The Fear Machine Revvs Up

The Republicans are building up to a thunderstorm of criticism of the Democrats, and particularly Barak Obama, on the question of terrorism and security. For example, today's Washington Post carried the following lead:

TYLER, Tex., Feb. 27 -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) accused Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) of making ill-informed comments about Iraq and al-Qaeda in Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate, signaling that a general-election brawl between the colleagues would center in part on who has the foreign policy experience to lead a country at war.

The NY Times article about Colonel Davis, the former chief bulldog colonel for the military trials against Guantanamo detainees who has turned detainee supporter, quotes him stating the obvious: top Pentagon brass discussed timing the upcoming trials to match the run up to the 2008 election. Duh. How many salvos of fireworks can they keep coming? Building up to a crescendo in September, with the cooked "evidence" of these dangerous terrorists (who have been held in stinking hell holes in Guantanamo for the last 6 years and must look withered and wizened by now). Another round of fireworks in the hellish bouquet of attacks and fear-mongering being hatched by the Republicans.

The Republicans will run on two themes: security and taxes. On security, not war but security, who can better protect the nation? A McCain who knows the guts of war, who supported and supports the invasion of Iraq and the ongoing war or Obama, who was against the war?

Obama has to posit a totally different mythology of America in the post Cold War, flat earth reality: it has to be rooted in a view of the world that says that the war should not have happened, the it has inflamed rather than doused anti-American sentiment around the world, that it has cost way too many lives and will have mired us in an intractable position in the Middle East for decades to come. And that it is ruining not only our standing among nations but brand "America" and our capacity to export our brain products (no matter how low the dollar sinks). A vision that says that we not only should not have gone to war and brought down Saddam Hussein, but we now have to reverse the outcome, make it all better? Make it so the middle easterners like and respect us (but allow us to continue full support of Israel). Make it so that militant Muslim terrorism calms down to a whisper? A policy that makes it safe to be an American abroad again. That vision is going to not only have to be compelling, it has to SELL and counter act the fearful and fearsome vision the Republicans paint.

That is a tall order, when we are a nation that feeds off the notion of our superpower strength, our righteousness, and are more than willing to defer to the one who pounds the drum the loudest. Bush still dominates the debate. (Is the Democratic Congress impotent or what?) He will have to defend the war all the way to election day. It's his war. And he intends to assure his legacy.

Taxes on the other hand is easier to reframe and change the subject from "it's your money; they will take it away and spend it on bloated boondoggles" to the Democratic fear machine: "health care is a disaster, education is a disaster, the infrastructure is a disaster, we have allowed the richest 1 percent to siphon off all of the wealth of the nation that could go to reducing infant mortality, increasing literacy rates, improving inspection of slaughterhouses to assure humane animal treatment and healthy meat, etc., etc."

How can it be that the richest nation in the history of the world can't afford to pay school teachers? or care for the disabled and the elderly?

My Democratic friends think Obama can bring in enough new voters who aren't going to respond to the Republican fear machine and who will support the Democratic fear concerto to win the election.

I am worried. Fear is a poison and a stimulant. At least the Democrats can point to actual visible problems and actual, acceptable, visible solutions. So the fear can be alleviated. The Republican fear seeps into the country's bones. It aims at the lowest common denominator. It uses bogeymen to scare us. We are a nation addicted to fear and to the aggressive response. All adrenalin all the time. The Swift boating of Kerry may look like amateur hour compared to what will be mounted against Obama.

PS: I am sad about Hillary. She would have made a much better president in terms of dealing with problems. Whether she could lead is another question. She has the chops on the war issue that Obama doesn't. Hillary is a realist. Iraq IS. We have to deal with it. "I was against the war from the start" means Obama has to create a whole new vision that gets us out of the very dangerous quagmire the Republicans have put us into (along with Democratic complicity).

PPS: The issue isn't who is right but who can paint the most compelling vision of how to deal with the world as it is (while painting the picture of what that world IS to suit the proposed remedies). The Republicans will paint a dangerous world that only more aggression can make safe. The Democrats have to paint a vision of a world with different premises and different outcomes. The US has seldom opted for the kinder gentler vision.

My daisy: Hillary, Barak, Hillary, Barak, Hillary, Barak, Hillary, Barak . . . .

I must confess to terminal ennui with this election.

I can't tell whether Barak will draw so many new and once hopeless voters to the polls that he can beat the Republican terror and taxes machine. Or whether we need a Democratic candidate with chops on the issue of security, namely Hillary.

Here's how I see it: Actually, Bush said it: they will run on taxes and security.

Taxes is easy: "it's your money, and you know how to spend it. They want to take your money and spend it on government boondoggles."

Security is the anti acid to The War. The security line goes: "we haven't had a suicide or other attack on American soil There is a vast radical Muslim conspiracy that wants to crush America. We need a strong defense. And the best defense is a strong offense." This message will be delivered from every loudspeaker in America, over and over and over and over. Loud and clear. If there is one thing the Republicans are good at creating, it's fear.

So, the question is how does the Democratic candidate either win the debate on security and change the subject on taxes? Or, change the subject on security as well?

Changing the subject on taxes isn't too, too hard. (Our little version of fear): schools are crumbling, millions have no health care, our infrastructure is aging, etc., etc.. So we need targetted investments (shades of Al Gore and the oak tree versus the dandelion schools of economics). More fear of public failures than fear of having your money taken away. That's the easy one.

Security: not war. NO, not war. Only Democrats raise the issue of war, and they do it by being against it. Republicans support strong security. And, we could be attacked any where any time any place by virtually any means. We can all imagine where the terrorists could strike. And kill, maim, create chaos and real fear. Just tweak an American and he or she can tell you their favorite predicted terrorist attack. So, the question is change the subject or be able to point to strength on the security issue.

Being against the war is easy. It's like being against taxes. Against waste. Against, well, evil.
Doing security well, and with visible action and results is hard.

On this last score, Hillary has chops and Barak is weak. He can be painted as McGovern, Eugene McCarthy, Paul Tsongas, Ed Muskie. In a flick of the Republican brush. Obama is weak on security (whisper, he was weak on war). Hillary, on the other hand, voted to authorize the president to use force. And SHE HASN'T APOLOGIZED FOR IT. She has taken a principled stand. She has all of the chops a Democrat needs to counter the Republican fear mongering. And double them on diplomacy and restoring respect for America.

But, here's the rub. Hillary is not an attractive candidate (particularly in the beauty contest with Mr. Universe, Obama). Obama is ravishing. As EJ Dionne pointed out in the Washington Post, Barak Obama has had one message from day one. Hillary has had umpteen and they keep changing. Bill overstepped (he was right in what he said, but he shouldn't have said it (how often are we "right" but "wrong" to say it?)). Her venues look set up. She is distant with the press. She is distant from most everyone. So? And actually, her best message is "we need a president who is ready on day one." But that can't compete with the litany of examples of where hope and courage changed history, as Obama is fond of parading in soaring rhetoric.

So, what's a person to do? Chops on security or mountains more voters?

(PS, if Hillary has to use the super delegates at the convention and twist a lot of arms, she will loose horribly. She can't do that. Lots of the old power politics are off the table for the Dems.)

My ennui has turned to perplexity and a wish to get to go and to have it be over with. (Plus, I haven't even begun the chapter about the horrific sexism that pervades reporting about Hillary that she simply can't charm her way out of. They did it to Geraldine Ferraro as well. It's a kind of pervasive, leering, ever so thin veneer of sneer. Disgusting. And women columnists do it too -- Dowd, for example, but she does it with knives.)

What think you?

Targetted Stimulus: Acorns Instead of Dandelion Seeds

Davie Pearlstein's list of conventional wisdom targeted stimuli for the economy sounded so sensible, that I had to summarize them here.

Instead of further cutting of interest rates by the fed, which risks stimulating the very behavior that got us into this subprime meltdown, a few economy enhancing measures. As Pearlstein says, "this ought to be an easy one . . . we know how much stimulus could provide an economic cushion."

To boost GDP by $125 billion, or 1% of GDP:
1. Extend unemployment benefits by 6 months, temporarily increase food stamp allotments and offer a flat one time payroll-tax rebate to workers with household incomes below $100,000.
2. To assure the support of the states, offer money to the states by increasing the federal Medicaid match can do that.
3. To bring Republican business interests on board, throw in the tax break of accelerated depreciation, "which doesn't reduce corporate tax payments, it just delays them."
4. To address the housing downturn, two measures.
One, advance future federal housing subsidies and make them available now to state housing authorities. This would allow housing authorities to buy some of the growing inventory of unsold properties to rent out to low and moderate income families. It would help stabilize the housing market and in the long run would save money.
Two, create a new type of housing finance -- at zero cost to the government -- to prime the resumption of mortgage lending: create a debt-equity blend, whereby the bank would lend to borrowers and obtain an interest in the future appreciation of the value of the property (think mortgage plus reverse mortgage). This new idea could both increase demand and reduce foreclosures. Homeowners would pay lower premiums and the banks would have a long term interest.

As Pearlstein points out, these are neither complicated nor radical ideas; some spend new money, others shift money from the future to the present, while others cost nothing but shift returns into the future. He says these measures meet the tests of Larry Summers, former Treasury Secretary and President of Harvard and now entrepreneur, of being "timely, temporary and targeted."

I always thought the debate between Al Gore and his targetted approach to the economy and George Bush's tax cuts all around but mostly to the rich as being the difference in propagation strategy of the oak tree and the dandelion. The oak counts on lots of squirrels to carry their trophy acorns around and bury them, some to be found during winter and eaten, but some to live another day and grow into a mighty oak. The dandelion puts its faith in the winds, by creating beautiful flying umbrellas to spread around the world.

And while gardeners may say that strong but delicate dandelions have a very successful reproductive strategy, in the long run, the mighy oak provides housing for birds, squirrels, various insects and food for all of them. I always thought Gore had the better argument.

She Won!! Go Girl Go

Say what you want, Hillary did it!

I am so proud of the Democrats: we have two fabulous candidates. I like Hillary better, but I could fall in love with Obama in a flicker.

So, congratulations Hillary. Powerful victory. You blew the men pundits out of the water. Even Chris Matthews was respectful and even humbled by her performance.
May she grow and rise as a candidate and become the first woman president of the United States. I can confess that having these two candidates makes me proud to be an American again. After a long, long time -- it seem like aeons -- of being ashamed of the behavior around the globe, the treatment of those least able among us and the pandering to the rich of the hyper Christianized Bushies.

The end is in sight, and it is a glorious end!

Benazir Bhutto -- A Great Loss

Benazir Bhutto was the most dynamic and charismatic female leader the world has seen. She leaves a gaping hole in the center of a hope that a woman of energy, brilliance, grace and beauty could in fact change the course of a country that is at the center of both terrorism and the possibility of seriously diminishing it. As Peter Galbraith wrote in the Washington Post on December 30, My friend died. Now her country may not make it. A human being and an indispensable leader.
Her recent, brief return to Pakistan, where she rode from suicide bomb on arrival to house arrest by the illegitimate General Musharraf, to candidate to lead her party into elections in a few days, and her assassination, telescoped in a brief arc the whole of her life.
Born to wealth and elite standing in an impoverished country, educated at Radcliffe and Oxford, elected prime minister at 35 and again at 39, she also spent five years in prison (much in solitary confinement), was married to a man who spent over 8 years in prison for corruption, and spent the last years before her return raising her children.
Many were skeptical of her bona fides going into her next campaign, but as Amina Khan, a lawyer and colleague of Pakistani heritage stated, when she heard Bhutto speak last year at Johns Hopkins of her record in office and commitment to fighting terrorism in Pakistan, "I really believe from hearing the tone of her voice, and the fervor of her voice, that it was a renewed and a very courageous leader," Khan, 38, said. "That's why I think this is especially sad. Because she was, I think, a great leader-in-the-making this time around."
For me personally, and as my friend Judy Shapiro pointed out, Bhutto's assassination contrasts hugely with that of Princess Diana. While the world may have mourned Diana's death in deeply emotional ways, we will mourn Benazir Bhutto's death in larger ways and for longer. She was the best hope of this generation to bring Pakistan out of deepening chaos, and her death is a tsunami that will trigger instabilities not only in Pakistan, but in India and Afghanistan as well as across the Muslim world and beyond to global oil and related markets.
Her death will ultimately be laid at the feet of the Bush administration that cynically brokered her return to balance out the failed presidency of Musharraf while allowing her to be under protected in a climate of extreme danger. Her death was avoidable, and neither Bush nor Musharraf took the necessary measures to prevent it.
Would she have been an effective Prime Minister again, this time around, we will never know. But her death leaves a gaping hole that will be impossible to fill. The next weeks are unpredictable. There are no good options and all of them are high risk. One can only meditate strongly to wish a return to centered coherence. And keep working to make it possible for disputes to be settled by negotiation instead of violence.