Robert Rubin: preparing us for governance?

Robert Rubin was Secretary of the Treasury from 1995 to 1999. He consuled Clinton to focus on deficit reduction and deregulation. I was struck by his article, co-authored with Jared Bernstein, this morning in the NY Times. The most important point he makes, from a psychological perspective, is that we shouldn't worry about the deficit so much, that it is a false choice between "fiscal rectitude" and "pubic investment". Since Rubin is one of Obama's closest advisers and might very well serve as Treasury Secretary again, I think this is a way of getting us ready for an Obama proposal to jumpstart the economy through a large public works program, probably centered on "green" technology, infrastructure and renewable energy. "Public Works" is something Republicans hate as a concept and I suspect most Americans view it suspiciously as well (although when the government offers jobs in a jobless economy, their views might change). But I was bemused by this "deficit hawk" now using his credibility to get the public ready for a big spending program by playing down the issue of deficits,

I was musing on the often noted fact that only a small number of the many issues that confront the next president and congress have been discussed in this campaign. Of course, there are so many that any candidate I guess could be forgiven for not wanting to overwhelm voters with too many plans. Still, I think it is strange that climate change (global warming) hasn't been addressed. Forget the economic mess we are in; if climatologists are right, the fate of the species, let alone most other species on the planet, are at stake. And what about the so-called Patriot Act, the denial of habeas corpus, the assertion of executive power in unconstitutional ways? And what about...well, I give up; too many things to add to the pile.

On the one hand, it may be about the psychology of attention. "It's the economy, stupid", the mantra from the first Clinton presidency, is a profound statement of the way in which people prioritize issues. But I'm puzzled that McCain hasn't pushed his legislation about global warming more in the campaign. Perhaps it seems too "liberal" to please his base. On the other hand, it's exactly the sort of thing that distinguishes him from Bush and wins over the hearts of Independents. Id'be interested in your thoughts on this matter.

Race , again

In the waning hours of this long campaign, race continues to be a complex, multi-dimensional issue cutting in many ways. this article reports on those people who will be voting for Obama because he is black. I like the last point. When asked if she was voting because of white guilt, the person replied, "Of course, what's wrong with guilt?" Then she explains that there is plenty for white folks about which to feel guilty. It's not an emotion we've discussed in class, but I think it bears consideration. For example, when a politician appeals to a future world in which "your children and grandchildren will live," that's inducing guilt. When, as this article suggests, Republicans ask potential Obama voters whether they are voting for a black man because of white guilt, they are trying to make white Obama voters feel guilty about feeling guilty! I'll bet you can think of other attempts to persuade based on guilt. Interesting article; worth reading.

Fazlling back on the familiar

It's interesting to me that after at least a month of trying one thing or another, John McCain seems finally to have decided on a single strategy for criticizing Obama. Ironically, it's an old strategy: to portray the Democrats as the party of "tax and spend". Never mind what Obama says about reducing middle class taxes. the McCain strategy is to say you can never trust Democrats because they will always raise your taxes to pay for their new programs. It's been a successful strategy for Republicans for a very long time (at least in my memory it goes back to the 50s). but will it work this time? Forgetting for the moment about "too little, too late", I wonder if Obama has insulated himself by openly and consistently championing tax cuts for the middle class (side note: whatever happened to the poor?) so that people are less likely to believe McCain, at least in this regard. Or does the Obama lead in the polls reflect a hardening of the narrative/image that has surfaced in the last few weeks, that McCain is angry and erratic and that Obama is calm, cool, and consistent? I think that's Brian's point in her reply to one of my posts. Do other people agree?

Falling gas prices--the October surprise?

A common heuristic that many Americans use as a measure of economic security or the lack thereof is the rise and fall of gas prices. As gas prices go up, people get increasingly anxious about their economic well-being. As they fall (as is presently now happening), people feel better about their economic situation. This is not to deny that many other factors, including the rise and fall of stock market, whether you feel your job is in jeopardy, whether you have a job, etc. don't contribute to economic anxiety. But gas prices, given the centrality of the automobile to American life, are the most visible and easily understood part of the financial mess we find ourselves in. So I wonder if this might not redound in McCain's favor. The less economic anxiety, the more other issues that would favor McCain might kick in. Well, maybe it is all too little and too late. And maybe people are smart enough to understand that gas prices are falling because the whole world is going into a recession which depresses the price of oil everywhere (i.e., when things start to turn around, gas prices will inevitably go up). But I don't know. Do you think this is a possible October surprise?

the big picture

I was thinking today that I haven't been contexualizing the study of political psychology enough. For instance, for the last 50 years, we have been a culture of consumption fueled by debt. We have let production move offshore so that we import an increasing amount of the stuff we consume from abroad. What we are left with is a service economy which is now becoming unraveled. Will we go back to our old bad ways? I don't know but maybe so. But here's the thing: what does political leadership look like in an era where we are going to be forced to make a transition in our use of energy, our financial and economic structures, our patterns of consumption and production? Can the terms, concepts, theories we use still hold as this macroenvironment changes? Don't know the answer but would be interested in your thoughts.

Is Obama boring?

This afternoon I was watching Obama on MSNBC giving a speech surrounded by his foreign policy team. He was making the general point that the current economic crisis/panic/whatever can't be separated from foreign policy and security concerns. He went on to talk in generalities about this general point and my eyes began to glaze over. Then I realized that he was talking in a not very animated voice, looking down at his notes, and generally low in energy. I noticed this "new" Obama in the first debate. Many of the commentators said that they thought that Obama was "flat" as opposed to McCain who seemed energized. Yet all the polls showed that people thought Obama had won the debate by substantial margins.

So what's going on? Where is the Obama of old, the Obama of rhetorical eloquence, of rhythmic cadence, the guy who get a crowd rocking and rolling? Where is the Obama of "yes we can" and "hope" and "change"? I have four theories:

1. Obama is a master politician who understands that what people want right now is steady, sober, calm, concerned but even low key.

2. It's been a long campaign and he's just getting tired (there's even some gray in his hair now).

3. He is suspending his campaign to fly to Hawaii to be with his beloved grandmother who mostly raised him and from whom he gets his values. So he is distracted and thinking about her as she is perhaps in her last days.

4. He's worried about Biden's "gaffe" about foreign policy and is trying to repair the damage (I think this is a stretch since I don't think there is much damage because I think most people don't care).

Well, what do you think? I'd be interested in any other theories. Or am I wrong about a change in Obama's image? (I'd hate for the old Obama to disappear from the scene entirely--he was more fun).

Race, 2

Although Obama seems to have opened a lead in most polls, the nagging question of what effect his race might have on the election leaves the outcome of this race even more in doubt. Herewith are some thoughts on the effects race may play. First, many of you have probably heard of the Wilder effect, named for Douglas Wilder who ran for governer of Virginia in 1992. He was, according to the polls, about 10 points ahead a day before the election and yet won by a small fraction of the vote (less that 1%). There is also the Bradley effect, named for Tom Bradley who, in 1982, ran for mayor of Los Angeles. Again, he was up 10 points a day before the race and yet lost by a few percentage points to his Republican opponent. Looking more closely at these polls, however, reveals that both effects, attributed to covert racism by voters, probably had other causes. In Wilder's case, his internal polls showed him only 2 points ahead and sinking in the polls. Further, issues related to gun control had surfaced and his opponent had painted him as too liberal on gun regulation. A similar effect was found in the Bradley race. Here again gun control was the issue and there was a very large turnout of Republicans, far beyond what been expected, that turned that race around. One thing pollsters have difficultly measuring generally is who is actually going to show up at the polls. You can ask people if they are likely to vote but unless the sample that is polled is exceptionally large, turnout is difficult to predict.

But back to race in 2008. According to some recent research, since the late 90s, race has played a small and in most cases negligible role in elections. Harold Ford of Tennessee, an African-American, running in 2006 was 3 point down in the polls before the election. He lost but exactly 3 points. A survey several hundred races at the state and federal level from 198 through 2007 shows that, while there was a Wilder effect in the early 90s, by the mid 90s it had disappeared. There is a general front runner effect which is conflated with race. That is, any front runner suffers a loss a shrinking of the lead in the actual election (a good reason for Obama supporters to be cautious). In other words, if you compare black and white front runners, they both lose points when the votes are actually counted.

Why exactly did the Wilder effect disappear in the mid 90s? One theory is that it coincided with the welfare reform act of 1996 which limited the amount of time any could be on welfare and made some efforts to move people on welfare into jobs. Since "welfare" had for many decades been a code word for "race", the "resolution" of the welfare issues reduced the impact of racialized dialogue, where welfare masquerades as race. One can imagine that if welfare or some other coded word for race were to emerge as an issue, then we might see the emergence of a Wilder effect again. However, it just may be that, at least in this cycle, other issues simply overwhelm race.

This brings me to Obama. It seems to me that, in the current context of extreme economic uncertainty, with a discredited Republican president, with 85% of the country saying we are going in the wrong direction, the real issue is not that people are concerned about his race (although, goodness knows, there are more than a few people who are overtly racist) but trying to find reasons to make themselves vote for this strange young skinny guy with a funny name. His performance in the debates and his appearance of being very steady, relaxed, calm, and consistent (by in large) with his statements of policy may be turning the corner for him, although I'm not ready to declare the race over by a long shot. A recent article in the New York Times puts it this way: "The question is not whether race is a factor but whether it is a DETERMINATIVE factor--whether Obama's being black is a disqualifying fact for some white voters or whether it has now been reduced to one of those surmountable obstacles that any candidate has to overcome." So I close the way I began: Sure, race matters, but is not the ONLY thing that matters.

It has always amazed me that one kind of discourse that is completely filtered out in media, in schools, in popular culture, in politics, is a discourse about socialism (never mind communism). Yet I am also amazed that we seem to be on the verge of such a discussion because of the powerful steps taken, first by Great Britain, then by other countries in the EU and finally by us (that is, the US). In effect, the Treasury department has not only injected liquidity (i.e., money) into the banks, but also has bought shares or their equivalent in these institutions. That means in effect that we, i.e., we citizens, not only have an equity stake here but also partial ownership. In effect, along with the rest of the world, we have partially nationalized the banks. Who would have thought that an administration so committed to complete deregulation as this one would arrive at this point.

What I'd really like to see is a serious discussion on CNN or one of the major networks about the advantages and disadvantages of socializing the economy. We have a golden opportunity to do so here, although I'm afraid that the main stream media would be frightened at the prospect of such a discussion. But, hey, if GW Bush can go down this path, what is there to fear? (As in, "all we have to fear is fear itself"). Do you feel this same way? Realizing that the word "socialism" scares a lot of people, nonetheless wouldn't you find it interesting to hear from people who are sympathetic to socialism and those opposed argue out the pros and cons?

Race, 1

Whether or not he becomes president, Obama delivered one of the finest speeches on race in America in March of this year. It wasn't so much that he was eloquent about race but also that he indicated an empathy with whites who feel angry about affirmative action. While this speech is about race, what elevates it to me is that in some ways it is not about race. His point is that we are ready to move on beyond race and embrace each other as humans who share a common bond. He has been called the first "post-racial" black politician. Here is the speech and you can judge for yourselves. Also, here is a very touching video on the responses of kids in high school class in the Bronx responding to the speech and particularly to the phrase he used in the early part of the campaign, "yes, we can".

Here's the question: Do you feel we are post-racial? More specifically, what evidence do you have that we are beginning to move beyond race as a meaningful category for judging the worth of another person?

Back into blogging, friends, with these thoughts. I was taken with the way the narratives for both Obama and McCain have begun to solidify. Obama is the cool, confident, steady, stable "port in the storm" guy, very comfortable with himself, while McCain is the angry, erratic, not so comfortable in his skin guy. I don't think before the debates started that that was how the two men were perceived. Of course, it's an interaction between the person and the situation. As the economic situation has gotten worse and worse (or perceived to be getting worse and worse), Obama's star has risen. It hasn't helped McCain that Palin is now perceived (if the polls are an indication) as a "nice person" but not fit to lead (Troopergate and her interviews with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric haven't helped either). I guess the debates increased the comfort level of people with Obama, perhaps showed that he wasn't some strange creature, "not like us", but someone people could envision sitting in the Oval office. I don't think the deal is closed quite yet for Obama. The reason? Race. But I'll devote another post to that.

For sure

Man o' man, this is really a wild and crazy political season. It would be more fun if wasn't so serious. I was interested that the polls, particularly among undecideds, moved decisively toward Obama after the debate. Trying to think of different reasons why this was the case, I came up with the following:

a. People had low expectations for him particularly in the area of foreign policy and when he at least seemed to give as good as he got, people were pleasantly surprised and moved for that reason.

b. Undecided have not been paying that close attention and wanted to know if this guy seemed "presidential". It seemed as if passed that test.

c. His response to McCain about Iraq "you voted for the war; you were wrong. You said we would be greeted as liberators; you were wrong" etc. was a memorable and vivid way of putting it. It's the kind of rhetorical flourish people tend to remember and sounds, well, strong.

I'm sure there are other reasons for the swing towards Obama. Maybe it's just because the economic situation seems so dire and people tend to trust Democrats to do something positive about it more than Republicans. Interested to hear your thoughts.


c.