Academics use a number of election prediction models, and almost all rely on macroeconomic variables—GDP growth, inflation, unemployment, etc. Most of these models predicted a Gore win in 2000 (which was actually correct since he won the popular vote) and a Bush win in 2004. At the moment the models predict a resounding Obama win in 2008, based on dreary economic news as we head into the election.

Obviously these models are not 100% accurate; their architects freely admit that factors such as wars, disasters, and issues of character also influence voting patterns. But they stick by their fundamental insistence that it is the economy which ultimately dictates election outcomes.

In aggregate, there is little to dispute about these models. If Americans are feeling good about their economic prospects, by and large they can be expected to vote for the candidate who represents the party in power; if they think their economic prospects are dim, they will vote for the opposing party.

But hidden behind the national numbers are huge state-by-state and regional disparities that can’t be explained by economics alone. In huge swaths of the South as well as parts of the Midwest (e.g., Utah) the GOP has consistently outpolled Democrats by margins that correlated poorly if at all with economic factors.

It is these areas where “culture war” issues and race play a major factor, often turning economics into a secondary and even a tertiary issue. Large numbers of voters in these regions are genuinely more concerned about gay marriage, the government taking away their guns, abortion, the perceived dilution of American culture because of illegal immigration, and fears of an even more secular America. While the economy may still influences these voters, their ballots often end up going to the candidates who promise a kind of cultural security which they feel is slipping way.

Some political observers, like author and WSJ columnist Thomas Frank, take this as evidence that people have been duped into voting against their economic interests, when in fact it is evidence that these people simply give priority to issues other than economics.

When rich investment bankers in New York vote Democratic, nobody says they’ve been duped, even though they may very well be voting against their immediate economic interests since Democrats generally favor higher taxes for the rich*. If asked to justify their votes, these well-off Democrats might cite the party’s liberal social positions or less belligerent foreign policy; in exchange for these positions, they’re willing to accept higher taxes.

But when poor whites vote Republican because they oppose gay marriage or abortion, they’re assumed to be gullible. Unfortunately for Democrats and economic progressives, the disproportionate electoral sway of America’s Deep South and Midwestern states hands these “values” voters extra weight both in the Electoral College and the Senate.

In the end, it’s hard to accept any uni-causal case for the election of a U.S. president. There are too many factors, too many cross-currents, and it’s impossible to sort them out. The economy ultimately may swing the election, and certainly it will be more important than it was in 2004; but there are many motivations that can sway people on the margins, and have large electoral impacts.

As the Democrats have learned, in order to truly be competitive in certain parts of the country they have had to tone down their gun control rhetoric, speak more openly about faith and religion, and walk a fine line on gay rights (opposing gay marriage while supporting civil unions). This is what many voters in these regions want to hear, and the strategy has begun to pay dividends: Democrats are winning elections for state offices and Congressional seats in once-solid GOP territory, and Obama is competitive in states that haven’t voted Democratic for 40+ years.

The Republicans are in a much more difficult position because America overall is more socially liberal and economically progressive than the mainstream GOP. The party’s success this decade in some sense represents an anomaly; Bush actually lost in 2000, and won in 2004 largely because of a fearful citizenry that wanted to support a “war-time president.” Looking forward, it is hard to see how the far right’s message will resonate with voters, especially younger voters whose only taste of GOP rule has been an administration characterized by epic incompetence, cronyism, anti-intellectualism, and economic downturn. It will be interesting to see how the GOP retools, especially if they lose big in November.

Stay tuned….

*Wealthy individuals voting Democratic might be right to think that their long-run economic prospects under Democratic rule will be better than under Republican rule even if their immediate economic interests take a hit.

P.S. See here for a very interesting analysis of economic performance under Democratic and Republican administrations; it may surprise you.

Jason Scorse

Last month the world got a glimpse into Karl Rove’s mind when he said this about Obama:

"Even if you never met him, you know this guy. He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by."

Put aside that most Americans have never been inside a country club, or the fact that a black man could easily face discrimination at such an institution. If we substitute “school dance” for “country club,” and picture a 17-year-old Karl Rove as one of the passersby, it’s not hard to imagine this scene playing out: Rove is the nerdy loser who never gets the girl, who has to bear the taunts of better looking and more popular students, and he’s emotionally scarred by the experience. Viewed through this lens, we can better understand his lifelong quest to get back at all those who made him feel so low as a teenager.

The same goes for one of America’s most annoying pseudo-intellectuals, Jonah Goldberg, whose book “Liberal Fascism” reads like a 500-page poke in the eye at all the people who at some point or another threw the word “fascist” in his direction. Again, it is easy to imagine a young Goldberg sitting in his room alone at night, incensed, plotting how he was going to have the last laugh, no matter how ridiculous, inflammatory, or intellectually dishonest he needed to be.

So what’s the point of all this?

There are a few. First, as much as the readers of this site would like more reason and rationality in politics, the people who practice it are often motivated by just about everything other than the public good—a quest for power and attention, perhaps a profound sense of victimization and alienation (Tom DeLay, for instance, was a bug exterminator who became incensed at the environmental regulations he was forced to follow). And in politics, as in so much else, it is often the loudest voices which most influence policy, those who feel aggrieved, rightly or wrongly, who fight the hardest.

Finally, insecurity may be the strongest of all human emotions: a potent combination of fear, uncertainty, estrangement, and desperation. We all experience insecurity at some point in our life, sometimes throughout. Politicians and pundits who become adept at playing on our feelings of insecurity are often the most successful. Why? Because those who are insecure are often seeking explanations for their plight, consciously or not. They are quick to accept scapegoats and rationalizations (which is why minorities like gays, blacks, immigrants, atheists and today’s favorite, “intellectual elites,” are typically in the cross-hairs).

I am not sure how to combat the bad feelings that insecurity brings to the surface. The best antidote I know is a consistent and unyielding campaign to eschew excessive emotional appeals, to stick to facts and reasoned arguments.

But still I wonder: if Karl Rove had had a few more friends back in high school, maybe the world could have been spared the last eight years of the Bush Administration.

Jason Scorse

Americans are feeling pain at the pump; gas prices going into the July 4th weekend hit a record high national average of $4.09 for regular unleaded, up $1.14 from a year ago and roughly triple what it was when Bush took office. Oil has topped $145 a barrel and high fuel costs are leading to price increases across a wide swath of products.

But in truth, U.S. gas prices are low by world standards. As this chart shows, there are many developed nations where the average price of a gallon of gas is between $7 and $10.

Most of these nations are not being hurt as much by the current oil price shock because their governments were smart and made gas expensive long ago. This created incentives for better public transit, more fuel-efficient vehicles and industrial processes, and shorter commutes. For decades, many U.S. economists have been urging higher gasoline taxes for exactly these reasons; unfortunately, their advice has fallen on deaf ears.

As the price of oil plummeted in the 1990s, the SUV craze took hold and Detroit automakers ignored the lessons of the 1970s and 80s. Not only did these behemoths lead to more urban sprawl and less automotive safety, America’s carbon footprint grew enormously. Politicians of both parties took the myopic, short-term view. They could have seized on this period of low gas prices as an opportunity to phase in a higher gasoline tax, and move towards a more fuel-efficient and less oil-dependent society. They didn’t.

Fast forward to September 12, 2001.

Of the 19 hijackers who changed the world the previous day, 15 came from Saudi Arabia. We knew then that Saudi oil money financed extremist groups. Iran and Iraq, two other nations that represented serious national security challenges also relied on oil money, as well as Russia and Venezuela.

Given the growing threat of global warming, any serious U.S. effort in 2001 to reduce its oil dependency would have been warmly greeted by the world community, especially the Europeans. The massive investments in technology required for such an endeavor would have helped reinvigorate manufacturing in the U.S. and the American auto industry.

Instead, an administration run by oilmen told us that conservation is for hippies and that all America needed to do was go shopping.

Fast forward to the present.

Virtually all of the worst-case scenarios of 2001 have come to pass. Rogue, terrorist-sponsoring oil states are awash in cash, which they are using to fund groups hostile to America. Here at home, there’s a long list of problems: the economy is teetering on recession, auto sales are slumping sharply, with GM and Chrysler headed toward bankruptcy, and the U.S. has recorded its sixth straight month of job losses; at the same time, not coincidentally, the threat of global warming continues to accelerate. And while Bush and Cheney continue to beg the Saudis to open the taps a little more, the Saudis are putting pressure on us to raise interest rates (in order to strengthen the dollar) at a time when the financial sector would be further weakened by such a move.

And we have no one but ourselves to blame.

All of these outcomes were both predictable and avoidable. In April of 1977 President Jimmy Carter put forth a comprehensive energy policy that is amazing in its detail and prescience. In the speech Carter calls for collective sacrifice and warns us not to get sidetracked by the sudden drop in oil prices because of the need to plan for the long-run. Carter was largely scoffed at and ignored and now we have to live with the results (Nixon also devoted some of his 1974 State of the Union speech to energy issues, although he did not offer nearly as comprehensive an assessment of both the problems and the solutions).

Unfortunately, when it comes to sound energy policy the U.S. has been running on empty for way too long, and we’re going to have to suffer for a while before things turn around.

Jason Scorse

The following comment by Geraldine Ferraro may have been the stupidest of the entire primary season:

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

If Obama had an Anglo name and spoke with a Southern drawl, is there anyone in their right mind who doesn’t think he would now be ahead of McCain by 20 points in the national polls? And be ahead in at least 35 out of 50 states?

But Obama has a foreign name (including Hussein for a middle name), has lived abroad, has Muslim relatives, and is black; unfortunately, all of these factors represent serious drawbacks for him with a sizeable segment of the electorate. These are people who in 2008 remain at least slightly xenophobic, racist, or susceptible to accusations and insinuations that somehow Obama represents the “other”.

Think I’m exaggerating?

Just take a look at McCain’s first general election ad, which begins with the narration: “The American President Americans Have Been Waiting For.” If McCain is an “American President,” then what is Obama? An “un-American” president? This from the team that has said it wants to run a “clean” campaign, but won’t even try to control advertising by so-called 527s and other outside groups that are gearing up for what is likely to be one of the nastiest campaigns in recent memory.

There are numerous rumors already flying over the internet about Obama being anti-Semitic or refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, about Michelle Obama using the slur “whitey,” even questions regarding the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate (all of which can be debunked at Fight the Smears).

While America has come a long way from its overtly racist past, there is simply no doubt that racial fears, conscious and unconscious, will play a major role in this election. This November will show us whether a solid majority of Americans will be able to resist the smears, the coded racist slurs, and the dumbing down of the real issues by a media bent on sensationalism (and let’s not forget to mention a rightwing attack machine that will do absolutely anything in order to win).

This is not to suggest that any vote for McCain is a vote prompted by racist fears, any more than the votes against Hillary were all due to misogynist leanings. We still have five months to go; there are likely to be many ups and downs over the campaign, and surprises could occur that might alter the fundamental dynamics of the race.

But if the underlying trends continue and Obama loses, it will likely be that an onslaught of negative and untruthful scare tactics tipped the balance against him.

That is a huge reason why this election is so important.

Is America truly ready to move beyond its racist past? Can we be led by our hopes, and not by our fears and prejudices? Election 2008 will provide a serious reality check, perhaps the most clarifying moment of a generation.

Jason Scorse

A spate of articles and books in recent months (e.g., Fareed Zakaria’s The Post-American World) raise the question of whether America will remain the dominant economic power in the coming decades; no one really doubts that America will remain the dominant military power. I just returned from a two-week trip to China, which got me thinking about the subject since one can’t fail to be impressed by the rise of this Asian power.

I am ambivalent about the issue. On one hand, as an American I want my country to remain strong and prosperous; but I also am an internationalist, and want to see prosperity spread across the world. Fortunately, it need not be a zero-sum game. American greatness can coexist with rapid wealth generation in the emerging markets.

In fact, an argument can be made that American wealth is partially dependent on the rise of the developing world: our historic low interest rates and (until recently) extremely low inflation are due in part to the high savings rates and low labor costs in Asia and the Middle East.

The key looking forward is to realize that American dominance is not some force of nature that is destined to continue. It is instead the result of specific policies and characteristics of the American economy and society that must constantly be revisited, revised, and maintained. Mistakes have been made that have weakened America’s economic position, but these mistakes can be rectified.

Here are four missteps, coupled with new opportunities, to consider as we look towards a new administration and getting back on the right economic track:

1. Nowhere has the failure of leadership been more damaging than in the U.S. auto sector. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have coddled Detroit; a combination of corporate mismanagement and intransigent, short-sighted unions has blocked all efforts at meaningful fuel efficiency for decades. Free-market advocates are finally seeing some vindication, decades late, now that high gas prices and tumbling demand for SUVs is forcing Detroit to see what thinking people have known for decades: fuel-efficient cars are the wave of the future. It is too early to tell whether Detroit will be able to recover, but there are encouraging signs: GM is pursuing plug-in electric vehicles, and both Obama and McCain support a cap on carbon emissions (although McCain oddly seems to forget that he does).

2. One way America has become so affluent is by recruiting the best of the best from across the world. Skimming the cream from countries across the globe has helped the U.S. to the highest living standards for any country remotely comparable in size. However, since 9/11, the enactment of anti-immigrant policies has slowed the influx of engineers, computer scientists, biochemists, doctors, et al. While tighter immigration controls are no doubt warranted, America should be expanding visa applications for the best and the brightest. This is an area that doesn’t make headlines, but it should be watched carefully.

3. Green technology, nanotechnology, and biotechnology are likely to be the leading areas for rapid growth and breakout products that dramatically impact global society. The U.S. nanotechnology industry seems in good shape, but our biotech industry has suffered under the anti-science policies promulgated by the Bush Administration at the insistence of the religious right. Legitimate moral issues related to cloning need to be addressed, but blocking embryonic stem-cell research that has the potential to cure major illnesses is both unwise and unconscionable. The embryos used in the process are already slated for destruction; in fact, a consistent “pro-life” stance would oppose fertility clinics, a fact which the right never mentions. Both Obama and McCain support lifting the ban on federal funding for stem-cell research (but given McCain’s numerous reversals and pandering to the right, I am not confident he will maintain this position; we’ll see).

4. The final issue is more long-term: America’s debt. America is the world’s most heavily indebted nation, both the government and the people. This has been possible because the rest of the world has sought the safety of U.S.-backed treasuries, but it will not persist indefinitely (especially as other countries begin to consume more and the emerging markets become more attractive for investment). High levels of American debt will inevitably result in higher domestic interest rates and lower economic growth. Higher taxes are also likely, especially if the federal deficit continues to rise. Neither Obama’s nor McCain’s fiscal plans make tackling the debt a priority, but McCain’s plan is much worse overall; it would increase the deficit by an estimated $5.7 trillion over the next decade. Regardless of what the government does, individual Americans should get their fiscal houses in order: we need to pay down our debts and increase our saving rates.

In conclusion, predictions of America’s economic decline are probably premature. At the same time, continued American dominance is in no way preordained. It will take hard work and sound policies; as always, a little luck wouldn’t hurt either.

Jason Scorse

In many parts of the world disagreements between groups are often settled through violence and mayhem. The singular achievement of liberal democracies is that we settle our differences through the political process and rarely resort to violence; this is no small feat.

But make no mistake: our current political battles represent life and death struggles. They include a woman’s right to choose, civil rights for gays, universal health care, global warming, and war policy. In short, choosing a president of the United States is one of the most consequential acts a citizen ever performs.

Every time we vote, we make serious moral judgments; there is no escaping this, since politics is little more than the act of converting public morals into public policy. Everything from tax rates to teacher pay to toxic chemical standards to social security payments is at its root a moral decision about what is right and wrong for society.

It should be clear that we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the last eight years, which have harmed so many millions both here and abroad.

Unfortunately, repeating these mistakes is what John McCain promises to do on virtually every issue. He has not only embraced the Bush economic policy, but his tax proposals are even more regressive and would result in more debt ($5.7 trillion); he has called for the overturning of Roe v. Wade and promised to appoint justices like Alito and Scalia (who not only would take away women’s reproductive rights, but whose views on the scope of executive power are truly frightening); he strongly supports the Iraq War and argues for an open-ended U.S. military occupation; he voted against the children’s health insurance bills and is ideologically opposed to any form of universal health insurance; even his support for climate change legislation is tempered by his support for windfall profits for the oil and energy industries.

As Albert Einstein noted, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. A vote for John McCain is a vote for more of the same disastrous policies.

I make no apologies for claiming that people who would vote for someone who doesn’t want to provide health insurance for poor children, who wants to further enrich the rich, and who thinks the Iraq War was a good idea, are taking positions which I consider both foolish and immoral. Political differences this great represent sharply opposing values and worldviews, and there’s nothing wrong with discussing them frankly.

In fact, America would be in better shape if people spoke up more often about injustice and incompetence without fear of being labeled strident or divisive. Mature people need not be afraid of offending others with direct talk, even if it sometimes includes recriminations (no doubt, all of us have probably done things or held views that we now view as foolish or unethical—it’s part of being human).

What separates ideologues and political hacks from reasoned critics is not the absence of strong language; it’s openness to opposing views, respecting people who don’t share our views, admitting that we could be wrong, and, of course, backing up claims with solid arguments.

In no small part, the reason that Democrats and progressives have failed to achieve many of their goals over the past decades is because they’ve failed to cast public policies in clear moral terms. Voters don’t often get excited over policy details, but they do get excited over principles.

Ironically, many of these Democrats and progressives (who have largely ceded all moral discourse to the religious right) are now worried that Obama’s “beyond partisanship” posture ignores the political struggles that will be required to enact his agenda.

They shouldn’t worry; Obama definitely gets it. He doesn’t believe that the entrenched interest groups and power centers will simply roll over for him.

His great gift is his ability to couch the major issues of the day in clear moral terms—what’s fair, what’s right, what’s sensible—and in this way appeal to the compassion and reasonableness of the American people.

He doesn’t need to convince every last American that his views are best. But by not shying away from making forceful statements about what’s right and what’s wrong, he very well may be able to convince a solid majority.

Jason Scorse

Now that Barack Obama has wrapped up the Democratic nomination, the American people are in store for a historic election. Obama is truly a phenomenon: a man who has swiftly risen through the ranks of Democratic politics though a combination of rhetorical skills, his tranquil and composed demeanor, and the nature of this unique historical moment. He doesn’t have McCain’s long history in government and military service nor Clinton’s political stature, but he is no doubt formidable.

With Obama and McCain as the nominees, the U.S. electorate will truly get a choice between two very different approaches to both domestic and foreign policy. While much was made of the small policy differences between Clinton and Obama, it is Obama’s initial and unwavering opposition to the Iraq War that helps to solidify the contrast between the Democratic and Republican candidates for president in 2008.

As readers of this site know, I have never subscribed to the Thomas Franks school of thought. In his book What’s The Matter With Kansas?, Franks posits that many working-class Americans have been duped into voting for the GOP all these years against their own economic interests. While Americans may be genuinely ignorant about many aspects of foreign affairs and public policy, they do know the basic differences between the major political parties.

When Americans go to the ballot box, those whose greatest desires are to see abortion criminalized and gays denied civil rights will correctly choose the Republican candidate; those who want the estate tax eliminated and corporate tax rates slashed are also correct to pull the lever for the GOP, the same as those who prefer a more militaristic and hard-nosed approach to foreign policy. I find these reasons not only wrong-headed, but largely immoral and foolish; but they are not irrational based on the values these voters profess.

Bush’s reelection in 2004 (and GOP gains in both houses of Congress) represented something of an anomaly; Americans were still reeling from the shock of 9/11, and the Iraq War was still supported by a majority of the population. It seemed to me at the time that the incompetence and pettiness of the Bush Administration were clear for all to see, but I understand how many Americans wanted, and chose, to give the president the benefit of the doubt.

Fast forward to 2008.

It is now obvious to almost everyone that these past eight years are likely to be remembered as a “lost decade,” one in which Americans were led by the worst president in our history. America is weaker, poorer, more fractured, less competitive, and less respected than it was in 2000; it will take years to reverse the damage that has been wrought by ideologues who put loyalty over expertise, and turned the U.S. government into a system of allegiance to cronies over competence.

While John McCain would likely represent an improvement over the Bush Administration (which isn’t really saying much), his positions on foreign policy, fiscal policy, and executive power are almost identical. Barack Obama, on the other hand, offers significantly different proposals on all fronts: a more diplomatic and focused strategy for combating terrorism, a more progressive tax system, universal healthcare, transparency in government, and a serious alternative energy policy.

It is no secret who I think would be the better president. But in the event Obama doesn’t win, it will be an extremely illuminating moment nonetheless.

If the American people choose John McCain for president, I will have to conclude that the majority of Americans do not share my values or my vision for the future.

Given how much energy I invest in national politics, this will be hard news for me to accept, but I will do so. I will turn my attention to more local issues and the international stage. I will not move to Canada or bemoan America, but I will realize that on the national level America is not the country I hoped it would be.

I do not think this will happen. I look forward to many years of discussing an Obama Administration: its many achievements as well as its missteps.

Either way, November 2008 will be a major clarifying moment in American history. I look forward to it.

Jason Scorse

1. John McSame. In nearly every respect, a vote for McCain is a vote for Bush III. As Paul Krugman puts it, McCain “has shed whatever maverick tendencies he may once have had, and become almost a caricature conservative—an advocate of lower taxes for the rich and corporations, a privatizer and shredder of the safety net.” Meanwhile, back in the real U.S.A., polls indicate that better than 80% of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. Given that number, it would take a miracle to put McCain in the White House.

2. John McWar. McCain has backtracked on his “100 years in Iraq” oratory, but there’s no way he can escape his unrelenting support for a war that most Americans have long since concluded shouldn’t have been fought in the first place, wasn’t worth it in the second, or both.

3. John McFlip-Flop. When it comes to flip-flopping, Kerry was a neophyte next to McCain. The Bush tax cuts; the Christian right; anti-torture legislation: for Democrats, there’s a deliciously long list of issues on which McCain has first said one thing and then the other. The fact is that McCain has flip-flopped so much, even his laudable positions are flips (e.g., his 11th hour denunciation of the Reverend Hagee).

4. John McLobbyist. McCain’s career could have crashed and burned almost before it got started with his involvement in the Keating scandal. He managed to wriggle free back then, but his extensive, longtime ties to lobbyists (coupled with the prominence of lobbyists in this campaign) will continue to dog and wound him.

5. John McNasty. McCain has a famously thin skin and an infamous temper. He’s managed so far to keep them mostly in check, but they’re certain to surface down the stretch. (We had a sample recently, when he snidely questioned Obama’s patriotism after the latter mentioned McCain’s opposition to the new GI Bill.) As the campaign unfolds, watch the real McCain bubble up: outbursting, churlish, snippety.

6. Obamamania. Mark McKinnon says that the election of Barack Obama “would send a great message to the country and the world.” Agreed--but McKinnon served in both of George W. Bush’s campaigns, is on record as planning to vote for McCain, and worked until recently in McCain’s campaign. Now he’s quit, announcing that “I just don’t want to work against an Obama candidacy.” Not since Ronald Reagan has a force such as Obama appeared on the American political scene. The Gipper rode in on his movie-star aura, but what’s propelling Obama? “The audacity of hope”; “The fierce urgency of now”; or, putting it another way, Obamamania.

7. Obamanomics. Hillary and McCain piled on Obama for opposing a summertime suspension of the federal tax on gasoline. But it’s Obama who knows in his bones who’s doing the taking, and who’s being taken, in today’s America. It’s Obama who’s proposed ending the regressive payroll tax on incomes up to $50,000; it’s Obama who would end the Bush tax cut on capital gains (and perhaps the Clinton cut in 1997 as well); it’s Obama who would let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire on schedule, maybe even sooner.

8. Obamacare. The Unites States spends far more per-capita on health care than any other country in the world, but you’d never know it from the care we get. We’ve been dropping in the world rankings for years in the most significant measures: we’re now No. 42 in life expectancy (behind, among others, Canada, Japan and Western Europe), No. 28 in infant mortality (trailing the likes of Cuba and the Czech Republic). America is at a tipping point, ready at long last to move toward some type of universal health care. The Democratic left leans toward Hillary’s version over Obama’s, but most observers agree their plans are not really that far apart. Big Mac? For a man whose medical expenses have been picked up for decades by the U.S. government, he can’t see past the false bogeyman of “socialized medicine”.

9. Obamaworld. Barack in 2002: “I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors…to shove their own ideological agenda down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.” In 2007: “I will end the war in Iraq….I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda. And I will lead the world to combat the common threats of the 21st century: nuclear weapons and terrorism; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease.” Meanwhile, The Straight Talk Express straight talks on death and destruction: “I’m sorry to tell you, there’s going to be other wars.” Immediately thereafter, for emphasis, “There will be other wars.”

10. Obama. He’s young; he lacks McCain’s experience. Far from being negatives, these are plusses. Obama grasps (intuitively, or because he’s smarter, or because he’s less ideological) the plain fact that no country, not even the mighty United States, can impose its will via military interventions and blunderbuss diplomacy. He understands the American experience in ways that McCain never could. He’ll head the ticket of the political party that seeks to expand the American Dream, not to shut people out of it. What can hope do? What good are dreams? When Barack Obama announced his candidacy, he seized a moment that nobody else even knew existed; to borrow a phrase from Bush The Elder, Obama truly does have that “vision thing.”

Gerald Scorse

The U.S. desperately needs to overhaul the way it deals with terrorist-sponsoring regimes. After much deliberation and many conversations with military and intelligence personnel, here’s an outline:

1. The U.S. does not practice preventive war, but it reserves the right to make a preemptive strike

Preventive war is the doctrine of attacking a country based on the possibility that sometime in the future that country may pose a threat. This is illegal under international law, and creates a terrible precedent since there is virtually no way to determine valid criteria for making such a claim. Iraq was a preventive war, not a preemptive war as claimed; it was a mistake that will not be repeated by any U.S. president.

A preemptive strike (also called a preemptive war) occurs when a nation attacks another nation that is clearly planning an attack, or clearly developing the capability to attack. Israel’s actions in the Six Day War, its bombing of Iraq’s nuclear facilities, and its recent bombing of Syria’s nuclear plant fall into this category. All nations reserve the right to attack any nation that is on the verge of attacking it, or developing the capability specifically to do so.

2. The U.S. reserves the right to take action against any terrorist cells planning attacks on the U.S. if the host government is unable or unwilling to do so

The first course of action is for the U.S. to work with other nations to root out these cells. America will take unilateral military action only in extreme circumstances when the host state is incapable of acting or refuses to act. Currently, the state of Pakistan may fall into this category, as well as Somalia and Ethiopia.

3. The U.S. reserves the right to target the leadership of any state that actively harbors terrorists hostile to the U.S.

“Actively harbors” refers to nations that are directly or indirectly supporting terrorist groups and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. to bring the terrorists to justice. Currently, the states of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea fall into this category, among others.

The U.S. must make clear that “reserving the right” does not mean that such right will always be exercised. At the same time, the leaders of nations who harbor terrorists threatening the United States must be made to know that they are not safe as long as they continue such support.

Perhaps most important, the populations of these nations should be told in unequivocal terms that the U.S. government does not view them as enemies; it is their leaders who are putting them in danger of U.S. military retaliation. If the citizenry of these nations can help bring to power leaders who are not hostile to the U.S., they will no longer face the threat of U.S. military strikes.

This needs to be repeated over and over again by U.S. officials everywhere they go. Doing this will create a lasting incentive for the people unfortunate enough to live under autocratic, rogue regimes to work towards domestic regime change that holds the potential for lasting peace.

Jason Scorse

The U.S. financial crisis has been relatively contained, thanks in no small part to the creative and steady leadership of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. True, bank losses are running in the hundreds of billions, and trillions more will be lost in “paper” values by the time home prices stop dropping; all the same, the risk of a full-scale global financial meltdown seem to be receding.

There are those, like Paul Krugman, who believe that the diminishing sense of panic may stall the financial reforms needed to prevent a similar (or even worse) meltdown in the future. With Americans fixated on high gas prices and the cost of food, Krugman fears that financial industry lobbyists may be able to resist calls for extending many of the regulations of the normal banking sector to the more obtuse and unregulated world of financial services and derivatives.

While Krugman may be right, I think there is also a potential silver lining in all of this.

Capital usually goes where it can make the quickest buck. In the 1990s it was tech stocks, most recently it was housing. What was disconcerting about both of these speculative frenzies was that money flowed mostly to developed countries, where the returns to capital should be among the lowest (since developed countries are awash in capital); this at a time when billions of people live in capital-starved countries eager for investment.

The reason why money pours into relatively low-return developed markets over the higher returns offered by developing economies is, of course, because of the much greater risk in poorer countries: risks from political instability, corruption, inadequate infrastructure, etc.

But this is starting to change. The emerging markets of Latin America, Asia, Eastern Europe, and Africa have been growing fast these past few years; rising demand in these regions is one of the major factors which up until now has helped the U.S. and the global economy avoid recession.

Now that our latest financial crisis may soon be behind us, there is a new opportunity for investors to take another look at the developing economies (especially since they represent some of the strongest at this point in the global business cycle). When there is so much opportunity for greater returns in the developing world, it is hugely inefficient for investment to be concentrated in the richer countries.

A shift in capital investments would not simply mean profits for investors from wealthy countries, but real material progress for the billions or people still living on a couple dollars or less a day. Investment in the U.S. may mean better computers or video games or other electronic devices; for people in the Global South, it can mean the difference between having a refrigerator or not, having basic transportation, having a cell phone to connect with the rest of the country and the world. The stakes are simply much higher for those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

Hopefully, when the dust finally settles on this latest financial crisis, many more of the world’s investors will realize the amazing opportunities that exist for long-term investment in the least developed parts of the world. For readers who happen to be individual investors, putting your money into emerging markets means that as the world’s poor get richer, so do you. It’s a win-win situation.

Jason Scorse