3 Lessons from the Harris-Perry Controversy

Last Sunday was not a good day for MSNBC.

Ben and Andelynne Romney adopted a baby. That act of love earned them the cackling, gleeful scorn of prominent liberals. On live TV. This isn't complicated. The comments by Melissa Harris-Perry and her panelists were both embarrassing and pathetic. Still, there are three important lessons to be drawn here.

1) Prejudice comes in many forms

Imagine the outrage that would have followed... a TV panel of prominent conservatives suggests that (New York Mayor-Elect) Bill de Blasio's African-American son was the product of a 'token' political calculation... unrestrained fury would follow. And rightly so. In their rant however, Harris Perry and co. have encapsulated a small but spreading infection in American liberalism – the encroachment of emotion over logic and decency. It's clear that liberals disagree with many tenets of conservative philosophy. Nevertheless, in today's America, a thinly veiled hatred sits far too close to the heart of liberal discourse. Motivated by anger, many liberals have thus come to regard prejudice as a wholly subjective concern - something that conservatives consistently support and that liberals unfailingly oppose with moral purity. The actual truth is self-evident. By rendering a small child as a political object, rather than as a member of an American family, Harris Perry and co. have engaged in an unambiguous racism. Their not so subtle mantra rings loudly - all minorities are necessarily liberal and all conservatives are inherently racist. This is political Endocarditis.

Remember folks, just as it has no logic, neither does racism have a specific face. Whether from the mouth of a conservative or a liberal, whether it comes with a smile or spitted fury, our reaction should be the same. To condemn it absolutely. What was said was shameful.

2) Conservatives don't have a monopoly on stupidity.

Regrettably these comments don't stand alone. Instead, they reflect a deeper grain of ludicrous remarks from other liberals in 2013. Churning in the melting pot of idiotic remarks, we've had Bashir's comments on Palin, Clinton on Benghazi, Rep. Waters on sequester, Harris Perry (yes, again) on kids, Toure on immigration reform and the President’s summit of rhetoric - 'keep your plan'. These examples have reinforced a simple truth – casual stupidity pays no heed to political colors.

By breaking from logical assessment, too many otherwise intelligent liberals have discredited their agenda. While passionate debate is critical for America's well-being, we also need to accept that debate is worthless when it’s devoid of intellectual sensibility. Most of all, we need to realize that unchallenged stupidity helps no one. Idiotic remarks denigrate American political life and fracture the bonds of our society. Of course, there’s a simple remedy here – unless you’re going to contribute meaningfully, just stay quiet.

3) Conservatives must do more to address minority concerns.

Conservatives mustn't allow themselves to be distracted by this incident. It's not pleasant. Just as too many liberals view minorities with arrogance, it's also obvious that conservatives need to build far better bridges with non-white voters. Until conservatives get serious about inner city politics, for example, many Americans will continue to ignore the GOP. The election data tells its own tale. Unless conservatives become more competitive with minority voters, American conservatism has a bleak political future. Recognizing this reality, conservatives should regard what’s just happened as a challenge rather than a cause for celebration. A challenge towards a more inclusive future. Just as the Romney family has shown love to be colorless, so too must modern conservatism be limitless in its aspiration and concern.

Election Thoughts

Congratulations to the President and his campaign team. They fought a hard contest and implemented another extraordinary get out the vote effort.

Counter to my predictions as to what would happen, this was a major victory for the President. The swing states fell in his favor with relative ease.  Why did he win? I think in large part, Obama's victory stemmed from a general voter conclusion in the last week or two that the economy had finally turned a corner. In addition, clowns like Akin and Mourdoch did immeasurable damage to the Republican brand over the course of the campaign. These 'morons' (as I described them on BBC News a couple of days ago), lost two Senate races in which sane GOP candidates would have been firm favorites. In Mourdoch's case, not only is the Senate seat lost, but a great Republican statesman, Dick Lugar, has been lost as well. 

What does the Republican Party need to do now? First, we need to focus on the debt negotiations. House Republicans must protect the military from what would be catastrophic spending cuts. Second, we need to ensure that the party brand is not polluted by Akinesque individuals. We need to stand for freedom. The American people need to understand we are the party of freedom. Third, we need a hard headed but realistic approach towards our interactions with the President. Where real compromise is in the interest of the country - we must pursue that compromise. However, this willingness to negotiate MUST be a reciprocal arrangement. We need to see an evolution in the President's willingness to engage in serious negotiations. Failure to reach a negotiating reality will mean continued deadlock.

Presidential Election Prediction

UPDATE (11/09) -  Not too great on this one. Pretty abysmal in fact. Lesson- 1) Don't listen to GOP operatives who speak against major sustained polling analysis.

Against all the odds (and perhaps some clamors of bias) I am predicting that Romney will win the Presidential Election by an electoral college margin of 295 - 243. I believe that his route to victory will be found via wins in the swing states of Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

Here's how he wins. 

First- the 'swing' states that I believe are now 'safe' for each candidate. It is my opinion that the traditional conservative support which exists in Florida and North Carolina will place those states firmly in Romney's bracket. Conversely, I also now believe that Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan will go for Obama. The union presence and traditional Democratic affiliation of many voters in those three states will be a great boost for the Obama vote. 

Having banked the electoral college gold mine of Florida (29 EC VOTES), victory in the following swing states will enable Romney's victory.

COLORADO (9 EC VOTES) - Romney has closed Obama's lead in Colorado. Obama will be unable to replicate his 2008 voting success among younger voters, while Romney will attract greater support from independents and from a considerable Republican base which is far more energized than in 2008. Colorado will be close, but I believe it will fall into Romney's bracket come election day.

OHIO (18 EC VOTES) - By most estimates, Romney has closed the poll margins to within the margin of error. Winning Ohio will require a number of actions to fall in Romney's favor. First, Romney must be able to mobilize significant proportions of his base to get out to the polling booths. Based on the energy with which Republican leaning voters are now engaged in the election,  I believe this will occur. Today's New York Times has a good piece on both campaigns voter outreach efforts in Ohio. Second, Obama will need to see a depressed turn out of polled likely voters who currently say they will support him. I also expect that this will occur. Come election day, reduced enthusiasm for Obama will mean that a small but significant minority of his leaning supporters do not turn out to vote. Third, as yet undecided voters (who are a small minority of the likely voting total) must break heavily in Romney's favor. Again, I believe (and historic 'late undecided' trends suggest) that Romney will be able to persuade these voters to enter his name.

         To become reality, Romney's victory in Ohio will therefore center on three key actions- his campaign's ability to 'get out the vote', the Obama campaign's inability to motivate a comparative level of enthusiasm and the influence of undecided voters breaking in Romney's corner and turning up at the polling stations to reflect their decided opinion.

PENNSYLVANIA (20 EC VOTES) - For me, has become the most exciting state in the run up to election day. As recent polls have broken towards an increasingly pro-Romney trend, the Romney campaign has made Pennsylvania a major target. Interestingly, one of the most recent Pennsylvania polls has put the race at 47%-47%. The Romney campaign evidently made an error in not engaging a major focus on Pennsylvania before October. Regardless, now that the polls have tightened and the Romney campaign is expending resources in the state, I believe that Romney can pull out a shock win. Romney's victory in Pennsylvania will require that rural, conservative leaning voters turn out in significant proportions. In addition, Romney must undercut Obama's 2008 lead in urban/suburban areas. Ultimately however, I believe that Pennsylvania will go for Romney for the same reasons behind my suggestion of a Romney Ohio victory. Put simply, between likely voters and the few undecideds still in the race, I believe that Romney will be able to attract more voters than Obama. From research and from having spoken to people on the ground in Pennsylvania, I firmly believe that the Romney campaign has a statistically significant advantage over the Obama campaign in terms of voter enthusiasm. For me, enthusiasm is the crucial, always understated element of electoral success. Being a likely voter is NOT the same as turning up at a polling station.

VIRGINIA (13 EC VOTES) - As with the other swing states, Romney has closed the gap on Obama since the debates. The polls in Virginia remain very close - some show Romney leading, some Obama and some even. Ultimately, as with the other states, 'getting out the vote' will be critical for Romney if he is to win. Romney will need to generate high turnout in the traditionally more conservative southern areas of Virginia. In addition, Romney will have to undercut Obama's lead in Washington DC suburbs like Fairfax, Alexandria and Arlington. Again, I believe that undecided voters will break in Romney's favor and that the enthusiasm of the Republican base will propel Romney to victory.

CONCLUSION - The above predictions are definitely bold. However, I believe that Romney can and will achieve an upset victory on Tuesday night. The enthusiasm of the Republican base exceeds that of the Democratic base. And enthusiasm gets voters to the polling station. Romney now has comfortable metrics in terms of likability, leadership and ideas. These strengths will place him in a good position to take advantage of undecided voters who get to the voting stations. Obama will be unable to rely upon the base of support he received from young Americans in 2008. He will also attract far less independent voters. Taken together, these dynamics matter. Voting wins elections, participating in a phone poll does not. And... as Harry showed us in 1948, it's not over until its over.

Job Numbers - Election Economics

The news that 171,000 new jobs were added to the economy in October is positive. However, the economic recovery remains fragile and in the pursuit of a robust recovery - 171,000 is an insufficient number. As election day approaches, these numbers only form a final backdrop to the broader economic debate at stake. I have made clear on numerous occasions why I believe that Romney would provide the best economic leadership for our country. However, in terms of the record of this President, I believe the statistics also speak with irrefutable clarity. Overall employment remains lower than when the President entered office, over $6 trillion in new debt has been added to the backs of young Americans like myslef, the tax code remains a mess, economic growth remains sputtering and uncertainty about the future rules the marketplace. And yet, the President has no plan besides his intellectually vacuous call for higher taxes on the 'rich', fake debt reduction plans and even more spending. 

On Tuesday, I hope change comes to America.

Thoughts on CBS/NYTimes Polls

CBS/NYT have just released their latest polling data. From an objective standpoint, I don't believe that the data is accurately reflective of the race as it stands at the moment. These new poll results show Obama leading in Florida by 48-47%, in Ohio by 50-45% and in Virginia by 49-47%.

My issues with the results are as follows.

1) The polls also suggest that Romney is leading with Independent voters. The Virginia poll indicates Romney's lead with this voting block is significant. If this is the case, Obama cannot be ahead. Voter affiliation is broadly split about 30-35%/total affiliation- for both the Democratic Party and the GOP. Independent affiliation is estimated at around 35%/total affiliation. So... it doesn't take a genius to work out that the support of a credible majority of independent voters will lead to an overall poll majority. For me, this issue alone renders these latest polls as weak data sets.

2) Obama leading in Florida? The trends in Florida poll data over the last three weeks have shown systematic and robust movement in Romney's favor. For Obama to have retaken a lead seems to me a highly unlikely prospect. I am highly confident that Florida will go Republican on November 6th. The significant amount of time that Obama has spent in Florida recently provides a clear indication of his campaign's concern over the state.

3) The Ohio data is broadly reflective of poll data over the past few weeks. This data has indicated Obama holding a confident base margin of 3-5% points advantage over Romney. My personal belief is that Obama currently has a 1-2% point lead with likely voters who have not yet voted, but a 2-3% lead when early voters are included in a grand tally. I believe that many Ohio voters have given up answering the phone seriously when the pollsters call. It gets tedious when you get 3-4 calls a day.

CONCLUSION- Speaking to friends (both Democrat and Republican) who are engaged with ground level politics, the feeling remains that Romney has the momentum but that Obama retains a lead in Ohio. My personal belief is that Romney has a reasonable opportunity to win Ohio- but that this outcome will require the few remaining as yet undecided likely voters to join his camp. However, I also believe that Romney has a good chance at winning Wisconsin (where the GOP ground game is formidable) and Iowa (which is rural conservative). In addition, I think that Romney will win Colorado, Virginia and Florida. Having considered the polling trends over the last few weeks and having spoken to a lot of skilled politicos, I now genuinely believe that Romney has a route to the White House that does not involve Ohio. Is this route tough? Yes. Does it afford Romney room for error? No. But... is it possible? Yes.

UPDATE 11/04 - Wisconsin and Iowa look to be consolidated behind the President now. I was too optimistic about trend data vs union capacity to GOTV.

Democrat, Republican or Independent, we should all be grateful for the Secret Service

As we enter the final week of the campaign, it's easy to be wearied by the relentless partisanship that absorbs the airwaves.

And yet, amidst the rancor of endless attack ads, there is one permanent campaign fixture from which we should take great pride- The Secret Service agents and officers working selflessly to protect our democratic process.

Certainly it would be a mistake to ignore the Service's recent prostitution scandal and its ongoing fallout. These failings are serious and need cognizant recognition as such. But having taken this scandal into account, the larger story of the Secret Service this year shouldn't be defined Colombian prostitutes and drunken antics. Instead, it should be defined by truth. The truth of long periods away from home, of endless campaign stops, of the complex and often conflicting imperatives between effective protection and effective politics, and of the ultimate work of shielding candidates against a threat spectrum of varied characters and capabilities.

Without the Secret Service, our democratic process would be subject to violent extremists and our candidates left open to intimidation or coercion. There should be little doubt, we are lucky to have the Secret Service at our candidates sides.

While most Americans respect the Secret Service, this respect rarely extends to a more than a cursory understanding of how the organization operates. As such, if the Service is to receive fair analysis going forwards, much greater attention must be given to the extraordinary skill and discretion (the two crucial facets of executive protection) which underpin the conduct of the majority of Service employees.

Let's consider the record.

With reference to professional skill, the Secret Service holds a hard earned reputation as the world's finest protective force. This reputation hasn't simply been purchased with money- though it is true that protection isn't cheap. Truly comprehensive (and thus effective) protection is a difficult, time consuming venture. Ultimately it requires aggressive training, comprehensive preparation and honing rapid reactions. While it is easy to label these measures as excessive, they are (for the most part) necessary. Assassins especially in the modern era, can take many forms. Whether facing a suicide bomber, a group of gunmen, a lone gunman, a car bomb, a chemical attack. or a combination of attacks, protecting America's national leaders is not an easy business. Further, given America's tradition of close candidate-crowd proximity and our celebrity obsessed media culture, the Secret Service confronts a protection environment far more challenging than that facing most other protective agencies.  In essence, while a campaign team wants their candidate as close to the crowd as possible, agents want the opposite. Effective navigation of the protection-politics tight rope is neither an easy nor enviable task. Yet, agents do it every day.

On the second element - discretion, the Secret Service holds another praiseworthy reputation. To ensure that protectees trust the agents assigned to them and will allow those agents to remain close by, protectees must be able to rely upon agents discretion. In this regard, it is a tribute to the Secret Service that first families including the Obamas' and the Bush family hold the agency in such high personal opinion. With the especially partisan political environment of recent years, the Service's retained reputation in this area deserves great credit. Embarrassing leaks about protectees are exceptionally rare. In addition, major agency corruption scandals involving bribery etc. are effectively non-existent. Again, while the Colombia prostitution scandal is serious, it must not be taken as a defining incident.

The Secret Service has faced a lot of bad publicity in the last year. Some deserved. However, a fair consideration of the record and the conduct of its employees paints a different picture to the standard media narrative. Standing post at campaign stops might not be glamorous work, but is integral to American democracy. That the Secret Service is able to perform its role in the most political of environments and simultaneously in the least partisan of ways, is a tribute to the men and women who form its ranks.

UPDATE - If you liked this piece, please check out my op-ed for The Guardian on politics and the protection of the first family.

Mourdock's comments represent a growing problem for my party

First there was Craig, then there was Vitter. Who was followed by Akin, now supported by Mourdock.

Craig and Vitter broke the law. Senate candidates Akin and Mourdock have an apparent sympathy for rape.

Taken together, these scandals speak to a serious and growing problem for the Republican Party.

While our party has many impressive, honorable national leaders - Romney-Ryan, Boehner, McCain, Portman etc, we also have a minority of officials who fall below the standards deserving of the American people. The problem here isn't just Craig/Vitter style ethics violations- the Democrats have their own affinity for electing representatives of flexible integrity - Jefferson, Rangel, Jackson Jnr, Calvert providing a few examples. Instead for the GOP, the deeper problem is the manner in which a small but substantial number of Republican candidates/officials are left un-restrained to purvey our party as a perceived bastion of hypocrisy and fundamentalism.

            First, where does the GOP's perception failure come from? To start, let's consider the examples above. Senators Craig and Vitter subscribed to aggressive government measures to restrict law abiding homosexuals from greater rights. These same officials then engaged in criminal personal conduct. The perceptive implication stemming from these highly publicized scandals was all too clear; that Republicans believe in utterly hypocritical intrusions into the private lives of law abiding Americans. Sadly, Craig and Vitter are far from lone examples. If this was simply an issue of hypocrisy, it could be written off as the result of a raw pursuit for votes. But then, we also have candidates Rick Santorum. In contrast to some, I believe that Rick Santorum is a decent, honorable man who means well for his country - I believe he is misguided but not without integrity. However, what is unquestionable is that Santorum subscribes to an extreme and highly aggressive understanding of state-individual interactions. Thus, where Craig and Vitter are simple hypocrites, Santorum is a committed fundamentalist. All found (and find) places at the highest levels of the Republican Party.

The central problem for the Republican Party is therefore clear-

In this apparent mixing of stunning hypocrisy and un-repentant fundamentalism, the GOP appears to many Americans as a faux moral police. A party more interested in restricting gay rights than increasing individual freedoms. More interested in lecturing and litigating against certain Americans than responding to their concerns. More interested in winning elections than serving Lincoln's enduring cause of social justice. As I have noted, I believe this perception is ultimately unfair. I know that the vast majority of Republican officials care far more about the economy than they do about gay sex. However in politics, perception is as important as reality. And it is evident that for many Americans, perceptions of the GOP are not good.

At the moment, this perception-dynamic has some political insulation. The social conservative movement offers political candidates a well organized and highly reliable voting block. However in the longer term, the impact of our fundamentalist flirtation will be far less positive. In appearing to stand for both the protection of individual freedom and the simultaneous restriction of individual freedom, too many Americans are coming to believe that Republicans are their enemy. Too many Americans, whether hispanics, women, homosexuals or others, believe that the Republican Party regards them as second class citizens. Again, while I do not believe that this perception accurately reflects reality, the fact that it exists at all should be of great concern to Republicans concerned about future electoral success. When it's personal, voters tend to remember.

As the social conservative movement increasingly cedes supporters to growing currents of libertarian social tolerance, the Republican Party will face a challenge in persuading voters to alter their perceptions of our party. In this regard, statements by Mourdock and co. will have a lasting, negative impact for the future of the GOP. 

For the sake of our identity and our political future, Republicans must more actively condemn those who celebrate the fringe of American politics.

2nd Debate - Thoughts

My broadband has gone completely crazy today. I am trying to sort it out. Briefly (before my internet cancels out) I will outline my thoughts on last night.

1) Obama did much better - obviously. However, Romney also had a strong performance.

2) Because he doesn't have a record worthy of praise- Obama is trying to paint Romney as an extremist. 'Hope and Change' are long forgotten slogans. President Obama's 2012 slogan is 'Demagoguery and Fear'.

3) While the President is viewed to have won the debate (by slight margins), CBS polling shows that undecided voters believe (following the debate) that Romney is in a far stronger position to resolve the challenges with reference to deficit, debt and economy.

4) Obama was not honest on Benghazi. The Benghazi incident and the Obama Administration's response stink. I have written about why, here and here.

5) The election will be exceptionally close.

Debate #2

Tonight's second presidential debate will be centered around a town hall format. Both candidates have major objectives to pursue.

For Romney, the key will be to continue to shine a light on the President's record. Romney has the momentum in the race but he still needs to close Obama's lead in Ohio. By attacking the President on policy, providing his alternate proposals and maintaining a calm, friendly demeanor, I believe that Romney can win. 

For the President, the key is to provide a better performance. I expect Obama will be far more aggressive and will attempt to go after Romney's record at Bain etc. He will try to paint Romney as a candidate who is fundamentally divorced from the middle class.

          Personally, I think the President is going to have another tough night (though probably not as tough as the first debate). I believe that Romney has the facts on his side and Obama has only a record of failure/a distinct lack of new ideas. Further, I seriously doubt that if the President attempts to wage a class warfare based attack on Romney he will be successful. In fact, I believe that Romney would relish the opportunity to have that discussion. As a final point, the town hall setting for tonight's debate will make it difficult for either candidate to be too aggressive. 

It's a big night. If Romney achieves another convincing win he will chip away the President's lead even further. In that scenario, the run up to Nov. 6 will be very tight.

Romney - Defense Proposals

I am a supporter of Mitt Romney. I largely agree with his foreign policy proposals. However, I disagree with his approach on defense spending. There are two reasons why.

1) The US Military can meet America's defense requirements with Obama's proposed 10yr defense budget. While the January sequester cuts would be catastrophic and must be avoided, Obama's proposed ten year/$450 bn cuts are effectively designed to maximize core force capabilities while taking into account the challenging fiscal environment that the US faces. These cuts are supported by current and former Secretaries of Defense and the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. This budget tool shows how the US Military could remain its flexible capabilities even after significant spending cuts. For me, building more ships will not equal more security (increased ship building is the cornerstone of Romney's defense plan). It will simply mean more debt.

2) If we Republicans want to honestly assert fiscal conservatism, we must be willing to recognize that our current defense expenditures are unaffordable. As the Joint Chiefs Chairman frequently states, the national debt has become the greatest threat to US security. We cannot continue to spend money that we do not have. America's defense spending must be rooted in strategic requirements and not corporate hand outs to the defense industry nor in feeding the pet projects of lawmakers. We cannot absolve the DoD from sharing its part in restoring our nation's finances.

Post VP Debate analysis

Last night's debate went broadly as I had expected. The Vice President was far more aggressive than Ryan, frequently launching emotionally laden attacks on the Romney-Ryan platform. Biden also sought to clearly assert himself as the spokesman for Mr. 'Average Joe'. In contrast, Ryan tried to keep  his statements to policy details while attacking the Obama-Biden record.

A few things stood out for me.

1) Biden's innate grinning was relentless and made him look ridiculous while Ryan was speaking. Biden came across rude and arrogant - just look at the focus group data.

2) Biden was unable to articulate an Obama-Biden plan for deficit/debt reduction. There's a simple reason why, their plan doesn't exist. This failure formed part of a trend in which Biden sought to demagogue against Ryan instead of articulating counter proposals. The absurdity of Obama's 'change' narrative was on full display last night. In four short years, we have traveled from the pursuit of 'a new tone in Washington', to a celebration of unrepentant partisanship.

3) Obama-Biden's policy on Afghanistan is nuts. Biden aka 'the GRINch' resorted to constant repetitions of the Obama Administration's fundamental withdrawal timeline. Where Ryan talked about paying attention to ground conditions and military advice, for Biden it was clear that domestic politics came first. For me, Afghanistan represents the most stunning example of this President's hypocrisy. 2008 Obama claimed that 'he would win the right war, the war that 'Bush neglected', instead, success in Afghanistan has been subordinated to pleasing the Democratic base. There can be few strategic errors as profound as that of announcing a timeline for withdrawal to your enemy.

4) Ryan's answer to the abortion question gave a clear indication of the difficulty that Republicans have on this issue. On the one hand, Romney-Ryan understand that they must attract more female voters to the party. On the other, the candidates also understand that social conservatives are a highly reliable voting block that are concerned about a few key issues - abortion being one such issue. Ultimately, I do not believe that Romney-Ryan would have any interest in overturning Roe v Wade. They understand that most Americans (especially women) do not want the government engaged on such a controversial issue. I also think that many people misinterpret where the Supreme Court stands on abortion (Biden played to this misunderstanding). Yes, Justices like Scalia might oppose Roe v Wade, but they oppose it because they do not believe that there is a constitutional right to abortion. Scalia has stated explicitly that he believes abortion law is an issue for legislatures rather than for the courts. If Congress wants to legalize abortion - fine. If they want to restrict abortion - fine. Personally, I tend to take a more UK style approach to abortion - that the law should be rooted in science and the capacity for functioning life, rather than in culture battles over Privacy vs God. We should be focused on the economy and foreign policy.

5) From my perspective, Ryan was very strong on the economy. He quoted facts and suggested reforms. Biden applied scare tactics. I also find it interesting that Obama-Biden attack Romney-Ryan for not giving itemized details on their tax plan. Obama-Biden's tax plan is a complete joke. Obama-Biden's sums don't add up and their tax proposals would reinforce the worst elements of our complex, loophole laden tax code.

Romney's VMI Speech

Earlier today Mitt Romney made a key-note foreign policy address. As with my recent analysis of President Obama's foreign policy, I thought it would be appropriate to analyze Romney's speech.

Here's what I liked.

First, I thought it was good that Romney went out of his way to pay tribute to the VMI. The Virginia Military Institute represents the enduring center of the South's contribution to American military service. And southern US states make the primary contribution to the US Military's personnel base.

Second, I thought Romney provided an articulate and persuasive argument concerning the political dynamics in the Middle East at the moment. I share Romney's belief that the Middle East is in the midst of a pivotal battle for its future. This is a struggle between forces of oppression and ideological tyranny, and between citizens who wish for greater freedom, greater opportunity and a better future for their children. There should be no question of where America stands.

Third, I thought that Romney laid out robust alternatives to Obama's policies on Afghanistan and Syria. Where Obama announced and laid down in stone an early artificial timetable to end America's military engagement in Afghanistan ('on schedule'), in contrast Romney today said that he would ensure that military advice and conditions on the ground would be at the core of his decision making process. On Syria, I feel that Romney was bold (and correct) to state that he would provide arms to the rebels. This is a proposition not without risk - those arms might ultimately fall into the hands of adversaries of the United States. However, for both moral and strategic reasons the US must support the liberation of Syria with greater tangible support.

Fourth, I thought Romney laid out a credible alternative to Obama's policy on Iran. Romney brought a poignant clarity to Obama's policy re-Iran. This President has preferred a small chance of detente with Iran's leaders rather than supporting the basic rights of the Iranian people. This is immoral and unbecoming of America. As a second albeit equally important point, I also believe that a President Romney would have a much greater likelihood of persuading Iran's leadership to give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons. Why? Because I believe that Iran regards Romney's threats as far more credible than Obama's. For diplomacy to work, Iran must fear the consequences of diplomatic failure.

Fifth, I agreed with Romney's position that US aid to Egypt should be contingent on the protection of our diplomatic facilities and the surety of Egyptian-Israeli peace. This is an obvious demand that Obama has not made openly.

However, there were areas where I disagreed with Romney.

First, I think Romney was wrong to say that the world should 'never see any daylight' between Israel and the US. While I believe that a strong and positive US relationship with Israel is a moral necessity, we must be willing to articulate our differences with the Israeli Govt. as and when they occur. It is not for example in the interests of the US that settlement construction in the West Bank continues unabated. While Romney is right to argue that the world must understand that the US will always ensure Israel's security, an intellectually robust and honest American policy requires that the US will not always agree with the Israeli standpoint. This is nothing to be afraid of. The US relationship with its closest ally, the UK, often faces points of disagreement. Yet, the special relationship always endures.

Second, I disagree with Romney's defense spending plans. While the January defense sequester would be a disaster that must be avoided, I believe that Obama's proposed $450bn/10yr defense cuts strike an achievable and realistic balance between fiscal austerity and strategic necessity. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is fond of arguing, our national debt is our greatest enemy. Building a greatly increased number of ships is unjustifiably expensive. This budget simulator illustrates the strong defense savings that could be made without damaging US security. While I disagree with Romney's defense spending proposals, I support his focus on greater submarine procurement as part of the Navy's existing construction choices. Submarines will be crucial in ensuring continued US naval supremacy into the future.

Overall though, a strong speech which presented a clear and bold counter to the incumbent's foreign policy. Romney is looking stronger every day.

The realist in idealist clothing - The confused foreign policy of President Obama

 The next Presidential debate will cover foreign policy. In advance of the debate I wanted to outline some of my thoughts about Obama's foreign policy.

Taking his recent UN speech at face value, you would think that the President's foreign policy pursues the advance of global freedom as its central raison d'etre. This is not born out in reality. Ultimately, for this President, the idealist 'freedom agenda' takes a back seat to a more traditional realist approach to international affairs. My concern is that this approach lacks a broad narrative of clarity and sacrifices long term interests in pursuit of vague, short term objectives.

After only a few months in office, President Obama faced an Iranian protest movement angered by endemic electoral fraud. While protesters demanding freedom were brutally suppressed by ideological extremists, Obama remained quiet. In the President's words, he did not want to be seen as 'meddling'. For Obama, the pursuit of an improbable detente with Iran's leaders was more important than the protection of basic individual freedom. It was evident that freedom had suffered a serious relegation in American foreign policy.

Another example of the declining importance of freedom was seen in the President's early policy towards Egypt. Just prior to the aforementioned protests in Iran, Obama addressed university students in Cairo to offer his support for eventual Egyptian democracy. Taken alone, Obama's words suggested a bold idealist narrative in his foreign policy. In fact, the reality was far different. The same year as his Cairo speech, Obama cut Egyptian democracy aid from the US by 60% and Civil Society/NGO support aid by 80%. For the President, words provided a cheap alternative to substantive assistance. Indeed, when Egyptians later revolted against the Mubarak government, Obama only shifted support to their revolution when it became apparent that Mubarak was doomed. For the President, Egyptian democracy was preferable only so far as it was cheap, easy and uncomplicated. As the recent embassy protests illustrated, Egyptian democracy has been far from uncomplicated. With words as well as action, Obama should have supported Egyptian freedom from the start.

The confusion in Obama's foreign policy has been most pronounced in his administration's variant responses to the revolutions in Libya and Syria. Where (under European pressure) Obama reluctantly signed on to the overthrow of Gaddafi's relatively weak regime, in Syria, US policy has been very different. Faced with Assad's military power and his alliance with Hezbollah and Iran, Obama has been reluctant to provide either direct or indirect military aid to the Syrian rebel movement. Obama's short term realist hesitancy has restrained American policy. The President could and should be taking greater steps to help Syrians win their freedom.

The President's realist sympathies are also evident in his conduct of grand power politics. Where a major element of President GW Bush's Russia policy was focused on support for eastern European democracy, Obama has instead favored a 'reset' designed to balance US-Russia relations into greater stability. Although this effort seems to have produced little tangible success, Obama has recently suggested that he would make even greater compromises to Putin if he wins re-election in November.

What about counter-terrorism policy under Obama?

In 2008, the President campaigned on a platform to close Guantanamo and reform the CIA's interrogation program. However, today's reality bears little resemblance to those now distant words. Under Obama, predator drone strikes against suspected terrorists are being authorized at unprecedented levels. Guantanamo remains open and military commissions have been re-authorized. Rendition remains part of the CIA tool kit. While I personally agree with the President's decisions in these areas, I also believe that they indicate the distance between 'Obama the liberal idealist' and 'Obama the realist'.

Considering Afghanistan, while during the 2008 campaign Obama called Afghanistan 'the right war'  that he would win, the President has now decided that Afghanistan is no longer worth fighting. Although recent gains towards greater local security and local political sovereignty have been achieved, Obama has decided that Afghan freedom must be subjugated to domestic political expediency. The 'right war' worthy of continued sacrifice is now simply the war that will 'end on schedule'.

    Since January 2009, the President's idealist narrative has acted as a cloak for a traditional, short term realist rooted foreign policy. For me this is problematic. In a world where competing forces are struggling for freedom and justice, American foreign policy needs a sustaining clarity. Without such a clarity, America's enemies are emboldened and our allies (both real and potential) are alienated and discouraged. American foreign policy should never just be about navigating difficult storms abroad. Instead, it should be about bold ideas and confident resolve.

The First Presidential Debate- It matters!

Tonight brings the first Presidential debate. From 2100-22.30 EST the President and Mitt Romney will meet at the University of Denver, Colorado, to debate domestic policy. This will be a closely watched match up. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the debate will offer Mitt Romney the opportunity to close his polling gap on the President. 

There are two main reasons why Romney has everything to gain from tonight's meeting.

1) The debate will be the first time that voters are able to see Obama and Romney in side by side contrast. This is important. The polls show that while some Americans regard Romney as aloof and emotionally detached, they largely feel comfortable with the President's personality. I believe that this is largely the result of a very successful (if not honest) effort by the Obama Campaign to paint Romney into a negative caricature. While Romney has made some recent mistakes, I believe that tonight will positively challenge voters to look more carefully at the former Governor and what he would offer if elected. I am confident that Romney will impress.

2) I strongly believe that while Romney's current polled supporters are consolidated behind him, I also believe that a considerable number of those who currently say that they will vote for the President are far less confirmed to pursuing that course of action - this is reflected in Obama's fluctuating poll figures. These swing voters have yet to be convinced that Romney can offer real, positive change. For them, Obama is the safe but unsatisfying bet. Tonight offers Romney a clear opportunity to re-calculate this enthusiasm equation. He needs to show his quiet warmth and resolve. He needs to show that he has the leadership potential and the ideas to bring get America back on track.

Now the major question. How does Romney win the debate and effectively begin to persuade voters to move out of the President's camp? The answer is simple. Romney must clarify the choice for voters. For me it's clear. A clear choice of more government interference, more taxes, more spending and more debt under Obama II. Or, an alternative choice of less government, a simplified pro-growth tax code with lower rates, alongside a government that seeks to empower rather than control the private sector. 

The facts are on Romney's side. This economic recovery has been the slowest in American history. The President's stimulus has spent hundreds of billions of dollars for very little return. In addition, while the President is great at bailing out the Unions, but he isn't so great at supporting American business. The unemployment rate remains seemingly immovable above 8.4%, each month thousands of workers are giving up looking for work and many thousands more are having their hours cut. Further, over the last four years, the public held national debt has grown by around $5.3 trillion (more than under Bush's two terms in office). And yet, the President's only solution to the debt crisis is to unleash demagogues and unveil budgets that get an 'F' for their math. This is a President without a record to run on. Romney needs to counter the false narrative of 'hope and change' with facts and alternatives.

Tonight's debate offers Romney a major opportunity that he needs to grasp. It's game time.

CNN - Presidential Debates - Important?

PS- My personal favorite Presidential Debate moment

Mona Eltahawy successful attack on free speech in NYC

Yesterday, the NYC MTA voted to restrict the application of the First Amendment on their network. This comes in response to a current advertisement campaign which calls on subway users to 'defeat Jihad'. In a stunningly stupid 8-0 vote, the MTA has decided to prohibit future adverts that it 'reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace'. The MTA seemingly believe that in passing this restriction, they remain in compliance with First Amendment case law. They are wrong. 

If (and I assume they did) the MTA consulted an lawyer in coming to the conclusion that their new approach was legally compliant, then they urgently need to put out a job ad for a new attorney. Brandenburg V Ohio, the operating US Supreme Court case that defines free speech vs incitement boundaries, is clear in its prescription. Under Brandenburg, only speech which intends to create a condition of 'imminent lawless action' can be restricted by public authority. The 'defeat Jihad' advert does not meet this burden. The advert does not pursue imminent lawless action, it simply advocates a political position (albeit from my view a stupid one). Indeed, the Roberts Court has upheld this type of speech as owed the highest protection under law. As Roberts put it, the Government must protect 'even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate'. Cognizant of the law, it should have been manifestly obvious to the MTA that in attempting to restrict speech which lacks an intention to cause imminent lawless action, they have exceeded their authority under the Constitution. That this advert pursues a sensitive topic is irrelevant. Justice Scalia recently noted the obvious (apparently complex for some) fact that where we restrict speech in fear of angering those in opposition to that speech, the First Amendment suffers serious injury. Undue restrictions on speech restrict individual opinion. Undue restrictions of individual opinion chill societal debate. Chilled societal debate inhibits effective discussion and policy formulation on issues of public concern. An example of the detrimental impact of the 'chilling effect' was seen on last night's episode of the BBC's flagship domestic political debate program, 'Question Time'. Here, the normally articulate Steve Coogan hesitatingly rambled out an opinion on an obvious issue of UK public concern. Why? Because of his concern that he would be labeled a racist. Coogan's irrationally rational fear of being labeled, weakened an important debate.

The pursuit of sensitivity might be the finest (short term) ally of civility, but in the long term, the objectified pursuit of sensitive speech is a terrible enemy of freedom.

For New Yorkers, this is a terrible decision. The MTA are trying to claim that their 'disclaimers' will protect future 'viewpoint' based adverts. However, the new rules seem deliberately designed to restrict adverts like the recent 'Defeat Jihad' ad. It appears that free speech opponents like Mona Eltahawy,  who think that they have the right to destroy speech, have won out. Eltahawy is unashamedly claiming as much on twitter.

While I am confident that the courts will ultimately overturn the MTA ruling, until then, In New York, intimidation has won out.

Thoughts on Netanyahu speech at UN

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has just delivered his speech at the UN General Assembly.

Specifically noting the theological foundation of the 12th Imam (the Mahdi), Netanyahu explained why he believes that there's a fundamental difference between the former Soviet Union and the Iranian theocracy. One believes in life as a construct that defines its own existential purpose. The other believes in life as inherently subject to the larger service of God's existence. For Netanyahu, this means that Iran's leadership cannot be codified as rational by traditional notions of analysis. To some degree at least, he has a point here. The centrality of 'the sacrifice of the self for the service of the faith' is crucial to Shia Islamists like the Lebanese Hizballah and the Iranian regime. This is an ideology which finds physical representation each year at the day of 'Ashura'. Netanyahu's great fear? In pursuit of eliminating Israel and 'liberating' Jerusalem, Iran's leaders would embrace death as the successful culmination of their human existence.

Having articulated the ideological underpinnings of the Iranian regime, Netanyahu passionately argued why he believed a 'red line' would be necessary to prevent Iran's continued nuclear pursuit. Using a deliberately simple diagram, Netanyahu affirmed that he would take action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. This was a message designed for an unmistakable translation- Israel will use military force if diplomacy fails.

Whatever one thinks of Netanyahu's policy or his understanding of the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon, in political terms, this was foreign policy messaging at its best - Compelling and determined.

For related thoughts.

Romney Tax Returns

My computer destroyed itself a few days ago so I was unable to blog until now. 
Romney's release of his tax returns was long overdue - I never understood his hesitation, as it seemed obvious that at some point the information would be released. Anyway... The media are understandably focussing on the fact that Romney paid an effective rax rate of 14.1% in 2011. However, there are some other considerations that must be noted. First, the IRS has stated that there is no evidence of any 'aggressive tax planning' on the part of Romney. Second, over the years, the Romneys have made significant donations to charity - they haven't simply horded their wealth in an underground cellar. Third, President Obama paid an effective 20.5% rate in 2011 - the difference between the two candidates tax bills is not significant. In addition, where Romney's income largely came via Capital Gains, Obama's was the result of direct income from his book sales. Capital Gains are deliberately taxed at lower levels in order to induce investment in the economy. Though he probably thinks otherwise, Obama's books do not stimulate economic activity.

Fourth, the entire premise of Romney's tax plan (largely developed by Paul Ryan) is to reduce rates, while also simultaneously closing the loopholes which allow taxpayers to substantially reduce their tax payments to the Federal Government. In essence - reduce rates and reduce avoidance, in order to increase revenue but reduce tax distortions on the economy. In contrast, President Obama wants to reinforce the personal income tax code with more deductions and higher rates. This election should be about the bold discussion of compelling alternatives. Sadly, President Obama's economic policies are exceptionally weak. 

PS - Paul Ryan earns the least out of all 4 candidates.