rc3.org

Strong opinions, weakly held

Tag: politics (page 13 of 23)

The new world

Today Barack Obama nominated economist Peter Orszag his to head the Office of Management and Budget. Orszag is currently director of the Congressional Budget Office and writes an official blog in that capacity. Not quite the same as publishing a personal blog, but interesting nonetheless. I wonder if he’ll be blogging from the OMB as well? Marc Ambinder notes that OMB is in charge of implementing Obama’s transparency agenda. Putting that office in the hands of someone who’s comfortable blogging is a good sign.

How President Obama could disappoint me

I feel like one of the laziest tricks in argument is the post hoc misrepresentation of one’s expectations. People often lie, particularly to themselves, when hindsight takes over.

So as a form of insurance, I’m going to write down some ways that President Obama could fail to meet my expectations. Then, a couple of years from now, I’ll be able to look back and see for myself whether the Obama Presidency is what I thought it would be.

Back in June, I linked to an article about good and bad process. It was one of those things that in a small way changed how I think about most everything. The basic argument is that process is under your control, outcome is not. Even the best process in the world can be outdone by bad luck or unforeseen events. The key to evaluating performance is to measure the effectiveness of a process, aside from the results that are ultimately achieved.

For example, had the Obama campaign failed, I still would have argued that their process was good, even if the outcome had not been the one I’d hoped for. In this case, the outcome vindicated the process, but the process was good regardless.

It’s in that spirit that I make this list:

  1. President Obama could decline to put an end to the regime of torture, extraordinary rendition, and imprisonment without charges that has defined the Bush administration for me. The President has almost complete discretion on these issues, and I expect a complete reversal of the Bush administration’s position on them.
  2. President Obama could extend the “imperial Presidency.” The Bush administration argued at every turn that the President is not accountable to Congress or to anyone else. Any new President will be tempted to maintain the power that he inherits. President Obama should give some of it back.
  3. He could govern narrowly. I expect President Obama to promote legislation that will be tough for Republicans to vote against. I don’t expect him to put through a lot of legislation that passes on party line votes.
  4. He could opt out of the standards he has set for himself with regard to transparency. If there’s one thing that worried me about the Obama campaign, it’s that it was not particularly open. I think that the secrecy of the campaign was a powerful tool, but I hope that the habit doesn’t follow Obama to the White House. He has talked about running a transparent White House. I sincerely hope he follows through. If he practices radical transparency, it will prevent him from making many of the other mistakes that could disappoint me. I’d hate for the Obama Presidency to be one where inexplicable decisions are made, and no explanations are ever offered.

That’s my stake in the ground. I’ll be able to look at it in the years to come and see if Obama lived up to my hopes as they were when he was elected.

I could make an alternate list of what I hope Obama will accomplish, but that would just be silly. He has his priorities and I have mine. I just hope he reacts intelligently to the problems he volunteered to take on, and that he makes progress in keeping the promises he made during his campaign.

Something to celebrate

Newseum has a collection of today’s newspaper front pages from around the world.

Update: Many wonderful things have been written about this election, but The Onion’s take may be my favorite.

Watching election returns (for the obsessive)

I’ve been obsessed with the election for over a year, and I’m just as obsessed today. Here’s a disorganized guide to election return watching that I’ll be updating throughout the day.

First of all, ignore exit polls and hope that whatever network you’re watching for returns does the same.

Here’s a short list of what to look for tonight, and here’s an election night viewer’s guide from Nate Silver. John Dickerson lets you know what to look for all day today.

My current plan for tonight is to watch the returns on HDnet, but we’ll have to see whether my wife will go along with that. Dan Rather is nutty enough to be fun, and he has a really interesting list of guests. Because HDnet isn’t one of the major news organizations, they don’t have any of the big name, low information pundits and instead have to make do with people who actually know what they’re talking about.

I’ll be flipping over to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s live election show at 10pm.

I won’t be live blogging the returns simply because it takes too much energy. I will most likely be on Twitter, and I may post updates here if I feel so moved, but I expect to be glued to the TV rather than glued to the computer tonight.

If I am looking at the computer, it’ll be to watch the vote totals creep up, most likely on CNN. To get the results straight from the horse’s mouth, here are the sites where official returns are posted from some states I’m interested in. Usually they’re behind CNN, but it never hurts to look when you’re feeling impatient:

Update: Google is publishing real-time returns as well. (Turns out this is where the map on Talking Points Memo comes from.)

Update: How many Democratic volunteers are out on the streets? So many that I got sideswiped in traffic by another car, and it happened to be driven by an Obama volunteer. Oddly neither car was damaged and we wound up talking about volunteering for a bit and then went on about our business.

Obama endorsements

Here’s a collection of Barack Obama endorsements from blogs I read. I’ll be adding to the list through tomorrow. I’m still trying to decide whether to write a full endorsement.

How we label politicians

When intellectually honest conservatives criticize Barack Obama, they say that he’s the most liberal Democratic nominee since 1972. (The dishonest ones call him a radical or a socialist or other silly things, but they’re not worth arguing with.) At the same time, people on the left argue that he’s not a “real progressive” and warn their fellow liberals that they should lower their expectations about what he wants to accomplish in office.

Critics on both sides can be right simply because there’s a lot of space to occupy between them. But I think that the real explanation is that evaluating a politician only by their ideology (left versus right) is insufficient. I think they must also be rated on a scale that ranges from “pragmatic” to “ideological”. A pragmatist bases their actions on what is achievable and which problems need to be solved. An ideologue sets their agenda to service their ideology.

My guess is that if you plotted Obama’s views, you’d find him on the leftward end of the ideological spectrum. I think he’s a genuine liberal. Obama’s philosophy of how to govern, though, is pegged way toward the pragmatic end of the scale.

I think this is the proper approach for a President. I mention the Overton window a lot. It argues that there’s a range of ideas that are politically acceptable at any one time, and describes how public opinion can be changed to move the window to make previously excluded ideas acceptable.

A President who governs in an ideological fashion will most likely spend their time trying to implement policies outside the window. Those policies will either not pass, or they’ll eventually hurt the President’s party politically. Politicians who ignore the Overton window tend to lie a lot. Since their policies are untenable, they’re forced to misrepresent them as policies that people can accept. The Bush administration has been a classic example of this style of government.

On the other hand, a President who governs with the window in mind can bring about change that stands for decades. I think this is Obama’s plan. If you listen to his speeches, or some of the other things he’s said, he makes it clear that his goal is to build a wide consensus around policies that move toward the end state he’d like to see. He’s aware that relying on the courts to bring about change can lead to resentment and hinder progress, and he knows that policies that win by narrow majorities will not stand the test of time. He seems OK with narrowing his ambitions to increase the durability of his ideas.

If Obama is elected, it’ll be interesting to see whether he follows this path. From what he’s said, I suspect that he will, but nobody knows how a President will govern. In any case, I think that an Obama Presidency would not feel as liberal as many conservatives expect him to be, and I suspect that many liberals who Obama would agree with in the abstract will be disappointed in the specific policies he works to enact. At the same time, if Obama effectively pursues his philosophy, he could lay the foundation for a long lasting shift toward more progressive government.

Why I am optimistic

There’s a reason why I’ve been more optimistic than many of my fellow Democrats about Obama’s chances on Tuesday. It’s the first hand observations of the competing ground games provided by fivethirtyeight.com’s On the Road series. Today they posted a wrap-up of sorts.

Here’s what they’ve seen:

In Cortez, CO, we had Republican volunteers pose for action-shot photos. The same in Española, New Mexico. Posed. For some time at the outset, we were willing to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt. They convinced us they were really working, and that we had just had unfortunate timing. It wasn’t until the pattern of “just missed it” started to sound like a drumbeat in our ears that we began to grow skeptical. We never “just missed” any of the Obama volunteer work, because it goes on nonstop, every day, in every office, in every corner of America.

I went to the Obama rally in downtown Raleigh on Wednesday, and the number of volunteers working the event was incredible. I was reminded at least two dozen times to early vote (I already had), and I was asked to sign up to volunteer at least half a dozen times (I did). I still don’t think the frenzy of neighbor to neighbor activity that the Obama campaign is fully reflected in the polls. We’ll see if I turn out to be right.

Bulk discount

Barack Obama’s campaign paid NBC and CBS a combined total of $1,736,000 for a half our of their airtime last night. Had the campaign purchased the 30 minutes of prime time air time on those networks in 30 second increments for normal ads, they would have paid $13,179,420. Pretty good bargain.

Text messaging as a marketing tool

Farhad Manjoo writes about the effectiveness of text messaging in political campaigning:

Political scientists have run dozens of such studies during the past few years, and the work has led to what you might call the central tenet of voter mobilization: Personal appeals work better than impersonal ones. Having campaign volunteers visit voters door-to-door is the “gold standard” of voter mobilization efforts, Green and Gerber write. On average, the tactic produces one vote for every 14 people contacted. The next-most-effective way to reach voters is to have live, human volunteers call them on the phone to chat: This tactic produces one new vote for every 38 people contacted. Other efforts are nearly worthless. Paying human telemarketers to call voters produces one vote for every 180 people contacted. Sending people nonpartisan get-out-the-vote mailers will yield one vote per 200 contacts. (A partisan mailer is even less effective.)

These findings create an obvious difficulty for campaigns: It’s expensive and time-consuming to run the kind of personal mobilization efforts that science shows work best. Green and Gerber estimate that a door-canvassing operation costs $16 per hour, with six voters contacted each hour; if you convince one of every 14 voters you canvass, you’re paying $29 for each new voter. A volunteer phone bank operation will run you even more—$38 per acquired voter. This is the wondrous thing about text-messaging: Studies show that text-based get-out-the-vote appeals win one voter for every 25 people contacted. That’s nearly as effective as door-canvassing, but it’s much, much cheaper. Text messages cost about 6 cents per contact—only $1.50 per new voter.

We can assume the calculation is similar when selling things other than political candidates as well.

I voted

I went to early voting today and cast my vote for Barack Obama for President (along with a whole bunch of other Democrats). I was going to write up a long explanation of why, but if you’ve been reading this site for any time, you know what impresses me about him as a candidate.

If you don’t see what Obama’s supporters see in him, it may be worth reading Cass Susstein’s endorsement.

Older posts Newer posts

© 2024 rc3.org

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑