went on to say, “After hearing about Obama’s speech, my sister, who is extremely conservative on these issues, said, ‘Obama threw Israel under the bus.  He’s the worst U.S. President in history when it comes to Israel.’”

 

And for those who may have missed the speech, here’s exactly what the President said:

 

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

 

To some that was ‘throwing Israel under the bus,’ and to others it was stating the obvious, the truth as it has been known for years.

 

But to Bibi, the politicaster, these were fighting words.

 

So fight he did – getting them out of their seats up on Capitol Hill 49 times during his speech, and warming up his numbers back home. Right before our eyes, Israel’s most talented orator rose up in righteous indignation rivaling the response to William Jennings Bryan’s stirring “Cross of Gold” speech to the Democratic Party convention 115 years ago.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5354/

 

And with much the same result – thunderous applause, the audience on its feet and cheering wildly, proud men basking in the warm glow of political adulation, and little of substance to show for it all, save for the recordings that retrieve their ‘fifteen minutes of fame.’

 

The most remarkable thing about Binyamin Netanyahu to this observer is that he has achieved fame simply by being elected and ducking when the going gets tough. He has no accomplishments to his name. He has shown no courage on the paramount issue that besets his people and his country. He is rhetorical warrior in an empty suit of armor.

 

There are legitimate questions to raise about Barack Obama’s speech – its timing, its phrasing, and, of course, its impact. He may well have taken the wrong counsel on any of those factors, and there are serious questions to be addressed about whether there is still a beating heart in the process for solutions in this conflict, or whether a third intifada may be just over the horizon.

 

No geopolitical issue of consequence – and particularly the Arab-Israeli conflict – is so simple that there are those who have it right versus those who get it wrong. That’s why diplomacy and politics are central to the life of a democracy and a republic, and to the sustainability of the global order -- tools designed to be used when the issues are seemingly intractable.

 

Bibi’s decision to take the low road, to play to the crowd sensibility, and to engage in artful sophistry and casuistry may be consistent with his “genuine principles,” but as Boswell’s Life of Johnson reminds us:

 

"They who allow their passions to confound the distinctions between right and wrong, are criminal. They may be convinced; but they have not come honestly by their conviction.”

 

 

 

 

 

Tropes for Dopes

May 10, 2011

 

 

“Nonetheless, Obama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine. One of his advisers described the President’s actions in Libya as ‘leading from behind.’”

 

“The Consequentialist: How the Arab Spring remade Obama’s foreign policy,” by Ryan Lizza

 The New Yorker, May 2, 2011

 

 

Dear Friends,

 

“Leading from behind” is TMR’s early nominee for the 2011 “Tropes for Dopes” prize, a field crowded with entries during the last few months in which “Arab spring” has competed for above-the-fold space with a patchwork of prosaic rhetoric, some artful, some not, some tropes, some not.

 

For example, there is Donald Trump’s solipsistic response to the release of Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate:

 

"Today I'm very proud of myself, because I've accomplished something that nobody else has been able to accomplish. I want to look at it, but I hope it's true, so that we can get on to much more important matters.

"I am really honored, frankly, to have played such a big role in hopefully, hopefully getting rid of this issue."

 

Or Michele Bachman’s declaration at a recent New Hampshire political event:

 

“You’re the state where the shot was heard around the world in Lexington and Concord.”

 

And, of course, another contender for the prize will be Sarah Palin’s rhetorical question about U. S. involvement in Libya during an otherwise vacuous interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News:

 

“Do we use the term ‘intervention?’ Do we use ‘war? Or ‘squirmish?”

Ah well, on publication eve of The New Yorker magazine article, President Obama addressed the nation near midnight with the stunning news that America had successfully concluded its search for Osama bin Laden in an audacious raid inside his Pakistani citadel.

 

Despite the indisputable frontal disposition of this raid, “leading from behind” may well be one of those ‘sticky phrases,’ as Malcolm Gladwell calls them, that pundits and politicians may find advantageous for future use, so it seems an apt time to offer an alternate perspective.

 

Aside from this misnomer having been an on-the-spot response from an adviser of unreported rank, who is presumably more adept at policy analysis than crafting figures of speech – aka, ‘tropes’ – it is both misleading and thin on substance.

 

One might say, for example, that what this President has understood, better than those who have followed the 26^th President, is the real meaning of:

 

“Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.”

 

It’s increasingly apparent that Teddy Roosevelt’s dictum is central to Barack Obama’s persona and leadership profile than most have understood – an idea that emerges from reading David Remnick’s masterful Obama biography, “The Bridge.”

 

In fact, if one examines the actions and accomplishments during Barack Obama’s 28 months in office, for better or for worse, most have been in frontal in nature, as have the polemics of his critics.

 

Much to the dismay of Obamaphobes and Obamaphiles alike, Barack Obama has neither articulated nor espoused anything that might resemble a “doctrine,” including the faux charge the he is redesigning American foreign and national security policy to a ‘leading from behind’ architecture.

 

Doctrines, like ideologies, are straitjackets. They encumber freedom of thought, expression, and action. They are as legally binding as wedding vows, and even less enforceable than ‘prenups.’

 

And despite official Washington’s long-held belief that a President without a doctrine is a like a CEO without a strategic plan or an NFL coach without a game plan, we have a President whose understanding of recent history and the emerging new global order leads him to eschew formulaic thinking and action, and instead to display a deftness with ambiguity, paradox, and the conundrums that are the hallmark of life in the 21^st century.

 

It has been said that we campaign in poetry and govern in prose; however, the lessons of recent years suggest that while we campaign by bumper sticker, we must govern by a higher order of thoughtfulness that will always look to some as dithering or doubt.

 

We must not confuse the velocity of the digital age and the instantaneity of the 24/7 news cycle with the heavier lifting requirements of good governance in an era when fundamental change is all about us.

 

To some that may well seem like “leading from behind,” but it is precisely the kind of leadership this nation would have profited from in the 2002 and 2003 when a distinctly American version of kabuki led the country to a war it need not have fought.

 

TMR is willing to put its substantial capital reserves on the notion that no edition of Bartlett’s Quotations will include an observation from an American president that says:

 

“Gee, if only I’d had a doctrine.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark Twain on Foreign Policy

March 1, 2011

 

The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.
- Mark Twain’s Letter to George Bainton, 10/15/1888

 

 

Dear Friends,

 

Mark Twain and foreign policy?

 Some would say that’s a clear case of ‘never the twain shall meet,’ but if we permit a modicum of poetic license, it might just make sense.

 If you’ve been reading the editorial and op-ed pages of various periodicals during these last few weeks of tumult in Northern Africa and the Middle East, you’ve been treated to an array of thought experiments from various points on the political spectrum suggesting that the Obama administration – and the President himself – have been moving sluggishly, clumsily, uncertainly, and ineptly.

 Many pundits believe that in Egypt and Libya, for example, America should have been out front from the get-go in vocal support of the forces of democracy and against the instruments of oppression, i.e., the ruling regimes and their supporters.

 It’s hard to disagree with this sentiment, but sentiments are not the basis for making policy. The bigger question is: Does it pass the sensibility test? Is it sensible?

 

Twain’s counsel on vocabulary -- ‘the difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter” – provides an analog for evaluating foreign policy. That the difference between the almost right foreign policy and the right foreign policy is really a large matter, and a subtlety lost on more than one American president.

 

It is, for example, captured in the difference between two words that seem almost the same: simple and simplistic.

 

The former means, “easily understood or done, presenting no difficulty; plain, basic, or uncomplicated in form, nature or design.

 

Whereas the latter is about, “treating complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they really are.”

 

Now, to the claims about America’s failure to lead the parade on Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere.

 

Is this a simple matter or a simplistic notion?

 

Of course America belongs with the forces of freedom and democracy wherever they are opposed by autocrats and kleptocrats. If we’re not always in a position to ‘stand’ for that, we certainly do ‘speak’ for it?

 

Of course we deplore the brutality of despots and autocrats, wherever and whenever they are found -- in the USSR, the PRC, Latin America, Africa, throughout the Middle East and across the Mahgreb. How we actually deal with them is another matter, indeed.

 

In the Arab and Muslim world, America has a checkered history stretching back for decades and decades that cannot be expunged in the short term, even with the most artful ‘public diplomacy.’

 

However, on each occasion of political awakening in the Middle East, including many false starts over many years, the world looks to America to strut the stage on behalf of the forces for democratization and liberalization. If not the United States, then who? And if not visibly and vocally, then how?

 

Well, there are multiple reasons why leading a rhetorical parade can be a trap for the U. S, and damaging to the forces for moderation and secular governance in the region, as well-- a cross between a “Catch 22” and a “Trojan horse,” ergo a “lose-lose proposition.”

 

Americans need to understand the profusion of complexities and contradictions that come with “Made in the USA” throughout the region. On the one hand, it is our values that people admire and wish to emulate; and on the other hand, it is our policies that have created so much ill will for so long with “the Arab street.”

 

Over the course of modern history in the Middle East – following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the eventual withering away of colonial powers – America’s paramount interest has been about oil. Period. As a consequence, our policies have been driven by that interest, creating an irremediable discontinuity – or “the mother of all contradictions,” if you prefer.

 

But let us not simplify our history: oil was vital to the national security interest, so we did what nation-states do. We acted in our national interest, but with policies that put our democratic values and national security interests at loggerheads -- hence, the indelible tarnish that stains the American brand in the Middle East.

 

Does that mean that America must t-h-i-n-k v-e-r-y c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y before it insinuates itself in circumstances such as the popular uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Iran, Bahrain and elsewhere?

 

Of course.

 

In most of the Arab-Muslim world, an American ‘endorsement’ is a double-edged sword, at best, and the kiss of death, to many – a reinforcement of the duality of our walk and our talk. Millions throughout the region know precisely which side we’ve been on – talking democracy and freedom while walking the status quo and support for autocrats who have made the Middle East safe for petroleum-driven economies in the western hemisphere and elsewhere.

 

What happens next in each of these countries is a matter for Egyptians, Libyans, Tunisians, and whoever else may follow to determine on their own, despite the risk potential to the global economy and the transnational community.

 

Instead of intervening, even with the best of intentions, America would do well to take this moment to commence a major policy realignment – one that matches its walk with its talk, and that looks ahead to a new era in Arab Middle East governance, recognizing that this may be years and even decades in the making. And that would suggest waiting for a formal invitation to help while eschewing another intervention – preemptive, preventive, presumptive, or otherwise.

 

 

R. Garrett Mitchell

The Mitchell Report

March 1, 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What To Do Between Now and Tuesday?

The secret of teaching is to appear to have known all your life what you learned this afternoon.

Anonymous

Dear Friends,

For a great many Americans, the next 72 hours will be agonizingly long ones, filled with anxiety and fear, suffused with doubt or gloom, and characterized by epic uncertainty. 

And the challenge is: What to do between now and Tuesday?

Here's some background that can help you while away those harrowing hours -- and -- prepare for a celebrity role at the office on Monday or at your Election Night party. Or anywhere in between. And as the anonymous quote suggests, with just a little preparation you can appear to have had this knowledge for sometime.

And on that point, I'll acknowledge indebtedness to a host of very smart teachers -- political scientists, pollsters, pundits, and reporters from whom I have learned much in the lead-up to this election -- and the three institutions with whom they are associated:

o The American Enterprise Institute's Election Watch series, featuring Michael Barone, Karlyn Bowman, John Fortier, and Norman Ornstein -- the longest-running, most informative and entertaining political analysis program in town.

o A Brookings Institution and Princeton University Center for the Study of Democratic Politics project, co-directed by Brookings' Senior Fellow, Thomas Mann and Princeton professor, Larry Bartels, featuring a dozen of the nation's most distinguished political scientists and journalists who combine rigorous social science analysis and thoughtful empirical observations to make sense out of the American electoral process.

o The Pew Research Center, the preeminent polling organization whose CEO, Andrew Kohut, and associates, Scott Keeter and John Green, consistently generate the most accurate data and keen analysis.

And now, here are five ways to think about Election 2008.

o Follow the Money.

Welcome to the first $1,000,000,000 presidential campaign. Yes, that's “billion.” 

As of October 15th, the Obama and McCain Campaigns had raised $980 million -- $640 by the Obama camp and $340 by the McCain organization. 

To put this in perspective, John McCain has raised more money than John Kerry in 2004 and only slightly less than George Bush. By contrast, Obama will probably have raised more than Bush and Kerry combined by the time it's all over.

Obama's donor list of 3.1 million individuals is more than twice that of any other political candidate, and is more than the donor lists of the Democratic and Republican National Committees. 

“He's practically created a party of his own,” according to Anthony Corrado, Colby College professor and one the of nation's leading experts on campaign finance, to whom TMR is indebted for this data.

$310 million of Obama's money has come from donors who gave $200 or less and $215 million from those who gave $1000 or more. By comparison, George W. Bush raised $147 million from the $1000 + donors in 2004.

o Follow White Catholics.

“There is a long history of white Catholic voters being swing voters. If one looks at polling data over the last 20 years, white Catholics do indeed move from one party to another depending on the candidate and the issues, and they almost always end up on the winning side. A lot of analysts look at white Catholics as a key barometer of where the election is going,” according to John Green, Senior Fellow in Religion and American Politics at Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

William Galston, Brookings Senior Fellow and former Clinton White House domestic policy adviser, puts it quite simply: “As white Catholics go, so goes the election.”

Pew's polling data showed John McCain with a 13-point edge over Obama with White/non-Hispanic Catholics in late September; by late October, the lead had shifted dramatically giving Obama an 8-point lead. And by comparison, this was a group that supported George W. Bush in 2004 over his Catholic opponent, John Kerry.

A shift of this magnitude stems from multiple contributing factors, but one principal assumption is that White Catholics, whom Galston describes as “cross-pressured” between economic and social issues in their voting behavior, are more concerned with the economy than with abortion or same-sex marriage in 2008. And of the three states where gay marriage initiatives are on the ballot -- Arizona, Florida, and California -- only in Florida might it have any influence.

 o Follow Young Voters.

For years, young voters were the biggest “no-show” cohort in every national election, but that changed substantially in the 2004, according to the University of Maryland's youth voter research institute. 

21 million 18-29 year-olds voted in 2004, an increase of 4.5 million from the election of 2000. And turnout of eligible young voters increased by 9 percentage points, to 51.6 percent, up from 42.3 percent in 2000. 

In the 2006 midterm elections, turnout among 18 to 29 year-olds increased again, when they voted for Democratic candidates over Republicans in races for the House of Representatives (58% vs. 38%), the Senate (60% vs. 33%) and governor (55% vs. 34%).

There is no good news in these data for Republicans for next Tuesday's election.

According to Pew Center's data, the percentage of voters ages 18 to 29 identifying with the Democratic Party has increased from 48% in 2004 to 61% this year. Democrats have a nearly two-to-one margin over Republicans -- 61% to 32% -- up from a seven-point advantage in 2004. And they show a preference for Obama v. McCain by almost 2 to 1 -- 65% to 33%.

Pew data also shows that voters in the 30 to 49 year old cohort have shifted considerably since 2004, with nearly half (49%) identifying with or leaning toward the Democratic Party, up from 43% in 2004. This six-point advantage is a twelve-point shift from the comparable stage in 2004 when Republicans had a six-point advantage.

o Follow the Swing States.

First, which states “swing”? And what makes them “swing”?

Most experts agree that the “swing” or “battleground” states in 2008 are: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Others would add Minnesota, New Mexico, and even Georgia.

What changed? And what makes them “in play” this year?

Consider this: 

o according to Pew data from 28,000 interviews, there has been a marked shift in voter identification this year -- 38% identify themselves as Democrats, 34% as Independents, and 28% as Republicans. In 2004, 35% were Democrats, 33% were Republicans, and 32% were Independents; 

o further, Pew shows that in nearly all battleground states, Democrats now hold a several point advantage over Republicans, and in some cases a double digit lead -- 5 points in Virginia, which was evenly split in 2004; 9 points in Ohio, where Democrats had just a two point edge in 2004; 

o the powerful combination of four factors that are causing shifts in nearly every demographic cohort and a growing number of states -- the credit crisis and the financial meltdown, the discrepancy in the performance of the two campaigns and the two presidential candidates, Sarah Palin, and the Obama National Bank.

o Pirate Ship v. Tight Ship

At a Brookings/Princeton seminar this week on the role of money, mobilization, and advertising in the 2008 election, Politico.com's, Mike Allen, reported that a favorite metaphor for the McCain campaign among the political cognoscenti is “pirate ship,” descriptive of its rollicking, swashbuckling character.

By contrast, there is the Obama campaign, which almost every seasoned observer rates as the most well-managed, adult, and consistently smart venture in the history of the business -- the prototypical 'tight ship.'

In fairness, much of this owes to the howling storm into which the McCain ship has had to sail -- the combination of an historically unpopular president of the same party, the Obama juggernaut, the economic earthquake, and whatever other factors have created the significant numerical advantage for generic Democrats this year.

Any analysis of the McCain campaign must begin with those harsh realities, and the recognition that if circumstances had been different, so, too, might have been the trajectory of the campaigns.

But those factors don't explain the brilliance of the Obama team's strategy and its nearly flawless execution, nor do they explain away the carelessness or the profound lability of John McCain's candidacy.

Irrespective of one's political preference, three factors have conspired in the final phase of the campaign -- those few weeks in which a close race appears to have become a potentially toxic election for Republicans of every stripe: 

o vice presidential selection: voters appear to have judged Obama's decision as thoughtful, measured, and responsible; in contrast, McCain's was viewed as impulsive and irresponsible;

o debate performance: Obama was seen as disciplined, unruffled, and “presidential” in demeanor; and by contrast, McCain's peripatetic and sometimes dismissive manner made him seem smaller, older, and too often angry;

o response to the economic upheaval: McCain's “loose cannon” response reflected poorly on his governing style and political judgment; Obama surrounded himself with the 'best and the brightest' in economic and financial matters, took their counsel, and did not make the mistake of trying to interpose himself into an ongoing political and policy debate.

There's more, certainly, and people of good judgment and goodwill will weave different narratives about this most historic of American elections.

But the goal of this TMR is to provide readers with a selection of “talking points” to enhance their performance in “spin rooms” around the country.

And that brings us to two final directives: first, remember to “fall back” tonight because daylight savings has run its course; and second, vote your heart out on Tuesday, unless, of course, you've already done that.  

On the other hand, if you've already voted, try again!

 

Ah, September: Moral Hazard Month

Ah, September: Moral Hazard Month
September 19, 2008
 
 
“Moral hazard” is the term economists use to describe the fact that insurance can change the behavior of the person being insured . . . The savings-and-loan crisis of the nineteen-eighties was created, in large part, by the fact that the federal government insured savings deposits of up to a hundred thousand dollars, and so the newly deregulated S. & L’.s made far riskier investments than they would have otherwise. .
The Moral Hazard Myth
Malcolm Gladwell
New Yorker Magazine
8/29/05
 
 
Dear Friends,
 
September is “Back to School Month,” and this one offers a teachable moment for Americans of all ages about a concept known as “moral hazard,” which is a slippery little devil, as we shall see.
 
It’s taken me a long time to get the gist of it, and the truth is every time I hear the term used by a commentator or policy wonk, I have to reexplain it to myself.
 
Initially, I thought it described a powerful temptation that tested one’s moral mettle -- e.g., finding a bag full of cash in your office building elevator on the day your job was eliminated; playing a round of golf and filling out your scorecard a la Bill Clinton; or being a comparatively new state officeholder and getting a call from someone you’d met once asking if you’d be his vice presidential running mate.
 
Things you know you shouldn’t do, but which are tempting -- and -- difficult to account for -- morally, that is.
 
The dictionary wasn’t helpful because every reference was about insurance -- “the loss to an insurance company resulting from possible lack of prudence or honesty on the part of policyholder.” Not to put too fine a point on it, but I’ve never used “moral” and “insurance” in the same sentence or conversation, so I was still confused.
 
But after consulting a couple friends in the think tank world, I learned that the term is used in the world of politics and public policy to characterize public policy decisions that may encourage future risky and costly private behavior for which taxpayers could be responsible.
 
Or in slightly more cynical terms, situations in which enormous and costly errors are made by the wealthy and powerful and for which little folks are on the hook.
 
Okay.
 
Take September, for example.
 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; AIG, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch; and just yesterday, news that the powers-that-be are considering putting together the largest financial bailout in American history.
 
And the month isn’t over.
 
Five financial giants at the heart of America’s capital markets, all headed for extinction. Wall Street reeling, stock exchanges around the globe experiencing huge losses, investors small and large wondering whether the country is in freefall, and a President with virtually no political capital and personal credibility to help soothe the country’s jangled nerves.
 
So it has fallen to Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke to take the lead on a scenario that even Hollywood wouldn’t have conjured up.
 
Lehman Brothers’ CEO, Richard Fuld, had good reason to believe that the government might come to his firm’s rescue, given its bailout of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the salvage operation of Long Term Capital Management, which was organized by the New York Federal Reserve Bank a decade ago.
 
Turns out he guessed wrong. Who knew?
 
Had he known with certainty that the federal government would not be the court of last resort for a large failing financial institution, his firm (and others) might not have engaged in certain kinds of high risk investment instruments and practices. And having chosen not to do that, they might not be in Chapter 11 today.
 
Maybe, maybe not.
 
The same could be said about Merrill Lynch, but thanks to the good judgment of a new CEO who saw that gravity was rapidly evacuating Merrill’s market value, and who understood that his endgame options were evaporating precipitously, the firm stayed in the private sector, even if in the belly of the whale.
 
And I’m told that if you understand the finer details of credit default swaps (CDO’s) --- and, no, I don’t -- you’ll appreciate even more how Merrill CEO John Thain may have pulled off the most artful and legal legerdemain since Tom Sawyer got Ben to paint the fence.
 
Fannie and Freddie you know about -- sort of. Taken over by the government, which means that taxpayers are ultimately responsible for any losses that might be incurred. Counterbalancing that is the reality that if the government hadn’t stepped in, markets will still be falling, and current and future homeowners would be in a world of hurt.
 
Capping it all was this week’s AIG mega-deal, the details of which are still unfolding, but which demonstrate two verities:
 
First, size matters. If you’re going to fail be v-e-r-y big, bigger than Lehman Bros., apparently.
 
Second, that capitalism (in its slightly modified September 2008 configuration) and morality are strange bedfellows.
 
So if you’re confused about how the experts can rationalize the AIG deal and the Lehman non-deal, and which meets the moral hazard test and which does not, you’re not alone.
 
This doesn’t mean you’re right and they’re wrong. It means that when push comes to shove, the moral hazard standard gets v-e-r-y fuzzy, and then disappears from sight.
 
If you’ll pardon the leap from AIG to Abraham Lincoln, you’ll recall that when Lincoln ordered the suspension of writs of habeas corpus during the Civil War -- for which he took unmitigated political heat -- he said: "[A]re all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"
 
Now, one week in advance of the first presidential debate, we might ask ourselves about moral hazard and the McCain–Palin ticket.
 
If one believes that the CEO’s of Fannie and Freddie, Lehman, Bear Stearns, Merrill, Countrywide and other financial institutions were brazen, careless, or negligent in their management decisions -- at great cost to stockholder value and the impact on the American and global economy -- consider Senator John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin.
 
Even if you admire Palin, find her story compelling, and believe that she’s a quick study, it’s a very long, cold ride on one of those throbbing snow machines to equate that with her being qualified to be vice president of the United States. And, using McCain’s financial advisor Carly Fiorina’s logic, she’s also unqualified to be vice president of Hewlett-Packard.
 
Yet, there she is, chosen because John McCain needed to change the dynamic in his faltering presidential run. A number of qualified candidates from which to choose, but only one who offered three things he needed most: first, red meat -- caribou presumably -- to excite the Republican base of social conservatives; second, strengthening the ticket’s appeal to women, and particularly to disaffected Hillary supporters; and third, buzz -- driving Democrats to distraction and sending the political press into overdrive to vet her in a way that McCain had clearly not done.
 
And if there’s one thing the Republican base hates more than Democrats, it’s the press.
 
But her selection by McCain is a political decision purely in his self-interest with enormously risky implications for the national interest, as this month’s historic financial meltdown and this week’s bombing of the U. S. embassy in Yemen remind us.
 
Just imagine Sarah Palin at the helm.
 
Much of the hoopla about McCain’s stunningly impetuous choice has been spun to fit the persona of that young Navy pilot who survived the horror of the Hanoi Hilton and came home to run for office, and who has built a reputation of bucking his party on key political and public policy issues. It’s a narrative of independence, courage, and audacity. It’s a modern day “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”
 
Fine, but this isn’t a movie.
 
And the point is that John McCain didn’t just bet his ranch, he mortgaged ours -- and with a subprime, no less.
 
And we best understand that now.
 
McCain is a big risk taker, a frequent risk taker, and a man for whom risk has been a way of life. That’s admirable in some instances and select vocations, even in the Senate, but it isn’t what we’re looking for in #44.
 
We have seen what bold and risky, strong and wrong, and our way or the highway looks like at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and we have had enough.
 
After twenty-two years in the United States Navy and twenty-six in the United States Congress, one would think John McCain would understand the implications of moral hazard.
 
But apparently not.
 
While he expresses outrage at the greed and selfishness on Wall Street and pontificates on the platinum parachutes that those failed financial CEO’s are bailing out with while their stockholders and employees are left with pennies on the dollar, he ought to take a good, long, hard look in the mirror.
 
That’s if he’s still got the courage.
 
 
 
 

SARAH, PALE IN COMPARISON

“To govern is to choose.”

Pierre Mendes France