The Eisenthal Report

Presidential Campaigns

I have added to my "Campaigns" roll links to websites or blogs either directly or indirectly associated with various potential Presidential campaigns for 2008. I've added the top five contenders in each party per Oval Office 2008 plus Mike Gravel, whom I list for sentimental reasons - even though I don't think he is a serious contender - and I don't agree with his issues.

Policy vs. Politics in the Bush White House

It is very clear that political concerns dominate policy considerations to an unprecedented extent in the White House of President George W. Bush. Peter Beinart of The New Republic argues that this imbalance is seen especially in one of the central issues of the Bush administration - the War in Iraq. Beinart argues that partisan political considerations are preventing President Bush from taking steps that could bring the Iraq War to a satisfactory conclusion.

In Beinart's view,

The situation in Iraq today is desperate but not hopeless. And, in the months to come, avoiding the abyss will require brutal compromises, not only in Baghdad, but in Washington--the kind that require support on both sides of the aisle. The good news is that the basic outlines of a deal to undermine the insurgency, break up the militias, and facilitate U.S. withdrawal are becoming clear. Sunni nationalist (as opposed to jihadist) insurgents seem increasingly willing to lay down their arms--if they are granted amnesty, the constitution is rewritten to accommodate their concerns, and U.S. troops leave. And, if Sunni insurgents stop massacring the Shia, then Shia militias may begin to disband. That's the good news. The bad news is that envisioning the outlines of a final deal is a lot easier than achieving one.

The problem, argues Beinart, is that the Bush White House is more concerned about domestic politics than about giving "the new Iraqi government the best chance to survive."

The past several weeks have forced (President Bush) to choose between two big goals: demonizing Democrats to help the GOP retain control of Congress and fostering a domestic climate that gives the new Iraqi government the best chance to survive. And, again and again, he has chosen door number one. This is what ex-Bush officials like Paul O'Neill and John DiIulio warned us about--and what Hurricane Katrina reaffirmed: that what matters in this administration is not policy, but politics. For all his talk about America's historical mission to defeat tyranny and spread freedom, there is only one mission to which George W. Bush has shown consistent devotion: winning elections. He acts less like the president than like the head of the Republican National Committee.

Achieving a stable Iraq will require strong and steady leadership from the White House - leadership that engenders sacrifices and difficult compromises from Americans and Iraqis. This leadership might also require cooperation with Democrats in such a way that Republican chances in the 2006 mid-term elections are not absolutely maximized. Instead, President Bush uses the War in Iraq - and the "War on Terror" - as wedge issues against the Democrats.

Beinart concludes that

Politics, of course, does not--and should not--end in times of war. But mendacious, blood-sport politics should. Instead, it has emanated from the highest office in the land. And, if we lose in Iraq, it will be a major reason why.

Oval Office 2008

In the past few days, I've happened across Oval Office 2008, "an impartial blog on the next US Presidential Election." The author of this blog is Daniel Owen, a British observer of American politics.

Among the features of the blog is a ranking of the likely candidates for the Democratic and Republican nominations based on Owen's gut feelings as to the relative probabilities for each. The top Democratic and Republican candidates in Owen's view are Hillary Clinton and John McCain. For us Bay Staters particularly, the number two Republican is striking - Governor Mitt Romney. Rounding out the top five for the Republicans are Senator George Allen (Virginia), former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Governor Mike Huckabee (Arkansas). Rounding the top five for the Democrats are former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, Senator Russ Feingold (Wisconsin), Senator Evan Bayh (Indiana), and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards. Owen does not think much of the chances of the candidates outside of the top two in each party.

This observer would agree with McCain and Romney being one and two on the Republican side. I also agree with Hillary Clinton being the favorite for the Democratic nomination. However, I would put John Edwards as number two at this point for the Democrats. He apparently has strong organizations - never deactivated from 2004 - in Iowa and New Hampshire.

I look forward to following Daniel Owen's trans-Atlantic perspective on the upcoming Presidential election.

Mike Gravel

This evening, My Prime on WZMY-TV (Derry, NH) interviewed former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel, who has announced that he is seeking the Democratic nomination for President.

Gravel, who was born in Springfield, Massachusetts and now lives in Arlington, Virginia, served two terms in the Senate from 1969 to 1981. He is best-known for having placed the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record and for having filibustered against the military draft.

Gravel's issues in his presidential run include amending the US Constitution to allow the enactment of federal laws by initiative petition. He also wants to eliminate the income tax, replacing it with a consumption tax that he terms a "Fair Tax." He also advocates the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

The former Senator was a major - if idiosyncratic - presence in the Washington of the 1970s. He largely faded from public view following his failed bid for renomination in 1980. He is not likely to be a major factor in the 2008 presidential race but he adds an interesting dimension to the race, with his passionate views on democracy and governance.

Talking Racism

Dianne Williamson of the Worcester Telegram and Gazette is usually a very perceptive observer of social issues. So it was disappointing to read her column in today's paper, in which she decries "frivolous claims of racism."

In her column, Williamson discusses the case of an African-American (in point of fact, Liberian-American) high school student in Worcester who pled guilty to making calls to the Massachusetts State Police falsely claiming that bombs had been planted at two high schools in Worcester. Initially, the teen had denied making the calls and his father said that the accusations had been made because of racism.

Williamson writes that "every time someone cries wolf, it helps us forget that wolves actually exist. Those who make frivolous claims of racism should be denounced with the same energy as racists, because they cheapen the issue and exploit the goodwill of people who work to counter bigotry and discrimination." It seems to this observer that Williamson is attacking "frivolous claims of racism" with far more energy than she is attacking racism itself. She vents righteous indignation about how "the issue of race has been abused and continues to be abused." This is utter nonsense - the issue of racism has not been abused in this country - since the 1970s, it has been swept under the rug. President Bill Clinton tried to start a "Conversation on Race" in the 1990s. He recognized how much misunderstanding there was and is on this issue. It is a pity that this conversation went essentially nowhere. Cases like this illustrate the need for such a conversation.

Because Dianne Williamson is a generally perceptive observer - with a platform to share her observations with a mostly white readership - she has a special responsibility to get this issue right. She should be reminding her readers that despite rogue claims of racism, the monster of racism is still at large in this country. She - and the rest of us - should give claims of racism the benefit of the doubt - even if sometimes they prove to be false.

Williamson talks about not exploiting "the goodwill of people who work to counter bigotry and discrimination." That goodwill is not - and should not be - so brittle that cases like this should put it at risk.

Comparing Bush and Woodrow Wilson

In the latest edition of Foreign Affairs, Joseph S. Nye, Jr., the Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University (and former Dean of the Kennedy School of Government), has written an article - Transformational Leadership and U.S. Grand Strategy - examining the Presidents of the United States since 1900 who have attempted great transformational changes in this country's foreign policy. Essentially there have been five Presidents in this category - Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and George W. Bush.

In Nye's view, only the transformations attempted by FDR and Truman have proven successful - Nye feels that "the jury is out" regarding the current President. Theodore Roosevelt tried to combine hard power with soft power in a way that proved untenable in the long-term given the political atmosphere that prevailed in the Congress and the American public a century ago. Wilson's failure with the League of Nations is well-known. FDR and Truman did succeed in creating foreign policy and defense structures - both within this country and internationally - that survived for nearly fifty years. It remains to be seen whether the Bush approach of the unilateral pursuit of the creation of democratic institutions to fight terrorism will succeed.

Nye sees a number of Presidential qualities as important to the success - or lack thereof - of transformational policies. These include policy vision, emotional intelligence, communication, organizational capacity, political skill, and contextual intelligence. This last quality is "the ability to understand an evolving environment and to match resources with objectives by moving with rather than against the flow of events."

Nye compares President Bush regarding these qualities to two of his predecessors: Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. Nye sees FDR as having far and away the best contextual intelligence of the three Presidents. FDR's "efforts to rearm in the face of Hitler's threat before Pearl Harbor helped prepare the national response after the crisis. Nye sees the resemblance between Bush and Wilson to be "uncanny."

Both highly religious and moralistic men, they were both elected President initially without a majority of the popular vote. Bush portrays the world in black and white rather than shades of gray; so did Wilson. Bush was successful in Congress at first with his transformational domestic agenda and paid little heed to foreign policy until a crisis struck; same with Wilson. Bush has proposed the promotion of democracy and freedom abroad as the central feature of his foreign policy vision, as did Wilson. In fact, many of Bush's speeches sound as though they could have been delivered by Wilson, although Wilson was a better rhetorician. Bush defined a vision that failed to balance ideals with national capacities; Wilson made the same miscalculation. Both, moreover, failed to manage information flows in their administrations.

Nye goes on to compare the two Presidents' inflexibility and emotional intelligence - with Bush coming out somewhat better than Wilson on the latter. Bush "is reportedly less brittle and more likable than the stiff and aloof Wilson, who supposedly more interest in people than persons."

Woodrow Wilson's foreign policy failures nearly ninety years ago set the stage for decades of worldwide conflict. The twenty-first century may face similar difficulties in part because of the qualities of our current president. In this observer's view, President Bush combines the inflexibility of a Woodrow Wilson with the intellect of a Warren Harding - a very dangerous combination in these times.

Gabrieli, the idea candidate

Chris Gabrieli came into the race for Governor of Massachusetts claiming to be a candidate of ideas and results. As Glen Johnson of the Associated Press writes, Gabrieli "entered the 2006 governor's race promising to be a different kind of candidate, a non-politician focused on bottom-line results." It's difficult to see where the ideas and results are really setting Gabrieli apart at this point.

Johnson writes that "close listeners may have detected the strains of an old-school politician rather than a private-sector reformer. There's been backroom deal-making, big money and a tepidness about committing to ironclad positions." Johnson points to Gabrieli's narrow qualification for the September primary ballot at the state Democratic convention as well as his setting of a $15.36 million cap on spending for the Governor's race as examples where Gabrieli looks to be playing the old-style politics. And then there are Gabrieli's positions on income taxes, the Cape Wind project, and allowing state troopers to arrest illegal immigrants that are less than crystal clear.

On the ideas side, Gabrieli is not as fresh a thinker as it might appear at first glance. Last week, he released a seven point plan to "get results" from government. From someone touted as a fresh thinker, this plan is tired and disappointing.

He first calls for a "top to bottom review of every state program." This sounds like the same pledge made by many other candidates for Governor. It is rarely taken seriously - and with good reason. It would be a waste of a new Governor's time - and that of the members of his administration. It would be far better for Gabrieli to identify several programs most in need of overhaul. It would be politically courageous for him to do this before the election.

Gabrieli calls for the "elimination of wasteful state spending." Another tired nostrum. Gabrieli identifies targeted spending to include employee travel and cell phone use. It's actually hard to believe that this comes from a successful businessman. Anyone with even a glancing familiarity with state government knows that it is labor-intensive. Reducing employee travel and cell phone use will not produce significant reductions in state spending. Only a hard look at programs - and staffing levels - will do that.

Gabrieli wants to crack down on "Big Dig-like" cost overruns in capital projects. Gabrieli's statement on this is worth quoting at length.

As consumers, we double-check our bills and credit card statements to make sure we don't get overcharged. Unfortunately, as we've seen with projects like the Big Dig, the government is not nearly as careful with your tax dollars. I will make sure that our cost estimates for capital projects are more accurate, and I'll refuse to do business with companies that habitually overrun costs. If you can't do the job on time and on budget, then you can't do business with the state.

This sounds good until one considers how construction projects are bid in this state. The state and local governments are required by law to go with the low bidder on construction projects in all but a handful of circumstances. This provides ample incentive for contractors to underestimate costs. Even without this incentive, the nature of capital projects unfolding over a number of years makes it difficult to come up with accurate cost estimates that fully account for cost inflation.

His other ideas are not bad, but are not revolutionary either. He wants to do multi-year budgeting - something that a number of other states already do. He wants to expand e-government - another good idea. He also wants to do "town meetings" and be a "full-time" Governor - again worthy ideas.

Perhaps it is too much to expect that an "ideas and results" candidate will tout really good ideas and results. I know that I am disappointed not to see better ideas from this candidate. Perhaps it will be enough to know that if Chris Gabrieli raises his right hand to take the oath as Governor of Massachusetts in January, he probably really will meet his one significant promise - to be a full-time Governor for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Gore in '08?

Marty Peretz, the long-time eminence grise of The New Republic, makes a very personal and impassioned case for the Presidential candidacy of former Vice President Al Gore in 2008. It is personal because Peretz and Gore have known each other since Gore was an undergraduate at Harvard four decades ago. It is impassioned because Peretz sees few workable options for the 2008 Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton is too unpopular, in his view, with too large a proportion of the electorate - and none of the rest of the presumed candidates have the stature or excitement that would lead to a Democratic victory.

Unfortunately, wishing in this case is not likely to make Gore a candidate - much less President. Gore is not taking the steps that anyone who would want to capture the nomination needs to at this point. No organization in Iowa or New Hampshire - no organized fund raising. It seems to this observer that Al Gore aspires to moral rather than political leadership at this point. There have been few - if any - moral leaders of any stature in this country in the years since the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Perhaps Al Gore seeks to fill that void - a worthy ambition indeed.

Unexcused Absence

I am a fan of Brian McGrory - his Boston Globe columns as well as his fiction writing.

His column this morning - Unexcused Absence - is a very well-written skewering of outgoing Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. McGrory does this not as a long-time partisan critic of Romney's, but rather as a former supporter who has become greatly disappointed in the presumptive Presidential candidate.

McGrory's complaint in this case is that Governor Romney was the only major Massachusetts politician - active or inactive - to miss the dedication ceremony for the Tip O'Neill tunnel (the new I-93 tunnel under downtown Boston constructed by the Big Dig.) McGrory asks how this could be.

Could it be that he's still sulking over the fact that Congress flicked aside his efforts to assign the main portion of the Big Dig the completely white-bread name, "The Liberty Tunnel"?

Could it be that he's so partisan that he can't take a couple of hours out of his day to honor the memory of one of the great Democratic leaders to come from this state, a truly significant national figure?

Or could it be that his presidential aspirations have made him so knock-kneed that he's afraid to be associated in any way at all with the so-called liberal politicians from Massachusetts?

Even before I read McGrory's piece, as I saw the picture of the dignitaries gathered, I asked the question "where's Mitt?" While the Governor's absence may - at some level - be smart politics, I would have to agree with Brian McGrory. "Take your pick. One's as bad as the other. A classless partisan or a political coward -- you decide."