Obama's win provides us with three lessons in race relations
November 7, 2008 | 1:31 PM Paul Ong
Was the election of Barack Obama a transformative historical moment? Maybe.
This ambiguous answer does not minimize the remarkable accomplishment of electing a person of color. The nation overcame what only a generation ago had been considered to be an insurmountable barrier.
At a personal level, this achievement has transformed the way I see the nation and renewed my faith in the struggle for greater social and economic justice. The election outcome did not usher in a post-race era, but things have changed.
I take away three lessons related to race relations. The first is the continuing power of racial classifications. Obama has an African father and white mother, but he was portrayed as a non-white. As my colleague and friend Michael Omi would like to remind me, race is socially constructed.
The second lesson is that many would put aside race under the right circumstances. As other commentators and analysts have noted, there were two uniting factors: the deep and widespread disenchantment with eight years of Bush, and the economic crisis rooted in the failure of the financial sector. I put my money on the latter as the deciding factor because the convoluted financial instruments that produced the meltdown also tied many Americans to a common fate, one that temporarily diverted attention away from race.
Finally, race has become more complex. The Latino vote, and to a lesser extent the Asian vote, became salient during the election. They had been important in earlier elections, but there was a qualitative jump in importance this time around. Who knows how the new multiracial or multiethnic configuration will play out over the next few years.
Obama and his win have created new opportunities to further redefine race and to tackle racial inequality. The hard work to implement change is in front of us.
Never has a president come from a constituency of the urban poor
November 7, 2008 | 10:57 AM Ryan Enos
We have heard a lot about Barack Obama being from Chicago. This fact came up often, sometimes by his opponents because it conjures images of famously corrupt Chicago machine politics. Sometimes his supporters used it to demonstrate his toughness: if Obama could survive the rough and tumble of Chicago politics, he could survive any contest.
To me, however, the real significance of his association with Chicago is overlooked when we focus on the political. That he comes from Chicago, and the Southside of Chicago, has profound symbolic importance and, potential, implications for his policy as president.
We do not often elect big city dwellers as president. In the post-war era, I would think that no president could really be considered an urbanite. Dwight Eisenhower, who's most immediate non-government job was president of Columbia University in New York City might be considered the closest example. But few would associate the "Man from Abeline" (a small town in Kansas) with the big city. Those that came from big city regions, like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, came from wealthy suburbs.
The last real city dweller in the White House might have been Franklin Roosevelt. That Roosevelt came from New York opulence, far removed from the typical city dweller of his time, demonstrates why I think Obama's home is symbolically important.
With Obama, in addition to his personal characteristics being a presidential first, his constituent roots are also a presidential first. Never has a president come from a constituency of the urban poor.
Before I entered graduate school, I taught high school social studies in Chicago at Paul Robeson High School in Englewood, a neighborhood on the Southside. Englewood is one of the most economically depressed urban areas in the United States. The people of Englewood struggle with endemic poverty and violence. The murder rate in Chicago at the time was approximately 500 people per year. These murders, heavily concentrated in areas of the West and South sides would be enough violence to have some observers designate Chicago a war zone if it were in a foreign country. Englewood was in the center of this. My observation was that less than 25% of the students, 100% of whom were African-American, that started at Paul Robeson, graduated from there.
In teaching government and civics, I would require my students to learn the names of their elected representatives. I clearly remember the unusual name of a state senator, unusual enough that when my students asked me about the origin of it, I had to admit that I really had no idea. If Barack Obama had not had an unusual name, I never would have remembered it - and why should I have? He would have just been another obscure politician from a depressed constituency that would never rise to prominence. But Obama was different - and due to a combination of an acute timing and extraordinary personal characteristics, the man whose constituents included the children of Paul Robeson High School will now be President of the United States.
Of course, Obama's constituency also included the affluent Hyde Park and other areas - and Obama's life story, even in growing up, was much different than that of many of his constituents. However, I would like to believe that his exposure to communities like Englewood, the type of place in which most Americans may never even set foot, will give him an awareness that will affect his policy making. It is probably no accident that the last president to make a concerted policy effort for the poor, Lyndon Johnson, was exposed to critical poverty in minority children as a school teacher in south Texas.
With Obama's new constituency including approximately 300 million people, it will probably be very difficult to focus on Englewood in particular, but the fact is that the United States includes a disturbingly large number of constituencies similar to Englewood. The perpetuation of intergenerational poverty and violence in these neighborhoods affects our ability, as a nation, to affectively allocate resources and is a specter that hangs over our debates about almost all social policy. Policy that addresses the needs of the critically poor, be it through redistribution, education, health care, or otherwise is something that if a president successfully addressed, could leave a profound legacy.
I am sure that the residents of Englewood are experiencing a profound sense of pride in witnessing the election of Obama. Obama should also have pride in that he represented Englewood and, hopefully, as president he will not forget the needs of those that he once represented and whose needs he is uniquely positioned to address.
Where change can occur and where it can't
November 6, 2008 | 11:10 AM Ryan Enos
Change has been the focal point of this election. Obama and McCain both used it as a theme. It was almost inevitable that change would be the focal point in a time of such anxiety and dissatisfaction. And that Obama personified a break from the status quo, made the idea of change even more powerful.
It remains to be seen, of course, how much change can be brought about by his presidency. Even with single party control of Congress and the presidency, our system of government is designed to make change difficult to affect. But the sense that voters believe that change is coming was unmistakable. The images of people in different countries enthusiastically cheering Obama's election seems to indicate that the whole world believes Obama has the capability to bring change - whatever exactly that may mean.
If Obama can lead Congress to make changes in the areas of national health care, energy conservation, and other policy areas where change has been so stubborn in coming, but where there is a national consensus, it will appear that some that the hope pinned to his presidency has been justified.
However, it is also important to remember what will not change. There are quite serious policy areas in which Obama has not promised change and probably will not attempt. Some of these policies are so deeply embedded in our country that it is difficult to see how they would ever change - despite their critical importance. I will focus some here that deserve mention because they have very serious consequences for our country:
Military Spending and Arms Trade
It is difficult to overstate how integrated into our economy the military is. Thousands of companies do large scale business with the Pentagon. We also spend more on our military, by a huge margin than any other country in the world. We could argue that a dangerous world makes this necessary, but it cannot be an ideal use of our resources. In a country where our military is second to none, but our schools are near the worst of the developed world, this cannot be the way we should want to have our resources allocated. It will take a dramatic shift in foreign policy to cause this not to be true. The presence of our military spread across the world makes the military a self-perpetuating phenomenon.
The military aside, the proportion of the U.S. economy that is supported by foreign arms sales should give all Americans pause. Our economy is structured in such a way that we basically only export movies and weapons. That weapons have no other purpose than to kill means that this cannot be a good thing.
Incarceration Rates
More than 1 in 100 U.S adults are in prison. In some populations, notably African-American males, the proportion of the population involved in the criminal justice system is tremendous. This is a direct result of a dominant national philosophy of crime fighting by incarceration. There is very good reason to believe that our current policies of incarceration do not reduce crime. But regardless of whether one agrees that such policies do not reduce crime, the trend in incarceration rates is simply not sustainable. In many states, like California, the prison population has reached a crisis point and something has to give. We can no longer maintain a prison population of that size while maintaining our ideals of justice of humane treatment and funding critical parts of our public priorities, like schools. Of course, this is not likely to be fixed as long as criminal prosecution remains an easily exploitable political issue. The issue is also intimately tied to drug policy, an issue on which there is a political norm to maintain the status quo. Until a politician, like a popular president is willing to expend the political capital and have the courage to lead on this issue, then it will continue to spiral out of control.
Death Penalty
Every politician running for President still feels it is necessary to support the death penalty. We remain one of the only Westernized countries with such a policy and it persists, despite little evidence that it detours crime or saves costs, and continued evidence that it is applied unequally across the population.
Gay Rights
On the same night that Obama symbolically overcame centuries of oppression and discrimination for a minority group, voters in the largest state in the nation displayed shocking bigotry by repealing the right of gays to marry. The misinformation behind the campaign was sickening and, although I am sure there are individuals that honestly believed the issue was about schools and children, the proposition outlawing gay marriage would never have passed if it were it not for widespread anti-gay bias. And that, for the most part, the rest of the nation sat and watched while civil rights were targeted and destroyed in California, demonstrates that nationally discrimination against gays is okay. I do not know what politicians like Obama actually think about this issue, but still none of them feel secure enough to publicly support the right of everyone in this country to marry.
Racial Inequality
Obama's election had a material impact for exactly one African-American (four if you count his family). Economic inequality remains dramatic in the United States, as does inequality in every single measure of quality of life and social well-being. You may notice that Obama avoided talk of racial justice in his campaign. This is because dealing with racial issues on a symbolic level, like electing a president is much more difficult than dealing with racial issues on a practical level, like welfare and affirmative-action. Practically dealing with racial issues remains a political lightening-rod that is easily exploitable.
The common theme across all of these issues is that even if politicians have personal beliefs that change is necessary across these issues, change is hard to come by. This is because the issues are so easily politically exploitable that no candidate for national office will support change. No one wants to be labeled anti-military, pro-criminal, pro-gay, or pro-welfare. Neither Obama or McCain were willing to take stands on these issues that were remotely outside the mainstream.
The problem is that these issues are sapping both our treasury and moral standing. Imagine though if a leader that is popular and charismatic, and commands a great deal of political capital is willing to declare himself pro-peace, pro-reform, and pro-equality. We need a leader that is willing and has the power to take this risk. One that did, and could affect change, would truly leave a profound legacy in this country.
Joy, tears and a historic moment
November 5, 2008 | 1:52 PM Ryan Enos
You can't measure joy.
In writing for this blog, I have tried to emphasize the scientific. This is my job as a political scientist. Unlike journalists and casual observers, I try to focus on what can be measured, tested, and potentially disproved. This leads me to say quite often that there are aspects of the campaign that we just don't know anything about. We don't know if Sarah Palin hurt John McCain's chances. We don't know if the massive get out the vote efforts were effective. And we still don't know if Barack Obama's race hurt his vote totals. For these questions and others, in time, we will have measurements that allow us to attempt a scientific answer.
However, the most important parts of last night cannot be measured and they don't need to be. You know joy when you see it.
Perhaps the single most powerful expression of joy that I saw last night were the images of Jesse Jackson crying with joy. That encapsulates one of the most important aspects of this election in a way that science cannot.
While traveling around to polling locations in Los Angeles yesterday, I could see that the excitement and mobilization were palpable. In my own polling location in Venice, there was unabashed enthusiasm for the vote. In an African-American church that served as polling locations in the Crenshaw district, there was a somber energy that reflected the profoundness of the event for many casting their ballots.
But I think the image of Jackson best demonstrated joy. It was a joy that Jackson must have felt very acutely and was representative of what this election meant for so many people.
I think that Jackson would feel this joy so acutely that it brought him to tears because Jackson is so close to many of the events and one of the many movements that made Obama's election so symbolically important. Obama's election is profoundly symbolic for so many because of the tragic history, and modern reality, of oppression and inequality in this county. It is a symbol, not necessarily that these problems have ended or are ending, but a powerful symbol of possibility and hope. Jackson devoted his life to fighting oppression and inequality.
Some will disagree with his politics, but we can all understand the joy he must have felt in seeing such a powerful milestone accomplished in his life's cause.
Jackson is not alone in having devoted his life to the cause that contributed to creating the possibility that an African-American could be elected President of the United States, and surely a similar joy was felt by man, many others. However, I have to believe that the joy was particularly profound for Jackson, who, as a relatively young man, stood by Martin Luther King when he was assassinated.
It must have been a remarkable feeling for him to think that 40 years ago he personally witnessed the very literal killing of a large part of the symbolic hopes of African-Americans.
Now, he was there witnessing the election of a new symbol of hope to the most powerful office in the world. I can only imagine the joy.
An amazing night
November 5, 2008 | 10:11 AM Paul Ong
Later, later. Later I will analyze the vote, interrogate the historical implications, and contemplate the upcoming societal and economic challenges.
Last night, election night was one of pure emotion, a warm embrace by an indescribable profound change. It was a misty-eyed moment accompanied by a deep appreciation for the American dream and promise.
McCain's concession speech was gracious and healing, from a man I have come to believe is both decent and honorable.
I am amazed and enthralled by the oratory power of our president-elect to speak to my heart, to instill hope in place of skepticism and cynicism. I am grateful that Obama asked each of us to sacrifice and engage in national service.
My political awakening had come from the stirring words of candidate and President John F. Kennedy, and last night I again felt the youthful and unencumbered belief that great things are possible through personal commitment and collective action.
My wish is that this feeling will carry me, and the nation, forward over the next four years.
Faculty bloggers to discuss election on Nov. 6
November 4, 2008 | 12:29 PM Editor
In such a historic presidential race, there will be plenty of post-election discussion about why Americans voted a certain way. To help answer those questions, UCLA's School of Public Affairs has organized a panel of faculty bloggers to participate in a post-election discussion, "Reflections on the Presidential Election," on Thursday, Nov. 6 from 4-5:30 p.m. It will take place in the professional school's building (Room 2355), 337 Charles E. Young Drive East, on the UCLA campus.
Franklin D. Gilliam Jr., dean of the UCLA School of Public Affairs and professor of public policy and political science, will moderate.
Panelists include:
- Tim Groeling, assistant professor of communication studies
- Mark Kleiman, professor of public policy
- Paul Ong, professor of social welfare, urban planning and Asian American studies
- Gary Orfield, professor of education and co-director of the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA
- Mark Sawyer, associate professor of political science and director of the UCLA Center for the Study of Race, Ethnicity and Politics
- Lynn Vavreck, assistant professor of political science and co-director of the UCLA- Stanford Cooperative Analysis Campaign Project
What we should hear from the candidates on health care
November 3, 2008 | 1:08 PM David Zingmond
As the campaign winds down and the full impact of the current economic situation sets in, the most important aspects of healthcare that should be addressed are the maintenance and expansion of safety net healthcare programs. These are of critical importance in a slowing (or stalled) economy. Persons who have lost jobs will make important tradeoffs on healthcare over other needs that can worsen both an individual's health and ability to resume work. Items on the to-do list include preventing wholesale cutbacks in state healthcare programs (e.g. Medicaid) in the face of state budget crunches, ensuring that eligible individuals receive benefits for which they are entitled, and ensuring that private insurance programs (e.g. COBRA) are available at reasonable prices for out-of-work individuals who can afford this type of coverage.
Oh, and don't forget to vote!
McCain fights on in Nevada
November 2, 2008 | 9:28 PM Ryan Enos
Over the weekend, three of my colleagues and I finally broke out of the ivory tower to see the Presidential campaign live and in person.
We drove through the night - and dodged some food-poisoning - in order to arrive by 6:30 AM at an Obama rally in Henderson, NV. This may seem like an impressive effort, but it is not much compared to time committed by the scores of UCLA students that have been traveling out of state to volunteer for the campaigns. Obama himself was at the rally, and he drew a very large crowd. A good portion of the event staff was comprised of UCLA volunteers.
After the rally, we observed many Obama field offices in the Las Vegas area - again encountering many UCLA students and alumni. Obama operations were spread out over every corner of the metropolitan area. The volunteers were enthusiastic even though many looked like they had not had a good nights sleep in weeks. Volunteers were fanning out across neighborhoods and knocking on door after door.
From the political science perspective, it was certainly interesting to observe the process and I learned a valuable lesson in inference. Based on the reports from the media - of the McCain campaign out-resourced and on the run - I did not expect to see much of the McCain campaign in Vegas. Additionally, Obama supporters assured me that the GOP would not be found in Clark County and that they were concentrating their efforts elsewhere in Nevada. I think I was so impressed by the spectacle of the Obama rally and their campaign organization that I was ready to believe that the McCain campaign had thrown in the towel - at least in that part of Nevada. Nothing could be further from the truth.
When we finally visited the McCain-Palin headquarters in Las Vegas, we found Republican activists that were at least as fired-up as their Democrat counterparts. McCain-Palin had bussed in hundreds of volunteers from California and other states. They had also been out knocking on doors and were running an impressive phone banking operation - more impressive than anything we had seen from the Democrats. Some of their volunteers had been there previous weekends, some had been there for weeks. Their efforts were centralized and well-organized. They even had an huge cook-out to feed their hard-working volunteers.
Besides reminding me that I shouldn't make assumptions based purely on anecdote, the impressive showing by McCain volunteers also helped me to understand why the Obama campaign is still punching when many of us assume McCain is down. I have wondered why Obama continues to pour millions into advertisements in states that seem to be well in hand. The answer is probably that they are savvy enough to understand that the McCain campaign may be losing, but it has not given up the fight. Tuesday may be a landslide - at least as much of a landslide as Democrats can manage in this country - but it will not be because of a lack of fight among McCain's supporters.
Asian American voter breakthrough
November 2, 2008 | 9:18 PM Paul Ong
The 2008 presidential election is a watershed for the Asian American vote, at least in California. Of course, I fully acknowledge Hawaii's historical role in politically mobilizing this population as an effective voting bloc, and in consistently electing "their own" into state and national offices. Very recently, the Golden State has joined the Aloha state as a place where Asian Americans constitute a significant electoral force, one that cannot be easily ignored.
My colleague Don Nakanishi foresaw this development many years ago, and he and I argued in 2006 that the Asian American population is the new and awakening "sleeping giant" in California politics, much like Latinos were a generation ago. The demographic facts are strikingly similar. In 1990, 2.4 million Latino were eligible to register to vote, comprising 13% of all adult citizens in the state. In 2007, 2.7 million Asian Americans achieved the same status, comprising over 12% of California's eligible individuals. According to at least one estimate, the latter group now comprises about one in eight registered state voters. Their presence could have been even greater if community and advocacy groups have had the resources to help naturalize immigrants, register them, and turn out the vote.
One indicator of the growing importance of the Asian American vote is the media coverage during the 2008 presidential primary. Never before in my memory did national newscasters discuss this group's impact on the finally tally, but the news networks did as the results from Super Tuesday (February 5) trickled in. The story line was that Asian Americans played a key role in giving Hillary Clinton a victory in California. Another indicator is the increasing number of elected state officials. We had pioneers dating back to the 1960s, including Alfred Song, March Fong Eu, and Tom Hom. What is different today is that electing a person of Asian ancestry is now a common and reoccurring phenomenon.
Unfortunately, too little is known about the Asian American vote because so little quantitative research has been done in the past. The population was too small in most surveys to yield conclusive findings. It was too expensive to over sample this group given its linguistically diversity and geographically dispersion. Fortunately, both barriers are coming down with population growth and greater organizational capacity to interview in multiple languages. This has enabled several political scientists (Professors Jane Junn at Rutgers, Taeku Lee at UC Berkeley, Karthick Ramakrishnan at UC Riverside, and Janelle Wong at USC) to recently collect opinions from 1,891Asian Americans in California, an amazing accomplishment. An equally important development is a current effort by one mainstream public-interest group to sponsor a large-scale survey of this population to inform the organization's voter outreach program. Findings from these surveys are replacing racial stereotypes with hard facts.
The 2008 survey and other sources yield extremely interesting and informative insights. Not surprisingly, naturalized immigrants comprise a large majority. Gaining citizenship and participating in politics are positive signs of meaningful commitment to this nation and engagement in civil society. Asian American voters are not overwhelmingly Democrats or Republicans, with half registered as an independent or not declaring a party affiliation. This population is still up for grabs, an observation that should motivate both major parties to ramp up their outreach. Asian Americans have unique concerns, mainly culturally related issues such as the conflict between some public-health regulations and the culinary practices of ethnic businesses. Not the largely unfounded but titillating charges of eating certain types of meat, but rather more mundane issues such as how Asian delicatessens handle and display roasted duck and pork. Asian Americans are more concerned about foreign affairs, particularly when developments affect their home countries.
Immigrant specific concerns, however, do not define the Asian American vote. They share the same concerns and priorities as other Americans, particularly when it comes to the major challenges facing this nation. The 2008 survey found that the top three issues for Asian Americans are the economy, Iraq and health care. Previous surveys, including my own of Asian American voters in San Francisco, show similar commonalties with the larger public. They also appear to share the majority's support for Obama, although there are substantial differences along Asian ethnic lines.
An interesting question is which state or states will see a break through for the Asian American vote in future presidential elections. From now to 2030, the number of Asian Americans eligible to register to vote will double, and much of the growth will occur outside of California and Hawaii. But, I am getting ahead of myself. Let's take care of Tuesday's business first. Go out and vote!
After the celebrations
November 1, 2008 | 11:28 PM Gary Orfield
This is a period of very intense expectancy and fear that something will go wrong among supporters of Barak Obama's remarkable campaign--fear that the possible victory will somehow be snatched away, that Democrats always lose the close ones, that there is a deep and ugly hidden current of racism that will wash away the victories that seem promised in the polls.
I think that Obama will win, that there will be a huge celebration of a remarkable man and leader, and that after the ebullience there will be a morning after of facing hard realities of terribly challenging situation and a campaign whose end is not promising in terms of the unity we need in the coming months.
The campaign is ending with a beautifully executed strategy by the Obama side, with a burst of
expensive high-quality ads, massive rallies, and a awesome mobilization of volunteers by the Democrats. On the Republican side we see an intense focus on prime conservative themes and a massive effort to frighten the American people, on many fronts, about the person who will probably soon be President. Without knowing the results it seems worthwhile to briefly think about how the campaign's end tends to weaken the prospects for the country in facing the hard decisions that are coming and how the winner will have to change his agenda..
The McCain strategy has damaged both candidates and the possibility of the unity we need immediately after the election. Both sides, in addition, have acted as if the economic catastrophe will not force severe changes in what they have been promising. The McCain insistence on continuing the Bush tax cuts, pursuing both wars actively, not touching Social Security, etc. while cutting the deficit and slashing completely unspecified domestic programs very massively in an already very thin domestic budget was, of course, the sheerest fantasy even before the economy tanked. Nonpartisan projections showed that this would only multiply the size of the deficit much more than Obama's plan. Were he to be elected McCain's already weak link with both parties in Congress would certainly be exacerbated if he were seriously to end all earmarks, his only substantive budget plan apart from a totally unworkable freeze of everything, since one person's earmark is another's local economic development and ticket to reelection. He'd probably be a President without a congressional party behind him, even on the minority side. Even the most conservative economists now concede that there must be an expansion rather than a freeze of domestic spending until the economy starts growing again. McCain has spelled out no plausible economic pathway, confused the discussion, and severely damaged the possibility of collaboration between Republicans and Democrats.
On the Obama side, the idea of tax cuts for almost everyone, lots of revenue from the tax increases at the top and a large expansion of medical coverage together with an intensification of the war in Afghanistan doesn't add up too well at a time when revenues are soaring, the debt is exploding, and the short term need is for rapid stimulus that does not require continued high spending. It is also a time when it will be necessary to find an accommodation among the goals of the congressional Democrats who have been frustrated not only for the last eight Bush years but also for the proceeding six years after the GOP took over the House of Representatives in the l994 election. That's a full generation of frustrated Democrats on the Hill in what will probably be the most liberal Congress in more than four decades with very little long-term money to spend. In addition, state and local governments in many parts of the nation are facing massive shortfalls that will produce very intense demands for aid as will the unions of their workers who strongly supported the Democrats. Working this all out is going to be something to behold. The beginning of the new administration is almost certain to look a lot different than the campaign statements.
We are going to have fast and furious and expensive and fateful decisions and they are going to be worked out in unpredictable ways between the outgoing and incoming White Houses and a Congress in the midst of major change. We are going to have to turn very rapidly from campaigning to governing, making hard decisions on unknown territory with very large consequences. Some of these things are not going to work and problems not yet know will emerge as the crisis unfolds. Promised priorities are going to have to be modified.
It would be very good if this campaign concluded with a serious recognition of that inescapable fact and a commitment by both candidates to working together on things that matter to the entire nation during the emergency. Instead we see one side bitterly attacking and trying to undermine trust in the man who will likely to be President soon and the campaign that is likely to win endlessly repeating the stump speech without fully laying out what we have lost and what we are likely to lose before we work our way out of international and domestic disasters. And there are many things that neither candidate addressed. Neither campaign has had much to say, for example, about the huge number of poor people who need much more than a tax cut to have any viable future in our society and these people have enormous hopes for a new administration. Their needs are among the huge and long-delayed issues that will come into focus after we do our best to manage the emergency. But first, we must attend to the emergency.
The election campaign has been hypnotically interesting and may mark a major turning point in American politics if the huge mobilization effort of the Democrats builds a lasting governing coalition and a much stronger party organization. We will have to shift, however, almost immediately to governing in the midst of multiple crises. Lets hope that the new President, the losing candidate, and the Bush Administration in its last two months, act as soon as possible to put the campaign behind us and put our energies together to candidly facing the scale of our challenges and to trying, for at least a few crucial months, to pull the country out of the ditch, to make some urgent repairs, and get it running again so that we can then return to more normal methods to address all our other long-deferred needs with the governing coalition that emerges from the election. Lets hope that that such a commitment emerges rapidly in the initial speeches and the days after the election and that we can keep focused through a difficult period rebuilding basic confidence in the future of American institutions.
I think that Obama will win, that there will be a huge celebration of a remarkable man and leader, and that after the ebullience there will be a morning after of facing hard realities of terribly challenging situation and a campaign whose end is not promising in terms of the unity we need in the coming months.
The campaign is ending with a beautifully executed strategy by the Obama side, with a burst of
expensive high-quality ads, massive rallies, and a awesome mobilization of volunteers by the Democrats. On the Republican side we see an intense focus on prime conservative themes and a massive effort to frighten the American people, on many fronts, about the person who will probably soon be President. Without knowing the results it seems worthwhile to briefly think about how the campaign's end tends to weaken the prospects for the country in facing the hard decisions that are coming and how the winner will have to change his agenda..
The McCain strategy has damaged both candidates and the possibility of the unity we need immediately after the election. Both sides, in addition, have acted as if the economic catastrophe will not force severe changes in what they have been promising. The McCain insistence on continuing the Bush tax cuts, pursuing both wars actively, not touching Social Security, etc. while cutting the deficit and slashing completely unspecified domestic programs very massively in an already very thin domestic budget was, of course, the sheerest fantasy even before the economy tanked. Nonpartisan projections showed that this would only multiply the size of the deficit much more than Obama's plan. Were he to be elected McCain's already weak link with both parties in Congress would certainly be exacerbated if he were seriously to end all earmarks, his only substantive budget plan apart from a totally unworkable freeze of everything, since one person's earmark is another's local economic development and ticket to reelection. He'd probably be a President without a congressional party behind him, even on the minority side. Even the most conservative economists now concede that there must be an expansion rather than a freeze of domestic spending until the economy starts growing again. McCain has spelled out no plausible economic pathway, confused the discussion, and severely damaged the possibility of collaboration between Republicans and Democrats.
On the Obama side, the idea of tax cuts for almost everyone, lots of revenue from the tax increases at the top and a large expansion of medical coverage together with an intensification of the war in Afghanistan doesn't add up too well at a time when revenues are soaring, the debt is exploding, and the short term need is for rapid stimulus that does not require continued high spending. It is also a time when it will be necessary to find an accommodation among the goals of the congressional Democrats who have been frustrated not only for the last eight Bush years but also for the proceeding six years after the GOP took over the House of Representatives in the l994 election. That's a full generation of frustrated Democrats on the Hill in what will probably be the most liberal Congress in more than four decades with very little long-term money to spend. In addition, state and local governments in many parts of the nation are facing massive shortfalls that will produce very intense demands for aid as will the unions of their workers who strongly supported the Democrats. Working this all out is going to be something to behold. The beginning of the new administration is almost certain to look a lot different than the campaign statements.
We are going to have fast and furious and expensive and fateful decisions and they are going to be worked out in unpredictable ways between the outgoing and incoming White Houses and a Congress in the midst of major change. We are going to have to turn very rapidly from campaigning to governing, making hard decisions on unknown territory with very large consequences. Some of these things are not going to work and problems not yet know will emerge as the crisis unfolds. Promised priorities are going to have to be modified.
It would be very good if this campaign concluded with a serious recognition of that inescapable fact and a commitment by both candidates to working together on things that matter to the entire nation during the emergency. Instead we see one side bitterly attacking and trying to undermine trust in the man who will likely to be President soon and the campaign that is likely to win endlessly repeating the stump speech without fully laying out what we have lost and what we are likely to lose before we work our way out of international and domestic disasters. And there are many things that neither candidate addressed. Neither campaign has had much to say, for example, about the huge number of poor people who need much more than a tax cut to have any viable future in our society and these people have enormous hopes for a new administration. Their needs are among the huge and long-delayed issues that will come into focus after we do our best to manage the emergency. But first, we must attend to the emergency.
The election campaign has been hypnotically interesting and may mark a major turning point in American politics if the huge mobilization effort of the Democrats builds a lasting governing coalition and a much stronger party organization. We will have to shift, however, almost immediately to governing in the midst of multiple crises. Lets hope that the new President, the losing candidate, and the Bush Administration in its last two months, act as soon as possible to put the campaign behind us and put our energies together to candidly facing the scale of our challenges and to trying, for at least a few crucial months, to pull the country out of the ditch, to make some urgent repairs, and get it running again so that we can then return to more normal methods to address all our other long-deferred needs with the governing coalition that emerges from the election. Lets hope that that such a commitment emerges rapidly in the initial speeches and the days after the election and that we can keep focused through a difficult period rebuilding basic confidence in the future of American institutions.