The Gadson Review

Obama Should Stick By Holder For His Own Good

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:56:00 +0000

This week, Eric Holder became the first Attorney-General in US history to be cited for contempt by a House Committee. I do not want to discuss whether this is justified—at least not in this post—but I do want to consider what the best thing for Obama to do in the context of this current campaign is.

No doubt there are some that think the House vote could cause a general perception of the Obama administration as scandal-plagued. This would certainly not be good in an election year. So now might be the time to ask for Eric Holder’s resignation or fire him.

But I’m convinced that would be the wrong move. The best thing for Obama to do would be to defend Holder enthusiastically and proclaim his full confidence in him. There is an unavoidable racial dynamic here. White Republicans are seen in some quarters of the African-American community as unfairly picking on the first black attorney-general. Obama could win himself some plaudits by standing up for Holder. You might be thinking that Obama already has a lock on the black vote, which he does. But by issuing a strong defense of Holder he might get more turnout and encourage other blacks to donate money or volunteer their time.

In addition, Obama’s campaign could paint sticking by Holder as a principled move by a principled politician and draw a not so subtle contrast with Romney who has changed positions on many issues. This could reinforce his likeability factor and his standing among centrist and independent voters.

Now of course, many staunch, ideologically committed Republicans despise holder for a variety of reasons. But these people will already vote for Romney any way because of Obama’s stands on other issues. And they already enthusiastically oppose the President.

In short, Obama has nothing to lose, and potentially something to gain politically by defending Holder.

"The Private Sector is Doing Just Fine..."

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 19:32:00 +0000

Obama’s comment that the private sector “is doing just fine” continues to drive his campaign coverage this week.

What he was trying to argue was that the reason the economy has had so much trouble has been that the public sector at various levels of government has laid off so many workers. This of course has ripple effects in the overall economy. Public sector workers who lose their jobs and are unable to find new ones are unable to spend, save, or invest at the same level they once were, which means there is less consumer spending and less capital available to private sector businesses. Conservatives might respond that taxpayers would save substantial sums of money by laying off government employees which would then allow those same taxpayers additional money to spend, save and invest.

Obama’s argument is a reasonable one, but saying “the private sector is just fine” makes Obama look out of touch and clueless about the economic situations they are facing. Average Americans looking at businesses closing around them and think the private sector is not doing fine. In fact, they are correct. The private sector may be doing ok relative to the public sector, but it is far from being healthy enough to generate the jobs and wages the economy needs to return to prosperity.

There is no denying that these comments hurt Obama. Republicans should have the comments on an endless loop and put them in campaign ads. But they risk nullifying the benefit of the comments when Romney says things like ““He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers.” On balance, the public likes having policemen, firemen, and teachers. Obama has a chance to counter-attack by capitalizing on fears about public safety and fears that the educational system will continue to decline as teachers are laid off, hurting the prospects of America’s children.

Obama would be well advised to choose his next words on the economy more carefully. Come to think of it, so would Romney.

Obama's Leak Scandal

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 20:16:00 +0000

The one thing congressmen from both parties can agree on recently was that leaks from the White House about national security issues such as attempts to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program are completely intolerable. There are several possibilities for why the information was leaked.

The first is that the leaking was done on purpose by someone in the White House in order to secure political points. The information released shows that Obama has been taking aggressive steps to keep the country safe. This would portray Obama as a strong leader in a tough election year. The problem is that if this is the case, whoever leaked the information might unwittingly have hurt Obama’s chances. The White House is now being accused of playing fast and loose with national security secrets to gain political advantage. The fact that both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are upset provides poor publicity during this campaign.

The second possibility of course is that the information was unintentionally leaked by the White House. Perhaps someone in the White House was speaking off the record to a reporter, who chose to publish what he was told. This suggests that the White House is unable to keep a tight rein around state secrets which would also be unhelpful politically.

Another possibility is actually that the White House was providing the information on purpose, but not to secure political advantage. There are other objectives served by the release of the information. Israel is obviously worried about an Iranian nuclear program. Releasing details of its actions against Iran may show the Israeli public as well as allies around the world that the US is making substantial efforts to prevent an Iranian weapon from coming into operation. This could combine to put pressure on Netanyahu to avoid a preemptive strike on Iran, which the Obama administration thinks will have ruinous consequences at this point.

In the end, I still think the economy will trump other concerns on Election Day in November. If anything, this episode might provide a slight advantage to President Obama. It highlights that we live in a very dangerous world with an array of threats and that Obama has managed to keep us safe for the past four years by taking aggressive action. Any chance the Obama administration can talk about foreign policy and terrorism (highlighting of course the killing of Bin Laden and important subordinates) instead of the economy, it should take it.

What if D-Day Failed?

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:58:00 +0000

This week marks the anniversary of D-Day. Every year, historians argue what would have happened had D-Day failed. This year, I’ll finally add my two cents.

I think it is clear that Germany would still have lost the war, for a failed invasion would not have changed the fundamental dynamics it faced. Germany was fighting a war on multiple fronts against enemies committed to its destruction: in the east against the Soviet Union and in Italy against a combined force of Western allies. In the occupied countries of Europe it confronted ever-more bold resistance and partisan movements. Allied bombing raids were devastating German cities day and night. And part of the German army would always have to remain vigilant against an invasion taking place somewhere in Western Europe from Norway down to France.

Supposing D-Day had failed, it is highly doubtful that the Americans or British would have given up after all they had expended to win the war and because of their ideological distaste for Nazism. My bet is that they would have doubled down on the campaign in Italy. This would have put them in a position ultimately to invade Germany from the South. I also suspect that they would have further increased bombing raids to put further pressure on the German economy, infrastructure, and morale. And of course, the Soviet army would have continued its relentless westward push into Germany.

Would Germany have been able to shift some of its army west to fight the Soviets had D-Day failed? Yes, but that number would necessarily have had to be limited. Remember, Germany was fighting the Western allies in Italy. It also needed to retain at least some forces in the occupied countries to keep order and prevent rebellion. Lastly, there would still have been a specter of an allied invasion in the West, which would have necessitated keeping some forces on alert in countries like France and Belgium. I honestly think that the Western allies led by Churchill might have considered an invasion of Greece to force the Germans to fight multiple enemies in the East, something which Stalin would normally have opposed, but which he might have come to accept it when confronted with new German armies blocking his advance.

Ultimately, these circumstances always conspired to keep Germany from winning by a late date like 1944. The next interesting possibility to consider is what the fate of post-war Europe would have been like. There are many who argue that Stalin would have conquered more of Germany and central Europe since the Western allies would not have a beachhead from which to push east. But this makes three assumptions. First, it assumes that the Western allies would not have launched a second invasion of Western Europe shortly after D-Day that enabled them to move against Germany. Second, it assumes that that the Western allies would not have made a stronger effort to move through Italy that enabled them to attack Germany from the South, a distinct possibility. Lastly, it also assumes that Germany would not have been able to transfer some manpower from Western Europe to prolong the Soviet advance (which would have given the allies more time to recoup their losses and launch another invasion).

All of this is to say that it is actually far from clear whether the Soviets would have managed to dominate continental Europe. I think the likeliest scenario is that the Western allies would have simply added to their push in Italy and looked for the soonest possible date to launch another invasion. With some extra German troops tying the Soviets up in Eastern Europe, they would have had extra time to get to Germany.

What do you think would have happened?

How Should Republicans Attack Obama?

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:51:00 +0000

On Monday, I sketched out a strategy that Democrats might use against Romney in the general election campaign. Today, I will do the same for Republicans.

For Romney, the strategy is clearer than it is for Obama. He needs to relentlessly focus on the economy. He needs to make the case that the economy is demonstrably worse under Obama than it was when he inherited (his campaign can make use of straightforward statistics such as the employment rate to do this). He also needs to make use of the fact that average Americans are still quite worried about the economy and their personal situations. He can ask Ronald Reagan’s famous question from the 1980 debate: “are you better off than you were four years ago?” Most Americans whether they are or not will say “no.”

Now, Obama will argue that the portrait Romney is painting is unfair, and that he in fact inherited a terrible economic situation from the crash of the financial sector in 2008. He will also argue that the steps he took prevented a depression from taking place. But I think that will be a hard sell with voters. He will essentially tell them “yeah things are bad, but they could have been worse. Please vote for me.” Romney’s message is much simpler: “the economy is terrible, and President Obama failed to fix it. Let’s try something different.”

President Obama will no doubt try and tout his record in the realm of foreign policy (such as the killing of Bin Laden), but whenever he tries to do so, Romney should stay focused on the economy. He can say that the best way for American to remain strong in the international arena is to have a strong economy, which Obama has proven unable to fix. Obama will also try and counter-attack on the economy by talking about Romney’s economic performance as Governor in Massachusetts. But Romney’s retort is clear. When Obama says that employment grew at a much slower than average pace in Massachusetts, Romney can say “Yes, but at least we gained jobs when I was Governor. We can’t say the same for you as President. Besides, why are you going back almost ten years ago to attack me, when most Americans are worried about whether they’ll have a job tomorrow?”

Of course, the success of this strategy depends on how the economy does in the next several months. If it follows the path suggested by last week’s job report, it will be extremely potent. Even if the economy starts improving, it is hard to see it doing so enough to completely allay the concerns of voters. And it depends on events. Perhaps something will happen that will cause the focus of the election to shift to foreign policy or terrorism, something that might suit Obama better. No matter what though, the strategy I outlined needs to be a crucial part of Romney’s message.

How Should Democrats Go After Romney?

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 14:30:00 +0000

Deteriorating economic conditions and a week where the Obama campaign’s Bain attacks were questioned even by fellow Democrats have Obama supporters wondering how they should try to portray Romney.

The right way to attack Romney (if we must concede that the campaign has to descend into attacks) is to call into question his campaign’s central message. Romney is running on the idea that he is the one with the competence to improve the economy because of his business record and his record as Governor of Massachusetts. Obama strategists will have ample material here. Romney’s time at Bain produced many claims of companies Bain took over where jobs were lost or the companies were left saddled with untenable debt.

Of course, Romney and his team would argue that on net, Bain’s involvement with companies produced jobs and that the financial sector is vital to the nation’s health. But Obama need not convince voters that Romney was heartless or that he always caused jobs to be lost. Instead he just needs these voters to wonder if Romney’s claims that his time as a businessman gave him particular insight in how to create jobs given that they are continually reading stories of how Bain destroyed jobs. Now, the last time this line of attack was deployed, Democrats such as Cory Booker and Bill Clinton objected. If the Obama campaign uses such attacks directly, it could risk another episode where important surrogates are off-message and it could lower Obama’s personal favorability ratings by making him look like another calculating politician.

The right way to bring up Bain is to do nothing at all and instead leave the job to outside Democratic groups. I am sure someone will come up with the idea to consolidate all the anti-Bain attacks in the Republican primary into an effective ad, which would have the helpful side effect of blunting attacks that criticisms of Bain are Democratic class warfare. When Obama is asked what he thinks of the attacks, he should say that he will not be revisiting the Bain issue and looks forward to offering a positive vision to the American people. When pressed about whether he agrees with the attacks, he might even digress and say that he wishes that outside groups could not raise unlimited sums of money to use on attacks, which is one reason he opposed the Citizens United ruling which most Americans do as well (but which many Republican politicians support).

As for Romney’s time as Governor, it has already been pointed out that Massachusetts ranked 47^th out of 50 states in job creation. In fact, Obama strategists might gleefully point out that Obama has a comfortable lead in the state where voters are most familiar with Romney’s economic performance. They could say something like “in the one place where Romney had a chance to implement his economic vision, voters are overwhelmingly choosing Obama.” Now, this fact obviously owes to Massachusetts’ Democratic tilt, but that will escape those who are not avid political junkies. Romney might argue that the above job creation statistic owes to factors beyond his control such as national economic conditions, or opposition in the state legislature to his policies by Democrats. But this brings an obvious retort: “If Romney couldn’t turn the economy around in his state, how will he do so for the whole nation?”

Romney may in fact have clever responses for the charges. But the point would be that he is on defense regarding his central claim. Is it fair to hold Romney alone responsible for job creation in Massachusetts? Probably not. Many factors lay beyond a Governor’s control in a four year time span. These include the composition of the work force, business climate in other states, and the amount the opposition party will work with him or her. BUT, it is not more unfair than laying blame for all of the economy’s problems at Obama’s feet, or criticizing him for not fixing all of them in the past three years.

If Obama can nullify Romney’s advantage on the economy, he can turn the election into a referendum on who has the best ideas going forward and on other factors such as personal likeability. He has a much better chance of prevailing on those grounds than he does if it becomes purely a referendum on the economy.

Give Romney His Due

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 14:16:00 +0000

Amid poor news on the economic front and Donald Trump’s “birther” comments, it has been little noted that Mitt Romney officially won enough delegates to claim his party’s nomination for President. In so doing, he made history as the first Mormon nominee for President of a major party.

I freely admit that I am surprised to see him doing so well as I had expressed some skepticism about his chances on this blog. At the outset of the 2012 primaries, I thought that Romney possessed few if any of the qualities of someone who would claim a major party nomination or contend so seriously for the presidency. For starters, Romney did not seem to offer a unique, compelling vision in the way that Bill Clinton did as a new Democrat in 1992 or Ronald Reagan did as the leader of the conservative movement did in 1980.

The absence of such a vision meant that his greatest claim on the nomination lay in his perceived competence and electability. But as I have written before, Romney’s term as Governor was not particularly compelling. There were not great strides made in education or economic development. Perhaps his biggest achievement was one he was particularly reticent to discuss on the campaign trail: Romneycare.

I also found fault with the idea that he was particularly electable. The logic behind this claim must be appealing for Republicans. He had managed to win the governorship in a state that reliably votes for Democrats at the national level in 2002. But what is not often mentioned is that when he was leaving office in 2006, he was polling poorly enough that there would have been a distinct possibility of him losing had he run for reelection. The handful of electoral surveys shows Obama in a comfortable position in the state. The case for electability then rests not on his ability to bring along his home state or indeed any state in New England save perhaps for New Hampshire. The case rests on the idea that Romney will play well with moderate and independent voters in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

Now it is true that Romney was the most electable Republican of those running in the primaries. But that does not say much given how unelectable much of his competition was. Herman Cain made his name on the much ridiculed 9-9-9 tax plan (remember that?) and then dropped out amid allegations of inappropriate sexual advances. Rick Perry struggled to remember which departments he wanted to eliminate. Newt Gingrich carried more personal baggage than the other candidates combined. Rick Santorum managed to reignite a debate about contraception, one struggle in the culture war that conservatives have little hope of prevailing on. I could go on.

Romney is polling well against Obama but the question now is, who wouldn’t be assuming he were a credible candidate? The economy is adding jobs at an anemic pace and has voters worried. The federal government had its credit downgraded. There is a very real chance that President Obama’s signature accomplishment (Obamacare) might be declared unconstitutional in the coming weeks.

That Romney won the nomination was due in some measure to luck, but it also reflects positively on his character. He has been dogged in pursuing the Republican nomination since at least 2005. He overcame the inevitable disappointment of coming up short in 2008 to refine his message and run a tighter, more disciplined campaign this time around. In winning in Massachusetts in 2002 and clinching the nomination this year he managed to successfully win with two very different electorates: moderate New England Republicans in 2002 and disproportionately Southern and Western tea party conservatives in 2012.

Whatever else you think of Romney, give the man his props. And Democrats, take note. A man who is this persistent and skilled—and yes lucky—has a very real shot at winning in November.

Wright is the Wrong Strategy

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Tue, 22 May 2012 00:22:00 +0000

As with most Americans, I was convinced that Jeremiah would no longer be a political issue after the 2008 election. As with most Americans, I was also wrong, as we have learned that there are still Republicans who wish to use the controversial pastor against Obama in this election cycle. Unfortunately for them, raising Wright will not gain them any political advantage; in fact it may even hurt.

The most obvious reason for this conclusion is that Wright did not prevent Obama from winning last time. On election night 2008, Obama stood victorious with 53% of the vote to 46% for John McCain. After a tumultuous Democratic primary season where Wright’s sermons played often enough that Obama felt compelled to make a major speech on race, a majority of voters did not care enough to stop supporting Obama. In order to be effective, using Wright cannot merely galvanize the Republican base. Obama’s positions on a range of issues including gay marriage, abortion, and spending should accomplish that. To be effective, using Wright must cause at least some voters who supported Obama in 2008 to switch their votes in 2012. That begs an important question: if these voters did not care enough about Wright to change their votes in 2008, why would they all of a sudden care enough to do so in 2012?

Those who want to use Wright have a rather long response. John McCain did not use Jeremiah Wright as an issue during the fall campaign. Moreover, the collapse of the financial system and widespread anxiety about the economy meant that Wright faded in importance for most voters. In other words, Wright would have been a huge burden to Obama in another election cycle. Hence, Wright should be a potent issue this time.

There are two major problems with the preceding objection. First, although McCain may not have used Wright as a campaign issue in the fall, that does not mean that voters were unaware of Wright’s offending sermons. In fact, it would have been difficult for a sentient being who watched television in 2008 not to have heard of Wright, or watched at least one of the controversial clips. It was also painfully obvious that Obama went to a church where Wright made offensive remarks while McCain had been a war hero to anyone who watched the National conventions or paid attention to political news—that is the types of people likely to vote. Second, if you believe that the economy caused voters to overlook Wright in 2008, then it is certainly likely that the same dynamic will be at play this year. Poll after poll for example shows that the biggest issue on voters’ minds is the economy.

So it is difficult to envision that Wright will deliver votes to Republicans that they would not have had before. Even worse, I suspect that using Wright will cause Republicans substantial problems. First, there is potential for backlash among certain voters. Black voters may well perceive the use of Wright as a racist campaign tactic, which could cause them to vote, donate, and volunteer at higher rates. It is true enough Obama has something like a lock on the black vote. But if Republicans are viewed as using racist means to keep the first Black President out of the White House, less politically engaged Blacks may come to the polls out of resentment. In addition, politically engaged Blacks will have a potent issue to use to convince less politically engaged ones that they absolutely need to turn out.

Second, this may alienate crucial white suburban voters who do not want to feel like they are supporting a party that uses racist tactics. These voters could well be susceptible to Republican messaging on spending and deficits. Why risk alienating them?

Lastly, using Wright takes attention away from the most potent issues Republicans can use against Obama: the economy. Instead, the debate will become about Obama’s character and his true feelings about America. The problem here is that most Americans like Obama personally. They view him as a good father and husband. In addition, Obama would be more than happy to answer questions about how much he loves America by talking about the raid he ordered to kill Osama bin Laden and his surge in Afghanistan. When the debate about Obama’s character and love of America is over, it is hard to see how Republicans will have gained any advantage.

Remember, Team Obama would much rather debate Obama’s character and patriotism than it would the state of the economy. Given this reality, taking focus off the economy is madness. Wright may be a tempting foil for Republicans, but they should resist the urge to use him for their own good.

How Will Romney Govern?

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:34:00 +0000

One of the most important recent pieces of news in the 2012 primaries in my view was the announcement that Freedomworks, a tea-party affiliated group advocating limited government has announced that it will no longer oppose Romney. This comes at the same time that Romney won a strong victory in the Illinois primary and won the endorsement of Jeb Bush. I think this is a good time to consider the political position Romney would be in if he won since it is now abundantly clear that he is the likeliest GOP nominee.

There are two possible explanations for Freedomworks’ move. The first is that very conservative tea party activists believe Romney’s attempts to portray himself as a “severe conservative” over the course of the primary. Exit polls from the latest primary state of Illinois easily refute that notion. In a state where Romney greatly outspent Santorum and had a superior organization, Romney still lost those voters who consider themselves very conservative. This happened despite math which made it very likely that Romney would emerge as the nominee and a steady drumbeat of party elders and pundits claiming that Romney had the nomination locked up.

The second explanation is that Freedomworks and those it represents want to gain leverage over Romney should he win. The organization will be able to say that it galvanized conservative voters for Romney that put him over the top. When he is in the White House, the group will be able to demand that Romney support aspects of its agenda lest he lose their support in the 2016 election.

Romney will definitely be in a tough spot politically if he is elected. Many Democrats will oppose him out of partisan motives. In order to have a solid base of support he will have to try to govern as a real conservative so that he can at least count on consistent Republican support. He will not have the luxury of seeking the center in the same way that other recent Presidents have. The Republican base of conservative voters simply doesn’t trust him enough to assume good faith in compromises he pursues given his track record. He risks becoming a “man without a party.”

With the Democrats opposing him and Republicans suspicious of his every move if he compromises too much, Romney will have a difficult time enacting any legislative agenda. He would be a lame duck early in his term, vulnerable both to a Democratic candidate in the next election, and possibly, a primary challenge from a fellow Republican.

In the minds of some very conservative voters after all, there is barely a difference between Romney and Obama. After all, both supported healthcare plans with an individual mandate, legalized abortion, and the infamous (in their view) TARP program. The difference is that they can get leverage over Romney while they will never have such leverage over Obama. As often is the case in Presidential elections, Romney happens to be the lesser of two evils.

This does raise one truly interesting possibility. Perhaps Romney will be able to portray himself as above the fray of petty partisan politics. He might be able to use the fact that neither party’s partisans like him to make a case to the independents and centrists that he is finally the one to represent them. But alas, independents and centrists are not terribly well represented in Congress. Rabid Republicans and devoted Democrats are.

Romney Will Probably Win the Republican Nomination, But...

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 04:04:00 +0000

All the evidence points to Mitt Romney becoming the Republican nominee. I must eat my words from last year when I doubted that Romney would get the nomination.

Romney will likely win New Hampshire given his campaign apparatus there, the number of moderates who tend to vote in the New Hampshire primary, and his high name recognition due to his run in 2008 and his time as governor of neighboring Massachusetts. That leaves South Carolina as the best early primary state for conservatives to stop him.

Even assuming that Romney loses in South Carolina (far from a foregone conclusion) he will still have a massive war chest and a formidable organization. Santorum does not have the campaign infrastructure or funding to go toe to toe with Romney on Super Tuesday. As of now, Santorum has around $230,000 on hand; Romney had $14,656,966 on hand as of late December. I predict that Romney will soon deliver the knockout blow to his opposition and claim the nomination.

I must confess myself surprised to see Romney doing so well. His claims to electability do not ring especially true. It is true that he was elected Governor of Massachusetts, a state that has reliably supported Democrats on the national stage. He had only one term as Governor after losing a Senate race to Ted Kennedy in 1994, the same year Republicans took control of the House of Representatives for the first time in decades. In 2006, he chose not to run for reelection. It is easy to take a cynical view. 2006 was shaping up to be a good year for Democrats nationwide. In fact, Democrats took control of both houses of Congress. As he was leaving office, his approval was just 34%. I strongly doubt that he would deliver Massachusetts in a general election given its Democratic tilt and his low approval ratings when he left.

What is supposed to make him electable is his economic expertise. Indeed, he does have a relatively detailed economic platform that has been favorably reviewed by many economists. But when he was in office in Massachusetts, employment grew at 1.3% while it grew at 5.4% nationwide. Romney defenders might point to all kinds of explanations for this statistic. Perhaps most tellingly, they might argue that Massachusetts’s entrenched predilection for liberal policies (which supposedly stifled economic growth) and failure to adopt more conservative ones caused the economy not to perform as well as the nation as a whole.

But that raises uncomfortable questions for Romney. First, if he was unable to deliver the economic performance he promises in Massachusetts, how will he do so in Washington? It may have been difficult to push conservative economic policy in Massachusetts. But things will not be considerably easier in Washington. He will face a spirited opposition in the Democratic Party, which will have enough power to filibuster his initiatives at a minimum. It is very possible that Democrats will retain control of one or both houses of Congress. Under these circumstances, Romney will hardly be able to waive a magic wand to dramatically lower taxes or make drastic cuts to popular entitlements like Medicare and Social Security.

Second, if Massachusetts’ liberal economic policies were so poisonous to economic growth, why did Romney end up supporting a healthcare plan which ended up expanding health insurance and requiring citizens to purchase it? Cato, a conservative think-tank suggests that Romney’s plan will cost the state of Massachusetts two billion dollars more than it was originally projected to cost. Is this not the sort of big government project that conservatives have often argued ends up hurting the economy by raising taxes on money that could instead be spent, saved, or invested? In short, Romney’s economic performance when he was actually in a position to affect meaningful policy change seems nothing to write home about.

Because of this, and the fact that Romney wants to run as a Washington outsider, he will point to his time in the private sector where he was able to amass a respectable fortune and build Bain Capital into the company it is today. He will also tout his experience running the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games. But Romney’s time in the private sector will be a double-edged sword. His wealth will make already make it difficult for struggling working-class voters to relate to him. In addition, he will be pilloried for the companies that Bain took over where there were subsequently massive layoffs. Ted Kennedy was able to make use of Romney’s time at Bain quite effectively in their 1994 Senate race.

Can Romney win? Yes. But I believe his fate is entirely tied to the economy. Other candidates would be able to run against Obama’s healthcare mandate or his support of abortion rights to galvanize voters. Because of his past support for the healthcare mandate, he will not be able to use this potentially potent issue in the general election. His record of shifting positions on issues such as abortion and his Mormonism will make some voters he absolutely needs uneasy, and it will cause independents to wonder if he is a genuine man. To put aside such concerns, he needs swing voters to conclude that the economy will not get any better under Obama, and that Obama’s mismanagement of the economy has been so egregious that he simply cannot be trusted with a second term. Voters desperate to improve their economic fortune would then turn to the only alternative—Romney.

On that front, predictions of robust growth in 2012 and declines in the number of people seeking unemployment benefits cannot be especially welcome news. Ironically, a man robbed of all but a market-based critique of Obama’s economic policies is himself entirely at the mercy of the market in this election cycle.

Conservatives and Liberals Overlap on Libya

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:50:00 +0000

Democrats and Republicans have sharply divergent views about most political issues today. The proper role of government and how expansive a welfare state there should be are but two examples. Foreign policy though has turned out to be an exception to this rule in recent weeks.

That much has been evident in the debate over American intervention in Libya. Republicans led by John Boehner have been openly skeptical about American involvement. Of course, Republicans are the party that supported the invasion of Iraq wholeheartedly, at least partly on the rationale that Saddam Hussein was a vicious tyrant who needed to be removed to free the oppressed people of Iraq. Interestingly, Boehner has been joined by several Democrats in his criticism of the administration’s involvement in Libya.

Unlike domestic policy, there is not a clear liberal or conservative answer in many foreign policy issues. Take the idea of nation-building in Afghanistan. A hawkish conservative might support it on the grounds that a democratic, prosperous Afghanistan will be an ally in the war on terrorism and in the region. Since this conservative wants to project American influence, nation-building might make sense as an investment. A liberal could support nation-building too on a humanitarian basis to uplift previously oppressed people. Of course, a mix of both motives could cause the liberal and the conservative to support the nation-building effort.

Conservatives have traditionally opposed social engineering, at least in their rhetoric. They also do not want the government doing things that people should (in their view do for themselves). It would be perfectly understandable for small government conservatives to oppose taking on a costly nation-building effort in another country. Liberals have traditionally been wary of imperialism or assuming that western nations have a right to impose their beliefs or value systems on other countries. That could easily explain a liberal’s unease with nation-building.

This all has the potential to leave us confused. What is the liberal answer to the problems in Libya? What is the conservative one?

Leave it to the States?

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 01:37:00 +0000

Mitt Romney had an interesting moment in this week’s debate. When asked about the role of the federal government he said that the government should ask itself what it must do, and then leave the rest to the states, or even better the private sector. Such a policy would improve the debt outlook for the United States.

Or would it? The federal government would benefit as it spent less money on priorities like healthcare, education etc. It would have to borrow less money. But the burden of debt would simply be shifted to the states. This is something the states can scarcely afford at this juncture. For example, the states have more than $1 trillion in pension and healthcare liabilities. And that’s just the beginning. California’s debt may be 37% of the economy. In order to save money, Hawaii instituted a four day school week last year. Asking states to carry an even greater burden would cause some to default.

Moreover, having states with such high debt loads is arguably worse than the federal government having one. The states do not have the same borrowing capacity as the federal government, and do not have the same respectability with foreign creditors who are doing a lot of the lending to America. This means the states can borrow a lower amount before they risk default, and that they may not be able to command as favorable an interest rate, thereby increasing their burden of debt. Since the United States consists of both states and the federal government, what happens in the state matters a great deal. So the country’s overall debt picture will likely not improve simply by telling the states to pay for more programs.

The way that shifting functions to the states would help the overall debt situation is if voters choose not to fund certain things at the state level. But remember that the biggest drivers of the federal debts are entitlements. As it happens, programs such as Medicare and Social Security are the most popular. Even if conservatives managed to outsource these to the states (unlikely), voters would probably choose to continue these benefits at the state level. On the margins, certain states might not fund certain environmental programs or discretionary programs, but again, those aren’t what is bankrupting us.

There may well be good reasons to leave more to the states. Saving money isn’t one of them.

Newt Gingrich's Struggles

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:37:00 +0000

It’s difficult to see how Newt Gingrich remains in the race much longer. He was already in trouble going as far back as several weeks ago.

First, he insulted the Paul Ryan plan by saying “I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering.” Most of the House Republican caucus is behind the Ryan plan, so he upset many Republican congressmen. In order to have a chance to win them back, he probably needed a full throated apology, or explain that his position was mischaracterized. He could have said that he thinks the Ryan plan is reasonable, not right wing social engineering. Instead, Gingrich apologized for the way he made his critique, but not for making the critique in the first place.

Second, Gingrich just had most of his campaign staff quit, including his campaign manager and important workers in early states. They all cited “irreconcilable differences over the direction of the campaign.” In the past days pundits have said that Gingrich wanted to show up at debates and run a social media campaign while aides wanted him to commit to a more traditional campaign, which he refused to do. Regardless, of what these irreconcilable differences are, the mass resignation is a stunning vote of no confidence in him as a candidate.

In some sense, it was always difficult to take Gingrich seriously as a candidate. He has been out of office for more than ten years which is now unusual for someone aspiring to the presidency. Before the campaign began, he was poised to alienate important constituencies in the Republican Party. He had supported cap and trade, as well as a mandate for healthcare that would have upset economic conservatives, and which would have had the added effect of making him look like a hypocrite in the general election for criticizing President Obama’s positions on these issues. His messy personal life—he has had three wives and has admitted to adultery-- could only hurt him with social conservatives. It is not possible to win the nomination without solid support from at least one of these two factions.

I actually worry that Gingrich risks diminishing himself in the campaign. For example, he became the first major politician to sign the sigma six pledge. The pledge goes like this:

First candidates must promise, “to eliminate spending deficits and start paying down the national debt by 2017 by deploying Lean Six Sigma waste reduction methods to detect and eliminate 25 percent of spending per year across the federal government.”

Then “to attend two days of training on the Lean Six Sigma method and complete a waste reduction project prior to my inauguration.”

Signing a pledge like this makes Gingrich look like a desperate panderer, not the intellectual leader of the right that he has sought to become. Gingrich plans to forge on in the campaign. His chances of winning are not 0, but neither are they very high at this point.

Should We Raise the Debt Ceiling?

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Thu, 12 May 2011 02:35:00 +0000

Washington is still engulfed in an intense debate about whether to raise the federal debt ceiling. In the end, I predict the debt ceiling will be raised in return for some sort of spending cuts, or at least a commitment to cut spending in the future.

The responsible choice is to raise the debt ceiling. Not doing so carries with it the risk of defaulting. In that case, it would be hard to convince people to invest in treasuries for the foreseeable future. If an outright default does not happen, investors would still view the US political system as increasingly dysfunctional and demand higher interest rates, meaning that our debt would grow. This leaves us with two unappealing choices. Taxes could rise which make most people unhappy and decrease the amount of money available for consumer spending and investment at a critical time for the economy. The second option is that our budgets would slowly choke off money for anything besides defense and core entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security. Investments in education, job training, and a safety net for the poor among others would all be hurt.

It is possible to imagine how conservatives might like how either of these scenarios plays out. By preventing the government from borrowing more money if they force default, conservatives would require people to pay higher taxes to finance the level of government spending we have now. They may well bet that when faced with a choice between higher taxes and lower levels of government spending, citizens will choose the latter.

But this does not take into account the short term political fallout that could accrue to Republicans in the event of a government shutdown. Republicans have traditionally opposed government programs more than Democrats. The loudest voices on the right want a dramatic reduction in the federal government’s role in the lives of Americans. Even more mainstream ones such as Paul Ryan want to substantially restructure entitlements like Medicare by making what amount to cuts. It will be easy for Democrats to say they were willing to make compromises, but that Republicans were so bent on gutting Medicare and Social Security that they were willing to let the country default on its debts.

Politically, President Obama stands in a decent position to win. What he needs now is a credible plan to reduce the deficit long term that avoids some of the cuts that the Ryan plan or other conservative variants have. Republicans will then have to acquiesce to his budget in which case they share in any of the political pain, or they can allow the country to default and walk away from a reasonable proposal and be tagged as radicals for a generation for wanting to make changes in popular entitlement programs that the majority of voters will not support.

In this game of chicken between the two parties, the stakes could not be higher. If reasonable choices are not made, America will be the loser.

Christians and Gay Marriage

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Mon, 09 May 2011 01:40:00 +0000

Gadson Review Readers,

Here is another guest post from Margaret Mou, who posted "A Plea For Religious Tolerance in the Bible Belt" a couple of months ago. The post should be--as the first post was--well worth the read!

Sitting at the table over a bowl of salad and wine, Marcus probes my opinions on religion and politics: two subject areas that out of courtesy and politeness, people usually don’t broach. However, Marcus challenges my perspective, which resulted in solidarity of some aspects, reevaluation of others, and definitely a stronger friendship. So, another thank-you to Marcus.

Food for thought for today: gay marriage (with a Marcus & Margaret twist).

Many argue that marriage is fundamentally a religious institution. Marcus brought up an interesting idea that some advocate: give everyone gay or straight civil unions and let churches define marriage however they wish. Those who support this idea think that civil unions would be a solution to the debate since everyone would be treated equally under the law while churches would still have the freedom to choose which marriages to recognize. Of course, some churches would choose not to allow gays to marry meaning that they would not be able to recieve a fundamental religious rite.

So I retorted with the question, “Should gay Christians have the right to get married?” An assumption implicit in my question is that being gay is often innate and not a chosen way of life (seeing as the Bible has spoken in favor of heterosexuals), as well as the presence in some sort of faith in a traditional Christian church.

I feel like every person should have the right to choose who they want to be with, and that churches should refrain from judgment. Hasn’t religion taught us to be better people, to accept all kinds of backgrounds? And thus, shouldn’t gay Christians also be allowed to have the blessing of the community as well as the rest of the heterosexual Christians?

There’s also the point of the fact that it’s the church’s opinion of whether or not to acknowledge the marriage of individuals, but if I were in charge of the decisions of a church, I’d gladly welcome anyone who chooses to marry under my smiles and love.

And my inner sappiness comes out, wishing each and every individual the ability to find a healthy love and be loved in return, and to celebrate that magic without any hindrances, without any obstacles, and without any scorn from others.

-by Margaret Mou

Thoughts on Osama bin Laden

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Thu, 05 May 2011 00:04:00 +0000

Osama bin Laden is finally dead. The biggest questions about his death remain unanswered however.

What does bin Laden’s death mean for Al Qaeda and terrorism more broadly? Perhaps terrorists view bin Laden as a martyr and launch a wave of attacks in retaliation. It is without a doubt that there will still be terrorists and that Al Qaeda will continue to operate in some fashion. But I can’t help thinking that getting bin Laden will greatly help America’s counter-terrorism efforts. Bin Laden was the most visible symbol of terrorism in the world. The fact that the US spent over 10 years trying to get him shows that it means business when it goes after terrorists. In effect, if you mastermind attacks, the US will hunt you to the ends of the earth. I think—or at least I hope—that has some deterrent effect on would-be terrorist leaders.

Secondly, what will this mean for Obama politically? In the final analysis, probably not much. George W. Bush saw his approval rating spike after American forces captured Saddam Hussein in 2003 only to see it go back down as the 2004 election approached. Similarly, Obama faces an election coming up next year where the focus will be on the economy, where Obama is not polling so well. So while this may be a short term boon, I doubt it will do much for Obama long-term.

What do you think this will do for Obama’s political fortunes? Take the poll!

Republican Presidential Rankings List Updated

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Sun, 01 May 2011 04:00:00 +0000

The informal race for the Republican nomination is well under way. It is time to update the rankings list I came up with for the candidate most likely to come away with the nomination. Here it is! The list is somewhat abbreviated due to the uncertainty over who will ultimately run.

1. Tim Pawlenty

I realize this pick will come as a strong surprise to most. He barely registers in most polls and he has low name recognition. The reason I think he currently has the best chance to do win is because he has done the most of anyone outside Mitt Romney to lay the groundwork for a campaign which will pay off in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire. He also has the best chance to be the consensus conservative in the race. No wing of the Republican Party seriously objects to him. The same cannot be said of other major contenders. What I suspect is that the race could come down to him vs. another candidate who has angered some portion of the party’s base. In that competition, you’d have to give Pawlenty—who has angered no one—decent odds.

2. Mike Huckabee

It’s true that Mike Huckabee has not made the serious moves that some other contenders have. But there are some powerful factors in his favor. He is almost always at the top of national polls. He still retains a large following from his 2008 campaign. I would say he is the odds on favorite to win in Iowa and South Carolina if he runs due to his popularity with social conservatives. It’s difficult to see a current candidate challenging him for the evangelical voters in Iowa where he won in 2008. With early wins from these crucial states, Huckabee would have momentum to carry him to Super Tuesday. One of his principal defects as a candidate in 2008 was that he was unable to raise a lot of money. But with higher name recognition, and all the contacts from his 2008 campaign, I suspect he will be able to raise more money even if fundraising is never his strong suit. The biggest problem for Huckabee is the fact that some fiscal conservatives have questions about his record as Governor. But Huckabee is far to the right of Obama on taxes and spending and fiscal conservatives may well decide that his electability and appeal to working class swing voters make him worth nominating so he can beat Obama even if his record isn’t perfect.

I think these two currently have the best chance to win. But clearly, the field is in flux right now in part because it is unclear who will actually run. I will be able to make predictions with greater certainty as the field takes shape.

Thoughts on the Ryan Plan

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 06:21:00 +0000

Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) is arguably the face of the Republican Party right now. His proposed budget is driving much of the discussion on how to deal with debt, spending, and taxes. Here is a brief summary of what it would do:

1. Bring non-defense discretionary spending to pre-2008 levels
2. Convert federal share of Medicaid into a block grant that states would have control over
3. Repeals Obamacare
4. Privatizes Medicare. Future beneficiaries will choose from a menu of private options. They won’t have the choice of the standard Medicare plan. Wealthier beneficiaries will get a small voucher and poorer beneficiaries will get a larger voucher. Vouchers grow at GDP+1%, whether or not Medicare does the same.
5. Cuts the top marginal tax rate from 35% to 25%

I want to start by giving Ryan credit. He has proposed something which has sparked debate. He has come up with real measures to reduce spending and taken considerable risk doing so. There are however two fundamental problems with his budget. First, it does not actually balance until far down the road. This is primarily because it preserves tax cuts for the wealthy and holds off on making changes to Medicare for those 55 or older. This was understandably done to make the plan an easier sell politically. But the result is that dramatic savings will not be realized in the near term.

That means the problems attendant in having such a large debt still exist. Creditors will be worried and could demand higher interest rates to invest in US debt, thereby increasing the burden of debt. In the next decade, high government borrowing could still crowd out private investment. Debt is projected to reach $16 trillion, requiring an increase in the debt ceiling that Republicans say they oppose. So, Ryan’s budget fails at its most important goal: balancing the budget and getting the debt under control.

It’s debatable whether the plan has impact in the medium term because of some assumptions the Ryan plan makes. He assumes that growth will be 3% instead of the average of 2.8%, and that we will have an unemployment rate of 4% in 2015 and a shocking 2.8% in 2021. These lower unemployment rates would of course mean more tax revenue which would help balance the budget. Of course, Ryan is not the only politician to make optimistic forecasts in budgets; Democrats do the same. Regardless, these assumptions make it hard to believe that Ryan’s plan will have the effect he says.

Furthermore, even if Ryan could balance the budget with his plan, it’s politically unrealistic. Those who are say 50 years old—right under the age Ryan proposes exempting from changes—who have planned on having Medicare for decades will be unhappy to see fewer benefits. Many will believe that they have been left in the lurch and worry that they will not be able to pay for healthcare when they retire.

So while Ryan may have mitigated political difficulties by sparing those over 55, he did not eliminate them by a longshot. At the same time, the wealthy will be paying lower taxes. Democratic campaign strategists will have a field day running ads showing millionaires paying the lowest taxes ever while insinuating that vulnerable senior citizens are not getting the help they need. Ryan will be accused, not just of balancing the budget on the backs of the poor, but on the backs of everyone who is not rich.

Ryan’s contribution is that he has made us consider fundamental changes to our social compact and challenged us to consider how expansive a welfare state we can afford over the next decades. But his plan’s shortcomings mean that while it made a good beginning to our deficit debate, it would be a poor end.

Thoughts on the Budget Deal

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 23:47:00 +0000

A government shutdown has been averted at least for now. Democrats and Republicans agreed on a budget that cut about $39 billion. Speaker of the House John Boehner has pledged that he will work towards cutting trillions and not billions. For his part, President Obama is readying a budget that he says will really address the deficit.

Looking at the politics of the situation, Obama has a chance to benefit greatly. The deficit is indeed a threat to America’s long term economic health. Obama could propose a plan that slows the growth of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare and produces real savings. The Republicans will have two unappealing options.

First, Republicans can oppose Obama’s plan while not proposing any more cuts. Republicans may choose this option because they do not want to get burned politically for making radical changes to popular programs. But if Republicans do this, they will appear cynical to independent voters and likely lose the ability to use the deficit as a cudgel against Obama with these same voters. They will also temper enthusiasm in the Republican base going forward into the elections.

Second, Republicans can try and avoid the pitfalls of the first option and keep the deficit as a major issue by proposing drastic cuts to government programs. If Republicans do this, they will be wide open to charges of extremism. They also risk alienating senior citizens—who tend to vote— who benefit from Social Security and Medicare in as an important election year comes up.

That is not to say that there are no risks for President Obama. If he accedes to meaningful cuts to Social Security and Medicare he will upset liberals who strongly support such programs. But the question then becomes how much he will truly pay for liberal Democrats being upset. Where else will they go? Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) has become the face of the Republican Party on the budget. Democrats have called his budget extreme and draconian. These voters will simply not support Republicans. Perhaps they will stay home. But I bet White House political strategists will end up convincing them that it is important to vote so they avoid right wing Republicans taking over government.

Can We Be Moral Without God?

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 05:58:00 +0000

What does it mean to be moral? It would seem that most people agree on some common ideas most of the time: tell the truth, do not harm others, and help out those in need. Yet, there are two divergent schools of thought on many moral questions: deontological and consequentialist. In this post, I want to consider whether it is possible for there to be a moral framework based on duties and obligations without a God.

Atheists of course do not believe in God while deontologists evaluate moral actions based upon duties. Consequentialists believe that the most moral action in a given situation is that which produces the best consequences. For someone who believes in God, it is relatively easy to be a deontologist. The Bible, the Quran, and the Torah give out clear guidelines for duties that people have in life. An omnipotent, omniscient being is telling us what the right thing to do is.

If there is no God, then people have to decide in some way what duties and obligations there are in life. There are a couple of ways possible. First, we could decide what duties and obligations we have based upon what the majority of people want. In the same way that majorities of citizens decide which clothing is fashionable, or what our healthcare system should be like, majorities would then decide our moral duties.

The problem is that majoritarianism can produce all manner of unjust arrangements. One need only look at the majority of Southerners who supported Jim Crow laws, or the majority of Germans who approved of anti-Semitism. For every example I give here, there are probably dozens of others. Is this record particularly inspiring?

The second way would be more subject to individual interpretation. Even if the majority of citizens felt one way about morality, perhaps individuals could by themselves reason what duties and obligations they had. They would not be able to merely assert that duties exist based upon their feelings; they would have to figure their duties out through reflection and thought, and be able to prove them through argument and debate. There are a few problems though. First, many if not most people lack the time for this. They have jobs and families to support. Will they really be able to devote the time to reasoning through what their moral duties are?

Second, invoking reason gives a person ample opportunity to consider a consequentialist framework for a moral decision. If a person is busy trying to derive the moral duties he ought to live by through reason, then that same reason will cause him to consider self-interest as well as costs and benefits to a moral decision.

Indeed, reason will require that he do so since he cannot make a reasonable decision without having taken these things into account. This means that for many if not most people, concern about consequences will have a chance to also inject itself into the moral decision-making process. If this concern drives the process even a little bit, then it is difficult to envision the final decision being based entirely on duties and obligations.

Perhaps ironically given these difficulties, to believe that most people can uphold a deontological framework absent a God most of the time may require an act of faith. Of course, this does not mean it is impossible for someone who doesn't believe in God to make decisions based on duties and obligations. Perhaps most importantly, it doesn't tell us whether deontology is the right framework to evaluate moral decisisions.

Obama's Libya Speech Tonight

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:43:00 +0000

President Obama spoke to the nation tonight and sought to rally support for his intervention in Libya. I think he had some important goals: to clarify objectives and inspire the public to support them.

One rationale was that the US had to step in to stop the wholesale slaughter of civilians:

I made it clear that Gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.

In the face of the world's condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air….

At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Gaddafi declared that he would show "no mercy" to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi - a city nearly the size of Charlotte - could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

So far so good. I think most Americans are convinced that Gaddafi is a bad man and a tyrant. Getting rid of him seems reasonable from a humanitarian point of view. That brings to mind two objections though: why intervene in Libya and not elsewhere, and what is the US plan for a post-Gaddafi Libya? In other words, it is not enough just to remove Gaddafi from power. We need to be sure that the country that emerges does not cause instability in the region and that those who claim power are actually better for Gaddafi. Obama had a decent explanation for why intervening in some countries was justified even when we cannot intervene in all.

What did Obama have to say about Libya after Gaddafi? Not much. He said that the US will hand over control of the operation to NATO on Wednesday. This sort of absolves him of the ability to give us a plan for Libya’s future. What I did not see though, was and end-game for the NATO operation. How will NATO ensure that post-Gaddafi Libya gets off to a good start? How can we be sure that the government that emerges will be better than that which was left behind? These questions were left unanswered.

In the end, I think Obama probably did a good job of increasing public support for his Libya intervention by making a powerful case against Gaddafi. But in the end, I am still not completely clear on the objectives. One part of the speech stands out:

Of course, there is no question that Libya - and the world - will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

Earlier in the speech, Obama says that Libya will remain dangerous as long as

Gaddafi remains in power. But what if non-military means (ie sanctions and political pressure) fail? After all, non-military means did not work with Saddam Hussein and he eventually was removed from power only by an invasion. If Gaddafi remains in power despite these non-military measures, then we have emboldened other dictators and made the situation in Libya no better. What is Obama prepared to do if non-military measures fail? That is perhaps the biggest question left.

Why do Christians Oppose Pre-Marital Sex? Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 04:00:00 +0000

I promised a sequel to my first post about Christians and premarital sex. So here it is! In this post, I will consider the theological reasons many Christians oppose premarital sex.

These theological reasons have to do with the Bible. So the important question becomes, what does the Bible have to say about premarital sex? There are several passages cited in favor of the idea that the Bible prohibits premarital sex. One comes from the Song of Solomon: “Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you: Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires.” By itself, this passage does little to prohibit premarital sex. Perhaps two people feel that love is truly ready to be awakened by having sex prior to their wedding day.

There are several passages that condemn sexual immorality. One is: “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” (Colossians 3:5). Another is “I fear that when I come again my God may humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and sensuality that they have practiced.” (Corinthians 12:21) Of course, that leaves one to wonder what constitutes sexual morality since the passage does not explicitly tell us. It is hard to see the Apostle Paul or Christ approving of one-night stands to be sure, but would two people in a committed relationship who are not married and who are monogamous be engaging in immorality by having sex? It is hard to know because premarital sex is never mentioned; homosexuality, adultery, and even sons sleeping with their mothers are, by contrast.

A catch-all passage is “do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body," (1 Cor. 6:19-20).” Essentially this passage tells us that believers are not to do anything which God would disapprove of. Many times, people have sex more out of impulse or physical desire than out of love. As I stated earlier, it is hard to envision God approving of hook-ups rampant in fraternity basements or one-night-stands. But again, what about the couple who is committed to each other and genuinely feels like they are in love? Are they really dishonoring God?

We know that the Bible does not approve of casual sex. The apostle Paul endorses marriage, but only so that people will not be consumed by passion. In other words, it would be better for people to marry so they do not spend all of their time thinking about sex or seeking their next partner. This is the best evidence I see for a prohibition on premarital sex. Constantly thinking about/engaging in sex outside of marriage is sinful, which is the reason why Paul condones sex within the bounds of marriage.

Of course, in addition to the theological case against sex, Christians make a practical case, which I covered here. What do you think? Does the Bible prohibit premarital sex?

The Gadson Review's Take on Libya

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 04:00:00 +0000

After weeks of trying to decide what to do, President Obama has gone to war. He has backed a “no-fly zone” and has called Gadhafi a tyrant whom he cannot sit idly by and allow to murder innocent civilians. As of now, French and British planes are primarily the ones dropping bombs on Libya to get government forces to stop attacking rebel strongholds. This has all been done with Obama’s backing.

Outside intervention strikes me as quite risky. First, there is the possibility that Gadhafi will hang onto power. The US and its allies may well decide not to launch a ground invasion to minimize casualties. Although Gadhafi would have to stop attacking the rebels, he might be able to negotiate a cease-fire and some kind of arrangement that allows him to stay on as leader. Western interventions do not always cause dictators to leave office. Slobodan Milosevic holding onto power in Serbia is a good example of that. If this happens, the West will be seen to have failed, and revolutionaries in the Middle East will wonder if the West will actually be able to help them if they revolt. Even worse, western leaders will have to live with the fact that bombing caused civilian casualties.

Perhaps intervening will even make it more likely for Gadhafi to remain in power. He will be able to claim that the rebels are pawns of meddling foreigners and turn public opinion among those on the sidelines against the rebels.

Second, ousting Gadhafi could be longer and harder than expected. The allies might have to launch a ground invasion, which would entail a substantial cost both in money and lives. This comes at a time when western nations’ budgets are stretched too thin as is, and when they have lost some appetite for foreign adventures because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ultimate end game most observers envision is a stable democracy. If Iraq is any guide, that will take some time.

Lastly, there could be a power vacuum once Gadhafi is gone. All those who have been shut out for so long will want a chance to hold power, and may resort to violence to get it. This would lead to a civil war that would arguably be worse than allowing even someone as bad as Gadhafi to stay in power.

In any of these scenarios, Obama will gain nothing politically. Conservatives who wanted Obama to intervene will fault him for not “winning” the war. Humanitarian liberals will fault him for not stopping the bloodshed. Budget hawks will accuse him of digging a bigger hole for US finances with foreign adventurism. Voters of all stripes may well feel that he went into war without an exit strategy, something Senator Obama faulted President Bush for in Iraq.

Obama will be criticized for letting the French and British take the lead in the operation. Some conservatives will say he is allowing foreigners to be the ones standing up for liberty and freedom while the US stands meekly at the side. He will be portrayed as weak and indecisive. In the final analysis though, perhaps Obama was right to allow the Europeans such a prominent role.

Right now, the US is busy fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both of these are critical to US national security and international standing. If the US can get Iraq and Afghanistan right, it will have made two viable democracies in the Middle East which fight Islamic extremism and ally with the US. By contrast, failing in those two countries would not only put trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to waste, it would cause the rest of the world to truly question American power. It would make friends and allies immediately more skeptical of future US efforts at nation-building and democracy promotion. Simply put, the US cannot afford to be the world’s sole policeman. Even a superpower can benefit from having friends pitch in.

It is difficult to say how Libya will turn out in the end. It is easy to say however, that potential costs are great.

Will the Tea Party Succeed?

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 04:00:00 +0000

Just last fall, the Tea Party was ascendant. It elected scores of new members to Congress, and many Americans had a favorable impression of it. Yet whatever the Tea Party’s political success recently, it looks as if most Americans reject its policy of dramatically reining in government including programs like Medicare and Medicaid. 76% of Americans for example oppose reducing Medicare benefits. This means that even a substantial number of Republicans want to spare the program cuts.

At first glance, this is a bit surprising. Americans disapprove of the enormous federal deficit and say they want something done about it. Indeed, the consequences of not having a credible plan to address the deficit in the next few years could be devastating for the economy in the next few years. Wouldn’t Americans then support cutting Medicare and Social Security since they are such big drivers of the deficit?

As a Bloomberg study found, many voters have misperceptions of what programs contribute to the federal deficit. In fact, seven in ten voters think that foreign aid is a major government program when it reality it consumes about 1% of the federal budget. Of course, it is hard to blame voters alone for this. For decades, politicians have pledged that they will balance the budget. But too many claim that they will simply make government more efficient, or stamp out “waste, fraud, and abuse.” The upshot is that they can claim to be deficit hawks while sparing their constituents major pain. To the extent that they do target certain programs, it is easier to go after those that disproportionately benefit the poor—voters who have less power in our political system than the middle class or the wealthy.

I think this latest poll could have interesting implications for the 2012 race. For example, Mitch Daniels is being talked up a lot by pundits for his message of austerity and his record of cutting government spending in Indiana. He is probably one of the top contenders for the nomination. But if voters are still averse to spending cuts that will affect them, how well will his message really play? In fact, it could be a disaster. If the economy is improving and Obama produces a credible plan to reduce the deficit without altering Medicare and Social Security as much as Daniels wants, Democrats will have a field day. Daniels would appear heartless and out of touch. He might be susceptible to losing as badly as Walter Mondale or George McGovern, two men perceived as outside the mainstream.

This means that Daniel’s strategy of calling a truce on social issues may not be the best one. With centrists and moderates unlikely to support drastic changes to entitlements, the Republican nominee would need a strong turnout from the base to have a chance of winning. This would mean that social conservatives would need to be genuinely excited about Daniels in a way that they are not currently. Given this, perhaps the strongest nominee Republicans can muster would be someone like Huckabee who could get a big turnout from important evangelical voters.

If voters support deficit reduction only in theory, then it is conceivable that the same could be true for candidates who make their biggest issue the deficit.

Why do Christians Oppose Pre-Marital Sex?

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 14:59:00 +0000

In many pulpits this Sunday, pastors will preach about the sanctity of marriage. One of the things some will mention is the need for Christians to refrain from premarital sex. Some evidence suggests that this is one teaching many young Christians (as well as their secular counterparts) simply are not following. It is worth considering why Christians have this teaching in the first place.

There are both practical and theological arguments advanced. In this post, I will consider the practical ones. Even today, sex carries with it the risk of disease and unintended pregnancy. AIDS for example, is prevalent in parts of Africa. Even in America and other industrialized western nations, there is no shortage of new cases of sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis or chlamydia. Each year in the US alone, about 800,000 teenagers become pregnant without wanting to. This is in a day and age with condoms and birth control pills. Historically, there were none of these, so the risks of careless sex were even higher. Seen in this light, the prohibition on premarital sex was one way a loving God sought to keep people healthy. Today though, with modern birth control methods, many wonder if the same goals couldn’t be accomplished by providing better access to birth control.

Another argument is that not having premarital sex facilitates marital fidelity. If young people can keep from having sex despite their raging hormones and can build some self-discipline, they will be better able to resist temptation in marriage. They will remember that they went years without impulsively having sex at a time when their sex drives were at their highest, and then be able to summon the ability to turn down an offer of sex from someone they’re attracted to. This becomes even more plausible if they were in a long term relationship with the person they married and refrained from having sex. If they could say no to the person they loved, won’t they be able to say no to someone they simply have a temporary infatuation with?

Lastly, premarital sex opponents believe that sex is an extremely personal act with the ability to bring two people closer together. If both partners have had sex with a lot of people though, perhaps there is the risk that they will worry about how they measure up to previous sex partners at a time when they should simply focus on experiencing a profound expression of love. Such comparisons could only make sex less enjoyable. So perhaps, pastors asking young people not to have sex are really asking them to make a choice that leads to the most fulfilling sex life in the end. This again could be evidence of a loving God trying to ensure that those who follow him have the happiest lives possible.

Moreover, sex is generally considered as the highest form of intimacy a couple can have. It is the way two married partners express their love for each other. Most people still frown upon adultery--when a married person has sex with someone other than his partner--because they feel in some sense that sex is evidence of a unique bond that only a married couple can share. If the two spouses have had sex with lots of previous partners though, can the couple actually enjoy a highest form of intimacy that sets their relationship apart from the other relationships they have had? In other words, since both husband and wife have had sex previously, is sex evidence of the unique bond they share? If sex cannot be evidence of such a bond, then how can two people show affection to each other in a unique way?

But the minute Christians make practical arguments for the teaching on premarital sex, they invite interesting responses. Specifically, what does the teaching on premarital sex do for church membership? A lot of young people might feel that an absolute ban on premarital sex is unrealistic and prudish. They may well shy away from churches where they listen to what they perceive to be lectures on their sex lives. If they don’t go to church, they can’t get the message on salvation or the need of following Christ. That raises an interesting question: does prohibiting premarital sex diminish the number of souls the church can save?

By extension, does prohibiting premarital sex diminish the moral influence of Christians in society? If people assume that Christian morality is a relic of a time long past, will they listen when the church tries to push for a more just or more “Christian” society? They may not even be tuning in.

None of that matters though, if the theological case against premarital sex is solid. Here there is a lively debate centering on history and theology that I will consider later. For Christians, what the Bible has to say will win the day over practical considerations. I look forward to writing a post in the near future about the theological basis for the prohibition on premarital sex.