Stu's Views

Not surprisingly I view Thursday's upcoming debate in baseball terms. The way I see it is that it is the top of the seventh and Kerry is trailing by one. He has men on first and third with two outs. If he makes an out (even on a well hit ball), the game isn't over but his best chance to win may have passed. If he gets a single and ties it, it is a whole new ballgame and anything can happen. If he hits a home run, he's up by two and Bush is in trouble.

What does Kerry have to do to get a base hit or home run? First of all he has to prove resolute. One of Bush's key aims (his best pitch -- to carry the metaphor too far) is to use this debate to show he's been strong on terror and that Kerry has equivocated. Kerry has to neuter that. He has to be ready to defend in simple terms his "flip flops" and he has to attack Bush as both a flip flopper and someone who, when he is resolute is often wrong.

Part of this will involve Kerry's presentation. He has to speak in short sentences and his explanations cannot be convoluted. This is particularly true when it comes to explaining his "flip flops." The vote on against the $87 billion for the troops will be his trickiest (no repeat of "I voted for it before I voted against it" please) but it is one he has to be well prepared for. His vote to sanction the war on Iraq is easier. "I voted to give you authority because I trusted you, much as the American people trusted you. I was wrong. You didn't do what you said you would do and over 1000 American soldiers are dead and the country is no safer."

Kerry also has to present a positive vision of himself. Attacking Bush is important, probably the most important thing, but putting forward his own vision is crucial too. Saying he will get us out of Iraq is a start. Talking about approaches to North Korea and Iran will be another step. On every issue that comes up he has to paint Bush as wrong or distracted by Iraq and himself as having a plan to deal with it.

Debates are as much about style as substance and they make a difference. Kerry will not get as good an opportunity as he will tomorrow night (the greatest number of people watch the first debate). Batter up.

Numerous people including some in the campaigns have called this the most important election in a generation. Of course every campaign thinks it is part of an important historical moment (I recently saw some quotes to this effect for every election since 1980).

Unfortunately it is very hard to gauge the importance of an election until well after it takes place. Even then, one has to agree upon the standard by which one calls an election "important." If the ideological difference between the candidates is the measure, then Reagan-Mondale was the most important election ever. If the events that follow the election (and the effect of the President on those events) are the barometer then FDR-Wilkie in 1940 has to win because of World War II. Or it could be that the elections that bring about a long lasting change in the nation's political dynamic and in doing so, influence future presidential elections are the crucial ones. It is this last criteria that I think is most important, followed by the previous two.

With that in mind we have "critical" elections every 30 years or so. The first was 1800 which was the first party switch in U.S. History. Jefferson would inaugurate 24 years of Democratic Presidents. In 1828, Andrew Jackson was swept in reversing the disputed 1824 election and Democrats would hold control of the Presidency for 24 of the next 32 years. The tide reversed in 1860 (the most important election in history because it also led directly to the Civil War) when Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican President and Democrats would only hold the office for 8 of the next 36 years.

William McKinnley and William Jennings Bryan were perceived to be ideological opposites in 1896. McKinnley won and the Republicans held the Presidency for 28 of 36 years. FDR bested Hoover at the heart of the Great Depression in 1932 and brought the Democrats, the New Deal, and eventually the Great Society to power for 28 of 36 years. Finally Richard Nixon reversed the trend by taking advantage of the racial fissures within the Democratic party. Republicans won 5 of the next 8 elections (with southern conservative Democrats winning the other 3).

That brings us to 2000, an election we are all very familiar with. With 9-11, invisible but on the horizon, the criteria of important events is surely there. However if Kerry wins in 2004, the criteria of a lasting effect will not be. The ideological difference between Kerry and Bush is large (although the difference between Bush and Gore seemed small it turned out to be big). My guess is that if Bush wins this year, 2000 will appear to be the most important election of the era (or to answer the question posed in the title of this entry, the most important since 1968). If Kerry wins, it may be 2004, depending on what happens in the next decade.

I've written frequently about how the executive branch frequently puts out extremely important regulations that quickly become the law of the land. The past week has had a multitude of examples of such regulations. I mention five of them below. Of the five, only two have made the front pages of newspapers, and only two have been subject to the scrutiny of the other branches of government. This is how public policy gets made now and nothing will change this until the other branches are willing to consider significant reforms.

One that did make the front page is a housing regulation that will reduce the subsidy received by beneficiaries of federal housing programs. I don't know much about housing policy but it seems unlikely to me that we are giving people in need too much housing.

The Food and Drug Administration issued a regulation this week that, if finalized, would require farmers to take steps to prevent salmonella in eggs. FDA estimates that the rule will cost farmers $80 million but will provide health benefits that could total in the billions. Even if these numbers are exaggerated (and they probably are) this is a prime example of the good that can be done through the regulatory process.

I've written on ergonomics before. While the Clinton Administration attempt to regulate in this area may have been overly ambitious, the Bush Administration effort has been extremely limited. Last week OSHA issued its third set of industry specific voluntary guidelines; these for the poultry processing industry. Because they are voluntary, they will have a limited impact but the problem they are intended to address is a large one.

The National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) made its second attempt this week to issue regulations requiring the installation of tire pressure monitoring systems in new cars. The first attempt was invalidated by the courts because NHTSA (at the urging of OMB) gave manufacturers the option of installing either of two systems. The court said that the statute had required the more protective (and more expensive) system be installed.

Finally, both houses of Congress passed a rider that would reverse a Bush Administration rule on when firms must pay workers overtime(for a discussion of the rule see my entry here ). While the rider passed both houses, it will be interesting to see if it survives a conference committee in the face of a Bush veto threat. My guess is that it won't and another policy preference of the executive branch will be implemented.

(One more link: OMB Watch, a very liberal group, has started a regulatory weblog that should be an excellent (although biased) resource on regulatory issues.)

In the glaring spotlight of the presidential race, it often becomes easy to overlook Congress. However as in every presidential election year, the entire House and 1/3 of the Senate is also up for grabs. I will ignore the House for the moment as it is (as of now) extremely likely to remain in Republican hands due to the current Republican majority and the redistricting after the 2000 Census.

Control of the Senate however is still uncertain. The Republicans currently have a 51-48 lead (with 1 independent, James Jeffords who caucuses with the Democrats). Illinois will almost certainly shift to Democratic control with Obama destroying Keyes and the Republicans will almost certainly take over the (nominally) Democratic seat in Georgia. This leaves eight races that are truly contests in November.

Oklahoma: Republican Don Nickles is retiring and a hot race between Tom Coburn (R) and Brad Carson (D) has developed. Normally a very red state, Coburn should have an advantage here. However he is extremely conservative and Carson is quite the moderate Democrat. A story last week that Coburn sterilized a girl without her permission when he was a doctor has served to tighten the race further.

Alaska: When he became Governor in 2002 Frank Murkowski(R) looked throughout Alaska for the most qualified replacement as a Senator. Or maybe he just looked across the dinner table. In any case he appointed his daughter, Lisa, who now faces a very tough reelection against the former Governor Tony Knowles.

Colorado: Both parties nominated moderates to succeed Republican Ben Nighthorse Campbell. It will be Ken Salazar against beer heir and son of the ultra conservative Adolph Coors, Pete Coors.

Florida: Former Bush Housing Secretary, Mel Martinez runs against Betty Castor for the seat currently held by Democrat Bob Graham. Martinez is Cuban which should help and is the handpicked candidate of Karl Rove. He is probably a slight favorite.

South Carolina: Rep. Jim DeMint (R) has a slight lead on Inez Tannenbaum (D) in the race to succeed long time Democratic Senator Fritz Hollings. This state leans quite Republican so a Democratic win would be an upset.

North Carolina: Erskine Bowles (D) former Clinton chief of staff lost to Elizabeth Dole here in 2002. He faces a much easier opponent in the race to succeed John Edwards.

South Dakota: Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D) faces an intense challenge from former rep John Thune. Thune lost a race for South Dakota's other seat in 2002 by less than 600 votes and the state typically leans Republican. There will be a ton of money tossed into this race and it will be one of the most watched on election night.

Louisiana: Everything is different in Louisiana. They have an open election on November 2 and if no one gets 50% of the vote, there is a runoff three weeks later. Control of the Senate could be at stake and if it is, all bets are off as both parties will focus all their energy on the Bayou (unless the Presidential election has not yet been decided).

Doing the math, if Kerry wins (giving Edwards the tiebreaking vote in the Senate) the Democrats need 5 of the 8 races listed above. If Kerry loses, they need 6 of the 8. Unlikely but not impossible.

I had a dialogue with a commenter recently (see below) about the specificity of the Kerry health care plan. Coincidentally I received in my inbox a notice from the Kaiser Foundation (a must bookmark for any one interested in health care issues) that they have a new website comparing the Bush and Kerry plans. I find these side by side comparisons extremely helpful and recommend them to anyone seriously interested in the issues.

Unfortunately the problem is that few people are that interested in the issues. People are rationally ignorant about many issues and tend to focus on a very small number of issues particularly important to them (that's why abortion has stayed part of the national dialogue for 40 years -- a nontrivial number of people will vote on that issue alone). Others vote for primarily for the person, not the issues, they trust Bush or they hate him.

That raises the question of why candidates should put forward details about their plans. Part of the reason of course, particularly in an election as close as this one, is to attract those voters for whom each particular issue is important. Another reason is to seem credible on important issues. Finally, assuming the candidate wins, they want to have an agenda on which to act (and to be able to claim that the people support their agenda).

The incentives for a lack of specificty are much greater however. Why put something detailed out there that will inevitably be spun in a manner that will reflect badly upon the candidate (Bill Bradley learned this painfully in 2000 with his health care plan). For that reason I am impressed that both campaigns have as much detail out there as they do.

Like with many issues the health care plans present a real choice between the candidates. The choice in this election is as stark as any since 1988 or possibly 1984. Kerry's plans will cover more of the uninsured and minimize the role of private plans in Medicare. Bush will start us on the road to a complete privatization of Medicare. Kerry favors reimportation of prescription drugs and a more generous prescription drug benefit than was passed by Congress last year. Bush opposes reimportation and is touting the 2003 bill as a key accomplishment.

Of course neither candidate tells us the cost of their plans. That would probably be expecting too much.

In an interesting op-ed published on Monday the former President of Middlebury suggests three reforms in university management. The first is the abolition of tenure. The second is the de-emphasis of student-faculty ratios. The third is lowering the drinking age.

As a junior professor, the first one is of the most interest to me. Tenure was instituted and continues to be maintained in order to guarantee academic freedom. Senior professors who do not have to worry about their jobs are more likely to challenge deeply held beliefs and hold up such ideas to rigorous scrutiny. Speaking as an economist, they are more likely to take risks in their research and in their classrooms.

However there is a tradeoff as Professor McCardell implies. While there is a greater incentive to take risks, the incentive to fulfill the more mundane obligations of an academic decrease. In a world where university education means something very different than it did two generations ago (as I've noted before, it now means to a far greater degree, the education of the masses), these mundane obligations are far more important than they used to be.

The trick is designing a system that protects academic freedom while maintaining accountability. This is not an easy thing but to many college students, it has become apparent that the tenure system fulfills the first of those goals at the cost of the second. McCardell suggests "a system of contracts of varying length, including lifetime for the most valuable colleagues." I'm not sure that this is the perfect solution but it is a good start for discussions on a topic most want to avoid.

McCardell's other two suggestions are of less interest to me. I think he is right in deemphasizing student-faculty ratios in favor of average class sizes and information about the accessibility of professors. On lowering the drinking age, he asserts that drinking has been driven underground and as a result binge drinking and alcohol related tragedies have increased. He is correct on the first of these but it is hard for me to believe that less drinking would occur if more people could do it legally. There may be good reasons that drinking ages should be lowered but reducing the abuse of alcohol is not among them.

An idea that has gained currency in the liberal blogosphere and may be taking hold in the Kerry campaign is the need for Kerry to make Iraq his issue. Kevin Drum and Josh Marshall both hit on this idea and in what quickly becoming one of my favorite blogs, Legal Fiction writes a long argument about it.

Basically the argument is twofold. The first point, picked up on by Marshall and Drum (and to be fair by Kerry) is that the war in Iraq has made it harder to catch Bin Laden and opened up threats in North Korea and Iran. The subtler (and perhaps more important point) made at Legal Fiction, is that the war in Iraq is exactly what Bin Laden wanted us to do when he struck on 9-11.

After World War II, many people went back and read Mein Kampf and were startled by the degree to which Hitler did exactly what he said he would do. Similarly in pre 9-11 writings and speeches, Bin Laden talked about provoking the United States into a holy war. When the war in Afghanistan did not become such a war, Bin Laden had to be disappointed. But then Bush bailed him out by invading Iraq.

Now Bin Laden can use Iraq to mobilize recruits. Meanwhile the war is becoming increasingly difficult and no one knows how we will leave. We are engaged in a permanent war. While we say the war is not with Islam, it is becoming increasingly to convince Muslims of that.

I've said before that I don't think that the "Bush is incompetent" idea will work for Kerry (because Bush is not incompetent and even if he is, people don't care). While Kerry needs to continue to hit Bush on the economy, it is becoming increasingly apparent that this alone will not win the electeion. However the "Bush lied" idea particularly when coupled with an emphasis that he lied to get us into a failed war that our true enemy wanted us in has promise. It also has the advantage of being true.

There have been quite a few articles about Democrats bemoaning Kerry's August weakness and Bush's surge in the polls. Ruy Teixeira spends much time in his blog (bookmarked on the right of this page) explaining why Democrats shouldn't be too worried and that Bush is not doing nearly as well as it appears.

Teixeira's point is that the polls that show Bush doing well are generally of likely voters not of registered voters and that these are less reliable (presumably because people don't really make up their mind about voting until closer to the election). Kerry and Bush are much closer to even in the polls of registered voters.

While this seems like a thin reed to hang one's optimism on, it also seems to me as if it is still too early for Democrats to panic. Basically the race was roughly even from when Kerry sewed up the nomination until the Democratic convention. Then Kerry had a slight edge for a month or so. Now most polls (excepting those taken during the Republican convention) show Bush with a slight edge. No one has opened up a lead outside of the margin of error (again with the exception of polls taken during the Republican convention).

This all brings us back to what everyone has been saying from the start, this will be a very close election. The candidates are wise to concentrate on the 16-18 swing states (although Bush does appear to have opened up a lead in Missouri) as they will decide the election.

In the less than two months left before Election Day, there are still things that could make the race lopsided. Four are immediately obvious.
1. A terrorist attack. Probably helps Bush unless it occurs via a medium that Kerry can credibly argue Bush underfunded (such as port safety).
2. Capture of Bin Laden. Remember Bush's approval rating went up 10 points when Hussein was captured.
3. Nader drops out. Clearly helps Kerry.
4. A big blunder in the debates. Bush is more likely to commit one but Kerry better not give a 10 minute answer to a yes or no question.
Barring these events, expect to be up until 2am again on Election Night waiting for the announcement about who the next President is.

No, I'm not talking about Bush and Kerry. This is a baseball post. There are less than four weeks remaining in the season and six of the eight playoff spots are basically spoken for. With that in mind, there are three unrelated topics I'd like to blab about.

1. Yankees/Red Sox: I've said that the Red Sox are a very talented team that was underperforming. They are making up for it now in spades. The Yankees and the Red Sox will go into the playoffs as co-favorites in the AL unless one collapses between now and then. Quietly, the beseiged Yankee rotation has put together six good starts in a row. It is true that they will have no one to match Schilling or Pedro (or Santanna or Hudson for that matter) but they will head into the postseason with an offense and bullpen to match anyone and a rotation that will be taken too lightly. Anyone can win a five game series but I am far from despondent about the Yankee's chances.

2. Surprises of the season: Unless Anaheim rallies, I will have correctly predicted all four playoff teams in the AL. I will also be lucky to get one out of four correct in the National League. Not surprisingly, I consider most of the surprises to have occured in the NL.

While I did give St. Louis 90 wins in my preseason picks, I don't think anyone thought they would be this good. They go into the postseason with a chance to be the best team since the 1998 Yankees. The primary surprises are the great pitching performances of Marquis and Carpenter. They are currently the strong World Series favorites although New York or Boston would match up well with them.

Los Angeles and particularly Atlanta have also outperformed expectations. Atlanta manager Bobby Cox cemented his Hall of Fame plaque this season and Los Angeles Paul Depodesta is starting what will be a spectacular career as a general manager. Where there are pleasant surprises there are disappointments. No one understands why Larry Bowa is still managing in Philadelphia where the Phillies have grossly underachieved. Houston and the Cubs have been hurt by injuries but remain in contention for the wildcard.

3. The remaining pennant races: Consistent with my preseason picks, I do think Oakland will hold off Anaheim although it wouldn't suprise me if they didn't. More interesting is the NL wild card race where the winner will give Atlanta or LA a very tough first round series (if that's how the matchups work out). The Cubs have the lead and the easiest schedule. They are probably also the best team even if Mark Prior isn't healthy. San Francisco is basically Barry Bonds who is on his way to a 7th MVP award. Houston and Florida are both very talented and could do damage in the playoffs if they make it. I don't think they will as I give a substantial edge to the Cubbies.

Last week in the New York Times magazine and then again yesterday, David Brooks praised George Bush as a compassionate conservative and a new type of Republican. He used as evidence, Bush's speech at the Republican convention and some type of intuition about Bush's true preferences. He argued that Bush would give up his tax cuts in favor of saving social security and Medicare (albeit while privatizing them)and that he recognizes government is necessary. He cast Bush in the mold of Hamilton, Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, three Republicans who were believed in the power of the market but recognized that it needed to be constrained.

My reaction was, "Huh?" One can argue that Bush is principled (I don't buy it, but it's a credible argument) but clearly if one makes that arguement, you have to say that the principle he stands behind was a government that is strong militarily and has little role domestically. Brooks, either disingenously or naively, is believing what Bush said in 2000 and on Thursday and not what he has done.

The only domestic promises that Bush has fulfilled from 2000 are the massive tax cut (he has actually done more in this area than he promised) and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) bill. By underfunding NCLB, one can argue that he has fulfilled his education promise in name only. Therefore clearly one has to judge his domestic record based on what one thinks of the tax cuts. Brooks blithely assumes that he will give up those tax cuts if he needs to spend on Medicare and Social Security. There is no basis for this assumption.

There is another domestic agenda that we can ascribe to Bush far more credibly based on his deeds rather than his words. He knows, unlike the Gingrich folks of the mid 1990s, that Americans are in favor of both lower taxes and greater social spending. Therefore he gives them both rhetorically while enacting the tax cuts and increasing military spending. The long term effect of doing this will be to put the government in so much debt that the public will have to choose between giving up social benefits like Medicare or draconian increases in tax rates. Then Bush's successors will be able to fulfill the conservative dream of destroying LBJ's great society programs. This is why Bush talks about expanding benefits and lowering taxes but only actually follows through on the lower taxes.

The Nixon/Reagan coalition of social and fiscal conservatives and neo-con war hawks is fraying much as the Roosevelt coalition broke apart in the 1960s and 1970s. Moderates fear the growing deficits and conservatives worry that Bush is not cutting any programs (not to mention their differences on social issues). The Republican convention was an exercise in trying to hold this party together. It may have been successful. If it wasn't then there will be some massive battles within the Republican party over the next four years. If it was, then the battle will likely resurface in 2008. Of course that may be too late for the social safety net that has been a bedrock principle in American governance for 72 years.

I'll admit that I think that Bush gave a reasonably good speech from a stylistic viewpoint last night. It was a bit long but he did a good job of appearing folksy yet presidential and I think it probably went over well both with his supporters and those on the fence. His attacks on Kerry (unlike the ones the night before -- see below) were clever and well delivered.

Substantively there wasn't much there. Most of the domestic policy proposals are proposals he has made before (including the Pell Grant proposal which he made in 2000 and then went back on in three straight budgets -- talk about a flip flop!). His foreign policy is still to "smoke them out" although I guess he is not interested in smoking out Bin Laden or confronting North Korea or Iran since he didn't mention what are probably the three greatest threats to US security. If voters focus on the substance (and there is little reason to think they will -- see this thoughtful blog entry) then Bush is in deep trouble. If not, he may be in good shape.

To quote Jon Stewart, "Having Lynne Cheney introduce her husband at least shows that Dick Cheney hasn't murdered his wife." Cheney did his best Dark Lord of the Sith impersonation on Wednesday night. While Bush's speech was stylistically strong, Cheney's was devoid of style. He attacked and lied about Kerry and basically told the electorate to vote Republican or live with the consequences. He is a very smart man but he is a mediocre speaker at best and may be pure evil.

He was overshadowed however by Zell Miller who gave the keynote on Wednesday night. I missed most of Zell's speech but apparently he was quite rabid and afterwards challenged Chris Matthews to a duel. It is quite remarkable that the most conservative speaker at the Republican convention (and besides Arnold and Bush the one who did the best job of getting the crowd going) was a so called Democrat.

Late last night John Kerry responded to the vicious attacks by Miller and Cheney. And much as I suggested a week ago (to toot my own horn) he went on the attack. He showed considerable emotion and it was the best speech I've seen him give. I hope it is a sign of things to come. It is going to be a nasty 60 days and Kerry should not get out-nastied.

The first two days of the Republican convention have been quite curious. The principal speakers have been Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, and McCain, all of whom are pro choice, against an amendment banning gay marriage, and relatively moderate on most issues. Meanwhile the convention has adopted a platform that is pro life, pro amendment (even banning civil unions) and that could not be mistaken for a moderate document.

The convention has been hard to watch for me as I have a fair amount of admiration for Giuliani and McCain and while I joke about Arnold, I don't think his policy positions (at least those we can discern) are too bad. However each of them has taken to the podium to emphasize the issue they agree with Bush on, the War on Terror and ignore everything else. You could almost see the problem in the looks on delegate's faces when McCain said that he didn't doubt Democrat's motives and Giuliani said that Democrats aren't wrong on everything. The delegates clearly disagreed.

This was particularly painful in watching McCain who looked somewhat pained during his speech. I'd like to think he called attention to Michael Moore as a subtly subversive tactic but that is just wishful thinking. McCain knows that Kerry would probably fight the War on Terror as vigorously (although differently) as Bush and that Kerry would be closer to him on most other issues.

But McCain, like Giuliani and Schwarzenegger has made the decision that they want higher office and that they need to stay on good terms with the Republicans to achieve it. We may see each of them as candidates in 2008 and given the rightward tilt of Republican primary voters, they can't be seen as anything less than enthusiastic Bush supporters. So they talk about the War on Terror and praise Bush and put their feelings on other issues in a blind trust.

Unfortunately for the three moderates, a Republican nomination for President is not in their future. As much as they prostitute themselves to gain favor with the conservatives, the right wing of the party will not forget their position on social issues. Only if the moderates revolt and leave the Republican party for an election or two will the Republicans become sufficiently desperate to drift back to the views of McCain, Giuliani, and Schwarzenegger. By then it will be too late for McCain and Giuliani and quite possibly for Schwarzenegger.